NationStates Jolt Archive

And what happened? Criminals got the guns, the potential was there, and it didn't happen. Lower.

And?

The question is not 'does repealing gun laws reduce crime'.

The question is 'does introducing such laws reduce crime'. If you can't prove that the answer is YES, then don't go around messing with my liberties.

Yup, and Libertarians are trying to change that.

Gah. You would have prefered not having your public school (I'm assuming of course) education? You'd only have wanted what ma and pa could afford?

I'm not a self-hater. I vehemently dislike what's happened to this country, and the road it's following.

Some of us outsiders feel the same about the US. We're kind of worried that you're on the road to a dark age. Not in the usual European sense after the fall of Rome, but just in general. I can expound, but I think you probably know what I mean.

It's not supposed to be a strict democracy. It's supposed to be a federal republic, where the individual, rather than the common good, is what's protected.

<shrugs> While I recognise that democracy is often two wolves and a sheep trying to agree on what to have for lunch, I think it's heaps better than other systems.

And I'm not really convinced (nor do you have to convince me, but I wouldn't object to some information) that the individual can be protected without being under the blanket of the common good.

That's not how it works here. If you have insurance, which you have an actual choice to purchase, that pays for the bills. Unless you are older or disabled in some fashion, you have to come up with the cash some way. It isn't subsidized like you think it is.

Who pays for keeping the burn ward at the hospital going when there are no fires for a month?

The costs would be much lower if it weren't for the lawyers and insurance rackets going on in this country with lawsuits.

Yeah, it's kind of a comedy to those of us not paying for it. That people can sue for the most spurious of reasons and get "compensation" out of all proportion is just insane.

While I'll grant that sometimes it may (may because I don't actually know) be reasonable, I don't see how or why you can sue for thousands because you didn't get a toy in your Kracker Jax. :P

A priviledge is something that a government grants. A right surpasses governmental control. If you (global--not necessarily you, Wild) are forcing someone to pay for someone else's ANYTHING, you are not supporting rights. It's supporting governmental force.

Your rights are something your government has granted too. They're not recognised anywhere else.

However, that is all moot (and really a lot of semantics on both our parts), due to the fact that your country is yours and my country is mine. Liberty is first here. More important than life. That's why we went to war to get away from Britain. It's different up by you--and that's fine.

How do you exercise Liberty without Life? :)

I'm glad you're one of the guys just talking about it and trying to convince, as opposed to those that just want to force it and move on.

Well I'll tell you. Force is part of what I'm hoping to damp, or at least channel into more productive (in my opinion) areas.

Despite being stubbornly wrong :D you're all intelligent people. Some aren't much more intelligent than what it takes to bang a couple of rocks together, but that's okay. We'll always have room for rock bangers. We (I, and those like me) don't want people to be prisoners to "the common good", we want you to look at what we offer and what we propose, and join us willingly. The world is a pretty full place, and while there may have been a time when you could live in relative isolation (either geographically, or socially), that's an opportunity that's dwindling. And there have to be things people agree on in order to interact without it being to the detriment of others. So I/we believe.

I've said it before, I'm for severely limited government, not complete abolishment of it. I wouldn't be alone. My business dealings and day-to-day life would still involve others.

On whose terms?

You're not. Others would just love to force it.

I'm sure. But you know... it could be interpreted that some of your own stances have effects that ripple out beyond just you and apply some force to our own lives... but enough of that common good nonsense. ;)

I didn't vote either in the last election, and I still won't this election. The Libertarians are getting my vote.

Which reminds me. So that I don't have to read a library full of dull books to find the answer, why the mostly two-party system?

Hey, what's wrong with cooties??? :) In all seriousness, not at this time in my life--it wouldn't jive with my philosophy. Besides, Wisconsin gets cold enough!

Ah yes, the "cross the border and freeze your exteral reproductive organs off" thing. :P

Well, that explains our lower population. Good thing we've got immigration. ;)

I wouldn't mind actually getting up there, one of these days just to see the place. It's funny, I've lived less than 300 miles from the border for most of my life, and never once been across. I've been to more European countries that Western hemisphere countries! It's odd. Haven't been to Mexico, either. The other half and I are thinking about taking a trip to see Vancouver and Victoria. We'll see if it happens. She's rather partial to the tropics.

You know, I have the worst time when I have to entertain tourists. Even though we're encouraged here (as I'm sure you are there) to "be a tourist in your hometown", I've never quite managed to do it. Since everything around me looks so mundane and ordinary, I'm always amused when people ooh and awe over things.

I'm sure they're as amused when I go to visit their countries. :P

You? No.

So then you know it's not all about control. :D

OK, I should know better but I have to respond to this:

This is a popular myth thrown about by people who know no better. I can't speak for Great Britian, but in Australia this is an outright lie. I don't know where this particular myth started - I would be most interested to see some links to this.

This story at this link is about GB not Australia.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/3/21/205139.shtml

This link is the official stats for Australia.

http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/e8ae5488b598839cca25682000131612/669c5a997eaed891ca2568a900139405!OpenDocument

I never said that crime was very high in Australia. It's low. But it's HIGHER than it was beofre the ban.

In numbers, or percentage?

Please quote statistics if you have them. Preferably from a non-American source.

And?

The question is not 'does repealing gun laws reduce crime'.

The question is 'does introducing such laws reduce crime'. If you can't prove that the answer is YES, then don't go around messing with my liberties.

How about "does people getting shot have anything to do with guns"?

How about "criminals get guns by stealing them from legitimate owners"?

How about "do we (USA) have an appaling death rate via guns"?

Do any of these things nudge you to considering that maybe there's something about how your society/country/whatever handles their guns?

Nobody's talking about taking them away, note. I don't know why people keep reading that in response to my posts, at least. I'm careful to say that many times.

Does the goverment have the right to ban guns such as semiauto shotguns/rifles? I use those for hunting and i don't feel anyone has the right to come to my house and take them away from me.
...................We are talking Uzis here..Get ur head out of your butt. We all own guns up North here, most hunt...We don't hunt with Uzis....Read closely what should be banned.....

Gun c4ontrol advoctes are stupid. If you outlaw guns then only the outlaws will have guns. Quit having your opinions fed to you by Micheal Moore you twats.

...................We are talking Uzis here..Get ur head out of your butt. We all own guns up North here, most hunt...We don't hunt with Uzis....Read closely what should be banned.....

Um, no it's not only about Uzi's. Read the thread before insulting people.

Gun c4ontrol advoctes are stupid. If you outlaw guns then only the outlaws will have guns. Quit having your opinions fed to you by Micheal Moore you twats.
If anything, insulting your intended audience will only have the affect of making you look rather like a tool.

This story at this link is about GB not Australia.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/3/21/205139.shtml


I notice that the authors of that article were American. One of the countries being compared in that article was the US. At the risk of sounding pedantic, don't you think there's a bit of potential conflict of interest there?

This link is the official stats for Australia.

http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/e8ae5488b598839cca25682000131612/669c5a997eaed891ca2568a900139405!OpenDocument

I read that property crime is higher and personal assault is lower than your country with the attendant gun attitude.

What am I supposed to see here?

...................We are talking Uzis here..Get ur head out of your butt. We all own guns up North here, most hunt...We don't hunt with Uzis....Read closely what should be banned.....

To be frank, I don't care what gets banned.

I want people to stop hurting each other. You can own a tactical nuke as far as I'm concerned if you're not going to hurt anybody.

Gun c4ontrol advoctes are stupid. If you outlaw guns then only the outlaws will have guns. Quit having your opinions fed to you by Micheal Moore you twats.

Does that mean if we outlaw opinionated slogan-spewing morons, you'll have a gun?

To be frank, I don't care what gets banned.

I want people to stop hurting each other. You can own a tactical nuke as far as I'm concerned if you're not going to hurt anybody.

If I knew we could live in a world without violence... and all I had to do was to give up my guns to ensure that... magically afterwards no more violence..I wouldnt even hesitate. I would miss them to be sure... but I would love people to stop hurting each other.

I just have a more pragmatic view of the world.

If I knew we could live in a world without violence... and all I had to do was to give up my guns to ensure that... magically afterwards no more violence..I wouldnt even hesitate. I would miss them to be sure... but I would love people to stop hurting each other.

<biting tongue> I...never...asked...you...to...give...up...your...guns. <release tongue>

:P <--- see? :)

I just have a more pragmatic view of the world.

I feel that I have a more pragmatic view as well. Mine includes a future where liberty and personal choice aren't dictated by force of arms. And mine includes the thought that with so many people, the rules that let one manage a tribe or a village don't necessarily hold true for a country or a hemisphere or a world.

So you take what works, and discard what doesn't. I don't think withdrawing and maintaining the distance while armed is the way to go.

I'm willing to take intermediate steps (and yes, intermediate risks) to get to that end. No, I don't propose that a single step will fix/change anything. It's a journey, and more than one step are necessary. And I don't think standing in place is much of an option.

The population is also higher than it was before the "ban" - could that be skewing these supposed figures?

The stats at the end of that particular link are in percentage form, not case amount.

I'm still not sure what the figures are supposed to show me though. I can't remember every single remark so well that when some unlabeled support comes for them later on, I know what I'm looking at. :P

And yes, I'm too lazy to comb back for your other post, Allanea. I've had a lot to read tonight. :P

I'm sure you'll see my reply to your links, and you'll inform me though.

The stats at the end of that particular link are in percentage form, not case amount.

I'm still not sure what the figures are supposed to show me though. I can't remember every single remark so well that when some unlabeled support comes for them later on, I know what I'm looking at. :P

And yes, I'm too lazy to comb back for your other post, Allanea. I've had a lot to read tonight. :P

I'm sure you'll see my reply to your links, and you'll inform me though.

Yeah, that's why I deleted my post - I couldn't get the link to work at first...I thought it was a numerical representation, not percentile...

I have no problem with responsible, regulated control of firearms for hunting or sport. I do have a problem when 15 year olds start killing people with an assault rifle.

In Australia there were recently changes to handgun ownership laws, to limit magazine capacity and calibre. In 1996 laws were passed to outlaw automatic and semi-automatic rifles, and automatic handguns have pretty much always been illegal. Both of these changes happened in response to shootings involving the type of firearm that was banned. In the UK firearms are pretty much completely illegal.

However, crime where firearms is involved has failed to decrease in either country, and the penalties are not severe enough. It seems that only registered firearms owners come under the laws regulating their use.

You can kill someone with whatever you want, but you're still killing someone. The media just likes to jump on it if firearms are involved, because they plan a takeover of the world, and don't want anyone else to be able to defend themselves :)

This thread needs to end. I couldn't be bothered reading 85 pages.

Gah. You would have prefered not having your public school (I'm assuming of course) education? You'd only have wanted what ma and pa could afford?


In many cases, yes. With the governmental indoctrination that's spewing out of the mouths of teachers today, it's no wonder we've lost a great many of our rights.


Some of us outsiders feel the same about the US. We're kind of worried that you're on the road to a dark age. Not in the usual European sense after the fall of Rome, but just in general. I can expound, but I think you probably know what I mean.


I'm with ya on that one. With the Patriot Act and all the other invasive "investigation" allowances that have been passed in the last 15 years, I'm feeling the squeeze as well.


<shrugs> While I recognise that democracy is often two wolves and a sheep trying to agree on what to have for lunch, I think it's heaps better than other systems.


Yah, just so long as the sheep is armed.


And I'm not really convinced (nor do you have to convince me, but I wouldn't object to some information) that the individual can be protected without being under the blanket of the common good.


Common good gets clouded. What some think is best for all, really doesn't fit everyone. I'm not trying to convince here, that's just how I see it. You start hearing things like, "It's for your own good." That's fine when it's a parent talking to a child. Not adult to adult.


Who pays for keeping the burn ward at the hospital going when there are no fires for a month?


The revenues from the hospital.


Yeah, it's kind of a comedy to those of us not paying for it. That people can sue for the most spurious of reasons and get "compensation" out of all proportion is just insane.

While I'll grant that sometimes it may (may because I don't actually know) be reasonable, I don't see how or why you can sue for thousands because you didn't get a toy in your Kracker Jax. :P


Unfortunately, that's become the status quo in the US. People want money for absolutely nothing. Bugs the hell out of me.


Your rights are something your government has granted too. They're not recognised anywhere else.


That's not how they are presented in the constitution. They're presented as universal issues, that the government cannot grant or deny.


How do you exercise Liberty without Life? :)


Oh man, this is gonna sound snide, and it's not really meant as such, but--ask the soldiers that died for it.


Well I'll tell you. Force is part of what I'm hoping to damp, or at least channel into more productive (in my opinion) areas.


And see, force initiated, as opposed in reaction to force, isn't acceptable. That's whyI keep fighting it.


Despite being stubbornly wrong :D you're all intelligent people. Some aren't much more intelligent than what it takes to bang a couple of rocks together, but that's okay. We'll always have room for rock bangers. We (I, and those like me) don't want people to be prisoners to "the common good", we want you to look at what we offer and what we propose, and join us willingly. The world is a pretty full place, and while there may have been a time when you could live in relative isolation (either geographically, or socially), that's an opportunity that's dwindling. And there have to be things people agree on in order to interact without it being to the detriment of others. So I/we believe.


You SEEM to have more on your side of the ball that want to force it, though. Could just be a few loud-mouths spoiling your argument, but it's there.


On whose terms?


My own. Even today, I still get to mostly choose who I interact with.


I'm sure. But you know... it could be interpreted that some of your own stances have effects that ripple out beyond just you and apply some force to our own lives... but enough of that common good nonsense. ;)


It is possible. And when that happens those around me who I'm affecting get a say in it. But not until then.


Which reminds me. So that I don't have to read a library full of dull books to find the answer, why the mostly two-party system?


Too many people are voting in fear. It's the lesser of two evils concept. And it doesn't help that the senator that I'm proud of for voting against the Patriot Act went and messed things up for any third party with the controls put in place for election contributions. It's slowly become more and more difficult for anyone else to join the party. So, we're seriously starting at the grass-roots level. More and more third party candidates are being elected locally, and we're all making progress toward moving up the chain.


Ah yes, the "cross the border and freeze your exteral reproductive organs off" thing. :P


Nah, I'm lazy and don't like to shovel.


You know, I have the worst time when I have to entertain tourists. Even though we're encouraged here (as I'm sure you are there) to "be a tourist in your hometown", I've never quite managed to do it. Since everything around me looks so mundane and ordinary, I'm always amused when people ooh and awe over things.

I'm sure they're as amused when I go to visit their countries. :P

It is rather nifty to see things that you're used to seeing all around you with fresh eyes.

So then you know it's not all about control. :D

Maybe not with you, but to the party you belong, that's another thing. And no, you're not going to be able to convince me that socialism is benevolent--it's still advocates force to get the "common good" accomplished. Thought I'd nip that in the bud right away.

And?

The question is not 'does repealing gun laws reduce crime'.

The question is 'does introducing such laws reduce crime'. If you can't prove that the answer is YES, then don't go around messing with my liberties.
the "right" to own a gun was INVENTED by liberal commie pinkos during the constitutional convention, they wanted people to be able to fight back against the government if it became too tyrannical, now you nut jobs are taking this to the extreme waving away any whisps of logic citing this like crazy just so you can have assault weapons, no one is even suggesting outlawing all guns.


without partisan lip service, tell me which party has been the supposedly most advocate about regulating guns. THEN, tell me which party has been most adiment about regulating your other rights


and seeing how neither question is a negative, you must prove YOUR position as well as the position you are asking your opponent to prove

the "right" to own a gun was INVENTED by liberal commie pinkos during the constitutional convention, they wanted people to be able to fight back against the government if it became too tyrannical, now you nut jobs are taking this to the extreme waving away any whisps of logic citing this like crazy just so you can have assault weapons, no one is even suggesting outlawing all guns.


without partisan lip service, tell me which party has been the supposedly most advocate about regulating guns. THEN, tell me which party has been most adiment about regulating your other rights


and seeing how neither question is a negative, you must prove YOUR position as well as the position you are asking your opponent to prove

Regulating guns--Democrats, though Mr. Schwartzeneger (sp?) just hopped that line.

Regulating other rights? Both Dems and Republicans.

This is why I'm a Libertarian. You have to remember that not all gun owners love Bush and his controllers...er, I mean cronies.

Gun ownership and support is not split down party lines, like you seem to think it is.

To RWS and Chess Squares

I enjoyed that little unfruitful bashing to my second post. You twisted logic and the point of this entire post to make unfounded purposes for a rebuttle.

I'll keep in mind not to state useless statistics. Obviously everyone and their brother comes up with their own form of mathematics when they don't understand percentages..you don't expand, you paraphrase. (My fault also for not giving you LINKS...and DATES..and 20 different sources...I'm not a soothsayer of facts..so I guess I stooped on that one)

Please..go ahead and read my first post only a page before.

I'll only cast the pearls...

the "right" to own a gun was INVENTED by liberal commie pinkos during the constitutional convention, they wanted people to be able to fight back against

Chess Square, that's why I'm a liberal. thanks.

Chess Square, that's why I'm a liberal. thanks.
good job ignoring the rest of the post, 1 point for trying, -3 for misrepresentation

the "right" to own a gun was INVENTED by liberal commie pinkos during the constitutional convention, they wanted people to be able to fight back against

Chess Square, that's why I'm a liberal. thanks.

Chess Square, that's why I'm a liberal. thanks.
-6 added to last -3 for argumentum ad nauseum

Of course a government has the right to limit obtainability of weapons. Nonfull-auto assualt rifles aren't that bad, but they're still rather unpleasant weapons. No civilian should ever be running around with a howitzer or something crazy like that, though.

Personally, i think all guns are horrible, even those used for just shooting clay pigeons or whatever you use them for. I wouldnt be able to stand having one any where near me. They kill people in brutal, painfull ways for goodness sakes! I know its unrealistic but if no-one in the entire planet had any weapons such has guns and bombs, wars would be limited, and people would feel alot safer knowing that they dont live in a country where people roam with guns.

Personally, i think all guns are horrible, even those used for just shooting clay pigeons or whatever you use them for. I wouldnt be able to stand having one any where near me. They kill people in brutal, painfull ways for goodness sakes! I know its unrealistic but if no-one in the entire planet had any weapons such has guns and bombs, wars would be limited, and people would feel alot safer knowing that they dont live in a country where people roam with guns.

Alright then...<gets knife and bag for loot> where do you live again? ;) lol

Personally, i think all guns are horrible, even those used for just shooting clay pigeons or whatever you use them for. I wouldnt be able to stand having one any where near me. They kill people in brutal, painfull ways for goodness sakes! I know its unrealistic but if no-one in the entire planet had any weapons such has guns and bombs, wars would be limited, and people would feel alot safer knowing that they dont live in a country where people roam with guns.

We've had wars much longer than we've had firearms. I had to point that out....

Like I've always said, you're entitled to your own opinion and run your life the way you see fit. I won't force you to pick up a firearm.

:rolleyes:
You can still own a semi-auto in Cali. I live there.

Heck, I live there and own an "assault weapon". Yes, the gun laws are strict, but not as bad as some seem to think.

To RWS and Chess Squares

I enjoyed that little unfruitful bashing to my second post. You twisted logic and the point of this entire post to make unfounded purposes for a rebuttle.

I'll keep in mind not to state useless statistics. Obviously everyone and their brother comes up with their own form of mathematics when they don't understand percentages..you don't expand, you paraphrase. (My fault also for not giving you LINKS...and DATES..and 20 different sources...I'm not a soothsayer of facts..so I guess I stooped on that one)

Please..go ahead and read my first post only a page before.

I'll only cast the pearls...

I went back and reread what I said. I'm not sure where I bashed you exactly. Sorry if you took offense.

Of course, you said in what seemed to me to be a smarmy manner "Hmmm..yes..Australia and Great Britain..after enacting forms of Anti-Gun legislation found a 42%-65% increase in crime...nation-wide. Somebody was thanking people like you for it.".

And at the end of this post of yours that I'm currently quoting, you're as good as calling us swine. So I'm not sure what you're pissed at.

That said, here's the post that I think is in question. Would you mind pointing out my twisted logic and bashing?

-----------------------------------------------------------


Criminals will always get anything they can to serve any purpose they decide upon..much less the government.

So you propose emulating what the criminals do to level the playing field? Pffft, that kind of one-upmanship is the same sort of mentality that leads to tit-for-tat revenge that is so highlighted in your (if you're American) news when they attempt to paint Muslim society in a negative light.

I believe *cough* The British came over here...sometime before you were born yesterday..with a highly trained military, fought a load of farmers, burned their capitol, etc.
A few years later the redcoats left and left them alone and it surely was not because they fought with their bare hands.

And of course many of the people that you're calling farmers were also former redcoats or had similar training. And you had home court advantage.

Being from the country that burned down your capitol, let me say that we don't enshrine gun ownship as a right. And we have (as the regular readers of this thread know well by now) as many or more guns per capita here in Canada than you do in the US. But we don't shoot each other the way you do down there. This isn't a thread about banning guns.

And yet in all that time, just how many foreign attacks have you had on your country? I remember Pearl Harbour, and I remember the WTC attacks. Did all of your guns help you then?

And how about up here in poor defenseless Canada? Care to tell us about all the foreign invaders that have taken advantage of us because we don't have the right to bear arms and form militias?

Hmmm..yes..Australia and Great Britain..after enacting forms of Anti-Gun legislation found a 42%-65% increase in crime...nation-wide. Somebody was thanking people like you for it.

"Crime". You know, driving under the influence of alcohol is a crime. Did they have an increase in that? Gee, better give back the guns.

Or are you talking about murders due to guns? Because if so, look at your stats again. Those went down down down. It's property crimes that rose.

And by and large, those of us who aren't on the "gotta have guns" side are saying that human life is more important that property. You may disagree, as many others have, but for the umpteenth time there's not really anybody saying that BANNING guns is what they want. So why do people interpret restrictions or conditions as bans?

In many cases, yes. With the governmental indoctrination that's spewing out of the mouths of teachers today, it's no wonder we've lost a great many of our rights.

That's a problem that doesn't necessarily have to be fixed by government reduction. If your government is pushing such an agenda on your education system, then you're right, that's got to stop.

I'm with ya on that one. With the Patriot Act and all the other invasive "investigation" allowances that have been passed in the last 15 years, I'm feeling the squeeze as well.

I don't know what future I see more: a 1984-style Orwellian one, or a USSA (movie) style one. Neither are particularly palatable. I hope you guys (as a people) stop this nonsense (of a few in positions that need to be removed).

Common good gets clouded. What some think is best for all, really doesn't fit everyone. I'm not trying to convince here, that's just how I see it. You start hearing things like, "It's for your own good." That's fine when it's a parent talking to a child. Not adult to adult.

And I think that to protect individuality, you've got to make some allowances for other individuals besides yourself.

Unfortunately, that's become the status quo in the US. People want money for absolutely nothing. Bugs the hell out of me.

That doesn't bug me so much, it's that the systems in place allow it to happen. :P

That's not how they are presented in the constitution. They're presented as universal issues, that the government cannot grant or deny.

But you know they're not universal. They end at your borders. They're granted rights, not intrinsic ones. So what's the dealio? ;)

Oh man, this is gonna sound snide, and it's not really meant as such, but--ask the soldiers that died for it.

That's okay. Now, correct me if I'm wrong but while that could mean any soldiers from any battle, I find that when most people are questioned when they say that, they mention the second world war. Is that the case with you?

If so, we did our share in Canada. When Normandy was stormed, Juno was our contribution. We lost many lives too.

We've had a presence in many conflicts worldwide, and although we prefer peacekeeping (armed with sacks of wheat) to policing, we still do.

So I won't take offense. We were there too. :)

Would your dead soldiers, upon visiting the US today, be pleased?

And see, force initiated, as opposed in reaction to force, isn't acceptable. That's whyI keep fighting it.

Having obvious police cars parked at the side of the road slows down speeders. That's proactive "force". Chasing down a speeder is reactive force. Sometimes initiating something isn't a bad thing. :)

You SEEM to have more on your side of the ball that want to force it, though. Could just be a few loud-mouths spoiling your argument, but it's there.

I notice that many who are more on your side of this than mine that come into this thread for a post or two are fairly loud and abrasive too. We'll note what they say, and then move on. ;)

Maybe not with you, but to the party you belong, that's another thing. And no, you're not going to be able to convince me that socialism is benevolent--it's still advocates force to get the "common good" accomplished. Thought I'd nip that in the bud right away.

I see force rippling out from enclaves where individuals proclaim "I rule myself". <shrugs>

We've had wars much longer than we've had firearms. I had to point that out....

True, but killing someone with the thrust of your arm up close and personal, over and over while avoiding the same is a little different than opening up with a weapon designed to throw lots of high-speed flesh shredding projectiles every minute, whether you can see your target or not.

I'll go back to the old way if you will. I think he/she was right, and that wars would be more limited if that was the case.

But as they say, you can't put the genie back in the bottle. So harm reduction becomes important. Throw down your gun and embrace your neighbour!

Damn, didn't work. Ah well. :P

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=357806

Link to a poll (on a related subject), for anyone interested...

[QUOTE=Zaxon]We've had wars much longer than we've had firearms. I had to point that out....[QUOTE]

True, but killing someone with the thrust of your arm up close and personal, over and over while avoiding the same is a little different than opening up with a weapon designed to throw lots of high-speed flesh shredding projectiles every minute, whether you can see your target or not.

I'll go back to the old way if you will. I think he/she was right, and that wars would be more limited if that was the case.

But as they say, you can't put the genie back in the bottle. So harm reduction becomes important. Throw down your gun and embrace your neighbour!

Damn, didn't work. Ah well. :P
Actually I think wars would be much much more all encompasing going back to the old way. The increase in military efficiency has allowed conducting military operations with much more precision. Spec ops missions vs civil war battlefields, carpet bombing of WWII vs laser guided bombs and missiles.

If we were to go back to the old ways, the only tactical advantage that could be utilized to any great extent would be manpower. He who could throw more manpower at the enemy would wear them down. (assuming that level of technologies, advanced scouting of battlefields, quality of leadership and others factors being equal). In a battle of attrition, nobody wins. (cept the Chinese)

I notice that the authors of that article were American. One of the countries being compared in that article was the US. At the risk of sounding pedantic, don't you think there's a bit of potential conflict of interest there?

Well if crime is tabulated differently in each country then you cannot accurately compare the crime rate between those countries. Basicly, garbage in garbage out. Conflict of interest would be on the GB part not the article's part.

Donnish, maybe.


I read that property crime is higher and personal assault is lower than your country with the attendant gun attitude.

What am I supposed to see here?

Crime is up. 50% of personal assaults and 80% sexual assaults not reported to police and a reason given was that they thought the police could do nothing about it. You can form your own opinion about whether it is good or bad that most of the assaulters did not have a weapon - I say bad because the crooks feel confident that the victim would not be armed. Just naming a few, I do not wish to write a book. I presented a document that I feel backs my opinion that extremely restrictive gun laws put people in harms way.

Actually I think wars would be much much more all encompasing going back to the old way. The increase in military efficiency has allowed conducting military operations with much more precision. Spec ops missions vs civil war battlefields, carpet bombing of WWII vs laser guided bombs and missiles.

Ask the group of Canadian soldiers that some US fighter/bomber pilot bombed. Or all the weddings that have been annhilated from the air when they shoot weapons in celebration. Or the Red Cross encampments that get blasted from the air (friend was working in one of these, so it's not a fabrication).

While the toys are certainly neat, and much ado is made about them, I wouldn't be calling them "precise".

Not until they stop blowing up civilians and fruit markets. "Oh look! An enemy mango!" :P

If we were to go back to the old ways, the only tactical advantage that could be utilized to any great extent would be manpower. He who could throw more manpower at the enemy would wear them down. (assuming that level of technologies, advanced scouting of battlefields, quality of leadership and others factors being equal). In a battle of attrition, nobody wins. (cept the Chinese)

The biggest armies in history didn't always win. There were tactics before the gun and before aerial bombardment.

I was being facetious about turning back the clock of course. I wouldn't want to live in the past. But I sometimes.think it's easier to dehumanize someone who's more than an arm length away.

I was being facetious about turning back the clock of course. I wouldn't want to live in the past. But I sometimes.think it's easier to dehumanize someone who's more than an arm length away.

But then that's how you have to be careful. It's important for a soldier to dehumanize his opponent at least slightly. Up close and personal and it becomes easeir to hate your opponent. You begin to hate him, then you hate his co-soldiers. Then you hate his family and then hate his country. Dehumanization helps stem the tide of that hate, so that when it's time for the soldier to stand down, it's possible to do so.

Well if crime is tabulated differently in each country then you cannot accurately compare the crime rate between those countries. Basicly, garbage in garbage out. Conflict of interest would be on the GB part not the article's part.

If the data is garbage, then you can't trust it even after some heavy massaging. :P

Not that I'm going to disregard all statistics, but this article smells fishy to me, and it isn't wrapped in newspaper with thick chips. :P

Crime is up. 50% of personal assaults and 80% sexual assaults not reported to police and a reason given was that they thought the police could do nothing about it. You can form your own opinion about whether it is good or bad that most of the assaulters did not have a weapon - I say bad because the crooks feel confident that the victim would not be armed. Just naming a few, I do not wish to write a book. I presented a document that I feel backs my opinion that extremely restrictive gun laws put people in harms way.

You know, I've often wondered where they get the numbers when they say "xx% isn't reported to the police". I mean... where IS this being reported that they can collate such numbers?! :P

If the data is garbage, then you can't trust it even after some heavy massaging. :P

Not that I'm going to disregard all statistics, but this article smells fishy to me, and it isn't wrapped in newspaper with thick chips. :P

It is called investigative reporting. The reporter goes and looks at the raw data and sees how it jives with what is being reported.


You know, I've often wondered where they get the numbers when they say "xx% isn't reported to the police". I mean... where IS this being reported that they can collate such numbers?! :P

By doing a thing called a study.

Pro gun and anti gun people always wind up talking the differances in murder rates between the US and European nations. Argument being that guns are the cause of the relatively high number of murders in the US as opposed to European countries where murder is low and gun ownership is not prevalent.

I am curious though.

If guns are the cause(and they may very well be), why is it that The US' NON firearm murder rate is higher than most European countries?

I mean, if it was about the guns then the US' non firearm murder rate should mirror Europe's.

Could it be that we have some issues in the US that are the actual root causes of this violence, issue that have nothing to do with the specific tool used in the violence?

I don't care if the Brits, Canadians and Aussies have gun control. I do not want to import those laws to America. Our Bill of Rights spell out most of our God given rights. If citizens of other counties do not like our laws, they do not have to come here - just stay in your own perfect country and leave mine alone.

Leave basicly law abiding Americans alone and use our limited resources to catch real crimminals and keep them in jail or hell. We do not need those window dressing, feel good laws that do nothing to stop real crimes like murder, rape, thievery and assault, but sure as hell infringes on my rights.

But then that's how you have to be careful. It's important for a soldier to dehumanize his opponent at least slightly. Up close and personal and it becomes easeir to hate your opponent. You begin to hate him, then you hate his co-soldiers. Then you hate his family and then hate his country. Dehumanization helps stem the tide of that hate, so that when it's time for the soldier to stand down, it's possible to do so.

lol

Dehumanizing someone makes it easier to kill them. Do you know the writer George Orwell?

He was in the Spanish war that happened in the 20th century. He was doing his duty, patrolling and shooting and whatever, when one day he saw an enemy combatant. As he took aim, he realized the guy was taking a dump.

And Orwell found he couldn't shoot - the essential humanity of the guy and his totally normal bodily function brought into focuse for Orwell that he was a human being, not an "enemy soldier" or whatever.

I'd like more people in the world to travel, or even to live in other countries. I happen to think that when you're aware that people all over the world are just people doing people things, you're less likely to be able to demonize them when they're just the same as your neighbours. Dehumanizing is baaaaaad.

Dehumanizing is baaaaaad.
But shamefully necessary :(

It is called investigative reporting. The reporter goes and looks at the raw data and sees how it jives with what is being reported.

I'm sorry. I mean, I know what you're saying, but this interpretation and massaging of the numbers (in the article I mean, not you) just doesn't sit right.

Is there anybody else who read what we're talking about? Opinions?

By doing a thing called a study.

"Nukes in Iraq!" agreed the investigative journalists. "Chemical weapons too!"

Know what I mean? :P

Now if it was someone other than the British or the Americans that did that little article, I wonder if it would have come out differently. :)

Pro gun and anti gun people always wind up talking the differances in murder rates between the US and European nations. Argument being that guns are the cause of the relatively high number of murders in the US as opposed to European countries where murder is low and gun ownership is not prevalent.

I am curious though.

If guns are the cause(and they may very well be), why is it that The US' NON firearm murder rate is higher than most European countries?

I mean, if it was about the guns then the US' non firearm murder rate should mirror Europe's.

Could it be that we have some issues in the US that are the actual root causes of this violence, issue that have nothing to do with the specific tool used in the violence?

Yes yes yes yes yes yes YES! :D

I was trying to delve into this earlier (as an outsider), but I didn't make much headway.

Since you brought it up and identify yourself as an American, would you care to take the floor and enlighten us (me) on this?

But shamefully necessary :(

Even though it's often agreed that war traces its roots back to looting and raping, I wonder if current war is based a lot on asynchronous information flow.

I mean, why the hell WOULD you invade someone?

Yes yes yes yes yes yes YES! :D

I was trying to delve into this earlier (as an outsider), but I didn't make much headway.

Since you brought it up and identify yourself as an American, would you care to take the floor and enlighten us (me) on this?

Look, I dont have an answer. I personally think it has to do with a bunch of things.

Keep in mind that I am rambling because I do not have answers


Look, I started to write an answer but then I deleted it because in truth I have no answer. At least not an answer that I could fit into a few pages.

I know that we havea couple of things going on this country that Europe has less of.
1) we have a party that loves class warfare. It is how they get elected. And at one time, they had a valid point.

2) We have a group of people that have been brainwashed into a victim/exploited mentality.

3) we experimented with a way of thought that minimized personal responsibility.

4) we have a group of people that have been potentionally disenfranchised. Whether they have been or not is less important than that there is a widespread infrastructure that survives by convincing a group that they have in fact been disenfranchised/victimized.

I dont know, this is silly once again and I am tempted to delete it.

This is too complex a thing for me to understand let alone explain.

There are somethings I do understand though.

I understand that the whole guns = violence thing is simply looking at the symtoms instead of looking at the problem. Its stage 1 thinking. The biggest argument that a person could make against guns is that their prevalance means that in some circumstances, situations that would have ended with simple injury instead end up with someone dying.

This does not explain the prevalence of violance in this society though. It doesnt even come close.

Murders dont murder simply because they have a gun.
Rapists dont rape because they have a gun.
thieves dont steal because they have a gun

criminals commit crimes because they think the upside of committing the crime execeeds the downside.

There is a reason why criminals target old people and girls instead of bodybuilders. They arent looking for a confrontation, they are looking for easy money.

all a gun does is change the power differential. A gun allows a physically weak person to be on somewhat of the same field as a physically fit person. A old lady cannot expect to fight off a criminal with the same effectivenesss as a fit young man could. But an old lady with a gun is on a similar level.

especially when you consider that a criminal cannot afford to get shot.

1) the cops are going to aggressively pursue a case when someone has been shot vs a case where only some property has been stolen.

2) getting official medical aid is going to lead to the arrest of the perpetrator.

3) there is really is no upside for a criminal to try and victimise someone who MIGHT be on the same playing field. It makes much more sense to find someone weaker.

I'm going shooting tomorrow with my wife and oldest boy, he is 2 next month. Were going up by Georgetown, Colorado. I hope to see you there!

I'm going shooting tomorrow with my wife and oldest boy, he is 2 next month. Were going up by Georgetown, Colorado. I hope to see you there!

lol, I wish. Im in NY right now and my ccw is worthless in this state. Apparantly Shumer and Hillary believe that simply because I have been a law abiding citizen my whole life, that somehow I will turn into a raving violent lunatic if I was allowed a gun once I crossed the border into NY.

I use napalm to cook. The government shouldn't be allowed to take that away either. And I keep myself warm by nuking towns that are several miles away. I ought to be allowed to do that too.

I don't care if the Brits, Canadians and Aussies have gun control. I do not want to import those laws to America. Our Bill of Rights spell out most of our God given rights. If citizens of other counties do not like our laws, they do not have to come here - just stay in your own perfect country and leave mine alone.

Leave basicly law abiding Americans alone and use our limited resources to catch real crimminals and keep them in jail or hell. We do not need those window dressing, feel good laws that do nothing to stop real crimes like murder, rape, thievery and assault, but sure as hell infringes on my rights.

Yes...

"And thy good Lord said "Let thee Americans have Automatic Assault Rifles and have the highest homicide rate in the world!" And his word was good and Jesus joined the NRA and went shooting for deer with his Tomahawk missiles"

I use napalm to cook. The government shouldn't be allowed to take that away either. And I keep myself warm by nuking towns that are several miles away. I ought to be allowed to do that too.

hmmm, thats gonna be tough given that you sound like you use your few remaining brain cells to melt ice

One on hand, you have people who hunt, and want guns for self defense.

On the other hand, you have people who don't want to worry that someone is going to shoot them.


How do you reconcile this? Ban automatic weapons, but allow handguns and shotguns. It's an arbitrary line, where people dont have the ability to murder large amounts of people, however, they still have their guns for genuine reasons.

Yes...

"And thy good Lord said "Let thee Americans have Automatic Assault Rifles and have the highest homicide rate in the world!" And his word was good and Jesus joined the NRA and went shooting for deer with his Tomahawk missiles"

ROTFL - :) :p

One on hand, you have people who hunt, and want guns for self defense.

On the other hand, you have people who don't want to worry that someone is going to shoot them.


How do you reconcile this? Ban automatic weapons, but allow handguns and shotguns. It's an arbitrary line, where people dont have the ability to murder large amounts of people, however, they still have their guns for genuine reasons.

I kind of agree with this - this is in some ways similar to the point I've been trying to make. But it will fall on deaf ears - apparently even reducing the maximum magazine capacity by so much as a single round is the greatest possible insult to the founding fathers and vioolation of human rights.

P.S. The guns nuts are bound to pull you up on the destinction between auto and semi-auto. Don't worry, the rest of us know what you mean. ;)

And I think that to protect individuality, you've got to make some allowances for other individuals besides yourself.


If I'm not actively doing anything to anyone else, how am I infringing upon their rights?


That doesn't bug me so much, it's that the systems in place allow it to happen. :P


'Tis the reason I don't like lawyers.


But you know they're not universal. They end at your borders. They're granted rights, not intrinsic ones. So what's the dealio? ;)


Actually, I honestly believe everyone on the planet has these rights. It's their governments that are stopping them.


That's okay. Now, correct me if I'm wrong but while that could mean any soldiers from any battle, I find that when most people are questioned when they say that, they mention the second world war. Is that the case with you?


No. I'm referring to our revolutionary war.


If so, we did our share in Canada. When Normandy was stormed, Juno was our contribution. We lost many lives too.


I know you guys did a helluva lot in WWII. From what I've read, your guys were pretty damn tenacious as well.


Would your dead soldiers, upon visiting the US today, be pleased?


No, everything they fought and died for has been twisted and bastardized away from the federal republic they wanted to put in place. Government rules here today, not the people.


Having obvious police cars parked at the side of the road slows down speeders. That's proactive "force". Chasing down a speeder is reactive force. Sometimes initiating something isn't a bad thing. :)


Like I've said before, I don't want all government abolished. Just most. But I do think the police have better things to do that sit around waiting for a speeder.


I notice that many who are more on your side of this than mine that come into this thread for a post or two are fairly loud and abrasive too. We'll note what they say, and then move on. ;)

Ugh....yeah.

I see force rippling out from enclaves where individuals proclaim "I rule myself". <shrugs>

The only time those VERY infrequent occurances happen (Ruby Ridge, Waco) is when someone else goes in and tries to force them to do something. They are defending themselves. They never initiated the action.

I mean, why the hell WOULD you invade someone?

Beats the hell out of me. I'm one of those that wants us out of everyone else's country. :)

Yes...

"And thy good Lord said "Let thee Americans have Automatic Assault Rifles and have the highest homicide rate in the world!" And his word was good and Jesus joined the NRA and went shooting for deer with his Tomahawk missiles"
Ah yea, sarcasm.. but remember, someo of us are Americans, so it's lost on us.

I kind of agree with this - this is in some ways similar to the point I've been trying to make. But it will fall on deaf ears - apparently even reducing the maximum magazine capacity by so much as a single round is the greatest possible insult to the founding fathers and vioolation of human rights.

P.S. The guns nuts are bound to pull you up on the destinction between auto and semi-auto. Don't worry, the rest of us know what you mean.
It doesnt fall on deaf ears. And nowhere did anyone say that the reduction of magazine capacity is a violation of human rights. I think perhaps you're exaggerating?

The point however, is that the assault weapon ban did absolutely nothing. It didnt significantly reduce the number of assault weapons, didnt significantly reduce the number used in crimes. Gun control doesnt work. All it does is place restrictions on people who generally dont cause problems with the guns that they do own.

Just about every gun owner, vehemently opposed to gun bans and restrictions would rather see the efforts and energy previously directed against guns should be directed against criminals and those who use guns irresponsibly. How does that not make sense to you?

And nowhere did anyone say that the reduction of magazine capacity is a violation of human rights.
I'll say it now. Everyone has a right to do what they like with their own body and property so long as it doesn't harm anyone else's body or property. This is the original theory of rights in the aristotle/aquinas/locke/classic liberal/jeffersonian tradition. Since owning a magazine with a high capacity doesn't harm anyone else's body or property it is a violation of rights if you legislate to reduce it, not that anyone cares.

It doesnt fall on deaf ears. And nowhere did anyone say that the reduction of magazine capacity is a violation of human rights. I think perhaps you're exaggerating?

It was an exaggeration of the point many of you are making - namely that high-capacity semi-auto weapons are a constitutional right. Actually, I think it was more of an extracted implication than an exaggeration, but that would be semantics. You are correct - it was not based on a direct quote, but an inference of what some of your side of the debate has been arguing as their point-of-view...

I'll say it now. Everyone has a right to do what they like with their own body and property so long as it doesn't harm anyone else's body or property. This is the original theory of rights in the aristotle/aquinas/locke/classic liberal/jeffersonian tradition. Since owning a magazine with a high capacity doesn't harm anyone else's body or property it is a violation of rights if you legislate to reduce it, not that anyone cares.

Do you consider it a violation of your rights that you're not allowed to own a surface-to-air missile launcher?

As long as we still can have them on the 4th!

I understand that the whole guns = violence thing is simply looking at the symtoms instead of looking at the problem. Its stage 1 thinking. The biggest argument that a person could make against guns is that their prevalance means that in some circumstances, situations that would have ended with simple injury instead end up with someone dying.


You may be right. But things have swung a little too far to simply tell people that the manner in which they treat other people is inhumane and unacceptable. So... you limit what people can do until they learn to behave themselves.

Wow, can I be a dick or what? ;)

I don't care if the Brits, Canadians and Aussies have gun control. I do not want to import those laws to America. Our Bill of Rights spell out most of our God given rights. If citizens of other counties do not like our laws, they do not have to come here - just stay in your own perfect country and leave mine alone.

You have gun control too. We're mostly looking at ways to limit the people who get shot in the US, at this point in the thread.

As for your rights being God given... I'll assume this is just a figure of speech. Because unless you're aware of another prophet since Jesus, God didn't give you squat. You gave yourselves those rights.

Leave basicly law abiding Americans alone and use our limited resources to catch real crimminals and keep them in jail or hell. We do not need those window dressing, feel good laws that do nothing to stop real crimes like murder, rape, thievery and assault, but sure as hell infringes on my rights.

Your perceived rights are transitory. Like I said above, you gave them to yourselves. Or rather, some folks a few generations before your time gave them to the country. That doesn't mean they're rights that can't be removed as "rights".

And... window dressing? You guys shoot each other a lot. A lot. So when we look at ways to deal with that, the idea that there are a lot of people with easy access to guns and ammunition who shouldn't gets thrown around. So you limit accessibility and availability of guns. There are trickle down effects. If you do it right, it doesn't even infringe on anybody who'd be a good gun owner. Other people do it, what's your resistance to letting people have guns but not shoot each other?

You may be right. But things have swung a little too far to simply tell people that the manner in which they treat other people is inhumane and unacceptable. So... you limit what people can do until they learn to behave themselves.

Wow, can I be a dick or what? ;)
I dont think you could be a dick if you tried :-p

One on hand, you have people who hunt, and want guns for self defense.

On the other hand, you have people who don't want to worry that someone is going to shoot them.

How do you reconcile this? Ban automatic weapons, but allow handguns and shotguns. It's an arbitrary line, where people dont have the ability to murder large amounts of people, however, they still have their guns for genuine reasons.

If you can find a solution that isn't arbitrary, by all means pitch it to us.

I think it's reasonable to limit automatic weapons. Handguns too. You want to hunt or target shoot? Use rifles.

That said, I don't care what you have, as long as you're someone that's not going to use your weapons (and that IS what they are, weapons) on other people.

If the current methods don't see to that in a good enough manner, it behooves you (as a country) to either get better methods, or restrict things.

How do you reconcile this? Ban automatic weapons, but allow handguns and shotguns. It's an arbitrary line, where people dont have the ability to murder large amounts of people, however, they still have their guns for genuine reasons.

And banning automatic weapons will stop the criminals from obtaining them how?

You have gun control too. We're mostly looking at ways to limit the people who get shot in the US, at this point in the thread.

As for your rights being God given... I'll assume this is just a figure of speech. Because unless you're aware of another prophet since Jesus, God didn't give you squat. You gave yourselves those rights.



Your perceived rights are transitory. Like I said above, you gave them to yourselves. Or rather, some folks a few generations before your time gave them to the country. That doesn't mean they're rights that can't be removed as "rights".

And... window dressing? You guys shoot each other a lot. A lot. So when we look at ways to deal with that, the idea that there are a lot of people with easy access to guns and ammunition who shouldn't gets thrown around. So you limit accessibility and availability of guns. There are trickle down effects. If you do it right, it doesn't even infringe on anybody who'd be a good gun owner. Other people do it, what's your resistance to letting people have guns but not shoot each other?
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Governments don't give rights... they are instituted to protect the rights from being taken away.

Governments don't give rights... they are instituted to protect the rights from being taken away.

False.

That only describes Democratic forms of government.

If I'm not actively doing anything to anyone else, how am I infringing upon their rights?

Perhaps your laws are different down there in how they intrepret such infringement.

You on your property able to do anything you like puts "psychic" pressure on those around you (for lack of a better term). Regardless of what you do or don't do.

Bah, I explained this badly. When I get a little sleep and I eat, remind me and I'll try again. :P

'Tis the reason I don't like lawyers.

I don't like a lot of the ethics that seem to go along with them, but law is a complex thing. A lot of the wording isn't exactly in everyday english, but I don't begrudge that. Sometimes you need specialized words and language to define a very specific thing.

Lawyers have the knowledge to make sense of all of that. Along with torts and such. They have their uses.

Actually, I honestly believe everyone on the planet has these rights. It's their governments that are stopping them.

I'll fall back to those socialist rights that you like in principle but not if you have to help extend them to others - water, air, food, shelter, health, safety. :)

No. I'm referring to our revolutionary war.

My bad. :)

I know you guys did a helluva lot in WWII. From what I've read, your guys were pretty damn tenacious as well.

They did what they did. Although that reminds me of something I wanted to ask: Why when veterans of your various wars return, have they often been essentially forgotten and left to fend for themselves? In my own life, I'm thinking of the vets from Vietnam, but there have been others.

I don't mean to dis, and I am pretty much against war, but that's just awful.

No, everything they fought and died for has been twisted and bastardized away from the federal republic they wanted to put in place. Government rules here today, not the people.

Government ought to administer, not rule.

Like I've said before, I don't want all government abolished. Just most. But I do think the police have better things to do that sit around waiting for a speeder.

Of course, but that was an example of proactive versus reactive. That's all.

The only time those VERY infrequent occurances happen (Ruby Ridge, Waco) is when someone else goes in and tries to force them to do something. They are defending themselves. They never initiated the action.

That's not what I meant by force rippling outwards. I mean the effects of YOU having your own enclave where you're boss has effects that ripple beyond your fenceline. People know you're there, and what you represent (if you don't obscure it) and their own lives change accordingly. Perhaps they'll be nervous about driving by, for example.

That sort of thing.

Beats the hell out of me. I'm one of those that wants us out of everyone else's country. :)

You don't have to leave. Your tourists are welcome to keep travelling. In fact, it should be required that everybody in your country travel to a country that requires a visa once every four years or lose their vote. :P

Since your country has an impact on the world, the people ought to know a bit about the world. What do you think? :)

<disengage pie in the sky mode>

I'll say it now. Everyone has a right to do what they like with their own body and property so long as it doesn't harm anyone else's body or property. This is the original theory of rights in the aristotle/aquinas/locke/classic liberal/jeffersonian tradition. Since owning a magazine with a high capacity doesn't harm anyone else's body or property it is a violation of rights if you legislate to reduce it, not that anyone cares.

Owning a fifty kiloton warhead doesn't harm anyone else either. Do you think it's a violation of rights if you legislate that you can't have one?

Yes, it's a gross exaggeration. I'd still be interested in your answer. :)

I dont think you could be a dick if you tried :-p

I don't know if this is a dis or a compliment. lol

So tomorrow I'm going to legally change my name to Richard, just to prove you wrong. ;)

And banning automatic weapons will stop the criminals from obtaining them how?

Honestly? If you ban them, and make it an offense to have one, then after a suitable period for the law abiding types to turn theirs in (possibly for renumeration), anybody else who has one is a criminal. Because it's against the law. You find one, you punish the owner.

Find a criminal with one, even if it's in a safe and not being used? Charge him up the ass for it. You Americans often (based on the tv news we get from you up here) like to talk about stiffer penalities. There you go.

How long before a criminal says "A pound of pot gets me six months in jail. An uzi gets me 15 years. I'm ditching the uzi."?

It's not instantaneous, but the effects percolate outwards.

Governments don't give rights... they are instituted to protect the rights from being taken away.

Did you notice when you quoted the first paragraph of the American Declaration of Independance, it mentions Life early on, but doesn't mention being allowed to end life?

THAT'S what I'm on about.

Also, who wrote that paper? Some guys that formed your government.

The UN (of which you're a member) has its own list of rights. You guys don't go along with them. So which set overrides the other?

Honestly? If you ban them, and make it an offense to have one, then after a suitable period for the law abiding types to turn theirs in (possibly for renumeration), anybody else who has one is a criminal. Because it's against the law. You find one, you punish the owner.

Find a criminal with one, even if it's in a safe and not being used? Charge him up the ass for it. You Americans often (based on the tv news we get from you up here) like to talk about stiffer penalities. There you go.

How long before a criminal says "A pound of pot gets me six months in jail. An uzi gets me 15 years. I'm ditching the uzi."?

It's not instantaneous, but the effects percolate outwards.

Criminals do not care if a weapon is illegal or not. That is indeed why they are criminals, and that is purely by definiton.

Banning any weapon, such as an Assault Rifle, simply keeps it in criminal hands, and out of citizens, which goes against the exact purpose of the 2nd Ammendment.

Crack down on the criminals I say, not the lawfully-abiding citizens.

Criminals do not care if a weapon is illegal or not. That is indeed why they are criminals, and that is purely by definiton.

Banning any weapon, such as an Assault Rifle, simply keeps it in criminal hands, and out of citizens, which goes against the exact purpose of the 2nd Ammendment.

Crack down on the criminals I say, not the lawfully-abiding citizens.

If you've read the thread, you've seen all the statistics quoted. If you haven't, then let me tell you that the US has a horrific rate of people shot and killed. Way above other comparable countries, even with per capita figured in.

Canada has as many or more guns per capita than the US.

And yet way fewer people are shot, why is that? Same basic demographics. Cities have crime, crime means criminals. Criminals can get guns. Lots of households have them too.

And yet... people aren't dropping like flies. Can you hazard a guess as to why?

Would you like to see such a situation in the US?

I'm sure the other countries similar to the US in makeup could tell you similar stories.

So why are you guys killing each other so much more?

The old "but criminals will still get guns" card is looking a little worn out and tattered. That's like saying "why regulate fissionable materials - terrorists will still get their hands on it"...or is regulating fissionable materials impugning on the rights of law-abiding nuclear power plant owners? :p [j/k]

The old "but criminals will still get guns" card is looking a little worn out and tattered. That's like saying "why regulate fissionable materials - terrorists will still get their hands on it"...or is regulating fissionable materials impugning on the rights of law-abiding nuclear power plant owners? :p [j/k]

Possibly... remember that incident at three mile island, where it ended up as a dozen quarter-mile islands? lol

I do kind of wish that people would look at the existing examples and see that other countries don't get overrun with gun-toting criminals though. Not that an American solution would be a carbon copy, but that it can work.

*sigh*

Well, I can't find my pocket constitution so I repeat as close from memory as I can.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of the free state, the right of the public to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Before we yell about this being made up, lets look at our bill of rights. Okay, notice the phrase A well regulated militia That gives the federal government the right to regulate what weapons people can own, how, and where they can buy them.

Now for some History.

The founding fathers were afraid of democracy. Don't believe me? Go back and look at U.S. history notes. The founders riddled the constitution with stopgap measures to halt pure democracy. They didn't even want the bill of rights in the first place but faced serious opposition from Sam Adams and Patrick Henry (gun nuts can thank those two), so they had to put in the Bill of Rights.

Since they hated pure democracy, the founders put in a provision that gave them enough control over what the populace did to prevent successful armed uprisings. Mainly, the right of the federal government to regulate the arms industry. Now true, you do have the right to own guns, but, due to the loophole the founders put in, the government gets to regulate that gun.

Still don't believe me? Well, its up to you to look back into history for yourself then.

You have 2nd contradicting itself. (A well regulated militia/shall not be infringed) You have to read the words as they were interpreted when written.

Use organized in place of regulated.

The 2nd looks very diferent with a little understanding.

The Founding Fathers were afraid of putting in a Bill of Rights not because they hated pure democracy, you nincompoop. They were afraid of the government denying rights not specifically mentioned in it. That is why the 9th and 10th ammendments are there.

The Founding Fathers were afraid of putting in a Bill of Rights not because they hated pure democracy, you nincompoop. They were afraid of the government denying rights not specifically mentioned in it. That is why the 9th and 10th ammendments are there.

As a non-American, would you mind telling me what the 9th and 10 ammendments are? I don't have them memorized. :P

You don't have to quote them, since if I wasn't too lazy to look them up I would. Just the gist of them. Thanks in advance. :)

As a non-American, would you mind telling me what the 9th and 10 ammendments are? I don't have them memorized. :P

You don't have to quote them, since if I wasn't too lazy to look them up I would. Just the gist of them. Thanks in advance. :)

Basically rights not specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights cannot be infringed.

For instance the government couldn't prohibit cell phones because cell phones aren't mentioned in the Constitution, etc.

Pretty much stuff like that for the 9th.

Basically what those amendments are about is that the rights contained within the Bill of Rights is not a complete list.

For the 10th, powers not specifically given to the government are powers they cannot have.

The way that I underst the CONSTITUTION and The BILL OF RIGHTS.

In keeping with the SPIRIT of the core laws of this land.

The Federal government was meant to be weak against it`s the citizens of
this country.
The Federal government would protect the borders.
Furthermore,you can not vote away your, or anothers rights.
The CONSTITUTION and the BILL OF RIGHTS is not only there to protect
us. It also stands as a warning!
A warning to be mindfull of those who seek to govern you.
Patiotism, is not fighting amongst ourselfs.
Nore is it patriotic to blindly wave our flags at every battle cry.
Patriotism is knowing that this government will not serve and protect us
if we do not know the SPIRIT of both the CONSTITUTION and the BILL OF RIGHTS.
Patiotism is when you hold the government in check.

Perhaps your laws are different down there in how they intrepret such infringement.

You on your property able to do anything you like puts "psychic" pressure on those around you (for lack of a better term). Regardless of what you do or don't do.

Bah, I explained this badly. When I get a little sleep and I eat, remind me and I'll try again. :P


That was indeed interesting. :) Emotional security is not guaranteed in the Constitution. So, psychic pressure is rather irrelevant in the argument. If someone's going to worry about it so much, they need help dealing with the rest of the world. It comes down to "fix yourself before you try to fix anyone else".

This is why I have the philosophy, "I won't do anything to you, if you don't do anything to me."


I don't like a lot of the ethics that seem to go along with them, but law is a complex thing. A lot of the wording isn't exactly in everyday english, but I don't begrudge that. Sometimes you need specialized words and language to define a very specific thing.

Lawyers have the knowledge to make sense of all of that. Along with torts and such. They have their uses.


I believe the church in the middle ages kept the masses illiterate to maintain control. The lawyers are doing the same thing in the US, unfortunately. Common law needs to come back.


I'll fall back to those socialist rights that you like in principle but not if you have to help extend them to others - water, air, food, shelter, health, safety. :)


Air, food, water, and shelter are necessities to live. Safety is a state of mind, and therefore, not really defineable in a strict sense.


They did what they did. Although that reminds me of something I wanted to ask: Why when veterans of your various wars return, have they often been essentially forgotten and left to fend for themselves? In my own life, I'm thinking of the vets from Vietnam, but there have been others.

I don't mean to dis, and I am pretty much against war, but that's just awful.


And I heartily agree with you. The Vietnam vets were blamed for the war/military action and "failure" of said action. They took the brunt of several "peace advocating" groups' venom.

Also, downsizing of military spending takes away from the veteran's affairs division (it's part of the military). Too many people think that by cutting down on defense spending, they're just stopping the manufacture of weapons. They're taking veteran's benefits away as well.

When I run into a vet, I always thank them for serving.


Government ought to administer, not rule.


I can buy into that, since it's what I think already. :)


Of course, but that was an example of proactive versus reactive. That's all.

Okee doke.

The Founding Fathers were afraid of putting in a Bill of Rights not because they hated pure democracy, you nincompoop. They were afraid of the government denying rights not specifically mentioned in it. That is why the 9th and 10th ammendments are there.
which is why bush wants to fill the supreme court with extreme conservatives to get his agenda pass which involve banning things based on his religious ideals - extreme one.

and if you would PAY ATTENTION you would realise the government has been usurping rights for a good 200 years, and they are trying to get more specific about it

do your research and come back

That's not what I meant by force rippling outwards. I mean the effects of YOU having your own enclave where you're boss has effects that ripple beyond your fenceline. People know you're there, and what you represent (if you don't obscure it) and their own lives change accordingly. Perhaps they'll be nervous about driving by, for example.

That sort of thing.

Yeah, here's where it boils down. I don't care if someone else is scared of me. It's not my job to make sure my neighbor is all happy and safe and secure before I am. There is no guarantee in the Constitution where it states you'll live with absolutely no fear and will always be happy.

I think it's ugly when people don't mow their lawns, and it grates on me. However, I don't go over to my neighbor to tell him what to do with his property. I don't have that right. Same goes for anyone telling me I can't own a particular type of weapon--especially since I haven't harmed anyone or anything with it.

They need to worry about their own stuff first, not me.

You have 2nd contradicting itself. (A well regulated militia/shall not be infringed) You have to read the words as they were interpreted when written.

Use organized in place of regulated.

The 2nd looks very diferent with a little understanding.
all right fair enough, how many militias do we have? militia being a state controlled entity as opposed to a federal controlled one, and to add, this was different at the time of the framers when there was a difference between federal and state government, that was knocked down and kicked by lincoln before being literally obliterated later

You don't have to leave. Your tourists are welcome to keep travelling. In fact, it should be required that everybody in your country travel to a country that requires a visa once every four years or lose their vote. :P

Since your country has an impact on the world, the people ought to know a bit about the world. What do you think? :)

<disengage pie in the sky mode>

I think we need to have less of an impact on the world, honestly.

I was talking about the military, when I said to get everyone out of other countries. :) But then again, I'm pretty sure you knew that.

Did you notice when you quoted the first paragraph of the American Declaration of Independance, it mentions Life early on, but doesn't mention being allowed to end life?

THAT'S what I'm on about.

Also, who wrote that paper? Some guys that formed your government.

The UN (of which you're a member) has its own list of rights. You guys don't go along with them. So which set overrides the other?

The US rights override any other list, in this country. Legally. I would support them overriding any other list in any other country, but that's not my place to decide.

Basically rights not specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights cannot be infringed.

For instance the government couldn't prohibit cell phones because cell phones aren't mentioned in the Constitution, etc.

Pretty much stuff like that for the 9th.

Surely you're not telling me that cell phones are considered a right?! :P

For the 10th, powers not specifically given to the government are powers they cannot have.

THIS is something that makes perfect sense to me. Since a government is an accumulation of power, you must be careful not to make it rapacious and all-consuming.

holy run away freight train Batman, I just looked and this is the 90th page.

Actually cell phones could be argued as a right as they are tools of freedom of speech.
Most laws concerning cell phone use in cars get around this by banning "distracted driving"

The way that I underst the CONSTITUTION and The BILL OF RIGHTS.

In keeping with the SPIRIT of the core laws of this land.

The Federal government was meant to be weak against it`s the citizens of
this country.

I disagree. Totally and completely.

Government (in my opinion) should be viewed as a tool to implement the way that the people want to live. And you don't deliberately weaken a tool you intend to use. That's foolish.

You control and manage your tool so that it does what it's supposed to, but you never let it escape being your tool. Weak governments are awful. Germany was weak before Hitler took power. The Russians too before Germany. China was before it went "communist".

Don't weaken anything. Keep your government/tool firmly in hand, and keep it accountable.

Furthermore,you can not vote away your, or anothers rights.

Times change. Either now, or in the future, it's conceivable that the people of the US would want to remove a right granted to them by their government because it no longer applies in any meaningful sense, but perhaps exists as an impediment.

Conversely, it's just as conceivable that the people would want to ADD a right to those that are currently granted by their government. Things aren't unalterable. It should be done with considerable care and attention, but the people shouldn't find their rights a yoke.

Just my two cents worth.

This is why I have the philosophy, "I won't do anything to you, if you don't do anything to me."

Sorry, I'd need to know we're all playing by the same basic rules. The above isn't in your constitution either. :P

I believe the church in the middle ages kept the masses illiterate to maintain control. The lawyers are doing the same thing in the US, unfortunately. Common law needs to come back.

I don't think common law is the way to go.

Are there places where the law could be less Byzantine? Certainly. However, I also think that teaching children in public school (and elsewhere, but as part of education) to think in legal terms is a good thing.

By that, I don't mean train them to be lawyers of course. I just mean teach kids the knack of seeing something from multiple points of view, and teach them to pay attention to minutae.

Air, food, water, and shelter are necessities to live. Safety is a state of mind, and therefore, not really defineable in a strict sense.

Safety is defined, according to this little dictionary that happened to be near the top of this pile of books and thus within easy reach, as "the condition of being safe; freedom from danger, risk, or injury". Works for me.

And I heartily agree with you. The Vietnam vets were blamed for the war/military action and "failure" of said action. They took the brunt of several "peace advocating" groups' venom.

I can't remember if I included this in my previous post, so apologies if I'm repeating.

Taking a page from the British, our government created the Commissionaires. Basically it started with the idea that we owe our veterans more than a pension. And since they had skills, the government built a security agency that employed them. By law, they get first choice of Federal security jobs. If they demure, others can have them.

Eventually, the Commissionaires opened up to former police, and eventually to people that were descendants of vets or other such things.

I think it's a good idea, frankly.

Also, downsizing of military spending takes away from the veteran's affairs division (it's part of the military). Too many people think that by cutting down on defense spending, they're just stopping the manufacture of weapons. They're taking veteran's benefits away as well.

I'm all for you downsizing your military. Where they allocate the funding that they have is another matter. Don't forget where you came from. Tomohawk missile launchers didn't serve your country. Veterans did. :P

I can buy into that, since it's what I think already. :)

Because you're a clever fellow. ;)

Yeah, here's where it boils down. I don't care if someone else is scared of me. It's not my job to make sure my neighbor is all happy and safe and secure before I am. There is no guarantee in the Constitution where it states you'll live with absolutely no fear and will always be happy.

I think it's ugly when people don't mow their lawns, and it grates on me. However, I don't go over to my neighbor to tell him what to do with his property. I don't have that right. Same goes for anyone telling me I can't own a particular type of weapon--especially since I haven't harmed anyone or anything with it.

They need to worry about their own stuff first, not me.

Tell me, wouldn't you worry about your family (if you don't have one, assume you do for this example) about someone that you don't know having access to easy to use weapons living next door to you?

When the guy next door has a frustrating day at work, and comes home to find his family has left him, and he's been drinking, do you really want him having access to something that in a moment could alter you or your family's life in an instant? Regrets are all well and good, but is that enough for you?

I'd much rather that if he has a gun, it's a rifle. You can't hide it, you can't stick it in your pocket to be pulled out when it's convenient. You have to KNOW that you're carrying it, the entire way across the yard or the McDonald's parking lot.

If nobody can tell you what kind of weapon you can own, the same applies for him. Do you REALLY want him with a grenade laucher and being as pissed as I described above right when you're having a party and he can hear the music and laughter and it finally pushes his rage too far?

Aside from the abstract (since I'll assume you don't own any esoteric firearms), how would it really infringe on you to be told you can't have the cannon off of a destroyer? Or rounds for your gun that can penetrate a meter of concrete? Or a rocket launcher?

I think we need to have less of an impact on the world, honestly.

How about a compromise - perhaps America should have a different impact on the world than it does currently? :)

I was talking about the military, when I said to get everyone out of other countries. :) But then again, I'm pretty sure you knew that.

I did. But I still think a little increase in world awareness by your citizens would be to everyone's benefit. :)

The US rights override any other list, in this country. Legally. I would support them overriding any other list in any other country, but that's not my place to decide.

Wow. Why would you think that the rights granted to you by your government ought to override the rights given to me by mine?

holy run away freight train Batman, I just looked and this is the 90th page.

Actually cell phones could be argued as a right as they are tools of freedom of speech.
Most laws concerning cell phone use in cars get around this by banning "distracted driving"

I think it's a long stretch to define "freedom of speech" as "being able to communicate at will across any medium if the technology exists".

Surely it means (or was meant to mean) that the most offensive or controversial speech was not to be suppressed by the government.

Am I wrong? How has "free speech" historically been defined, legally?

which is why bush wants to fill the supreme court with extreme conservatives to get his agenda pass which involve banning things based on his religious ideals - extreme one.

and if you would PAY ATTENTION you would realise the government has been usurping rights for a good 200 years, and they are trying to get more specific about it

do your research and come back

Where did I mention the Bush administration in my post, or any administration for that matter?

Where did I say the Government is usurping any powers they should not have?

Who's point are you trying to refute?

Another thing, wtf is your problem?

all right fair enough, how many militias do we have? militia being a state controlled entity as opposed to a federal controlled one, and to add, this was different at the time of the framers when there was a difference between federal and state government, that was knocked down and kicked by lincoln before being literally obliterated later

You read my mind.
Slavery was on it`s way out any way.
Inporting slaves was already illegal.
$900.00 per slave+room & board+clothing+armed guard.
Ever wonder why the rail-roads hired Chinese and or Irish immigrants for
15 cents a day?
Lincoln realy did some damage.

Yes...

"And thy good Lord said "Let thee Americans have Automatic Assault Rifles and have the highest homicide rate in the world!" And his word was good and Jesus joined the NRA and went shooting for deer with his Tomahawk missiles"


Talk about hyperbole.

How about some dialog not going off with standard "GUN CONTROL DIATRIBE". Do you even know how much a Tomahawk missile costs? I guess Jesus should just use his own two hands.

It is the act or use that should be illegal not the the owning of a gun. If you murder someone with a gun, knife, baseball bat, bare hands, etc., then you get a needle in the ole arm and meet your maker. If you shoot a gun off in Times Square and you are not defending yourself or someone else - you get a big fine and maybe even some time behind bars. Let's use some common sense here, not baseless emotion crap.

Tell me, wouldn't you worry about your family (if you don't have one, assume you do for this example) about someone that you don't know having access to easy to use weapons living next door to you?

When the guy next door has a frustrating day at work, and comes home to find his family has left him, and he's been drinking, do you really want him having access to something that in a moment could alter you or your family's life in an instant? Regrets are all well and good, but is that enough for you?

I'd much rather that if he has a gun, it's a rifle. You can't hide it, you can't stick it in your pocket to be pulled out when it's convenient. You have to KNOW that you're carrying it, the entire way across the yard or the McDonald's parking lot.

If nobody can tell you what kind of weapon you can own, the same applies for him. Do you REALLY want him with a grenade laucher and being as pissed as I described above right when you're having a party and he can hear the music and laughter and it finally pushes his rage too far?

Aside from the abstract (since I'll assume you don't own any esoteric firearms), how would it really infringe on you to be told you can't have the cannon off of a destroyer? Or rounds for your gun that can penetrate a meter of concrete? Or a rocket launcher?

What if your neighbor drove a semi-truck? Do you really want him having access to something that in a moment could alter you or your family's life in an instant? Regrets are all well and good, but is that enough for you?

Why is it stupid to try and rob a bar that is a major hangout for police officers? How about, because they have guns. Try this on for size:

Someone walks into a Mickey Ds and pulls out a handgun and starts waving it around - half of the patrons pull out their handgun and point it at the idiot. Police come and take the idiot to the morgue or jail.

There are a lot of places in America, you can own a cannon off of a destroyer. If someone makes it, then someone can afford or steal it and they do not give a damn about any law.

Laws do not make you safer - a world of good moral people does.

It is the act or use that should be illegal not the the owning of a gun. If you murder someone with a gun, knife, baseball bat, bare hands, etc., then you get a needle in the ole arm and meet your maker. If you shoot a gun off in Times Square and you are not defending yourself or someone else - you get a big fine and maybe even some time behind bars. Let's use some common sense here, not baseless emotion crap.

Wellllllll, in a perfect world.

But try this: with a knife or a baseball bat or your bare hands, if I'm one big step away from you then you can't touch me. If I retreat, you can't touch me.

I suppose you could throw the bat or knife, but those aren't going to work particularly well unless you're one unusual thrower.

Even some of the classical ranged weapons, like bows or slings require strength or skill to be able to use effectively, not to mention the low range and reload rate.

But with a gun, you don't need skill to kill someone with it. Can you become skilled with a gun? Of course you can. But you don't need to. When I run away from you and you're still pissed, you can shoot me dead. You can also conceal a gun (handgun) and that changes dynamics.

A gun isn't comparable to all of those things. You can put them all in the box labeled "weapons", but that doesn't make them equal. Go kill a moose with a baseball bat or your hands.

At this point I'd like to repeat that I'm not for banning guns. Restricting them and controlling who has them, certainly.

And... "base emotion crap"? That's not so nice - I've heard many an argument about being able to have guns just as baseless and emotional.

"It's our right!"
"Guns don't kill people, people kill people!"

Et cetera ad nauseum.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


++++++++++++++

Does anyone need me to break it down for them, who do not understand the formatting or wording of the above sentence?

Impeach judges that go beyond the bounds of their charter.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


++++++++++++++

Does anyone need me to break it down for them, who do not understand the formatting or wording of the above sentence?

Impeach judges that go beyond the bounds of their charter.

Yes, we should track down and impeach that bastard who decided private citizens can't buy Stingers or M136 launchers! :mad:

What if your neighbor drove a semi-truck? Do you really want him having access to something that in a moment could alter you or your family's life in an instant? Regrets are all well and good, but is that enough for you?

Very nice. Now conceal a semi-truck under your jacket, walk into a club, school, theatre, restaurant and run everybody over. Then pocket your truck and drop it off the nearest bridge so you can get away clean.

Doesn't exactly compare, does it?

And while many people have been deliberately shot, a semi-truck doesn't seem to be a weapon of choice for many. I'd say that's important.

Why is it stupid to try and rob a bar that is a major hangout for police officers? How about, because they have guns. Try this on for size:

Someone walks into a Mickey Ds and pulls out a handgun and starts waving it around - half of the patrons pull out their handgun and point it at the idiot. Police come and take the idiot to the morgue or jail.

Try an alternative in another place: someone walks into a McDonalds in Canada and pulls out a handgun and starts waving it around. Nobody is armed, since it's almost unheard of to carry concealed.

But instead of being stressed at the thought of being cut down by guns, the perp is somewhat calmer, which is good when you're brandishing a weapon. And the police, while they'll shoot him if there's no other choice (we have a guide to what's appropriate force here called the 1 + 1 rule, which is basically that you can use the same level of force someone else is using, or at a maximum you can raise it one level), they don't want to shoot him. We don't have the death penalty here, and so police shooting someone like that IS sentencing him to death, unless it's deemed that the threat to the public good is so much that it outweighs his right to live.

And people don't get shot as much here as they do there. You know, the place where people get to CARRY GUNS AROUND. See where I'm going with this?

There are a lot of places in America, you can own a cannon off of a destroyer. If someone makes it, then someone can afford or steal it and they do not give a damn about any law.

Is that a uniquely American thing, do you think?

Laws do not make you safer - a world of good moral people does.

Since you said the "m" word (moral), then I'll dump the following question on you. You gave the McDonalds example, and I countered with a local (to me) one.

Which way is the more moral one, in your opinion?

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


++++++++++++++

Does anyone need me to break it down for them, who do not understand the formatting or wording of the above sentence?

Impeach judges that go beyond the bounds of their charter.

Actually yes, break it down for me.

Can you not have a free State without a well regulated militia? Specifically, under whose "control" is this militia? Don't say "the people's", because in reality that doesn't happen. So who is the one deciding a State is no longer free and thus an armed body must be deployed? And deployed to where? And how are they to utilize those arms they have to make the State free once again?

I'm not American, obviously. It seems ridiculous to me that people think they need or can use weapons to affect political change. But not you?

Can you (to help, not so I can slash it to ribbons) construct a specific scenario for me, set in modern day, with real players (politicals) and something that seems to be an obvious extension of what's happening today?

You cannot rely on other people to protect you, inlcluding your neighbors. Kitty Genovese learned that the hard way.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/predators/kitty_genovese/

Not even a restraining order got the job done for Diane Malone, who was murdered by her husband in front of her children.

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/ny-lilong0916,0,4729128.story?coll=ny-li-span-headlines

Wellllllll, in a perfect world.

But try this: with a knife or a baseball bat or your bare hands, if I'm one big step away from you then you can't touch me. If I retreat, you can't touch me.

I suppose you could throw the bat or knife, but those aren't going to work particularly well unless you're one unusual thrower.

Even some of the classical ranged weapons, like bows or slings require strength or skill to be able to use effectively, not to mention the low range and reload rate.

But with a gun, you don't need skill to kill someone with it. Can you become skilled with a gun? Of course you can. But you don't need to. When I run away from you and you're still pissed, you can shoot me dead. You can also conceal a gun (handgun) and that changes dynamics.

A gun isn't comparable to all of those things. You can put them all in the box labeled "weapons", but that doesn't make them equal. Go kill a moose with a baseball bat or your hands.

At this point I'd like to repeat that I'm not for banning guns. Restricting them and controlling who has them, certainly.

And... "base emotion crap"? That's not so nice - I've heard many an argument about being able to have guns just as baseless and emotional.

"It's our right!"
"Guns don't kill people, people kill people!"

Et cetera ad nauseum.

If this was a perfect world, we would not be posting about gun control.

So, you are trying to tell me that noone has been killed by a baseball bat, knife, or bare hands because all they had to do was back up or run away, or are you trying to say there are a lot of stupid people out there that do not know that that was all they had to do?

You must have never shot a gun, to think it does not require some skill to hit someone who is running away(or just plain luck). Holding the gun to someone head and pulling the trigger, does not require much skill (ya just need to know how to flip the safety off) but if I was that close I could just as well cut your throat.

Ahhh, now you want me to believe that hunters 3000 years ago did not club moose to death.

I believe I posted "Let's use some common sense here, not baseless emotion crap." I did not post "...not Gun Control Nuts baseless emotional crap."

The problem with gun control is where the line is, hence the second admendment states that the people's right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

You cannot rely on other people to protect you, inlcluding your neighbors. Kitty Genovese learned that the hard way.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/predators/kitty_genovese/

Not even a restraining order got the job done for Diane Malone, who was murdered by her husband in front of her children.

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/ny-lilong0916,0,4729128.story?coll=ny-li-span-headlines

Quite right.

Both of those stories were in the US, where were all the law-abiding gun-carrying citizens that people in this thread are telling me help make things safer?

If guns weren't as easily available, would these sorts of things happen as often as they do?

Hopefully a different answer than "criminals can always get guns" will be typed by someone.

Quite right.

Both of those stories were in the US, where were all the law-abiding gun-carrying citizens that people in this thread are telling me help make things safer?


When referring to gun-carrying citizens, we are talking about it on an individual basis. This reverts back to my saying of you need to protect yourself and not rely on others.

If Kitty had indeed been armed, as well as Diane, they would of been able to live out their lives.

If this was a perfect world, we would not be posting about gun control.

So, you are trying to tell me that noone has been killed by a baseball bat, knife, or bare hands because all they had to do was back up or run away, or are you trying to say there are a lot of stupid people out there that do not know that that was all they had to do?

Are you telling me that you don't recognise a difference between a gun and a baseball bat? Or someone's hands? Or a knife?

Because if so, I'm not sure I have the strength to go through this again after all of these pages.

Does that mean there's no difference between a baseball bat and a rocket launcher?

You must have never shot a gun, to think it does not require some skill to hit someone who is running away(or just plain luck). Holding the gun to someone head and pulling the trigger, does not require much skill (ya just need to know how to flip the safety off) but if I was that close I could just as well cut your throat.

It takes less skill that throwing a bat. Or throwing a punch that kills. Like I said earlier, YES you can get skilled at using a gun. But isn't one of the great advantages to guns that guns=protection people tout that anybody can use one, regardless of strength or training? Do you see that that is also a major liability?

Ahhh, now you want me to believe that hunters 3000 years ago did not club moose to death.

3000 years ago? Probably not. At least not primarily.

Could you do it now? I bet someone from 3000 years ago could figure out how to use a gun faster than you could learn to use a club to kill a moose.

I can't swing from the trees like my forebears did 250000 years ago either. What of it?

I believe I posted "Let's use some common sense here, not baseless emotion crap." I did not post "...not Gun Control Nuts baseless emotional crap."

The problem with gun control is where the line is, hence the second admendment states that the people's right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

It's a piece of paper. It can be changed.

You can't change people from being dead to being alive.

You tell me which is more important.

Tell me also if it's infringing on those second amendment rights to say that you need to not have a criminal record to own a gun. Nothing about that in the 2nd amendment. So if you prevent them, you're infringing on their rights after they've paid their debt to society! Right?

You don't test people for mental compentency before they get a gun either. Should you? Just because someone hasn't been to a doctor and been diagnosed doesn't mean they're sane and competant.

Is your current system really as good as it could and should be?

Very nice. Now conceal a semi-truck under your jacket, walk into a club, school, theatre, restaurant and run everybody over. Then pocket your truck and drop it off the nearest bridge so you can get away clean.

Doesn't exactly compare, does it?

And while many people have been deliberately shot, a semi-truck doesn't seem to be a weapon of choice for many. I'd say that's important.



Try an alternative in another place: someone walks into a McDonalds in Canada and pulls out a handgun and starts waving it around. Nobody is armed, since it's almost unheard of to carry concealed.

But instead of being stressed at the thought of being cut down by guns, the perp is somewhat calmer, which is good when you're brandishing a weapon. And the police, while they'll shoot him if there's no other choice (we have a guide to what's appropriate force here called the 1 + 1 rule, which is basically that you can use the same level of force someone else is using, or at a maximum you can raise it one level), they don't want to shoot him. We don't have the death penalty here, and so police shooting someone like that IS sentencing him to death, unless it's deemed that the threat to the public good is so much that it outweighs his right to live.

And people don't get shot as much here as they do there. You know, the place where people get to CARRY GUNS AROUND. See where I'm going with this?



Is that a uniquely American thing, do you think?



Since you said the "m" word (moral), then I'll dump the following question on you. You gave the McDonalds example, and I countered with a local (to me) one.

Which way is the more moral one, in your opinion?


Because the truck does not need to be concealed, but driving it through a McDs will and has killed a lot of people. I was trying to be nice but you went off on the nobody gets hurt tangent so...

Someone walks into a school and starts shooting people, before that someone can shoot more than a couple people three armed teachers drill that someone with thier weapons. Loss of life kept to a minimum.

Your way:
Someone walks into a school and starts shooting people, eighteen students and teachers dead, twelve wounded before that someone decides to kill him/her/itself.

Yes, it is a cultural difference. You can do whatever you want in your country, please let me do what I want in my country.

You need to pay attention when you read posts. I posted "...good moral...". If you do not know what is "good morals" are there is not much I can do to explain it to you.

When referring to gun-carrying citizens, we are talking about it on an individual basis. This reverts back to my saying of you need to protect yourself and not rely on others.

If Kitty had indeed been armed, as well as Diane, they would of been able to live out their lives.

That last is a bit of a strong statement, don't you think?

You're now telling me that people who are armed don't get killed?

Very nice. Now conceal a semi-truck under your jacket, walk into a club, school, theatre, restaurant and run everybody over. Then pocket your truck and drop it off the nearest bridge so you can get away clean.

Doesn't exactly compare, does it?

And while many people have been deliberately shot, a semi-truck doesn't seem to be a weapon of choice for many. I'd say that's important.



Try an alternative in another place: someone walks into a McDonalds in Canada and pulls out a handgun and starts waving it around. Nobody is armed, since it's almost unheard of to carry concealed.

But instead of being stressed at the thought of being cut down by guns, the perp is somewhat calmer, which is good when you're brandishing a weapon. And the police, while they'll shoot him if there's no other choice (we have a guide to what's appropriate force here called the 1 + 1 rule, which is basically that you can use the same level of force someone else is using, or at a maximum you can raise it one level), they don't want to shoot him. We don't have the death penalty here, and so police shooting someone like that IS sentencing him to death, unless it's deemed that the threat to the public good is so much that it outweighs his right to live.

And people don't get shot as much here as they do there. You know, the place where people get to CARRY GUNS AROUND. See where I'm going with this?



Is that a uniquely American thing, do you think?



Since you said the "m" word (moral), then I'll dump the following question on you. You gave the McDonalds example, and I countered with a local (to me) one.

Which way is the more moral one, in your opinion?

Because the truck does not need to be concealed, but driving it through a McDs will and has killed a lot of people. I was trying to be nice but you went off on the nobody gets hurt tangent so...

Someone walks into a school and starts shooting people, before that someone can shoot more than a couple people three armed teachers drill that someone with thier weapons. Loss of life kept to a minimum.

Your way:
Someone walks into a school and starts shooting people, eighteen students and teachers dead, twelve wounded before that someone decides to kill him/her/itself.

Yes, it is a cultural difference. You can do whatever you want in your country, please let me do what I want in my country.

You need to pay attention when you read posts. I posted "...good moral...". If you do not know what is "good morals" are there is not much I can do to explain it to you.

It's a piece of paper. It can be changed.

You can't change people from being dead to being alive.

You tell me which is more important.

By changing the 2nd Amendment you are treating the symptoms of the problem, not the cause.

You are more likely to be killed by mother nature or drowning here in the United States than a ranting loonie with a firearm.

You are also 3 times more likely to get killed during a medical procedure than an accidentally discharging firearm.

These are indisputable facts, yet I don't see a ban on swimming or medical practice.

Confoozles the brain it does.

That last is a bit of a strong statement, don't you think?

You're now telling me that people who are armed don't get killed?

No, I am telling you that an armed citizen of the United States has a far better chance of reaching safety, or protecting themselves, whilst armed and confronted with a criminal.

It's a matter of logic really.

Because the truck does not need to be concealed, but driving it through a McDs will and has killed a lot of people. I was trying to be nice but you went off on the nobody gets hurt tangent so...

Did I? I said nobody gets hurt if...?

Your death due to guns rate is HORRIFIC. Other places it isn't. But you'd deny that guns have anything to do with it?

Someone walks into a school and starts shooting people, before that someone can shoot more than a couple people three armed teachers drill that someone with thier weapons. Loss of life kept to a minimum.

Hmmm, so why aren't teachers allowed to carry? Other than in the emotion-swept times immediately after such a tragedy, what do people say and vote about arming teachers?

Your way:
Someone walks into a school and starts shooting people, eighteen students and teachers dead, twelve wounded before that someone decides to kill him/her/itself.

My way: people don't walk into a school and start shooting people.

In my memory, it's happened once here. How many times has it happened there?

Yes, it is a cultural difference. You can do whatever you want in your country, please let me do what I want in my country.

A cultural difference, eh? That we respect human life enough not to take it as casually as you do? That's a barbarous difference.

To call it a cultural difference sounds like you're saying "This is the way we like to do things down here, so we're not going to change it.". IS that what you're telling me?

I AM letting you do what you want in your country, since I can't affect it. Other than by showing you other ways to live. Some of your own citizens in this thread don't agree with you either. If I was an American, what would you have replaced "You can do whatever you want in your country, please let me do what I want in my county" with?

You need to pay attention when you read posts. I posted "...good moral...". If you do not know what is "good morals" are there is not much I can do to explain it to you.

I don't kill people, and my countrymen don't tend to either. The comparatively low murder rate (by guns if you want to narrow it, since that IS what the thread is about) shows that. Remind me who doesn't know what "good morals" are again?

Or is it something other than morality that has so many people being shot and killed down there?

No, I am telling you that an armed citizen of the United States has a far better chance of reaching safety, or protecting themselves, whilst armed and confronted with a criminal.

It's a matter of logic really.

Yep, they also have a greater chance of accidentally killing a family member or houseguest if they hear a noise downstairs and get jittery...

Yep, they also have a greater chance of accidnetally killing a family member or houseguest if they hear a noise downstairs and get jittery...


Yep, that's true.

But then again I don't like to negotiate with burglars in my home with a checkbook as some others on these forums would.

By changing the 2nd Amendment you are treating the symptoms of the problem, not the cause.

I'd settle for treating the symptoms to buy some time for you folks to figure out what the problem is and how to fix it.

I've asked a few times (since I wasn't brought up IN the culture, so some of the associations make no sense to me as an outsider) but none of you good folks that don't resent me yapping as much as I do have really been able to nail down the problem, or even more importantly, how to fix it. What can I say?

You are more likely to be killed by mother nature or drowning here in the United States than a ranting loonie with a firearm.
You are also 3 times more likely to get killed during a medical procedure than an accidentally discharging firearm.
These are indisputable facts, yet I don't see a ban on swimming or medical practice.
Confoozles the brain it does.

Not in the slightest. During a medical procedure the intent isn't to kill someone. Presumeably few of the people who drown intended to. Mother Nature is a bitch sometimes, but there's no intent.

Animals in your trunk that accidently pull the trigger and blast the driver aside, wouldn't you say a fair thwack of people that are shot and killed were deliberately shot?

Are you telling me that you don't recognise a difference between a gun and a baseball bat? Or someone's hands? Or a knife?

Because if so, I'm not sure I have the strength to go through this again after all of these pages.

Does that mean there's no difference between a baseball bat and a rocket launcher?

I can tell the difference between the weapons, but dead is still dead no matter what kills you. Whether it be a car, rock or even a tornado - dead is dead. No law can stop you from being dead. How many people are killed or maimed in auto accidents? More than people killed by guns.



It takes less skill that throwing a bat. Or throwing a punch that kills. Like I said earlier, YES you can get skilled at using a gun. But isn't one of the great advantages to guns that guns=protection people tout that anybody can use one, regardless of strength or training? Do you see that that is also a major liability?



3000 years ago? Probably not. At least not primarily.

Could you do it now? I bet someone from 3000 years ago could figure out how to use a gun faster than you could learn to use a club to kill a moose.

I can't swing from the trees like my forebears did 250000 years ago either. What of it?



It's a piece of paper. It can be changed.

You can't change people from being dead to being alive.

You tell me which is more important.

Tell me also if it's infringing on those second amendment rights to say that you need to not have a criminal record to own a gun. Nothing about that in the 2nd amendment. So if you prevent them, you're infringing on their rights after they've paid their debt to society! Right?

You don't test people for mental compentency before they get a gun either. Should you? Just because someone hasn't been to a doctor and been diagnosed doesn't mean they're sane and competant.

Is your current system really as good as it could and should be?

Nothing is perfect. When you break law(s) you lose some of your rights. If you are a law-abiding citizen you should not be denied your rights.

No, I am telling you that an armed citizen of the United States has a far better chance of reaching safety, or protecting themselves, whilst armed and confronted with a criminal.

It's a matter of logic really.

It's a matter of logic to me that people shouldn't shoot others. I've got Canada's statistics to show for it.

Do you have some statistics to back up that an armed person has ANY better chance of reaching safety or protecting themselves?

Logic is a wonderful thing, but I don't agree with yours. And lots of people are dying. That doesn't happen in other similar places. So how can logic give different results?

I'd settle for treating the symptoms to buy some time for you folks to figure out what the problem is and how to fix it.


Having far stricter laws, maybe even an eye-for-an-eye law system, would severely cut down on crime. I highly doubt anyone is going to attempt to burglarize if when they are cut their hand is promptly cut off!

But on a more serious note, there are so many factors that deal with crime, it is unfair to point solely at firearms and say "THERE'S THE PROBLEM RIGHT THERE!".

I've asked a few times (since I wasn't brought up IN the culture, so some of the associations make no sense to me as an outsider) but none of you good folks that don't resent me yapping as much as I do have really been able to nail down the problem, or even more importantly, how to fix it. What can I say?

All you can say is "Hey, I realize there is a problem, but what other factors are causing it". Infact, I think this is something a lot of people need to do when discussing the current problems with both crime and firearms.

Not in the slightest. During a medical procedure the intent isn't to kill someone. Presumeably few of the people who drown intended to. Mother Nature is a bitch sometimes, but there's no intent.

There may not be intent, however, there are more deaths. These are real statistics, and I kid you not; guns are often described as evil and killers of innocent children, but the fact of the matter is that I don't hear these same people complaining about firearms complaining about more people being killed by medical treatment!

Animals in your trunk that accidently pull the trigger and blast the driver aside, wouldn't you say a fair thwack of people that are shot and killed were deliberately shot?

In 2001, 25,123 died as a result of being assaulted by a firearm.

In the same year, 355,479 died of accidental discharge.

Now these numbers may be telling you "Hey, these fellers are not responsible", but there are gun safety rules for a reason; and when children are not supervised by their parents and are killed, the parents start screaming bloody-murder. You need to be a responsible gun owever, and obviously some people are quite incapable of it.

I can tell the difference between the weapons, but dead is still dead no matter what kills you. Whether it be a car, rock or even a tornado - dead is dead. No law can stop you from being dead. How many people are killed or maimed in auto accidents? More than people killed by guns.

It's a tired refrain, this guns=automobiles tactic. I see a difference. If you don't want to see one, fine.

As for laws, are more people breaking your laws than people are breaking our similar ones up here? If so, why?

You KNOW it's not because we have a more effective police force, or that we catch more of the criminals. You KNOW it's not that we have stiffer sentencing. You KNOW that we have as many or more guns here in Canada than you do.

So what's the difference? Culture? A culture that blows other parts of itself away is a cultural thing? Let's say that's what it is. What are you going to do? Throw up your hands and say "oh well" or change the damn culture?

Nothing is perfect. When you break law(s) you lose some of your rights. If you are a law-abiding citizen you should not be denied your rights.

Not trying to make anything perfect. Trying not to have people killed. A lot of them are dying by the gun.

Note I'm not saying to ban guns. For page after page in this thread I've said that, and I've stuck to it.

So you don't like anything I've brought to the table. As an American, what's your solution to the number of deaths due to gun? Or are you pretty okay with the current figures?

It's a matter of logic to me that people shouldn't shoot others. I've got Canada's statistics to show for it.

Only the moral adhere to that; people such as you and I. But criminals will be criminals as long as they can get away with it.

You simply cannot compare Canada to the United States. Canada has no illegal immigration to the scale of the United States, and is not "a nation composed of immigrants".

In towns where people have settled down (i.e., have been in the same neighborhood for 10+ years) there is a far less likely chance that a crime is to be committed.

But when people do not know eachother, and there is unrest, that is where crime starts to happen. Illegal immigration highly contributes to this problem. I am not going to delve further into the issue because I am a lazy bastard, and again, I am a lazy bastard.

Do you have some statistics to back up that an armed person has ANY better chance of reaching safety or protecting themselves?

Arghh, make me search for it will you:

-Guns are used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense

-Concealed carry laws have reduced murder and crime rates in the states that have enacted them.

-More guns, less crime. In the decade of the 1990s, the number of guns in this country increased by roughly 40 million—even while the murder rate decreased by almost 40% percent. Accidental gun deaths in the home decreased by almost 40 percent as well.

-Gun shows are NOT a primary source of illegal guns for criminals. According to two government studies, the National Institute of Justice reported in 1997 that "less than two percent [of criminals] reported obtaining [firearms] from a gun show. And the Bureau of Justice Statistics revealed in 2001 that less than one percent of firearm offenders acquired their weapons at gun shows.

-Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606). And readers of Newsweek learned that "only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The ‘error rate’ for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high."

Having far stricter laws, maybe even an eye-for-an-eye law system, would severely cut down on crime. I highly doubt anyone is going to attempt to burglarize if when they are cut their hand is promptly cut off!

I can remember a few years back when Florida bumped up the penalty for armed robbery to be equal with murder. So the rate of armed robberies went down, right?

Wrong. People who committed armed robberies were more inclined to kill people than they were before, since that way they wouldn't be leaving witnesses. And if they DID get caught, they wouldn't be sentenced any worse than if they hadn't tried to cover their tracks.

If think in your above example, you'd find more burglars willing to kill people that they encountered because they didn't want to lose their hands.

Plus, is introducing more violence the best solution here?

But on a more serious note, there are so many factors that deal with crime, it is unfair to point solely at firearms and say "THERE'S THE PROBLEM RIGHT THERE!".

Okay, THIS point I'm more than capable of answering simply. I never said it was the[i] problem, I'm saying [i]it's a problem that's easier to fix. That's an important distinction.

If dealing with the guns part of it slows the murder rate somewhat, isn't that worth it while you're wrestling with the big picture?

When you've bought yourself some time, then you can work for the Grand Unified Synthesis of Morality and Constitutional Rights. But in the meantime, stop killing each other. It seems simple enough.

All you can say is "Hey, I realize there is a problem, but what other factors are causing it". Infact, I think this is something a lot of people need to do when discussing the current problems with both crime and firearms.

Granted.

But just for the offical thread record ;) are you against the idea of reducing gun deaths?

There may not be intent, however, there are more deaths. These are real statistics, and I kid you not; guns are often described as evil and killers of innocent children, but the fact of the matter is that I don't hear these same people complaining about firearms complaining about more people being killed by medical treatment!

I don't know if American laws are different, but here (in Canada) intent is important. It's a factor in whether you're allowed to arrest someone, allowed to detain them, allowed to charge them with crimes. That's in the law.

If you clobber someone with your car, and you weren't doing it willfully, you're almost certainly not going to be criminally charged here. But since you did kill them, you are responsible for their death and might be tried in civil court.

So in a gross (as in heavy-handed) example of how pragmatism would work here, you ask "Do guns kill people? They do? Do people use them for that purpose deliberately? Let's reevaluate how we look at guns here."

Ask that same question about a medical operation. The surgeons do NOT kill people deliberately (I mean, I'm sure it's happened, but people don't acquire sutures and clamps to kill people), but some people die. Is is reasonable to remove the availability of operations? Of course not.

I know you see the difference, but I think you're arguing a point and not something pragmatic. Not a dis, but that's what I'm getting.

In 2001, 25,123 died as a result of being assaulted by a firearm.

In the same year, 355,479 died of accidental discharge.

Now these numbers may be telling you "Hey, these fellers are not responsible", but there are gun safety rules for a reason; and when children are not supervised by their parents and are killed, the parents start screaming bloody-murder. You need to be a responsible gun owever, and obviously some people are quite incapable of it.

While I'm not sure about the accidental discharge figures "Yes officer, the gun just went off and killed my wife.", those numbers are way higher than so many other comparable countries. What's the dealio?!

"An armed society is a polite society"

Myself, I live in Alaska, "The Last Frontier".

I'm an active hunter and fishermen. I don't hunt strictly for pleasure (though I take pleasure in hunting).

I carry a firearms as a matter of course. Often I carry it openly, sometimes (in the only "big" city in the state) I carry concealed. That is 100% legal in this state, without so much as a permit.

Allowing concealed carry to anyone is a recent event. Allowing concealed carry at all is less than 15 years old in this state. Has the crime rate increased? Nope.

Do I feel that the government has the right to take my firearms away from me? Nope, nada, zilch.

Bear in mind I have never had to shoot anyone or overtly threaten them. I've been threatened before, but when the culprits saw I was armed they decided to leave rather than risk a confrontation. Once a mob had harrased and mugged several people in front of the store my wife worked at (a jewelery store). She was working with a couple of other girls and was scared to walk to the car. The police couldn't/wouldn't do anything, so she called me and asked me to come down to the store and escort her and the girls to their cars. When I arrived, I saw the group of 15-20 people hassling passerbys. I got out of my car and they started towards me. I had a 1911A1 on my hip with a couple of spare magazines (I used to shoot competition with that weapon). I reached into the car and pulled out my M-14 (semi-auto only). I ensured the 20 round magazine was in the well and jacked a round into the chamber and set the safety. I then closed the door to the car. I extended the bipod and set the rifle on the hood of the car. The mob looked at me and started to disperse. Within five minutes I had the entire parking lot to myself. I ejected the magazine from the M-14 as well as emptying the chamber and placed it back in the car. I left my 1911A1 on my belt. While I was waiting for my wife an her co-workers to finish up their closing procedures, a police car came by. The officer noted I was carrying and asked if everything was okay. I told him it was. He mentioned there had been some folks hanging out at the mall he'd been having trouble with. I told him I didn't think it would be a problem for the rest of the night.

"When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

Switzerland is a great example. Nearly everybody there has spent time in the military. They generally have an FN-FAL (great little .308/7.62mm rifle) in the closet. Violent crime is pretty much unheard of there. Would you like to go into someone's house to rob or hurt them when you KNOW they have a battle rifle and the training to use it?

Another great example is Australia. I won't spoil it, but look up and compare the violent crime rates there before and after the government confiscated all the guns. If you find the information yourselves, you can't accuse me of "lying" to you.

I was once told by a police officer that their job is not to stop crimes in progress. Their job is to "prevent" crimes by "showing the flag" and to fill out the reports (and hopefully catch the criminal--after the fact) when the crime happens anyway.

When the moment happens on a dark street that only you and an unseen ruffian are on, where is the police or the government to protect you? He pulls a knife on you for the $7.50 you have in your wallet. Is it worth killing him for that little bit of money? No. You bid him good night and hand it to him with the intention of reporting the theft and his description to the nearest authorities as soon as you can. That and cancel all your credit cards and go get a new driver's license.

However, when he gets your wallet and sees only $7.50 and a bunch of credit cards he can't use (because you wisely put "see ID" where your signature is supposed to go) he get's mad. He can't by his crank, crack, weed, or 'ludes on 7.50. The only person he can take his ire out on right this second is you. Now it's a life or death situation. What do you do?

Do you try to dial 911 on your cel phone while he cuts you into small pieces? Or do you do what my response is and pull out your carry weapon and put steel on target? This person just tried to take your life without any justification. You and I do NOT have the right to decide who lives and dies. Why should the ruffian? He made his choice when he decided to attack an innocent person. If he should perish because he decided he should play god, then that is quite frankly his problem.

"With rights comes responsiblities"

I have a right in my country to carry a firearm and to defend myself.

Does that mean I have a right to be an unreasonable, selfish, trigger happy boor? Not hardly.

I have a responsiblity to use a firearm wisely. I have to ensure that it is used wisely, and not for immoral reasons. I have to make sure others follow the same rules.

A lot of folks like to talk about the "epidemic" of gun related violence in the USA. The fact is you are more likely to be struck by lightning then shot with a firearm in the States. 'Course that doesn't make nearly as good as news. Heck, one of the guys involved in the filiming of "The Passion of the Christ" was struck by lightning TWICE during the filming!

I will leave you with two other quotes. Look up who quoted the items I've mentioned. You will be surprised.

"Among other things being unarmed causes you to be despised."

"Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't"

In 2001, 25,123 died as a result of being assaulted by a firearm.

In the same year, 355,479 died of accidental discharge.




I would like to see your documentation of this source information.

It's a tired refrain, this guns=automobiles tactic. I see a difference. If you don't want to see one, fine.

As for laws, are more people breaking your laws than people are breaking our similar ones up here? If so, why?

You KNOW it's not because we have a more effective police force, or that we catch more of the criminals. You KNOW it's not that we have stiffer sentencing. You KNOW that we have as many or more guns here in Canada than you do.

So what's the difference? Culture? A culture that blows other parts of itself away is a cultural thing? Let's say that's what it is. What are you going to do? Throw up your hands and say "oh well" or change the damn culture?



Not trying to make anything perfect. Trying not to have people killed. A lot of them are dying by the gun.

Note I'm not saying to ban guns. For page after page in this thread I've said that, and I've stuck to it.

So you don't like anything I've brought to the table. As an American, what's your solution to the number of deaths due to gun? Or are you pretty okay with the current figures?

My point is that gun control does not stop criminals from killing people. Washington D.C. has a ban on all handguns, yet people in D.C. are still getting killed by handguns. States that have changed to allowing their citizens to carry guns, gun deaths have gone down.

Violent crimes are going down in the U.S.A.. In Canada it has gone up; there seems to be a lot of raping and vehicle thefts too. I do not have the answers on how to stop all gun fatalities, but I know gun contol is not the answer.

Source:
http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/legal02.htm

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/

In 2001, 25,123 died as a result of being assaulted by a firearm.

In the same year, 355,479 died of accidental discharge.


I do not know where you got your numbers but this is my source:

http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds.htm

It says for 2001:

+++++++++++++++++++++++ Firearm Poisoning
Event of undetermined intent - 231 ------ 2,909
Assault - - - - - - - - - - --- 11,348
Intentional self-harm ------- 16,869 --- 5,191
Legal intervention ------------ 323

I live in a dirty shithole of a city, and thanks to that, I have contacts through which I could purchase illegal firearms, be they unlicensed pistols or fully automatic rifles. It's genuinely surprising what kind of arsenal your unfriendly neighborhood narcotics merchant has access to. Believe me, cracking down on legal weaponry only makes those with illegal stuff more powerful. To quote the tired old adage, "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns".

Wow. Why would you think that the rights granted to you by your government ought to override the rights given to me by mine?

Because as the founders believed, I believe that they transcend our government. Rights to me are universal, not something granted by the government.

Didn't I state that earlier? If not, my bad, sorry.

Sorry, I'd need to know we're all playing by the same basic rules. The above isn't in your constitution either. :P


That is why it was created, though. So the individual was protected.


I don't think common law is the way to go.


And that's your right.


Are there places where the law could be less Byzantine? Certainly. However, I also think that teaching children in public school (and elsewhere, but as part of education) to think in legal terms is a good thing.


The problem is that the law is so pervasive and so detailed that no one person can know it all. And when you're determining the fate of millions, shouldn't it be a bit easier to understand?


By that, I don't mean train them to be lawyers of course. I just mean teach kids the knack of seeing something from multiple points of view, and teach them to pay attention to minutae.


I don't have a problem with teaching people to understand detail, but many don't have the personalities for it.


Safety is defined, according to this little dictionary that happened to be near the top of this pile of books and thus within easy reach, as "the condition of being safe; freedom from danger, risk, or injury". Works for me.


And who's definition of "freedom from danger, risk, or injury" are you using? Our bodies are constantly in dying--isn't that a risk? Like I said, it's a matter of interpretation. If you think me having an assault rifle is a safety threat to those around me, that's fine. You can think that all you want. However, you can't do anything about it. Safety is not guaranteed in the Constitution. Safety, dependin on definition and interpretation, may be said to never be attainable in one's lifetime, due to the inherent nature of the world.


I can't remember if I included this in my previous post, so apologies if I'm repeating.


Eh, I've repeated in the past meself.


Taking a page from the British, our government created the Commissionaires. Basically it started with the idea that we owe our veterans more than a pension. And since they had skills, the government built a security agency that employed them. By law, they get first choice of Federal security jobs. If they demure, others can have them.

Eventually, the Commissionaires opened up to former police, and eventually to people that were descendants of vets or other such things.

I think it's a good idea, frankly.


Here, we'd have to find a way to reward them without knocking someone else out of the running who is just as skilled, but didn't serve.


I'm all for you downsizing your military. Where they allocate the funding that they have is another matter. Don't forget where you came from. Tomohawk missile launchers didn't serve your country. Veterans did. :P


I haven't forgotton where everything came from. I was just saying that when we cut down on military spending, it's linked with the Veteran's Affairs division. I think it's rather awful at what vets get after getting out.


Because you're a clever fellow. ;)

Some days.

Tell me, wouldn't you worry about your family (if you don't have one, assume you do for this example) about someone that you don't know having access to easy to use weapons living next door to you?


I do have a family, no children, though. No, actually. Being a shooter, and hanging out with shooters, as well as having some idea of who my neighbors are (I didn't even have to know that much), I already know that most people that own guns are law-abiding. I'm fine with my neighbors owning a veritable arsenal. Actually, I'd prefer it.


When the guy next door has a frustrating day at work, and comes home to find his family has left him, and he's been drinking, do you really want him having access to something that in a moment could alter you or your family's life in an instant? Regrets are all well and good, but is that enough for you?


Again, being around other shooters, I've found that we have a lot more self-control than that. Those that carry have even more than the average shooter. We have to. We know that any little slip of any sort will be blasted across any local (and possibly national) media outlet's main distribution as the end of the world.

And no I'm not that concerned, if it were to happen, because I am also armed, it would be a bit tougher for them to do something that crazy, even if they were to somehow "lose it".


I'd much rather that if he has a gun, it's a rifle. You can't hide it, you can't stick it in your pocket to be pulled out when it's convenient. You have to KNOW that you're carrying it, the entire way across the yard or the McDonald's parking lot.


And you can limit it to that on your property, in the US. But that's it.


If nobody can tell you what kind of weapon you can own, the same applies for him. Do you REALLY want him with a grenade laucher and being as pissed as I described above right when you're having a party and he can hear the music and laughter and it finally pushes his rage too far?


Again, most gun owners I know and/or have seen, have more control than that. Fear is not a reason to legislate. I can't pre-emptively try to take something from someone when it doesn't belong to me.


Aside from the abstract (since I'll assume you don't own any esoteric firearms), how would it really infringe on you to be told you can't have the cannon off of a destroyer? Or rounds for your gun that can penetrate a meter of concrete? Or a rocket launcher?

Because the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That's why. And you know I advoate keeping up with the government's capabilities.

But with a gun, you don't need skill to kill someone with it. Can you become skilled with a gun? Of course you can. But you don't need to. When I run away from you and you're still pissed, you can shoot me dead. You can also conceal a gun (handgun) and that changes dynamics.


I'll call ya out on that one. If you haven't practiced with a pistol, the odds of you hitting a moving target more than 10 feet away is REALLY low ('specially if you hold it "gangsta style"). Even hitting a still target at 10 feet is tough when you have a bunch of adrenaline flowing through your veins.


A gun isn't comparable to all of those things. You can put them all in the box labeled "weapons", but that doesn't make them equal. Go kill a moose with a baseball bat or your hands.


Crossbow stands up to your requirements. Little training, quite accurate, and could punch through armor.

I live in a dirty shithole of a city, and thanks to that, I have contacts through which I could purchase illegal firearms, be they unlicensed pistols or fully automatic rifles. It's genuinely surprising what kind of arsenal your unfriendly neighborhood narcotics merchant has access to. Believe me, cracking down on legal weaponry only makes those with illegal stuff more powerful. To quote the tired old adage, "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns".
and guns dont magically protect you from those people with guns, it just makes the decision to shoot you easier

and guns dont magically protect you from those people with guns, it just makes the decision to shoot you easier

It improves your surviability in that kind of a scenario, is what it does.

Only the moral adhere to that; people such as you and I. But criminals will be criminals as long as they can get away with it.

You simply cannot compare Canada to the United States. Canada has no illegal immigration to the scale of the United States, and is not "a nation composed of immigrants".

Come my friend, let me introduce you to Canada. :)

I don't know what you think our demographical breakdown is, and I don't know what you use for criteria and I suspect you use different, but let me give you some basic facts:

Since the early to mid 1990s, international migration to Canada has accounted for more than half of our total increase in population.

In 2001, we received a little over 250000 immigrants. I know that doesn't sound like much, but when you consider that Canada only has an overall population of 32000000 or so, that's a fair chunk of people for one year.

We tend not to track ethnic populations. While the question(s) are asked in surveys and such, any numbers you see relating to those are highly speculative at best.

However, we do track the people that immigrate here. As of 2001, citizens who were foreign-born accounted for 18.4% of our entire country's population. The percentages of a given ethnic type will vary, but if there's a subset you're interested in, I'd be willing to look for it for you. We are indeed a nation of immigrants. The primary origins of many are what used to be called the "Orient", encompassing Japan, China, Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Taiwan, India, Pakistan and several others in that overall region. There are a fair number of immigrants from the middle east Arabian region as well.

And of course some from Europe.

The primary type of immigration that we lack compared to the US are those from the rest of the Americas, Central and South.

In towns where people have settled down (i.e., have been in the same neighborhood for 10+ years) there is a far less likely chance that a crime is to be committed.

Wow, you guys have that kind of information on your citizens? Assuming it's true, what conclusions do you draw from it?

But when people do not know eachother, and there is unrest, that is where crime starts to happen. Illegal immigration highly contributes to this problem. I am not going to delve further into the issue because I am a lazy bastard, and again, I am a lazy bastard.

I'm not sure the legality/illegality of immigration matters too much. If you come from a different place with different customs and different ways of life (consider me with my views moving to the US; consider an American moving to Canada. Now consider someone from a more exotic place than the Great White North moving the US. Cultural differences abound) you're bringing your baggage with you. If you grew up accepting that ______ group was bad and your sworn enemy, or thieving, or whatever, you're probably going to bring that to the US with you. We have the same thing happen here.

But it tends to work itself out. Even as we absorb and are changed by the diversity that comes from different people, our basic ways of life imprint upon the immigrants. It seems to work.

And, of course, we have their children. Regardless of how they run their households, their children are primarily Canadian in outlook. I have no problem with people from anywhere coming to Canada to live.

-Guns are used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense

Just a quick note about this as an outsider. I had to take a security course recently in order to be allowed on premises for a client. I'm not a guard, but it is the required course for security guards here to pass in order to be licensed. A part of the course details relevant aspects of Canadian law, and often uses the equivalent law in the US as contrast.

This isn't done to ridicule your laws, it's to show the difference since we get a fair bit of American television up here, and it's important that people who are enforcing laws know the ones that are here. Did that make sense? My grammar is atrocious. :P

Anyway, the Canadian law is given here about going on to someone's property and up to their front door. They're allowed to. Same thing if you're playing in your yard and your frisbee goes over the fence into another's yard. You're allowed to go get your damn frisbee. Things like that.

If the owner or someone recognised to have authority over that property asks you to leave, you're to do so. Basic enough, right?

I've left some out, since I'm already running long here, but the US comparison had a student from Japan I think going to college/university in Texas, dressed up for Halloween, and heading to a party. At some point he got lost, so he went up to a house, up on to the porch, and knocked on the door. According to eyewitnesses (I read the photocopied article, I can't quote the original source), he called out that he was lost and was looking for directions, or alternately a telephone to call his friends.

The door exploded outward and the kid fell down dead.

Later on, the property owner said "Some guy on my property at night wearing a mask talking in a funny accent, I protected myself."

He wasn't charged.

This may be an exception to how it works generally down there, but this is the first thing I thought of when you said -Guns are used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. :P

-Concealed carry laws have reduced murder and crime rates in the states that have enacted them.

I know that some have said it would make you more of a target, but let me ask again: who is in less danger, a woman who is afraid of being assaulted on her walk home so she carries a gun under her jacket, or a woman who is afraid of being assaulted on her walk home so she carries a gun on her hip?

If you're told that criminals are lazy and would rather hit the house that's dark instead of the brightly lit one with people inside, wouldn't it stand to reason that the obviously armed woman is more likely to be ignored by an attacker who'd prefer not to have the added danger to themselves that a gun would present? Why concealed? And how can something you can't see be a deterant? Are invisible waves of fear supposed to go out and you assume that everybody is packing hidden heat?

-More guns, less crime. In the decade of the 1990s, the number of guns in this country increased by roughly 40 million—even while the murder rate decreased by almost 40% percent. Accidental gun deaths in the home decreased by almost 40 percent as well.

Again, this is per capita because of lower actual population, but we have as many or more guns here as you do there. But you have looser laws and way more people get shot. And I don't know what figures you're quoting, but I certainly don't recall the US ever having their murder rate drop by 40%. Maybe in a city or community or possibly even in a state, but no way did that ever happen on a national level.

-Gun shows are NOT a primary source of illegal guns for criminals. According to two government studies, the National Institute of Justice reported in 1997 that "less than two percent [of criminals] reported obtaining [firearms] from a gun show. And the Bureau of Justice Statistics revealed in 2001 that less than one percent of firearm offenders acquired their weapons at gun shows.

That's fine, I'm not sure what this is in response to, but I believe that a few people have quoted/opined that the majority (but not all, for you nitpickers) of guns in the possession of criminals are stolen from legal sources. If that is in fact true, restricting/controlling the firearms possessed by legal owners would have an effect on the number of guns in the possession of criminals. That's simple math.

-Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606). And readers of Newsweek learned that "only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The ‘error rate’ for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high."

A criminal is someone who is smoking a joint. A criminal is someone who jaywalks (or are people hit with a misdemeanor not considered criminals? I'm not sure how that works).

And I'll add that it's not the job of the citizenry OR the police to kill criminals. You have the death penalty in several states and I believe at a federal level (don't you?) that decides that, after the judicial system goes to work.

A criminal is someone who is smoking a joint. A criminal is someone who jaywalks (or are people hit with a misdemeanor not considered criminals? I'm not sure how that works).

And I'll add that it's not the job of the citizenry OR the police to kill criminals. You have the death penalty in several states and I believe at a federal level (don't you?) that decides that, after the judicial system goes to work.
and you want to know why the precent is so high for cops killing people that arnt criminals? the cops have to assume EVRYONE has a gun, they have to assume every time they even pull some one over for a traffic violation they are walknig into a shoot out, so if some oen does something that looks like they are going for a gun suddenly, people are going to be shot.


now imagine this with EVERYONE having a gun on them, or it being legal for everyone to carry a concealed weapon. everyone would be on their toes watching for any movement that would look like a gun beign drawn and the ensuing gun battle would cause multiple deaths and injuries

Switzerland is a great example. Nearly everybody there has spent time in the military. They generally have an FN-FAL (great little .308/7.62mm rifle) in the closet. Violent crime is pretty much unheard of there. Would you like to go into someone's house to rob or hurt them when you KNOW they have a battle rifle and the training to use it?

Not the worst idea I've heard of. Why not make it mandatory to enlist, go through basic training, and serve for whatever a minimum term is before you're allowed to legally own a personal firearm? If there are already laws and restrictions on who can own one, despite no mention of such impediments in the second amendment, then this one shouldn't really bother anybody either, if Switzerland is to be held up as an example.

Another great example is Australia. I won't spoil it, but look up and compare the violent crime rates there before and after the government confiscated all the guns. If you find the information yourselves, you can't accuse me of "lying" to you.

If you supply the links you use, nobody is going to accuse you of lying. They may doubt the data, or the conclusions drawn from it, but that's not the same as lying.

Someone mentioned Australia several pages back. An Australian (who I haven't seen post for quite a while now, unfortunately) took some umbrage to what was being said, because it didn't synch with his stats.

Certainly certain types of violent crime are up in Australia in recent years. I don't know that it's tied to their system of gun control.

I was once told by a police officer that their job is not to stop crimes in progress. Their job is to "prevent" crimes by "showing the flag" and to fill out the reports (and hopefully catch the criminal--after the fact) when the crime happens anyway.

Aside from the police officer being an idiot, it's obviously untrue. Is it the policy of the police that when they're informed by 911 of a crime in progress, they sit drinking coffee to give the suspects time to finish and get away before they respond? Although their response time sometimes seems like they do, I'd say that's not in fact the case.

And their job is NOT to prevent crimes, save by merely being visible. A conspicuously parked police car by the side of the road will tend to make people slow down if they're speeding.

But the cops are REactive, not PROactive. Don't you agree?

When the moment happens on a dark street that only you and an unseen ruffian are on, where is the police or the government to protect you? He pulls a knife on you for the $7.50 you have in your wallet. Is it worth killing him for that little bit of money? No. You bid him good night and hand it to him with the intention of reporting the theft and his description to the nearest authorities as soon as you can. That and cancel all your credit cards and go get a new driver's license.

However, when he gets your wallet and sees only $7.50 and a bunch of credit cards he can't use (because you wisely put "see ID" where your signature is supposed to go) he get's mad. He can't by his crank, crack, weed, or 'ludes on 7.50. The only person he can take his ire out on right this second is you. Now it's a life or death situation. What do you do?

Hello, I'm from Vancouver in Canada where American big city police regularly come to see drug-ravaged people and places that make crack houses in New York and heroin dens in Detroit look like Fluffy Bunny farms.

We don't carry guns, what do we do? I'll tell you what we don't do, and that's get shot. How about that?

Do you try to dial 911 on your cel phone while he cuts you into small pieces? Or do you do what my response is and pull out your carry weapon and put steel on target? This person just tried to take your life without any justification. You and I do NOT have the right to decide who lives and dies. Why should the ruffian? He made his choice when he decided to attack an innocent person. If he should perish because he decided he should play god, then that is quite frankly his problem.

You're the one playing God in that instance. Why don't you pull out your taser and blast him from ten meters? Or mace/pepper spray?

He's got a knife, if you keep ahead of him, or retreat to an area of safety, or keep something interposed between you two, the knife doesn't work.

This response to draw a deadly weapon when it's not your last resort may very well have something to do with all the people being killed down there.

Can you agree that you pulled your piece a little quickly?

A lot of folks like to talk about the "epidemic" of gun related violence in the USA. The fact is you are more likely to be struck by lightning then shot with a firearm in the States. 'Course that doesn't make nearly as good as news. Heck, one of the guys involved in the filiming of "The Passion of the Christ" was struck by lightning TWICE during the filming!

The fact is that nobody is pointing a storm at you and blasting you with static. Nor would anybody claim it's their right to do so, or that they were protecting themselves.

You're right, people have untimely deaths from all sorts of things. So? Guns are one of them, guns are directed with intent, and they serve no socially redeeming purpose.

Don't ban them, for the love of God don't interpret "regulation" as "ban", but don't be so damn loose and free passing them out. Take your own examples and require military service before you can have them. Take the Canadian example and teach people what appropriate levels of force are. There are other ways too. Perhaps people from other countries will share them with us in this thread.

I will leave you with two other quotes. Look up who quoted the items I've mentioned. You will be surprised.

I'm not especially surprised. Machiavelli was reliant on the good will and funding of the ruling houses whose patronage he needed. "The Prince", taken at face value, is nothing more than a piece on the value of the status quo and entitlement of the elite.

Read it again and look at some of the sly connections, and you can see that it's actually a book that's very much the opposite of that. But I have a quote of my own for you. It's in response to the many others (not just you) who quote something and then reveal with much flourish (you haven't been bad with this) that Ghandi wrote it, or some other person emblematic of peace. It's not specifically about guns, but it applies to some of the mentality (way of thinking, not saying such people have mental problems) that the "guns are fine, leave them alone" crowd seem to have. Here goes:

"Naturally, the common people don't want war, but after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country."

That was Hermann Goering, Hitler's Reichmarshall at the Nuremberg trials after world war 2.

Violent crimes are going down in the U.S.A.. In Canada it has gone up; there seems to be a lot of raping and vehicle thefts too. I do not have the answers on how to stop all gun fatalities, but I know gun contol is not the answer.

http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/legal02.htm

So this is what I see from Stats Canada at the other end of the link you sent after you said that in Canada violent crimes have gone up, and lots of rape:

The numbers are for 1999,2000,2001,2002,2003. The numbers are per 100000.

Homicide: 1.8, 1.8, 1.8, 1.9, 1.7. Looks pretty level.
Attempted murder: 2.3, 2.5, 2.3, 2.2, 2.2. Also looks fairly level.
Assaults (level 1-3): 728.0, 761.6, 763.9, 751.6, 746.5. This is up a little overall after the spike. By 18 in 100000 people.

Also not that a level 1 assault includes application of force without consent, attempt or threat to force another person, openly wearing a weapon or imitation (these are always treated the same), and accosting or impeding another person (you block a door, that's assault level 1).

A level 2 assault includes assault with a weapon, threats to use a weapon (or imitation), or assault causing bodily harm.

A level 3 assault is basically anybody who wounds, maims, disfigures, or endangers the life of someone.

And even when you lump all three of those different types together, you still get an over increase over five years of 0.018%. Is this a warning sign? Possibly. Does it relate to not having handguns commonly carried? I doubt it.

Sexual assault: 78.5, 78.2, 77.5, 78.1, 74.1. This seems to be heading downward overall.

Other sexual offenses: 10.9, 10.2, 8.7, 8.8, 8.0. So does this.

Other crimes of violence: 41.3, 41.3, 41.1, 40.8, 40.7. Pretty level, but down a touch.

This is another catch-all statistic that includes unlawfully causing bodily harm (this would include people that used excessive force to defend themselves, btw), discharging firearms with intent (but not hitting anybody), abductions, assaults against police officers, assaults against other peace or public officers, and other assaults that aren't specifically covered by the previous descriptions.

So I don't know how you read that crime here is up, especially the violent crime that we were talking about. We generally have a higher level of property crime here, but with the exception of motor vehicle theft and possession of stolen goods, that Stats Canada sheet says all of the property crimes are down from previous years as well.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

According to this information, which doesn't seem to be from an official site (correct me if I'm wrong), crime levels overall seem to be down in the US as well. BUT...

Murders per 100000 people in 2000 (the last year of this sheet) was at 5.5, compared to Canada's 1.8 per 100000 people.

The rape statistic for 2000 is 32.0, but it is actually labelled "forcible rape". I'm not sure what this means, since rape is by its nature forcible. This must be a more specific or narrow definition than we use, but if anybody knows the legal meaning of it by all means chime in. Our sexual assault rate for the same year was 78.2, with other sexual offenses at 10.2.

Aggravated assault for 2000 in the US reads as 323.6 per 100000 people. I'm not certain what constitutes "aggravated", since it's probably a specific legal term, but all combined assaults in Canada for the same period were 761.6. Note that Canada's stats include people who impede others (blocking the door example) in that number.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/

This last link you gave basically shows trends of the various categories of crime going downwards. Canada's comparable crimes also seem to be heading downward, except as I mentioned earlier our rate of motor vehicle theft, and people in possession of stolen property.

+++++++++++++++++++++++ Firearm Poisoning

Sorry, I didn't have anything to say on your comparative numbers, but... Firearm Poisoning?!

lol

What a term. :)

"This man died of a fatal lead intake!". :P

Because as the founders believed, I believe that they transcend our government. Rights to me are universal, not something granted by the government.

Didn't I state that earlier? If not, my bad, sorry.

No bad, and you DID say that rights are universal. However, I didn't realize that you felt the rights in the US are moreuniversal than the rights of other countries. :P

That is why it was created, though. So the individual was protected.

I don't see, practically speaking, how the individual can be protected at the expense of other individuals.

And that's your right.

Hmmm, could we be talking about two different things here?

Here, "common law" is the bulk of precendents that we lifted from the British when we became a country. Because Canada was new, we didn't have any existing examples of things on our own, so we just borrowed the ones the British had until such time as we could replace them with our own examples.

Things like "300 years ago, a farmer stole his neighbour's pig when it was left unattended in a free pasture and he was fined the market price of 100 pounds of bacon". That kind of thing.

It occured to me when I read your response that you may have meant simpler more easily understandable rules when you said "common law". Have I finally nailed it? :P

The problem is that the law is so pervasive and so detailed that no one person can know it all. And when you're determining the fate of millions, shouldn't it be a bit easier to understand?

Nothing stops people from going to the library and boning up on it. That information is freely available to all, unless you folks have some rule that we don't have here. If "ignorance of the law is not a defense", then people should at least learn about the parts they're being charged with, or that apply to them generally.

I don't have a problem with teaching people to understand detail, but many don't have the personalities for it.

You're right of course. And that's what the lawyers should be for. Or legal aid. Do you have that there? You must have something like that.

And who's definition of "freedom from danger, risk, or injury" are you using? Our bodies are constantly in dying--isn't that a risk? Like I said, it's a matter of interpretation. If you think me having an assault rifle is a safety threat to those around me, that's fine. You can think that all you want. However, you can't do anything about it. Safety is not guaranteed in the Constitution. Safety, dependin on definition and interpretation, may be said to never be attainable in one's lifetime, due to the inherent nature of the world.

You can put me in danger. Life can't, because to put me there requires intent. I see a vast difference.

Eh, I've repeated in the past meself.

And of course I never have. <puffs out chest>

Here, we'd have to find a way to reward them without knocking someone else out of the running who is just as skilled, but didn't serve.

Security has been a growth industry for a long time here. Coupled to the fact that a lot of the kind of training you get in the military lends itself to security, the Commissionaires seemed like a good idea. And it still is. :)

I haven't forgotton where everything came from. I was just saying that when we cut down on military spending, it's linked with the Veteran's Affairs division. I think it's rather awful at what vets get after getting out.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you'd forgotten. That was sort of a general statement against what DID happen to all of your vets.

Because the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That's why. And you know I advoate keeping up with the government's capabilities.

That's an abstract though.

How would it really affect you if you couldn't have a rocket launcher or missile defense system or any of the larger scale items that are still considered "arms"?

I mean you, Zaxon, today.

i would more than love to know how many people who argue on the republican side of every argument have studied the constitution and framers and the like in depth

especially these gun nuts and super pro freedom of speech people

I'll call ya out on that one. If you haven't practiced with a pistol, the odds of you hitting a moving target more than 10 feet away is REALLY low ('specially if you hold it "gangsta style"). Even hitting a still target at 10 feet is tough when you have a bunch of adrenaline flowing through your veins.

Of course, and most people who get all their information from the movies don't realize what crappy accuracy a shot from a handgun really has.

However, a gun opens up all sorts of dynamics that weren't there before.

Crossbow stands up to your requirements. Little training, quite accurate, and could punch through armor.

It's less accurate than a gun, because it arcs sooner. It's less concealable. It reloads slower (even with a clip). It can be deflected easier.

I actually had a crossbow in mind when I was writing what you quoted, believe it or not. :)

and you want to know why the precent is so high for cops killing people that arnt criminals? the cops have to assume EVRYONE has a gun, they have to assume every time they even pull some one over for a traffic violation they are walknig into a shoot out, so if some oen does something that looks like they are going for a gun suddenly, people are going to be shot.


now imagine this with EVERYONE having a gun on them, or it being legal for everyone to carry a concealed weapon. everyone would be on their toes watching for any movement that would look like a gun beign drawn and the ensuing gun battle would cause multiple deaths and injuries

Unlucky. And despite the bad press that your police get (often very justified, I might add), kudos to them for still responding to things.

i would more than love to know how many people who argue on the republican side of every argument have studied the constitution and framers and the like in depth

especially these gun nuts and super pro freedom of speech people

If I was an American, I'd be a super pro freedom of speech person. I think it's a fantastic thing, and many of the liberties that you enjoy as an American (even if they're not specifically stated) are derived from that, either directly or in knock-off effects.

It's imperative that anywhere the government is supposed to be a tool of the people that it can't supress ideas and opinions. It's that simple.

If I was an American, I'd be a super pro freedom of speech person. I think it's a fantastic thing, and many of the liberties that you enjoy as an American (even if they're not specifically stated) are derived from that, either directly or in knock-off effects.

It's imperative that anywhere the government is supposed to be a tool of the people that it can't supress ideas and opinions. It's that simple.
we have constraints on freedom of speech, some dont make sense and were made up by conservative judges (cough loser conservatives whihing about liberla jduges cough) but the facts are there are cosntraitns on your freedom of speech

we have constraints on freedom of speech, some dont make sense and were made up by conservative judges (cough loser conservatives whihing about liberla jduges cough) but the facts are there are cosntraitns on your freedom of speech

Really? Like what?

Freedom of speech doesn't mean you have the right to bust out loud cursewords in your local elementary school.

Words change. Remember when saying "cool" meant "not warm"? Or "bad" meant "bad"? :P

I think it's pretty much understood that if you're not looking at it on a superficial level, freedom of speech means that the government and all members thereof can't supress or deprive you of your right to speak or disseminate an opinion or idea, no matter how contrary or harmful it's deemed to be to the status quo.

Inelegantly put, but that's exactly what I am, so pardon my elbows on the table. :P

Really? Like what?

Freedom of speech doesn't mean you have the right to bust out loud cursewords in your local elementary school.

Words change. Remember when saying "cool" meant "not warm"? Or "bad" meant "bad"? :P

I think it's pretty much understood that if you're not looking at it on a superficial level, freedom of speech means that the government and all members thereof can't supress or deprive you of your right to speak or disseminate an opinion or idea, no matter how contrary or harmful it's deemed to be to the status quo.

Inelegantly put, but that's exactly what I am, so pardon my elbows on the table. :P
i dont have the patience to relate it to everyone whos not going to listen to me anyway

i dont have the patience to relate it to everyone whos not going to listen to me anyway

I wouldn't have asked if I didn't want to know. The rights my country grants me are different ones than your country grants you.

You said there were contraints on freedom of speech, and I just asked what they were.

Sheesh, don't get upset with me for asking. :P

No bad, and you DID say that rights are universal. However, I didn't realize that you felt the rights in the US are moreuniversal than the rights of other countries. :P

See, we're getting confused on what we both consider rights.

I don't think the rights of the US transcend any other rights. I think the US acknowledges the rights that are present in the universe. They're not the US's rights. They're humans' rights.

Hmmm, could we be talking about two different things here?

Here, "common law" is the bulk of precendents that we lifted from the British when we became a country. Because Canada was new, we didn't have any existing examples of things on our own, so we just borrowed the ones the British had until such time as we could replace them with our own examples.

Things like "300 years ago, a farmer stole his neighbour's pig when it was left unattended in a free pasture and he was fined the market price of 100 pounds of bacon". That kind of thing.

It occured to me when I read your response that you may have meant simpler more easily understandable rules when you said "common law". Have I finally nailed it? :P


Hammer, meet nail head.



Nothing stops people from going to the library and boning up on it. That information is freely available to all, unless you folks have some rule that we don't have here. If "ignorance of the law is not a defense", then people should at least learn about the parts they're being charged with, or that apply to them generally.


But there is too much to know to be able to defend most anything. Lawyers, who do this for a living, don't know half of it all. This is why it can't work.


You're right of course. And that's what the lawyers should be for. Or legal aid. Do you have that there? You must have something like that.


If we can't afford legal council, yes, someone will be appointed by the state. However, quality suffers.


You can put me in danger. Life can't, because to put me there requires intent. I see a vast difference.


Danger does not require intent. Tornados, Hurricanes, Earthquakes, a tree falling--all are examples of things that are dangerous to us.



And of course I never have. <puffs out chest>


Er....um....wasn't I responding to a comment you made about repeating yourself? :) Or was that some of the sarcasm that Americans don't get?

That's an abstract though.

How would it really affect you if you couldn't have a rocket launcher or missile defense system or any of the larger scale items that are still considered "arms"?

I mean you, Zaxon, today.

Wouldn't mean a darn bit of difference, right now, today. I'm not being attacked right now, today. I'm in front of a silly electronic box, irradiating my retinas. Hmmm...maybe I should shoot the monitor. It's attacking.

But that's not what it's about. I'm talking increasing my odds of survival (on the self defense front) and increasing my odds that a corrupt US government won't attack it's armed populace at any point.

It's less accurate than a gun, because it arcs sooner. It's less concealable. It reloads slower (even with a clip). It can be deflected easier.

I actually had a crossbow in mind when I was writing what you quoted, believe it or not. :)

It's still better at range than a pistol. But yes, today's pistols have a much higher rate of fire and better concealability.

See, we're getting confused on what we both consider rights.

I don't think the rights of the US transcend any other rights. I think the US acknowledges the rights that are present in the universe. They're not the US's rights. They're humans' rights.

This might be worth pursuing. Although it will be repeating yourself, what would you say are inherent rights to being human beings?

Hammer, meet nail head.

Ah, the yawning cultural chasms between Canada and the US. :P

But there is too much to know to be able to defend most anything. Lawyers, who do this for a living, don't know half of it all. This is why it can't work.

No, but they do how how to look it up. It's probably time that's the biggest enemy.

If we can't afford legal council, yes, someone will be appointed by the state. However, quality suffers.

Sure, it's well known that to buy a better talker, you pay more.

Danger does not require intent. Tornados, Hurricanes, Earthquakes, a tree falling--all are examples of things that are dangerous to us.

You're right, danger doesn't require intent. It's putting someone in danger that does. The active process of doing so.

Something a guy with a gun has, and a meteor hurtling down to bonk you on the head doesn't. Both dangerous, only one subject to social engineering. ;)

Er....um....wasn't I responding to a comment you made about repeating yourself? :) Or was that some of the sarcasm that Americans don't get?

Canadian humour is a lot like British humour. Except that it's not funny. Even to us. [Newfie accent] Now gowan er I'll beat der face off'n yer stupid muffukker! [/Newfie accent]

See what I mean? :)

Wouldn't mean a darn bit of difference, right now, today. I'm not being attacked right now, today. I'm in front of a silly electronic box, irradiating my retinas. Hmmm...maybe I should shoot the monitor. It's attacking.

Gah. To "attack" requires intent. Getting shot with your electron gun is closer to you sitting crosslegged in the middle of the road staring down the oncoming headlights. :P

But that's not what it's about. I'm talking increasing my odds of survival (on the self defense front) and increasing my odds that a corrupt US government won't attack it's armed populace at any point.

Aren't those long odds? Much longer than the odds of being shot by a legal gun owner?

Flipping it back to me, do you think I ought to arm myself against the day that the Canadian government turns against its people?

Danger does not require intent. Tornados, Hurricanes, Earthquakes, a tree falling--all are examples of things that are dangerous to us.


Wow worst examples ever and leaving yourself open for:

Yes shoot those Hurricanes away!...Amazing how people just keep living in places called like "Hurricane Valley" and everytime theses a hurricane they go "My god I can't beleive it...Oh well I'm moving back."

It's still better at range than a pistol. But yes, today's pistols have a much higher rate of fire and better concealability.

That's because bolts sail through the air, and bullets punch through it. :P

Wow worst examples ever and leaving yourself open for:

Yes shoot those Hurricanes away!...Amazing how people just keep living in places called like "Hurricane Valley" and everytime theses a hurricane they go "My god I can't beleive it...Oh well I'm moving back."

Heh. I have to admit making the joke occasionally about how some people live in the worst spots, but what can you do? We're pretty tenacious as a species.

Maybe when costs go down, people will start building more appropriately for their area.

"Hit by hurricanes? This underground house features nothing for the wind to strike, and a sump pump that can empty a swimming pool in under a second. Buy now!"

Mind you... it's a lot cheaper (both in price and in cost, which are different) to replace modular buildings and homes than building regular ones.

Ah well, I'm talking out of my ass. I've never been in a hurricane. Earthquakes and tornado, sure. Hurricanes? Bah.

Whenever the topic of gun control comes up, I like to remind people that even Vash the Stampede carried a gun. I may not like violence, but as long as the government and other forms of authority exist, I feel I need some means to defend myself.

Whenever the topic of gun control comes up, I like to remind people that even Vash the Stampede carried a gun. I may not like violence, but as long as the government and other forms of authority exist, I feel I need some means to defend myself.

Congratulations on your gentle post - most people that jump in at this point seem to be fairly abrasive. I like you. :)

I'm not an American, and so your mythology and general cultural attitude towards things contain aspects with elude me.

So I'd like to ask: why do you feel the need to defend yourself, especially from the government and other forms of authority?

Whenever the topic of gun control comes up, I like to remind people that even Vash the Stampede carried a gun. I may not like violence, but as long as the government and other forms of authority exist, I feel I need some means to defend myself.
the best you have is a anime character in a post apocalyptic world who has a ludicrously high bounty on his head carries a gun?

you just lost ALL respect

the best you have is a anime character in a post apocalyptic world who has a ludicrously high bounty on his head carries a gun?

you just lost ALL respect

Not mine. While I'm not a great fan of Trigun myself, it seems to me that all Letila was saying is that sometimes, despite your own preferences on how things ought to be, you have to bow to the reality you find yourself in.

At least, that's what I took away from it.

Not mine. While I'm not a great fan of Trigun myself, it seems to me that all Letila was saying is that sometimes, despite your own preferences on how things ought to be, you have to bow to the reality you find yourself in.

At least, that's what I took away from it.
no, you people are nuts

Congratulations on your gentle post - most people that jump in at this point seem to be fairly abrasive. I like you. :)

I'm not an American, and so your mythology and general cultural attitude towards things contain aspects with elude me.

So I'd like to ask: why do you feel the need to defend yourself, especially from the government and other forms of authority?

Think of it as a passive defense against the gov't. It's not necessarily "I'm going to revolt if you up taxes by 1%" but more of a keeping the gov't and those in it humbled towards the populace. Since the American Revolution, we've had an inherant mistrust of those in authority but are not necessarily hostile towards them.

Main reasonable arguements against gun control are based on a slippery slope arguement. Justify one, then another, then another, and so on. In my home state of Illinois, they've attempted to ban everything but single shot .22's and 20 guage shotguns. One reason I get so cheesed off is the sideways ways they attempt to ban them including sneaking them in bills, misinformation, and blatant lying.

I own several types of firearms. Some are for historical value, some sentimental, one because it's just "really cool", and two for home defense. I keep a loaded dbl. barrel shotgun in my house (yes I have children) and I bought a 9mm pistol for my mother after my father passed away. I've also trained her in its use and instructed her what to do if there is a break-in (lock her bedroom door, load gun, call police)

Think of it as a passive defense against the gov't. It's not necessarily "I'm going to revolt if you up taxes by 1%" but more of a keeping the gov't and those in it humbled towards the populace. Since the American Revolution, we've had an inherant mistrust of those in authority but are not necessarily hostile towards them.

Main reasonable arguements against gun control are based on a slippery slope arguement. Justify one, then another, then another, and so on. In my home state of Illinois, they've attempted to ban everything but single shot .22's and 20 guage shotguns. One reason I get so cheesed off is the sideways ways they attempt to ban them including sneaking them in bills, misinformation, and blatant lying.

I own several types of firearms. Some are for historical value, some sentimental, one because it's just "really cool", and two for home defense. I keep a loaded dbl. barrel shotgun in my house (yes I have children) and I bought a 9mm pistol for my mother after my father passed away. I've also trained her in its use and instructed her what to do if there is a break-in (lock her bedroom door, load gun, call police)

Way to live in fear.

308 vs 307. Thats a dead split.

Way to live in fear.

Not fear, an "ounce of prevention". I also lock my car doors, have rose bushes around my house windows, vote, write my congressmen, and support my local police/fire departments

Think of it as a passive defense against the gov't. It's not necessarily "I'm going to revolt if you up taxes by 1%" but more of a keeping the gov't and those in it humbled towards the populace. Since the American Revolution, we've had an inherant mistrust of those in authority but are not necessarily hostile towards them.

yes because i know a country of men with glocks, deer rifles, and shotguns can surely take over a government with stealth bombers, tanks, and nuclear bombs. The bill of rights grants a "militia" the right to own guns and somehow i doubt you and your comrads in arms are in any way to be considered minute men.


Main reasonable arguements against gun control are based on a slippery slope arguement. Justify one, then another, then another, and so on. In my home state of Illinois, they've attempted to ban everything but single shot .22's and 20 guage shotguns. One reason I get so cheesed off is the sideways ways they attempt to ban them including sneaking them in bills, misinformation, and blatant lying.

guns kill people this is for your own good.

"The bill of rights grants a "militia" the right to own guns and somehow i doubt you and your comrads in arms are in any way to be considered minute men."

"...The right of the people...." Most states also contain articles describing every able-bodied male as being a member of the "militia"

My " comrad(e)s in arms"? Ahh, depreciating comments, how quaint.

"guns kill people this is for your own good."

Since there is no punctuation, I'm not sure what you mean by this.

no, you people are nuts

Okay, I'll bite without abusing you: what exactly about my opinions makes me nuts?

Think of it as a passive defense against the gov't. It's not necessarily "I'm going to revolt if you up taxes by 1%" but more of a keeping the gov't and those in it humbled towards the populace. Since the American Revolution, we've had an inherant mistrust of those in authority but are not necessarily hostile towards them.

Okay, go slow with me here as I feel this out.

What sort of actions by your government would you (collectively, the armed people) use your weapons against? Has this ever happened (not to say that it never will, I'm just looking for an example) before?

Main reasonable arguements against gun control are based on a slippery slope arguement. Justify one, then another, then another, and so on. In my home state of Illinois, they've attempted to ban everything but single shot .22's and 20 guage shotguns. One reason I get so cheesed off is the sideways ways they attempt to ban them including sneaking them in bills, misinformation, and blatant lying.

If your government is lying to you, if they're not being square about the laws they're attempting to pass, it's wrong.

Aren't laws/bills available to the general public as a matter of course there? I was sure this was the case.

I own several types of firearms. Some are for historical value, some sentimental, one because it's just "really cool", and two for home defense. I keep a loaded dbl. barrel shotgun in my house (yes I have children) and I bought a 9mm pistol for my mother after my father passed away. I've also trained her in its use and instructed her what to do if there is a break-in (lock her bedroom door, load gun, call police)

Okay, I'm going to try a different tact here for asking questions than I did in the past. :P

Do you accept/believe that the US has a higher death-by-gun rate that other comparable countries? Do you believe that the US has laxer/less-stringent gun laws that other countries that allow gun ownership? What do you think are the reasons behind the higher death toll?

308 vs 307. Thats a dead split.

I'm sorry, I don't know what this means. A vote in the US senate on something?

I can't follow all of the world's news. :P

yes because i know a country of men with glocks, deer rifles, and shotguns can surely take over a government with stealth bombers, tanks, and nuclear bombs. The bill of rights grants a "militia" the right to own guns and somehow i doubt you and your comrads in arms are in any way to be considered minute men.

It would be a grim scenario indeed of this came to pass, and your government began bombing your own cities. Nevermind the nuclear option.

I think the idea is that the government will want to preserve any infrastructure that it uses itself, and almost everything is part of the economic infrastructure. And you can't secure an area with a tank. You need to do it with people. And that's where an armed populace would have their chance.

But it's not much of a chance, since they couldn't effectively coordinate, while the government forces could.

Of course, I have no experience in such things, so your mileage may vary.

"Okay, go slow with me here as I feel this out.

What sort of actions by your government would you (collectively, the armed people) use your weapons against? Has this ever happened (not to say that it never will, I'm just looking for an example) before?"

Ruby ridge and Waco are extreme examples of gov't abusing its powers. In the former, an admittedly racist separatist was entrapped by police. To arrest him they surrounded his house, shot his dog and son in the back, then shot his wife.

Waco had some religious extremist get surrounded by gov't officials and burned out causing quite a few deat
hs.

I personally would use my weapons if actions like this became widespread.

"
Aren't laws/bills available to the general public as a matter of course there?
"
Normally yes, something I am very thankful for. I don't want that to change. but history has shown that these things can't always protect us.
Do you accept/believe that the US has a higher death-by-gun rate that other comparable countries?
Yes, w/o a doubt.
Do you believe that the US has laxer/less-stringent gun laws that other countries that allow gun ownership?
That is a hard one to answer. Each state is different ranging from nearly own what you would like to you can't own anything.
What do you think are the reasons behind the higher death toll?
My personal belief? Proximity and crime. Most deaths occur in high density, urban enviroments involving criminals/criminal activity and illegally owned firearms.

If I am correct in that you are Canadian, I know that Canada has a much lower rate per capita than the U.S. Do you know what percentage of that occures in your own urban areas?

Ruby ridge and Waco are extreme examples of gov't abusing its powers. In the former, an admittedly racist separatist was entrapped by police. To arrest him they surrounded his house, shot his dog and son in the back, then shot his wife.

Ruby Ridge I don't know about. Waco of course I do.

Waco had some religious extremist get surrounded by gov't officials and burned out causing quite a few deaths.

It sounds like it was a bungled operation from the start. Plus inter-department rivalries are stupid.

Allowing that the government screwed up royally in the execution of that operation, would you say the initial deployment at least was necessary by then?

I personally would use my weapons if actions like this became widespread.

But on whom? Anybody who approached your door until you ran out of ammunition? I'm just not sure of the thought process that brings us to this. :P

Normally yes, something I am very thankful for. I don't want that to change. but history has shown that these things can't always protect us.

There has to be accountability, that's for sure.

If I am correct in that you are Canadian, I know that Canada has a much lower rate per capita than the U.S. Do you know what percentage of that occures in your own urban areas?

Hmmmm. That's an interesting question. According to Statistics Canada http://www.statscan.ca it's only broken down by province. And big surprise, the provinces with larger populations have a higher homicide rate. :P

I can't say that I know the percentage, but of course an urban environment offers more opportunity for such to occur.

The murder rate per capita here for the country varies (depending on specific stats) from 1/10 to 1/3 of your own national rate.

And this is what I'm trying to figure out. What's so different about your country that the death toll from guns is so much higher?

Sorry, I didn't have anything to say on your comparative numbers, but... Firearm Poisoning?!

lol

What a term. :)

"This man died of a fatal lead intake!". :P


I hope you are joking. Format of my post changed when I hit submit. Tried to fix it but figured most people would figure out the columns.

I hope you are joking. Format of my post changed when I hit submit. Tried to fix it but figured most people would figure out the columns.

It was really funny. :)

Okay, I'll bite without abusing you: what exactly about my opinions makes me nuts?
letila in comparing owning a gun in the US to a post-apocalyptic ANIME character with a HUGE bounty on his head and giant friggin cannon in his arm. and YOU for agreeing that is somehow a even half way logical comparison

have you watched trigun? lets see vash is a android with a gun in his arm and a giant angel energy beam cannon in the other, he has laser like precision on his gun, there his brother knives who is evil and the same, there is a psychic psycho with mind control ability, there's people who can manipulate time, have gatling gun's on their arms, are in a giant battle shell thats made of steel and impenetrable to bullets, and everyone and there mom has at least a high caliber revolver, and they ALL want to kill vash.


hell, why dont we just compare it to mad max, people in mad max had guns! we need guns too!

You're right, danger doesn't require intent. It's putting someone in danger that does. The active process of doing so.

Something a guy with a gun has, and a meteor hurtling down to bonk you on the head doesn't. Both dangerous, only one subject to social engineering. ;)


Just having the tool does not imply intent. You don't know how they're going to use it. Some just have guns for target practice, and never intend to use them for defense or hunting. You can't assume they're going to do anything else.

Aren't those long odds? Much longer than the odds of being shot by a legal gun owner?


Not if you look at todays numbers. 13,000 deaths by guns. 65,000 crimes (minimum) prevented by guns. I'd say the self-defense numbers outweigh the gun death numbers, giving me a better chance of saving myself from a crime, than dying by a firearm.

Just because I've never been in a death-threatening situation doesn't mean I don't want to be prepared for one.


Flipping it back to me, do you think I ought to arm myself against the day that the Canadian government turns against its people?

That's up to you. If it were me, yes, I'd want to be armed against any government--doesn't matter which one.

Wow worst examples ever and leaving yourself open for:

Yes shoot those Hurricanes away!...Amazing how people just keep living in places called like "Hurricane Valley" and everytime theses a hurricane they go "My god I can't beleive it...Oh well I'm moving back."

I live in "Tornado Alley". I know what happens when a tornado goes through. Yet, I'm still here. If you're continually in fear of what may happen, your life isn't going to be all that fun.

I don't live in fear--I'm prepared. There's a big difference.

How did I leave myself open again? I was showing that there are things that are dangerous to us without intent, that's all.

Congratulations on your gentle post - most people that jump in at this point seem to be fairly abrasive. I like you. :)

I'm not an American, and so your mythology and general cultural attitude towards things contain aspects with elude me.

So I'd like to ask: why do you feel the need to defend yourself, especially from the government and other forms of authority?

Because we've seen other governments do it. That's the whole reason our government was created--we were being oppressed.

Way to live in fear.

Being prepared is different than living in fear.

guns kill people this is for your own good.

You don't know what's best for me. Don't even attempt to make a case for that.

all right fair enough, how many militias do we have? militia being a state controlled entity as opposed to a federal controlled one, and to add, this was different at the time of the framers when there was a difference between federal and state government, that was knocked down and kicked by lincoln before being literally obliterated later

To this very day the militia still exists. The US government has a law which defines the militia, and AFAIK every state defines their own milita in their constitutions. Usually, the innactive militia is defined as all able-bodied males from 18 to 45 or 65. Sometimes females are included. The active milita is usually made up of the state's national guard. I've heard that Texas has, or recently had a non-National Guard active milita, but I haven't confirmed this. Anyway, when people say the 2nd Ammendments protection of RKBA (Right to Keep and Bear Arms) is limited to militia, I sometimes let them know that I am a part of it.

I should also note that the states aren't really supposed to 'control' the milita so much as organize and maintain it. They're quite negligent with such duties, however.

Safety is defined, according to this little dictionary that happened to be near the top of this pile of books and thus within easy reach, as "the condition of being safe; freedom from danger, risk, or injury". Works for me.


It's a matter of subjective opinion as to whether or not you're safe. Obviously, you can never be completely safe. It's up to you to decide if you're safe enough. The whole "Safety First" motto is a pretty foolish concept, if taken literaly.

yes because i know a country of men with glocks, deer rifles, and shotguns can surely take over a government with stealth bombers, tanks, and nuclear bombs. The bill of rights grants a "militia" the right to own guns and somehow i doubt you and your comrads in arms are in any way to be considered minute men.

If you think the people not armed well enough to resist the government, then we clearly need more powerful weapons.

Also, I rather doubt nuclear weapons would ever come in to play in any relevant conflict. If there ever was a man or group of men in power so desperate to remain in power that they would use or threaten the use of nukes against their own countrymen, it would be rather benificial to possess a great deal of firepower. If you didn't, you'd likely already be dead.

Wow. Why would you think that the rights granted to you by your government ought to override the rights given to me by mine?

He's not talking about rights that are granted. Humans are born with certain rights. The Bill of Rights does not grant any rights, it only enumerates them.

Being prepared is different than living in fear.
Yep, just like people who wash their hands 57 times a day are being "prepared" for germs...

He's not talking about rights that are granted. Humans are born with certain rights. The Bill of Rights does not grant any rights, it only enumerates them.
the right to own guns is not a natural right. the 3 natural rights are right to life, liberty and property (or happiness as jefferson edited it)

the bill of rights are rights protect civil rights

You don't know what's best for me. Don't even attempt to make a case for that.

Fine, move to Compton or Watts, Ca and see how your fellow American's embrace in their right to bare arms. And Trust me, they arent exactly hunting Deer and Quail with those UZI's.

If you think the people not armed well enough to resist the government, then we clearly need more powerful weapons.

And soon enough we have an arms race within our own community.


Also, I rather doubt nuclear weapons would ever come in to play in any relevant conflict. If there ever was a man or group of men in power so desperate to remain in power that they would use or threaten the use of nukes against their own countrymen, it would be rather benificial to possess a great deal of firepower. If you didn't, you'd likely already be dead.

If a revolt was even remotely sucessful, and the US lost complete control 5 major states, you don't think the government would do anything in its power to stay in control. Even the threat of a large scale attack would bring the revolutionaries to its knees.

Guns don't kill people.

Abortion clinics kill people.

...besides, who says the government would even need nukes - a few Daisycutters, or smart bombs down the chimneys of known agitators - POOF - there goes your resistance right there.

...besides, who says the government would even need nukes - a few Daisycutters, or smart bombs down the chimneys of known agitators - POOF - there goes your resistance right there.
nah, they got tired of that, they would just hellfire it a la israeli style

the right to own guns is not a natural right.


Once again, the Founding Fathers disagree with you.

They regarded the owning of a firearm to indeed be a natural right.

"Arms in the hands of individual citizens may be used at individual discretion...in private self-defense."

John Adams in a Defense of the Constitution.

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."

Samuel Adams during Massachusetts’ U.S. Constitution ratification convention in 1788.

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in Government."

-Thomas Jefferson.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."

-Thomas Jefferson writing part of the proposed Virginia Constitution.

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence. From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference—they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."

-George Washington

"Absolutely not. If the people are armed and the federalists do not know where the arms are, there can never be an oppressive government."

George Washington, responding to a proposal of firearm registration.

"To disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

-George Mason

Way to live in fear.

Uh, huh.

And do you wear a seatbelt because you live in fear?

I sure feel terrified because of my fire extinguisher.

Hell, I have those little security locks on the windows so they can't be pulled open. I quiver with terror every time I pass them.

Of course every time you consider something that could put you in danger and take a measure to protect yourself, you are really, really scared.

To feel truly safe you can't protect yourself in any way.

Sounds logical :rolleyes:

Craig

Uh, huh.

And do you wear a seatbelt because you live in fear?

I sure feel terrified because of my fire extinguisher.

Hell, I have those little security locks on the windows so they can't be pulled open. I quiver with terror every time I pass them.

Of course every time you consider something that could put you in danger and take a measure to protect yourself, you are really, really scared.

To feel truly safe you can't protect yourself in any way.

Sounds logical :rolleyes:

Craig
Your locks work if you are there are not.
Your seat belt takes no activation.
A gun for self defence is only usefull if it is loaded on your person and you are capable and willing to use it.
If this is the case then hand guns for self defence is ok, if it's in a draw, under the mattress etc or not loaded you may as well not have it.
A condom is no good in your wallet!

Fine, move to Compton or Watts, Ca and see how your fellow American's embrace in their right to bare arms. And Trust me, they arent exactly hunting Deer and Quail with those UZI's.


And why would I be foolish enough to move to a state that has some of the most stringent gun laws on the books? I would be breaking laws, and I don't like to do that.


And soon enough we have an arms race within our own community.


Last I checked, we already have that.


If a revolt was even remotely sucessful, and the US lost complete control 5 major states, you don't think the government would do anything in its power to stay in control. Even the threat of a large scale attack would bring the revolutionaries to its knees.

Maybe. Maybe not. We tried that in Vietnam. We're trying that in Iraq. It doesn't seem to be so easy.

Your locks work if you are there are not.
Your seat belt takes no activation.
A gun for self defence is only usefull if it is loaded on your person and you are capable and willing to use it.
If this is the case then hand guns for self defence is ok, if it's in a draw, under the mattress etc or not loaded you may as well not have it.
A condom is no good in your wallet!

You have a point. This is why we want to be able to lawfully (since there seem to be several thousand laws illegally regulating firearms on the books) carry anywhere, anytime.

A gun for self defence is only usefull if it is loaded on your person and you are capable and willing to use it.
If this is the case then hand guns for self defence is ok, if it's in a draw, under the mattress etc or not loaded you may as well not have it.


True, but just because a gun isn't ready to be fired in 5 seconds doesn't mean it is no use. Even if you have to load a clip, or pull your gun out of a draw, it would probably still be useful in a home defence situation, for example.

Craig

True, but just because a gun isn't ready to be fired in 5 seconds doesn't mean it is no use. Even if you have to load a clip, or pull your gun out of a draw, it would probably still be useful in a home defence situation, for example.

Craig
And believe it or not, simply seeing a gun can give some criminals pause. Enough time to escape, or for the criminal to escape...either of which is fine with me.

Once again, the Founding Fathers disagree with you.

They regarded the owning of a firearm to indeed be a natural right.

"Arms in the hands of individual citizens may be used at individual discretion...in private self-defense."

John Adams in a Defense of the Constitution.

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."

Samuel Adams during Massachusetts’ U.S. Constitution ratification convention in 1788.

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in Government."

-Thomas Jefferson.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."

-Thomas Jefferson writing part of the proposed Virginia Constitution.

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence. From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference—they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."

-George Washington

"Absolutely not. If the people are armed and the federalists do not know where the arms are, there can never be an oppressive government."

George Washington, responding to a proposal of firearm registration.

"To disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

-George Mason
listen you incompetent little twit
owning a gun is NOT a NATURAL right, it is a CIVIL right, and its purpose has changed in 400 years. there are no more federalists, not for a few hundred years

your stupidity proceeds you to my ignore list, good day

listen you incompetent little twit
owning a gun is NOT a NATURAL right, it is a CIVIL right, and its purpose has changed in 400 years. there are no more federalists, not for a few hundred years

your stupidity proceeds you to my ignore list, good day

Translation: All his arguments have been downed like a Russian airliner and he can't come up w/ anything new so he has to restrict his replies to posters that don't debate as well.

Translation: All his arguments have been downed like a Russian airliner and he can't come up w/ anything new so he has to restrict his replies to posters that don't debate as well.
rofl, you are saying i have to restrict arguments to people who cant debate as well? hmm, who should i debate with? the guy who doesnt know what a natural right is, AFTER I STATED THEM, or some one else? hmm, i will go with some one else

Translation: All his arguments have been downed like a Russian airliner and he can't come up w/ anything new so he has to restrict his replies to posters that don't debate as well.
That's just Chess' way of dealing with things. He either shouts someone down, or ignores them.

What he doesnt comprehend... is that in some people's view government does not grant rights. They are supposed to protect rights that are inherently granted. The only thing governments do (other than protect) is restrict rights.

"The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people ... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of."
-- Albert Gallatin, Oct 7 1789

Thomas Paine believed it would be better for "all the world to lay [arms] aside...and settle matters by negotiation" ? "but unless the whole will, the matter ends, and I take up my musket and thank Heaven He has put it in my power."

Sure sounds like a "natural" right to me.


Chess has stated in previous posts that he consideres the Bill of Rights to be selectively applied. I think this scares me more than an alleged college student w/ such poor English/typing skills.

"The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people ... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of."
-- Albert Gallatin, Oct 7 1789


Chess has stated in previous posts that he consideres the Bill of Rights to be selectively applied. I think this scares me more than an alleged college student w/ such poor English/typing skills.
it's called fact, i will look up the case law if you require, 2nd amendment rights are state by state

and i LISTED natural rights, those rights stated as given by nature by John Locke and COPIED by thomas jefferson, THOSE are NOT the rights in the bill of rights.

it's called fact, i will look up the case law if you require, 2nd amendment rights are state by state

and i LISTED natural rights, those rights stated as given by nature by John Locke and COPIED by thomas jefferson, THOSE are NOT the rights in the bill of rights.

and most real Constitutional scholars recognize that the state laws are most likely unconstitutional.

According to an article in the Encyclopedia of the American Constitution summarizing Second Amendment literature in 1986, of the thirty-six law review articles published since 1980, only four support the anti-gun position, while thirty-two articles support the individual right position advocated by the National Rifle Association.

The individual rights authors include leading constitutional scholars who don?t own guns and who "never expected or desired the evidence to crush the anti-gun position."

Professor Sanford Levinson of the University of Texas Law School, co-author of the standard law school text on the Constitution, Processes of Constitutional Decision Making, is a ACLU stalwart. In his 1989 Yale Law Journal article, cited by George Will, Professor Levinson admits his own embarrassment at having to conclude from his research that private gun ownership cannot be prohibited ? he must have hoped to find the opposite.

Like Levinson, Yale Law Professor Akhil Amar, a visiting professor of constitutional law at Columbia University, is held in high repute by liberal constitutional scholars. Yet Amar trounces the anti-gun states? right theory, emphasizing again and again that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to arms to "the people," not "the states":

[W]hen the Constitution means "states" it says so.? The ultimate right to keep and bear arms belongs to "the people," not the "states,".... Thus the "people" at the core of the Second Amendment [a]re [the] Citizens ? the same "We the People" who "ordain and establish" the Constitution and whose right to assemble...[is] at the core of the First Amendment.... Nowadays, it is quite common to speak loosely of the National Guard as "the state militia," but [when the Second Amendment was written]?"the militia" referred to all Citizens capable of bearing arms. [Thus] "the militia" is identical to "the people".?

and most real Constitutional scholars recognize that the state laws are most likely unconstitutional.
i didnt say state law, i said case law, as in court case, as in USSC

the second amendment has not been incorporated to apply to the states

Lewis v United States
US v Miller
etc etc

Just a couple of observations and questions from an RL lawyer to those that favor gun control (a very broad and general term, admittedly)

1. The Bill of Rights does not grant any rights. Rather it protects, what the founding fathers saw as inherent/natural rights, from being restricted by the federal government.

2. The "right to bear arms" encompasses more than just guns. It had some of its basic origins in the Magna Carta when guns would have been considered a science fiction idea (except that the term "science fiction" was an unknown term at the time).

3. Since the banning of guns in Britain, their violent crime rate has skyrocketed.

4. The so called "assualt weapons ban" did not ban automatic "machine gun" type weapons.

5. A semi-automatic weapon is not a machine gun!

6. Try reading a court analysis of the 2nd Amendment (http://www.wmsa.net/emerson.htm) before you say the 2nd Amendment doesn't protect the right to bear arms (guns or pitchforks).

7. Tell me why the founding fathers intended the phrase "the people" in the 2nd Amendment to have a meaning different from its meaning in all other constitutional amendments and the constitution as a whole.

just my $0.02 worth

i didnt say state law, i said case law, as in court case, as in USSC

the second amendment has not been incorporated to apply to the states

Lewis v United States
US v Miller
etc etc

Chess is correct about this. The 2nd A. limits the federal gov. not the states. The USSC has not ruled that the 2nd A. is incorporated via the 14th A. to apply to the states.

OK, as an RL lawyer, perhaps you can answer this for me: why does the right to bear arms not extend to anti-tank and surface-to-air missiles, flamethrowers, landmines, grenade launchers, mortars and other military hardware? I'm interested to hear an educated comment on this...thanks ;)

Chess is correct about this. The 2nd A. limits the federal gov. not the states. The USSC has not ruled that the 2nd A. is incorporated via the 14th A. to apply to the states.

Point conceded. However, all but 6 states (California, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, and New York) have the equivalent in their state constitutions. Illinois for example: Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Art. I, § 22)
If I remember correctly: Chess is in Alabama so "That the great, general and essential principles of liberty and free government may be recognized and established, we declare....That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. (Art. I, § 26)"

OK, as an RL lawyer, perhaps you can answer this for me: why does the right to bear arms not extend to anti-tank and surface-to-air missiles, flamethrowers, landmines, grenade launchers, mortars and other military hardware? I'm interested to hear an educated comment on this...thanks ;)

Just as the right to "free speech" does not encompass the right to commit libel and slander or yell "fire" in a crowded theater, the right to bear arms has reasonable restrictions and is not an "absolute" right. The issue is what is a "reasonable" restriction. Some say reasonable means flintlocks are all that is allowed, others would say anything a single person can carry. I would argue that since at the time the 2nd A. was passed the militia was made up of men bringing into service the weapons they typically had in their homes (self-defense hand guns and hunting rifles) that those are the types of weapons contemplated as being protected by the 2nd A. and that grenade launchers, mortars, missiles, etc. are the types of weapons that were equivalent to cannons in the days of the constitution's adoption.

Just as the right to "free speech" does not encompass the right to commit libel and slander or yell "fire" in a crowded theater, the right to bear arms has reasonable restrictions and is not an "absolute" right. The issue is what is a "reasonable" restriction. Some say reasonable means flintlocks are all that is allowed, others would say anything a single person can carry. I would argue that since at the time the 2nd A. was passed the militia was made up of men bringing into service the weapons they typically had in their homes (self-defense hand guns and hunting rifles) that those are the types of weapons contemplated as being protected by the 2nd A. and that grenade launchers, mortars, missiles, etc. are the types of weapons that were equivalent to cannons in the days of the constitution's adoption.

There were independent artillery militias during this time period. The only restriction was affordability(i.e. wealthy land owners/businessmen)

There were independent artillery militias during this time period. The only restriction was affordability(i.e. wealthy land owners/businessmen)

agreed, but they were not typical. IMHO the framers had in mind the "typical" person/militia member, not the "special" militias.

Lewis v United States
US v Miller
etc etc

I'm really glad you brought those up (though I would like you to expand on etc(.) etc(.)
U.S. v Miller states: * In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

Thus, for the keeping and bearing of a firearm to be constitutionally protected, the firearm should be a military-type arm.

Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 95 (1980). Lewis recognized--in summarizing the holding of Miller, supra, as "the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have `some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia`" (emphasis added)--thatMiller had focused upon the type of firearm. Further, Lewis was concerned only with whether the provision of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 which prohibits the possession of firearms by convicted felons (codified in 18 U.S.C.922(g) in 1986) violated the Second Amendment. Thus, since convicted felons historically were and are subject to the loss of numerous fundamental rights of citizenship--including the right to vote, hold office, and serve on juries--it was not erroneous for the Court to have concluded that laws prohibiting the possession of firearms by a convicted felon "are neither based upon constitutionally suspect criteria, nor do they trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties."


So MILITARY weapons: yes, felons: no

agreed, but they were not typical. IMHO the framers had in mind the "typical" person/militia member, not the "special" militias.

Far from "typical" agreed. I would argue that the framers meant for an honest, law-abiding citizen to be able to compete with a tyrannical national army. But I'll agree to disagree w/ you on that point. Yes I know, it gets nasty when one thinks of NBC weapons, but do I think that an HL-A citizen should at least BE ABLE to own heavy weapons (.50 cal, rockets, tanks)? Yes. To counter it, those types' history should be heavily scrutinized and any misdeads punished "severely". I'm also in favor of very harsh punishments for those that improperly use firearms as they stand now.

First of all, to anyone who thinks all firearms should be banned becuase they're afraid of being shot, well, they are wrong. Firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens actually help lower crime, criminals know they can be held accountable for their deeds. The opposite is shown in Austrailia (as someone mentioned). When guns were banned crime rose exponentially. See a pattern? Are you still convinced that complete gun regulation/illegalization is the only way to quench your fear of a nonexistant concept?

The world is full of fear, and the world will never be perfect. Of course in a perfect world there would be no guns! But we all know this isn't a perfect world. People have to have the right to defend themselves! There is no reason the government should limit that so long as the person harms no one (unless out of pure self defence). If you're not hurting anyone, there's no problem. If all guns were eliminated, that would just creat a monopoly A) for the government - this is how corruption happens B) for those who choose to illegally make and sell weapons on the black market - and yes it would happen. Why? Because this isn't a perfect world.

We should all have the opportunity to defend ourselves, but those who use weapons improperly should be punished.

Columbine didn't happen because guns weren't banned. It happened because those kids were fucked up, period.

If you guys would stop ignoring the statistics, the constitution, and the right of ever person to their own freedom (as long as it harms none) then maybe you'd realize why we need guns in america.

ps. i am not a 'conservative.' i am a classical liberal. i am "liberal" on social issues but I support small government. which makes me libertarian.

Far from "typical" agreed. I would argue that the framers meant for an honest, law-abiding citizen to be able to compete with a tyrannical national army. But I'll agree to disagree w/ you on that point. Yes I know, it gets nasty when one thinks of NBC weapons, but do I think that an HL-A citizen should at least BE ABLE to own heavy weapons (.50 cal, rockets, tanks)? Yes. To counter it, those types' history should be heavily scrutinized and any misdeads punished "severely". I'm also in favor of very harsh punishments for those that improperly use firearms as they stand now.

Follow up on this: According to Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 15 of the Constitution, the functions of the militia are: "to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections, and repel Invasions. . . ." Thus, the militia has a law enforcement function, a quasi law enforcement/quasi military function, and a military function. As a result, those firearms which are "arms" within the meaning of the Second Amendment are those which could be used to fulfill any of these functions.

However: U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
"when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." Makes it debatable as to the definition of "common use" .

We both are right to a point.

First of all, to anyone who thinks all firearms should be banned becuase they're afraid of being shot, well, they are wrong. Firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens actually help lower crime, criminals know they can be held accountable for their deeds. The opposite is shown in Austrailia (as someone mentioned). When guns were banned crime rose exponentially.

Welcome to the debate - the myth about Australia was debunked many pages ago. Statistics show that, while crime IN GENERAL did rise (and not by all that great an amount, actually; certainly not exponentially), VIOLENT crimes, in particular GUN RELATED crimes, dropped significantly.

And believe it or not, simply seeing a gun can give some criminals pause. Enough time to escape, or for the criminal to escape...either of which is fine with me.

I believe it :-)

That's how I know it's bollocks when the anti-gunners say "Only X criminals have been killed in self defence, but Y more civilians die from guns!"

In the vast majority of cases, a criminal won't stare down the barrel of a gun and keep advancing, hence the smaller number of dead criminals.

Craig

Quote by some gun nut way back on the 1st page:
if you take guns away from the general population, those people who get them for evil crimanal ways would still get them

The same worked with alcohol prohibition, and is still working with marajuana. However, I would like to point out that they would be much more expensive if sold on the Black Market, hence fewer people would be willing or able to buy a gun, despite their illegality. If you take dangerous things away from society, then there will be less occurences of the negative consequences of them. Christ, how many more people do you think would be OD'ing if they legalised heroine? About as many alcoholics and drink drivers there are? The idea of gun control is to lessen the number of victims as a result of gun-related crime or accidents. I just don't understand how people would not want to lessen the risk that one day they are going to be walking down the street when they get shot by a guy (or chick) who's snapped and gone on a Port Arthur-style shooting spree. All for the sake of going duck hunting! Bloody Americans.

Columbine didn't happen because guns weren't banned. It happened because those kids were fucked up, period.

Well-ey, how about we, um, try and FIX the problem AT THE CORE so that people won't want to commit a crime using a gun, or any other sort of weapon for that matter? Try looking past the redneck perspective of "guhuh I got me a second amenduhment so I can own me a duck huntin' rahfle" to "If we educated kids a bit better, andevolved as a society, we won't have a need for people to do shit to other people."

"Fucked up, period ?? NO! Not 'period.' Why were they fucked up? How about we figure out what is so intrinsically wrong with our society for churning out people like this before they're 20 years old? Does anyone else see a problem with a culture that allows its citizens to carry around a weapon of war???

If you take dangerous things away from society, then there will be less occurences of the negative consequences of them.


Ah, but there lies the problem.

When you ban guns, you are taking the dangerous things away from the wrong sectors of society.

You take the guns from the people who obey laws, and leave guns with those who do not.

This means that suddenly criminals have these dangerous things that no one else is allowed.


I just don't understand how people would not want to lessen the risk that one day they are going to be walking down the street when they get shot by a guy (or chick) who's snapped and gone on a Port Arthur-style shooting spree.

But I don't think it lessens the risk. By making guns illegal you simply make it easier to go on a shooting rampage.

Would you rather shoot up a street where you knew the citizens weren't allowed firearms or a street where they allowed concealed carry handguns and you don't know who could have a pistol drawn on you in three seconds?

Craig

Wouldn't mean a darn bit of difference, right now, today. I'm not being attacked right now, today. I'm in front of a silly electronic box, irradiating my retinas. Hmmm...maybe I should shoot the monitor. It's attacking.

But that's not what it's about. I'm talking increasing my odds of survival (on the self defense front) and increasing my odds that a corrupt US government won't attack it's armed populace at any point.

hm... I'm just curious, I can't really follow that statement, I mean it's not like you're living in Palestine or Iraq... or Chechnya or Afghania... or whatever other country... or or... OH, YEAH! TIBET!

The same worked with alcohol prohibition, and is still working with marajuana. However, I would like to point out that they would be much more expensive if sold on the Black Market, hence fewer people would be willing or able to buy a gun, despite their illegality. If you take dangerous things away from society, then there will be less occurences of the negative consequences of them. Christ, how many more people do you think would be OD'ing if they legalised heroine? About as many alcoholics and drink drivers there are? The idea of gun control is to lessen the number of victims as a result of gun-related crime or accidents. I just don't understand how people would not want to lessen the risk that one day they are going to be walking down the street when they get shot by a guy (or chick) who's snapped and gone on a Port Arthur-style shooting spree. All for the sake of going duck hunting! Bloody Americans.


Here's the difference: If you take someone's booze away from them, it would be MORE difficult to attack them and get away with it. You take a gun away from someone, and they have less of a chance of defending themselves.

And, no, prohibition only created the largest foothold for the mafia on our shores. That regulation caused more violent crime, rather than "save" anyone from alcohol. Taking guns away does the same thing here.


Well-ey, how about we, um, try and FIX the problem AT THE CORE so that people won't want to commit a crime using a gun, or any other sort of weapon for that matter? Try looking past the redneck perspective of "guhuh I got me a second amenduhment so I can own me a duck huntin' rahfle" to "If we educated kids a bit better, andevolved as a society, we won't have a need for people to do shit to other people."

"Fucked up, period ?? NO! Not 'period.' Why were they fucked up? How about we figure out what is so intrinsically wrong with our society for churning out people like this before they're 20 years old? Does anyone else see a problem with a culture that allows its citizens to carry around a weapon of war???

How about holding the parents and those kids responsible for what happened, instead of trying to blame a faceless, impossible-to-enforce-responsibility chunk of society? When the hell did people become immune to the ramifications of what they do? Blame the people that did the killing, and raised them to be killers. Don't blame the object.

A weapon of war. Then you need to ban all arms, if you're going to take that route. Including knives (used in war), bats (clubs are used in war), etc. Yes, that is what you are saying--or said. It may not been what you meant, but hey, all we have to go on are your words.

It should also ban any kind of firearms and (expecially) their manufacturing.

otherwise we will all end up as screwed up as fucking USA is

hm... I'm just curious, I can't really follow that statement, I mean it's not like you're living in Palestine or Iraq... or Chechnya or Afghania... or whatever other country... or or... OH, YEAH! TIBET!

True, the odds are lower that I'd run into a situation that would require me to defend myself.

However, should a situation occur that I would need to defend myself, I would like as much in my favor as possible. This is why I want to carry.

I don't have to be in those countries for an attack to occur. Less chance, yes, but it can still happen. Our smaller communities are seeing the runoff of crime from the larger cities more and more these days.

I honestly hope I never have to use a firearm in self-defense. But I will not sit by and not be ready.

It should also ban any kind of firearms and (expecially)(especially) their manufacturing.

o(O)therwise we will all end up as screwed up as (the) fucking USA is(.)

Because banning firearms has worked worked so well elsewhere. You also want their manufacturing banned. What about the military? Do you want gov't control/monopoly of industry as well? What about this nice little border w/ a country called Mexico where smuggling is quite prolific?

You say we, who are "we" and how is the USA screwed up in comparison in your opinion? (profanity deleted for maturity's sake)

True, the odds are lower that I'd run into a situation that would require me to defend myself.

However, should a situation occur that I would need to defend myself, I would like as much in my favor as possible. This is why I want to carry.

I don't have to be in those countries for an attack to occur. Less chance, yes, but it can still happen. Our smaller communities are seeing the runoff of crime from the larger cities more and more these days.

I honestly hope I never have to use a firearm in self-defense. But I will not sit by and not be ready.

I believe w/ the Tibet comment, Mr. D.C. was being sarcastic. Correct me if I'm wrong.

No one should be licensed to carry a gun that can't hit the target.

BTW- I feel that so long as you're licensed, you should be able to carry. Here in the US, it's a state (or even local!) issue. CT only started with state permits recently... I think it should be a NATIONAL license. If I'm legal to carry in CT, I should be legal to carry anywhere in the US, provided I don't break the fundamental rules -- not in schools, courts of law, drinking sections of bars/restaurants, etc.

Because banning firearms has worked worked so well elsewhere. You also want their manufacturing banned. What about the military? Do you want gov't control/monopoly of industry as well? What about this nice little border w/ a country called Mexico where smuggling is quite prolific?

You say we, who are "we" and how is the USA screwed up in comparison in your opinion? (profanity deleted for maturity's sake)

We is the rest of the world. We is all the countries that the US exploits economically, politically and militarily. We is all the people that know globalization is a cover for AMERICAnisation and don't want it to happen.

I wouldn't have anything against the way you live in the US if it weren't to affect (really badly) the whole of the planet.

PS: I apologize for the profanity. It is just that ... the F word followed by america is a bit of a "cellar door" for me ...

We is the rest of the world. We is all the countries that the US exploits economically, politically and militarily. We is all the people that know globalization is a cover for AMERICAnisation and don't want it to happen.

I wouldn't have anything against the way you live in the US if it weren't to affect (really badly) the whole of the planet.

PS: I apologize for the profanity. It is just that ... the F word followed by america is a bit of a "cellar door" for me ...

So what you're saying is that the private ownership of firearms is the direct cause of the US exploiting the entire world which you speak for?

How does the way I live influence the actions of the gov't? I never said I agree w/ everything that they do. Instead of attacking my guaranteed freedoms (in the US) you should be lobbying your politicians (assuming you're allowed to) to counteract these alledged abuses and not be buying American made products

Face it.. the argument by the anti-gun people (with a notable exception of Really Wild Things) is solely based around one "fact":
Guns make them uncomfortable. They would feel safer about themselves if they knew were no guns in the world around them. They don't look at the issue pragmatically or realistically at all. They just want guns to disappear.

Face it.. the argument by the anti-gun people (with a notable exception of Really Wild Things) is solely based around one "fact":
Guns make them uncomfortable. They would feel safer about themselves if they knew were no guns in the world around them. They don't look at the issue pragmatically or realistically at all. They just want guns to disappear.I hope you're not including me in that group - as a sporting and hunting shooter, I am not "uncomfortable" around guns. I'm only uncomfortable if one is being pointed at me with malicious intent, or if one is in the hands of someone who isn't competent enough to use it safely.

And again, you falsely present the argument that wanting tighter gun control = wanting total ban. Only one or two individuals have stated they want a total ban - the vast majority of "our side" of the debate here have been merely calling for tighter licensing laws and a restriction on certain types of weapons (and also, in my case, on what constitutes legitimate uses for a gun).

I'm not going to bother restating my personal stance - if anyone is interested, you can find it about ten times earlier in this thread...

And again, you falsely present the argument that wanting tighter gun control = wanting total ban. Only one or two individuals have stated they want a total ban - the vast majority of "our side" of the debate here have been merely calling for tighter licensing laws and a restriction on certain types of weapons (and also, in my case, on what constitutes legitimate uses for a gun).


Tighter gun control is what always LEADS to confiscation.


I'm not going to bother restating my personal stance - if anyone is interested, you can find it about ten times earlier in this thread...

We know your stance--you're scared of those you deem not not "competent enough" having guns, or using them in a way you, yourself wouldn't use them. These are all opinions that can't be measured, due to their ties with emotions. It's not your call how I use my firearm, if I'm not infringing upon your rights.

Who's opinion of "competent enough" do we go by? Do we go by their ability to shoot, or do we create mandatory psychological profiles of every gun owner, or what?

How far? And who decides what others get or don't get?

What if everything over a .223 isn't acceptable, because someone is even more uncomfortable about the situation than you? Your argument cannot work, due to the fact that all of us wouldn't be able to decide on where the lines need to be drawn. Plus, you get people that have zero hunting experience (I'm using hunting example because you're a hunter), making decisions on what you can and cannot do. Sure, you CAN take a deer down with a .223, but a .308 or a .30-06 is going to do the job better. You and I know that, but the ignorant (using it in the classical definition of someone that doesn't know anything about a specific topic) can't possibly make a decent decision, not knowing anything about the issue. Feinstein has already said she'd take all the guns away if she could, and she has a lot more power influencing what happens in this country than we do. You ready to stop hunting anything larger than a squirrel?

Just because someone doesn't do something, doesn't make someone else who does do that particular thing wrong, misguided, evil, etc. It's being different, and humans seem to fear different. It's not how they would do it, so it's automatically wrong (not saying you in particular--just human nature).

True, the odds are lower that I'd run into a situation that would require me to defend myself.

However, should a situation occur that I would need to defend myself, I would like as much in my favor as possible. This is why I want to carry.

I don't have to be in those countries for an attack to occur. Less chance, yes, but it can still happen. Our smaller communities are seeing the runoff of crime from the larger cities more and more these days.

I honestly hope I never have to use a firearm in self-defense. But I will not sit by and not be ready.

... honestly, I really think you're a little bit paranoid...

It's not like I don't like guns, I mean it feels reallly good to waste a target on 200 metres with a H&K G3 Assault Rifle, or to punch through a little wood with 1800 rounds per minute with a H&K MG3, but... Why the heck would anyone want to attack me with such a force that would make it nessecary for me to actually use Assault Rifles or Machine Guns...

I mean... that just sounds ridiculous to me...

I hope you're not including me in that group - as a sporting and hunting shooter, I am not "uncomfortable" around guns. I'm only uncomfortable if one is being pointed at me with malicious intent, or if one is in the hands of someone who isn't competent enough to use it safely.

And again, you falsely present the argument that wanting tighter gun control = wanting total ban. Only one or two individuals have stated they want a total ban - the vast majority of "our side" of the debate here have been merely calling for tighter licensing laws and a restriction on certain types of weapons (and also, in my case, on what constitutes legitimate uses for a gun).

I'm not going to bother restating my personal stance - if anyone is interested, you can find it about ten times earlier in this thread...
i agree, its not that im "uncomfortable" aorund guns, or "afraid" of guns, im just uncomfortable with people already predisposed to violence and killing OWNING said guns and carrying them with them all the time