NationStates Jolt Archive

Taxes: High taxes slow the economy. Why? Because when you take more money away from people they have less money to spend and put back into the economy making it slow down. And what does the government do with those high taxes? Waste them on failed government programs. So low taxes= strong economy and less wasted money.

Gun control: It is my right to have a gun. 2nd most important right according to the people who started this country. Efforts to take away or limit my guns ARE AGAINST THE LAW

Crime: Stop fucking cuddling criminals. Prison is supposed to be a punishment not a resort. They are in there because they are bad people who hurt society. If we punished them like we should we wouldn't have so many reoffenders because people would actually not like to go to prison. Theres a thought, uh?

Death Penalty: If you kill an innocent person for no reason, you deserve to die. Pretty simple really murders a waste of life.

affirmative action: its just reverse racism and its wrong. It seems like the only people who see race or make race a big deal are the people who claim they are fighting racism. Guess what? If you stop focusing on race and highlighting the differences and divisions of the races, it will all go away and people will see people as people.

Thats all I got for now. Feel free show me where I'm wrong, discuss, etc.

Waste them on failed government programs.
What if they succeed? Perhaps one government is successful where another is woefully inadequate? You should not use your own failings to discourage others from trying. After all, maybe they are better.

Thats all I got for now. Feel free show me where I'm wrong, discuss, etc.

I think you went wrong by assuming that these positions are shared by all leftists.

I am a leftist who believes in minimal government, despises gun control, and has no opinion whatsoever on affirmative action.

Feel free to explain how this makes me not a leftist.

Taxes: High taxes slow the economy. Why? Because when you take more money away from people they have less money to spend and put back into the economy making it slow down. And what does the government do with those high taxes? Waste them on failed government programs. So low taxes= strong economy and less wasted money.

That is a painfully simplistic and innacurate view of how tax cuts effect the economy. Me thinks you need a briefer on how they might atually work:
http://www.slate.com/id/2146868/?nav=tap3


Gun control: It is my right to have a gun. 2nd most important right according to the people who started this country. Efforts to take away or limit my guns ARE AGAINST THE LAW
Again, you are interpreting it to your own bias. The 2nd Amendment is extremely vague- no where does it say the average citizen has a right to own a gun with no limits. (and considering the Gov limits freedom of speech, which is the 1st Amendment, it goes to show that they can limit this as well).


Death Penalty: If you kill an innocent person for no reason, you deserve to die. Pretty simple really murders a waste of life.
Again, a painfully simplistic approach. Did you ever stop to consider the world may not be black and white? Beyond that, I'd hold that (1) the death penalty falls under cruel and unusual punishment, and (2) it is much more punishment to make a person live in solitary confinement the rest of their life, as well as cheaper.

Taxes: High taxes slow the economy. Why? Because when you take more money away from people they have less money to spend and put back into the economy making it slow down. And what does the government do with those high taxes? Waste them on failed government programs. So low taxes= strong economy and less wasted money. Taxes should be balanced so that they're not a great burden on business, but so that government has funds with which to defend the nation, maintain rule of law, hire people to build and maintain the infrastructure necessary for business, maintain high educational standards, and prevent people from becoming homeless or malnourished. Failing to do that can make a nation very unfriendly to business. Somalia didn't collect taxes, but who wanted to do business there?

Gun control: It is my right to have a gun. 2nd most important right according to the people who started this country. Efforts to take away or limit my guns ARE AGAINST THE LAW I agree.

Crime: Stop fucking cuddling criminals. Prison is supposed to be a punishment not a resort. They are in there because they are bad people who hurt society. If we punished them like we should we wouldn't have so many reoffenders because people would actually not like to go to prison. Theres a thought, uh? Most of the criminals in prison will eventually be released. It makes sense to give them skills that they'll need to rejoin the workforce and the society rather than just warehouse them under poor conditions and then release people who've been hardened to poor treatment and have no skills or prospects whatsoever.

Death Penalty: If you kill an innocent person for no reason, you deserve to die. Pretty simple really murders a waste of life. That's your personal ethical stance. It's not necessarily the best way. Some people who've commited murder can be salvaged as usefull members of society.

affirmative action: its just reverse racism and its wrong. It seems like the only people who see race or make race a big deal are the people who claim they are fighting racism. Guess what? If you stop focusing on race and highlighting the differences and divisions of the races, it will all go away and people will see people as people. I think affirmative action for Blacks and Native Americans is a form of reparations for slavery and the near genocide that occured in the past.

Taxes: High taxes slow the economy. Why? Because when you take more money away from people they have less money to spend and put back into the economy making it slow down. And what does the government do with those high taxes? Waste them on failed government programs. So low taxes= strong economy and less wasted money.

Gun control: It is my right to have a gun. 2nd most important right according to the people who started this country. Efforts to take away or limit my guns ARE AGAINST THE LAW One could argue that you only have a right to own a gun if your state's National Guard requires you to bring your own weapon when you're called up. And what's now the 2nd Amendment was actually fourth on the list as originally proposed. Except for the last one about rights not expressly granted to the government are reserved to the states, I don't think the order of the amendments in the Bill of Rights is meaningful.

Crime: Stop fucking cuddling criminals. Prison is supposed to be a punishment not a resort. They are in there because they are bad people who hurt society. If we punished them like we should we wouldn't have so many reoffenders because people would actually not like to go to prison. Theres a thought, uh? I agree with this.

Death Penalty: If you kill an innocent person for no reason, you deserve to die. Pretty simple really murders a waste of life. Hmm, but if in the previous point you make prison a place of punishment, what better punishment than to spend your entire life there? And given modern medical science, your life can last a long, long time.

affirmative action: its just reverse racism and its wrong. It seems like the only people who see race or make race a big deal are the people who claim they are fighting racism. Guess what? If you stop focusing on race and highlighting the differences and divisions of the races, it will all go away and people will see people as people. In the best of all possible worlds, perhaps.

Thats all I got for now. Feel free show me where I'm wrong, discuss, etc.
Just my thoughts.

Crime: Stop fucking cuddling criminals. Prison is supposed to be a punishment not a resort. They are in there because they are bad people who hurt society. If we punished them like we should we wouldn't have so many reoffenders because people would actually not like to go to prison. Theres a thought, uh?


Have you been inside a prison? I will admit, I haven't, but I suspect they aren't really that nice. Small cells, rape, etc. I don't believe you would want to go there.


Death Penalty: If you kill an innocent person for no reason, you deserve to die. Pretty simple really murders a waste of life.


You're describing one specific kind of killing. There are many shades of gray with regard to relationship between killer and victim, whether it was "in the heat of the moment", whether it was a racist or "hate" crime or not. Even so, it's not such a simple question.

Gun control: It is my right to have a gun. 2nd most important right according to the people who started this country. Efforts to take away or limit my guns ARE AGAINST THE LAW

Doesn't mean you can have automatic weapons or that there shouldn't be backround checks and other basic safety measures. Given your strong stand on this issue I would love to know how you would get those illegal guns off the streets and out of the hands of gangs.

Doesn't mean you can have automatic weapons or that there shouldn't be backround checks and other basic safety measures. Given your strong stand on this issue I would love to know how you would get those illegal guns off the streets and out of the hands of gangs.

I don't have a problem with background checks, registration, etc. After all only law abiding citizens have to the right to own guns. I do have a problem with not allowing automatic weapons, as if they are any more dangerous than other weapons. A 9mm handgun can kill you just as good as an AK. If you have an illegal gun, you go to prison. I imagine that would help the problem.

Why do you actually need or want a gun? I can understand having a gun for a few things.
1) Sport
2) Hunting
3) Pest control.
So who, apart from people who shoot deer etc cos they enjoy it, people who shoot targets cos they enjoy it, and farmers, need guns? Do any of those groups have need of automatic weapons? Of guns they can conceal in their clothing?
Would any of those groups be unable to pass background checks? Not as a rule. Would any of those groups be unable to keep a gun in a locked cabinet, separate from the ammunition? No.

EDIT: I am not left wing.

I don't have a problem with background checks, registration, etc. After all only law abiding citizens have to the right to own guns. I do have a problem with not allowing automatic weapons, as if they are any more dangerous than other weapons. A 9mm handgun can kill you just as good as an AK. If you have an illegal gun, you go to prison. I imagine that would help the problem.

You're delusional if you believe that. A handgun isn't even remotely as accurate as a rifle. A 9mm fires slower, has fewer rounds in a clip, and smaller ammo. An AK (full auto) fires very fast, fairly accurately, and has some fairly devastating ammunition.

Yes a 9MM can kill you, eventually. An AK can kill you, and four or five others next to you.

Have you been inside a prison? I will admit, I haven't, but I suspect they aren't really that nice. Small cells, rape, etc. I don't believe you would want to go there.

you would be surprised. Most prisons have a/c, t.v., books, the works really. So when the prisoner gets out they are left with the choice of working hard and getting their life back on trackor taking another vacation in prison, they choose prison.

You're describing one specific kind of killing. There are many shades of gray with regard to relationship between killer and victim, whether it was "in the heat of the moment", whether it was a racist or "hate" crime or not. Even so, it's not such a simple question.
right, some of what you said was manslaughter. I'm talking about murder, there's a difference.

Why do you actually need or want a gun? I can understand having a gun for a few things.
1) Sport
2) Hunting
3) Pest control.
So who, apart from people who shoot deer etc cos they enjoy it, people who shoot targets cos they enjoy it, and farmers, need guns? Do any of those groups have need of automatic weapons? Of guns they can conceal in their clothing?
Would any of those groups be unable to pass background checks? Not as a rule. Would any of those groups be unable to keep a gun in a locked cabinet, separate from the ammunition? No.

EDIT: I am not left wing.

You forget a primary one. Self-defense. There are hundreds of thousands of people in the US who have passed background checks for concealed weapons and do so on a regular basis. Keeping the firearms locked up w/ separated ammo completely eliminates this option which is why it is a primary goal of the gun-banner types.

You're delusional if you believe that. A handgun isn't even remotely as accurate as a rifle. A 9mm fires slower, has fewer rounds in a clip, and smaller ammo. An AK (full auto) fires very fast, fairly accurately, and has some fairly devastating ammunition.

Yes a 9MM can kill you, eventually. An AK can kill you, and four or five others next to you.
My point was that they can both kill you. I don't see how you can ban one, but say the other is fine.

Ya know, people, if you mean "Democratic Party of the USA", just say so. "Left" or "liberal" are relatively meaningless terms.

I don't have a problem with background checks, registration, etc. After all only law abiding citizens have to the right to own guns. I do have a problem with not allowing automatic weapons, as if they are any more dangerous than other weapons. A 9mm handgun can kill you just as good as an AK. If you have an illegal gun, you go to prison. I imagine that would help the problem.

We should have a distinction between civilian weapons and what only the army can have. What does a civilian need with an AK?

I'd still like to know how we will fight gang violence in America. Seems a high price to pay for gun rights to allow gangs to shoot each other and any bystanders in their way.

Why do you actually need or want a gun? I can understand having a gun for a few things.
1) Sport
2) Hunting
3) Pest control.
So who, apart from people who shoot deer etc cos they enjoy it, people who shoot targets cos they enjoy it, and farmers, need guns? Do any of those groups have need of automatic weapons? Of guns they can conceal in their clothing?
Would any of those groups be unable to pass background checks? Not as a rule. Would any of those groups be unable to keep a gun in a locked cabinet, separate from the ammunition? No.

EDIT: I am not left wing.

There's also self defence there, but it falls under the same rules as everything else. (Except the locked cabinet seperate from the ammunition one, a gun's not gonna do you much good in that situation if it takes you that long to get it.)

Why do you actually need or want a gun? I can understand having a gun for a few things.
1) Sport
2) Hunting
3) Pest control.
So who, apart from people who shoot deer etc cos they enjoy it, people who shoot targets cos they enjoy it, and farmers, need guns? Do any of those groups have need of automatic weapons? Of guns they can conceal in their clothing?
Would any of those groups be unable to pass background checks? Not as a rule. Would any of those groups be unable to keep a gun in a locked cabinet, separate from the ammunition? No.

EDIT: I am not left wing.

My big reason for having guns is protection of self and property. But why do you even need a reason? Its my right to have them even if all I want to do with them is shoot at a range or look at them.

you would be surprised. Most prisons have a/c, t.v., books, the works really. So when the prisoner gets out they are left with the choice of working hard and getting their life back on trackor taking another vacation in prison, they choose prison.


Fine, AC, TV, books, although I'm not sure how common they are in cells. But loss of freedom of movement is a pretty big punishment in any case. Somehow, I can't see an ex-convict jumping to go back to prison. Aren't these things given out to prisoners who cooperate with police anyway? I'm not an expert in this area.

My point was that they can both kill you. I don't see how you can ban one, but say the other is fine.

You're talking about one person here.
An AK is far more dangerous when some maniac starts firing it in a crowded area.
Same reason only the army gets nukes.

My point was that they can both kill you. I don't see how you can ban one, but say the other is fine.

You know, a pack of firecrackers can kill you, so can a nuke, why ban one but the other is fine?

What if they succeed? Perhaps one government is successful where another is woefully inadequate? You should not use your own failings to discourage others from trying. After all, maybe they are better.

For every Government program that works anywhere in the world really, theres far more that fail. So why waste the money?

We should have a distinction between civilian weapons and what only the army can have. What does a civilian need with an AK?

Maybe a civilian wants to have one just in case of invasion.

Or is making a collection.

A rifle is not a tank, you don't have to act like it's OMG NUCLEAR.

I'd still like to know how we will fight gang violence in America. Seems a high price to pay for gun rights to allow gangs to shoot each other and any bystanders in their way.

If you think gang violence exists because gun ownership is legal, you've got a misunderstanding of the problem.

Besides, many guns owned by criminals are not purchased legally anyway.

We should have a distinction between civilian weapons and what only the army can have. What does a civilian need with an AK?

I'd still like to know how we will fight gang violence in America. Seems a high price to pay for gun rights to allow gangs to shoot each other and any bystanders in their way.

So wanting less restrictions on legal ownership = "allowing" gangs to use them illegally?

Maybe if the police would actually enforce the laws that are already on the books and revolving door prisons would actually keep violent offenders....

I think you went wrong by assuming that these positions are shared by all leftists.

I am a leftist who believes in minimal government, despises gun control, and has no opinion whatsoever on affirmative action.

Feel free to explain how this makes me not a leftist.

A leftist believing in minimal government? WTF?

You know, a pack of firecrackers can kill you, so can a nuke, why ban one but the other is fine?

So a firecracker = nuclear weapons is the same as a pistol = a rifle?

Taxes: Good point, but how will reducing the taxes for the upper 1% help me get more spending cash? How will high government spending without fiscal responsibility help my children?

Gun control: Agreed. How does making it more difficult to legally own guns make it harder for criminals who don't give a shit about gun laws to commit gun-related crimes?

Crime: Agreed. But we need to top sending white-collar criminals to minimum security resorts. These cocksuckers from Enron and Tyco have destroyed more families than a hundred drug dealers could. Throw em in a hole with the rest of the scumbags.

Death Penalty: Capital punishment, in my opinion, is far more humane than life without parole. But the quality of justice for capital offenses should not be about who can and can't afford the best defense.

Affirmative action: A balance has to be struck betwen the justice of equality and the value of diversity. Neither side is completely right or wrong and a happy medium can be found.

:)

So a firecracker = nuclear weapons is the same as a pistol = a rifle?

Countering an absurd argument with an absurd argument.

Here is where you're both wrong, Capitalism is a base of our system, but whenever the people start living under harsh conditions, like higher taxes, less pay, less money basically. They get pissed, and they go on strikes. Now when they go on strikes, that means the company is gonna have to pay them for striking as well, but only for so long. But the company also has to pay for their other employees. Now whether the strike is a just cause, the CONSUMER has the option whether or not to buy from that COMPANY. It is the CONSUMERS who run the country, and NOT the COMPANIES.

Now it is important for the worker to have his means to not only work, but also work at getting his GED. To make something out of the common worker. But when unions grow in number, that means it is not only a blow to the company but a blow to the consumer, higher pay rates means higher goods. That is why employees who work there will get to have more money, then they get too corrupt, then the companies goods are too high for the common man anymore.

It is why we live in a Federal Republic, to control the workers. When you fuck with a major company you fuck with our economy, one must ask themselves is it the worker who is the greedy one or is it the company? The answers are sometimes both.

But heres the thing, every single country is like that. Communism is not starting to exist in China where the people can open up businesses, but it is still controlled by the government. But now that they have better morals, principles, that the government gave the people more freedom. In Germany people can still open up businesses without the government telling them they have to do things their way. It is why one economical structure must co-exist with another.

But here is the point, when the base can't support it the upper structure, it falls down. Like in the U.S., our base is capitalism, our upper structure is socialism. But when people try to make more socialism, and more pay, guess what the upper structure starts to get heavy, and heavier, this is why the democrats MUST raise taxes in order to try and support itself. But when the common and descent man tries to work on his farm, or works in construction. He can't support his family, he can't get the tools he needs because taxes are too high. Because the government is picking on not only big businesses but small ones as well. You can't deterierate one business and give it to the other, that's communism. And when communism starts to erupt in the U.S., guess what, the common man is gonna get pissed. And the majority of the U.S. is gonna burn hollywood, burn San Francisco, burn New York, and then march to WDC, and demand the presidents head be chopped off and the house of rep be punished for making such stupid laws.

Thats why I think the house of representatives is our main problem, they have too much power, we need to restore the federal republic to it's former glory, and to finally let loose on the powerhouse structure, that the GREATEST of minds have founded on. Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, Voltaire, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Patrick Henry, etc.

Thus concluding, one government must co-exist with the other, but the base must remain the HEAVIEST and not the upper structure, or else the economy will fall, and when it falls the people will rise with anger.

You forget a primary one. Self-defense. There are hundreds of thousands of people in the US who have passed background checks for concealed weapons and do so on a regular basis. Keeping the firearms locked up w/ separated ammo completely eliminates this option which is why it is a primary goal of the gun-banner types.

You know, when someone carries a knife (legal to own for any over-16, legal to carry in any way you please, as long as it has "legitimate purpose") for "Self-defence" - that's considered a social problem. People say we need to step up policing in these areas, so people can feel safe in their own cities.
And here, at least, we have the same view of firearms. The idea of people walking down the street carrying firearms, whatever background check they've passed, makes me feel significantly less safe, not more.

Taxes: High taxes slow the economy. Why? Because when you take more money away from people they have less money to spend and put back into the economy making it slow down. And what does the government do with those high taxes? Waste them on failed government programs. So low taxes= strong economy and less wasted money.

Gun control: It is my right to have a gun. 2nd most important right according to the people who started this country. Efforts to take away or limit my guns ARE AGAINST THE LAW

Crime: Stop fucking cuddling criminals. Prison is supposed to be a punishment not a resort. They are in there because they are bad people who hurt society. If we punished them like we should we wouldn't have so many reoffenders because people would actually not like to go to prison. Theres a thought, uh?

Death Penalty: If you kill an innocent person for no reason, you deserve to die. Pretty simple really murders a waste of life.

wow.... i really couldn't disagree with you more :eek:
and not just from a policy standpoint, but morally/philisophically, too.

Okay, I basically agree with Drunk Commies except that we shouldn't have any welfare(besides pension plans for government employees).

Agreed on gun control.

We should also turn the prisons into labor camps. Although that does sound bad, it really isn't. Teach prisoners different skills like carpentry, and plumbing, and mechanics, or things like that that require no formal education and make them maintain the prison that they're in plus produce things on the side and you'll get a profitable prison. Yes, this may attract some people to do minor crimes to get a good education and job, but what's so wrong with that? If we turn them into productive members of society, I see no problem with it. The only exceptions should be made for effectively, crazy criminals, like serial killers, child rapists, things like that. They get to live off the system for the rest of their lives in solitary confinement in lousy conditions.

Death penalty, that's your own personal opinion. I'm not quite sure on where I stand there.

Affirmative action, I'm sorry to say is one of the worst ideas conceived. It is racist and wrong. On those little forms for job and school applications they should not even include a question on your race or sex. Mainly because(besides places like Hooters, ugghhh male Hooters servers) it should not matter what race or sex you are 'cause it rarely makes a difference. Schools should not be given awards because their campuses are "racially diverse". Does it really matter? The status quo for a certain racial mix is so... racist. It doesn't matter whether it is against "whites" or "blacks" or "latinos" it is still wrong. How long do we have to make up for our near genocide and discrimination? Another year? 20 years? A hundred years? When will we have made up for our attempts at racial cleansing? Never. But you don't dwell on it. In the 40's we sent anyone Japanese to camps on the west coast. Does that mean we should treat them with an extra level of respect? Do we? How about homosexuals? We discriminate against them too don't we? For anyone that's gay, should they get extra special care? I'm sorry to all of you who think affirmative action is a good thing, but it's just another form of racism and just as wrong. Go Soviestan on that one!

For every Government program that works anywhere in the world really, theres far more that fail. So why waste the money?
True. Leave it to the experts. :cool:

My big reason for having guns is protection of self and property. But why do you even need a reason? Its my right to have them even if all I want to do with them is shoot at a range or look at them.

I mentioned target shooting as a use I can see the point of. The only use for guns I have a problem with is 'self-defence'.

Taxes should be balanced so that they're not a great burden on business, but so that government has funds with which to defend the nation, maintain rule of law, hire people to build and maintain the infrastructure necessary for business, maintain high educational standards, and prevent people from becoming homeless or malnourished. Failing to do that can make a nation very unfriendly to business. Somalia didn't collect taxes, but who wanted to do business there?
I didnt say no taxes, I'm for low taxes. Your right though, the government does need money to defend the nation, maintain law and infrastructure. These are vital. However things like welfare and free healthcare are not.


Most of the criminals in prison will eventually be released. It makes sense to give them skills that they'll need to rejoin the workforce and the society rather than just warehouse them under poor conditions and then release people who've been hardened to poor treatment and have no skills or prospects whatsoever.
I don't care if you give skills, it might help get a job when they get out. But don't give them these great living conditions they have now. Its just wrong because they don't get the punishment the deserve.

That's your personal ethical stance. It's not necessarily the best way. Some people who've commited murder can be salvaged as usefull members of society.
few are far between

I think affirmative action for Blacks and Native Americans is a form of reparations for slavery and the near genocide that occured in the past.

Thats exactly it, its the past. No one alive today was effected by those things. And to blame the problems blacks have today on shit that happened years ago is just looking for an excuse to not take responsibility. Same goes for the Native Americans.

So wanting less restrictions on legal ownership = "allowing" gangs to use them illegally?

Maybe if the police would actually enforce the laws that are already on the books and revolving door prisons would actually keep violent offenders....

Getting a firearm illegally is ridiculously easy. Perhaps America should have a policy to end this? Less restrictions just means it will be even more easy to get a gun illegally.

Enforcing the law better isn't going to help when there is no prison space for all the criminals. That the courts are so backed up as there aren't enough judges, prosecuters to put the people in jail. Be nice if this changed but I don't see it happening.

wow.... i really couldn't disagree with you more :eek:
and not just from a policy standpoint, but morally/philisophically, too.

how exactly?

You know, when someone carries a knife (legal to own for any over-16, legal to carry in any way you please, as long as it has "legitimate purpose") for "Self-defence" - that's considered a social problem. People say we need to step up policing in these areas, so people can feel safe in their own cities.
And here, at least, we have the same view of firearms. The idea of people walking down the street carrying firearms, whatever background check they've passed, makes me feel significantly less safe, not more.

What you "feel" doesn't matter. It's the reality that counts. Legally carrying firearms has not increased crime in any way.

You may consider it a "social problem", otherso consider the Gov't failure at reducing crime in the first place while preventing citizens from defending themselves a "social problem".

Taxes: High taxes slow the economy. Why? Because when you take more money away from people they have less money to spend and put back into the economy making it slow down. And what does the government do with those high taxes? Waste them on failed government programs. So low taxes= strong economy and less wasted money.

Absurd. Tax money doesn't disappear into nothingness. It's given back to people, in a way or another (social help and/or wages). It may be inefficient or not, it's debatable, but the money is not removed from the economy. Tax money even tend to go from richer people (who save money) to poorer people (who spend money directly), so high taxes fluidify the economy.

Gun control: It is my right to have a gun. 2nd most important right according to the people who started this country. Efforts to take away or limit my guns ARE AGAINST THE LAW

That's US-only, and knowing that US was built on the genocide of native american and black slavery, refering to "the people who started this country" is no moral value for me.

Gnus are not toys. They are weapons. They primary purpose is to kill. Highly available guns only result to more violence and more deaths. It's just insane, stupid and criminal to allow guns to be widespread. My right is to not fear that any random person could have a gun to shot me.

Crime: Stop fucking cuddling criminals. Prison is supposed to be a punishment not a resort. They are in there because they are bad people who hurt society. If we punished them like we should we wouldn't have so many reoffenders because people would actually not like to go to prison. Theres a thought, uh?

Prison is not supposed to be a punishment. Prison is supposed to be a way to protect the society from the guy doing more harm, and to rehabilitate him into being a useful member of the society.

Education and social policies always proved to be more efficient as reducing crime than repression. US is the most repressive of western countries, and still the one with the highest amount of crimes.

Death Penalty: If you kill an innocent person for no reason, you deserve to die. Pretty simple really murders a waste of life.

How do you define "innocent" and "no reason" ? How does murdering someone because you think he's a waste of life makes you any different from a criminal ? Your logic applies to most crimes. If, on the opposite, the society is a model, showing that is better than criminals, refusing to go as low as they do, and consider life as "sacred", then criminality will be lower. All statistics show that death penalty increase the number of murders, and it's very logical: it tells than killing is sometimes normal.

affirmative action: its just reverse racism and its wrong. It seems like the only people who see race or make race a big deal are the people who claim they are fighting racism. Guess what? If you stop focusing on race and highlighting the differences and divisions of the races, it will all go away and people will see people as people.

I'm against affirmative action, except in very exceptional cases and for very limited times (like, I can understand it to be necessary for a limited time in South Africa after the end of Apartheid), so I won't comment on that.

The real solution is a system which is fair, in which the past doesn't weight too much, in which luck doesn't weight too much, in which everyone is granted what's necessary to live decently: food, housing, healthcare, education, free time, culture. In such a human society, the need for affirmative action will disappear.

You're talking about one person here.
An AK is far more dangerous when some maniac starts firing it in a crowded area.
Same reason only the army gets nukes.

well shit I could plow my car into a crowded area, and kill just as many people as I could with an AK. Do you want to ban cars?

Getting a firearm illegally is ridiculously easy. Perhaps America should have a policy to end this? Less restrictions just means it will be even more easy to get a gun illegally.

And lessening restrictions has NOT shown this to be reality just as tightening restrictions has NOT shown to decrease crime.

Enforcing the law better isn't going to help when there is no prison space for all the criminals. That the courts are so backed up as there aren't enough judges, prosecuters to put the people in jail. Be nice if this changed but I don't see it happening.

So the failure of the justice system to enforce the laws justifies disallowing the citizenry to defend themselves from lawbreakers?

Absurd. Tax money doesn't disappear into nothingness. It's given back to people, in a way or another (social help and/or wages). It may be inefficient or not, it's debatable, but the money is not removed from the economy. Tax money even tend to go from richer people (who save money) to poorer people (who spend money directly), so high taxes fluidify the economy.

Yeah, actually the money IS removed from the economy. Like the billions of dollars spent invading Iraq and killing people. How exactly does that help the US economy? It's just wasted money - and wasted lives.

And that's only one obvious example of how taxation neither helps the economy nor the people.

And as for HIGH taxation... well, since you're a french communist, I guess we can forgive you for having a love for that kind of totalitarianism. ;)

High taxes don't necessarily slow the economy, but complicated taxes do. The US tax code is so embarassingly choked with bureaucracy that it charges our citizens and coroporations far higher than the nominal rate due to the complexity and double-taxation rampant throughout the code. In fact, the US tax code is so bad that our companies pay a higher real tax rate than companies based in Sweden, and these companies get a hell of a lot more for their money than their counterparts in the US.

I'd rather have our companies and citizens pay higher taxes but be able to fill out their forms in an hour with no errors than waste billions more and many more man-hours filling out the "lower" taxes in the current code.

You know, a pack of firecrackers can kill you, so can a nuke, why ban one but the other is fine?

I guessing it has to do with the fact that a nuclear bomb can kill millions in a moment while your chances of dying from a fire cracker is about as good as getting stung by a sting ray in the heart. just guessing.

Taxes: High taxes slow the economy. Why? Because when you take more money away from people they have less money to spend and put back into the economy making it slow down. And what does the government do with those high taxes? Waste them on failed government programs. So low taxes= strong economy and less wasted money.

Gun control: It is my right to have a gun. 2nd most important right according to the people who started this country. Efforts to take away or limit my guns ARE AGAINST THE LAW

Crime: Stop fucking cuddling criminals. Prison is supposed to be a punishment not a resort. They are in there because they are bad people who hurt society. If we punished them like we should we wouldn't have so many reoffenders because people would actually not like to go to prison. Theres a thought, uh?

Death Penalty: If you kill an innocent person for no reason, you deserve to die. Pretty simple really murders a waste of life.

affirmative action: its just reverse racism and its wrong. It seems like the only people who see race or make race a big deal are the people who claim they are fighting racism. Guess what? If you stop focusing on race and highlighting the differences and divisions of the races, it will all go away and people will see people as people.

Thats all I got for now. Feel free show me where I'm wrong, discuss, etc.

Taxes don't screw up things,how they misused do-a government with good fiscal management-left or right works, and both left or right can screw it up

Gun control-nutty for what reason does anyone need a gun? do you still hunt for your food?-a case can be made for hunters for recreation but that's about it, some arcahic law written 300yrs ago for the time it was written is a desperate arguement

Crime-the US has oone of the highest rates for sending people to prison so it doesn't seem to be working

Death penalty-doesn't work-murders have the highest rehabilitaion rates-most murders are crimes of passion, those who commit them do have remorse and are unlikely to reoffend, the death penalty is not and never has been a deterent, plus the chances of executing an innocent man are too great

affirmative action; it should have a lifespan-it was needed to change things but as the racial barriers become a thing of the past they should be removed.

Absurd. Tax money doesn't disappear into nothingness. It's given back to people, in a way or another (social help and/or wages). It may be inefficient or not, it's debatable, but the money is not removed from the economy. Tax money even tend to go from richer people (who save money) to poorer people (who spend money directly), so high taxes fluidify the economy.

So all that tax money is going to help the double digit unemployment and "fluidify the economy" in France how?



That's US-only, and knowing that US was built on the genocide of native american and black slavery, refering to "the people who started this country" is no moral value for me.

Nice little bit of US bashing there. Congradulations on stereotyping.

Gnus are not toys. They are weapons.

Actually they're bovines.

They primary purpose is to kill. Highly available guns only result to more violence and more deaths. It's just insane, stupid and criminal to allow guns to be widespread. My right is to not fear that any random person could have a gun to shot me.

False. The number of firearms in the US increased while crime decreased. There is no absolute connection. Try again.



Prison is not supposed to be a punishment. Prison is supposed to be a way to protect the society from the guy doing more harm, and to rehabilitate him into being a useful member of the society.

And releasing them is not "protecting society".

Education and social policies always proved to be more efficient as reducing crime than repression. US is the most repressive of western countries, and still the one with the highest amount of crimes.

More falsehoods and US bashing. Yay!!!



How do you define "innocent" and "no reason" ? How does murdering someone because you think he's a waste of life makes you any different from a criminal ? Your logic applies to most crimes. If, on the opposite, the society is a model, showing that is better than criminals, refusing to go as low as they do, and consider life as "sacred", then criminality will be lower. All statistics show that death penalty increase the number of murders, and it's very logical: it tells than killing is sometimes normal.

Statistics show lots of things.





The real solution is a system which is fair, in which the past doesn't weight too much, in which luck doesn't weight too much, in which everyone is granted what's necessary to live decently: food, housing, healthcare, education, free time, culture. In such a human society, the need for affirmative action will disappear.

Nice subjective words that really mean nothing.

I didnt say no taxes, I'm for low taxes. Your right though, the government does need money to defend the nation, maintain law and infrastructure. These are vital. However things like welfare and free healthcare are not.

Why not? Every developed nation has has a welfare system, as well as (with the exception of the USA) universal healthcare of some degree. And in no nation has it suddenly disrupted the economy on a large scale, if at all.

Also, consider the idea of 'welfare' for a second. Either it 1)stays in the hands of the richer net payer, who will either stick it in the bank or spend it. Or it goes into the hands of the net reciever, who will have to spend it as a part of their household budget. So in that sense, welfare could encourage spending anyway.

At least, that's a nice simplified way of looking at it...

Taxes don't screw up things,how they misused do-a government with good fiscal management-left or right works, and both left or right can screw it up

But it's the "left" (or the DNC in the US) that pushes for higher taxes that don't necessarily help anyone.

Gun control-nutty for what reason does anyone need a gun? do you still hunt for your food?-a case can be made for hunters for recreation but that's about it, some arcahic law written 300yrs ago for the time it was written is a desperate arguement

Oh, look. More US bashing and insults. What a fantastic arguement even though numerous other reasons have been shown.

Crime-the US has oone of the highest rates for sending people to prison so it doesn't seem to be working

ANd releasing them (ala UK) hasn't worked either. Care to provide an alternative instead of just saying "US = bad"?

Death penalty-doesn't work-murders have the highest rehabilitaion rates-most murders are crimes of passion, those who commit them do have remorse and are unlikely to reoffend, the death penalty is not and never has been a deterent, plus the chances of executing an innocent man are too great

Proof of this?

And lessening restrictions has NOT shown this to be reality just as tightening restrictions has NOT shown to decrease crime.

So the failure of the justice system to enforce the laws justifies disallowing the citizenry to defend themselves from lawbreakers?

It should just prevent crazies from getting a weapon. And just because some may argue that crime goes down doesn't mean we shouldn't be careful who we give out guns too. It's not like they're candy.

Serious restrictions on guns will only upset the gun nuts and the criminals.

Why not? Every developed nation has has a welfare system, as well as (with the exception of the USA) universal healthcare of some degree. And in no nation has it suddenly disrupted the economy on a large scale, if at all.

Also, consider the idea of 'welfare' for a second. Either it 1)stays in the hands of the richer net payer, who will either stick it in the bank or spend it. Or it goes into the hands of the net reciever, who will have to spend it as a part of their household budget. So in that sense, welfare could encourage spending anyway.

At least, that's a nice simplified way of looking at it...

I can kinds of see where ST is coming from on welfare. In general, specifically the US, it's organized in a way that it's near impossible to get off of it nor is there an incentive to. It tends to, instead of reducing benefits in comparison to what you're earning at a nominal wage, cuts you off at an earnings level that doesn't support even a simple lifestyle. You get more on welfare than off of it.

It should just prevent crazies from getting a weapon. And just because some may argue that crime goes down doesn't mean we shouldn't be careful who we give out guns too. It's not like they're candy.

Serious restrictions on guns will only upset the gun nuts and the criminals.

I'm not talking about "giving away guns". Noone here is arguing that. Instant background checks are fine. Earlier ones were used to delay and prohibit ownership. Registrations have been used for confiscations in every case in the US. Most modern "gun control" schemes have no effect on crime and only are used to reduce civilian ownership.

Criminals love tight restrictions on firearms. They can still get them. The populace cannot.

Why not? Every developed nation has has a welfare system, as well as (with the exception of the USA) universal healthcare of some degree. And in no nation has it suddenly disrupted the economy on a large scale, if at all.

Also, consider the idea of 'welfare' for a second. Either it 1)stays in the hands of the richer net payer, who will either stick it in the bank or spend it. Or it goes into the hands of the net reciever, who will have to spend it as a part of their household budget. So in that sense, welfare could encourage spending anyway.

At least, that's a nice simplified way of looking at it...

Countries with a big welfare system(ie Europe) have slow or no growth economies with 2x the unemployment of the US. And countries with universal healthcare are struggling to keep the system alive. Many citizens are choosing private healthcare. Just look at Germany. They are raising the sales tax I believe by 3% to 19% just to keep their budget alive. Most agree this is really going to hurt the German economy which was growing early this year. Not to mention their healthcare is in shambles.

Taxes: Good point, but how will reducing the taxes for the upper 1% help me get more spending cash? How will high government spending without fiscal responsibility help my children?

Gun control: Agreed. How does making it more difficult to legally own guns make it harder for criminals who don't give a shit about gun laws to commit gun-related crimes?

Crime: Agreed. But we need to top sending white-collar criminals to minimum security resorts. These cocksuckers from Enron and Tyco have destroyed more families than a hundred drug dealers could. Throw em in a hole with the rest of the scumbags.

Death Penalty: Capital punishment, in my opinion, is far more humane than life without parole. But the quality of justice for capital offenses should not be about who can and can't afford the best defense.

Affirmative action: A balance has to be struck betwen the justice of equality and the value of diversity. Neither side is completely right or wrong and a happy medium can be found.

:)

Taxes: Maybe if you got up off your ass and worked, and stop being such a fucking blogger, your kids wouldn't have to "suffer" for your own inefficiencies.

Gun control: Well it is certainly reasonable for anyone not have a gun if they commit a felony, I agree more stricter gun control. But to people who have not commited any felonies within the last 10 or 20 years should have another chance. Besides people can fucking buy tranqs and not have to use bullets to disarm their robbers and such.

Crime: And no, white collared people get thrown in the same pen with the rest of them. It is the rich and the wealthy who make bail before their trial, such as Michael Jackson, Puff Daddy, and etc. fucking celebrities get special treatment because they're the aristocrats of this country.

Capital Punishment: Many people might think it costs less to kill someone, but it doesn't it costs more to kill them than to keep them alive. If you want that to change, as well as I. I would like to kill people in the manner in which they killed their victims. But no we have to do it the expensive way for such WORTHY citizens.

Affirmative action: Our justice system isn't justice for the people, a judge decides that. We elect our judges but we never hear what fuckin shit they do. That is why there must be a state list, in which a jury decides they are guilty or not guilty for their crimes, and the list will decide how many years they will get or which death, voted by the people of that state. So we don't have to have anymore child rapists murderer rehabilitation bullshit. And if that they're that fucked up in the head, the people will decide is my fucking money worth it on a possability it won't even work. Forking out tons and tons of tax payers for basically insane people, who just deserve a bullet in the head. I'll tell you my fucking dollar is more important than a child rapists life.

What you "feel" doesn't matter. It's the reality that counts. Legally carrying firearms has not increased crime in any way.

You may consider it a "social problem", otherso consider the Gov't failure at reducing crime in the first place while preventing citizens from defending themselves a "social problem".

What I was aiming at was - it makes me in no way safer, to have other people carrying guns in public. And it makes me feel a hell of a lot less safe.

I can understand a system like Switzerland's, where almost every male of military age has an assault rifle and ammunition locked away in his house. That's their equivalent of a nuclear deterrent - last line of defence against invasion, and also last line of defence against tyranny.
I can understand a system where firearms are disallowed for anything except target shooting, though it is a little extreme.
It's just where handguns are routinely carried by private individuals. Hell, I don't like police officers being armed, except for specific purposes.

Absurd. Tax money doesn't disappear into nothingness. It's given back to people, in a way or another (social help and/or wages). It may be inefficient or not, it's debatable, but the money is not removed from the economy. Tax money even tend to go from richer people (who save money) to poorer people (who spend money directly), so high taxes fluidify the economy.
No, much of the money gets "lost" in government beaucracy(sp?) and winds up in the hands of officials, never reaching those it was originally going to.



Gnus are not toys. They are weapons. They primary purpose is to kill. Highly available guns only result to more violence and more deaths. It's just insane, stupid and criminal to allow guns to be widespread. My right is to not fear that any random person could have a gun to shot me.

No its insane, stupid and criminal to not allow people to protect themselves with firearms.

Prison is not supposed to be a punishment. Prison is supposed to be a way to protect the society from the guy doing more harm, and to rehabilitate him into being a useful member of the society.

Education and social policies always proved to be more efficient as reducing crime than repression. US is the most repressive of western countries, and still the one with the highest amount of crimes.

Thats the spirit! Lets blame society for crimes others commit! Afterall, personally responsibility is bad:rolleyes:

What I was aiming at was - it makes me in no way safer, to have other people carrying guns in public. And it makes me feel a hell of a lot less safe.

I can understand a system like Switzerland's, where almost every male of military age has an assault rifle and ammunition locked away in his house. That's their equivalent of a nuclear deterrent - last line of defence against invasion, and also last line of defence against tyranny.
I can understand a system where firearms are disallowed for anything except target shooting, though it is a little extreme.
It's just where handguns are routinely carried by private individuals. Hell, I don't like police officers being armed, except for specific purposes.

Actually in Switzerland, only the military issued ammo is locked up. The gov't provides subisidies on private purchases and sponsors competions for youth and adults.

The problem w/ making laws so people "feel" safe is that it's subjective. Where does it end? Who get's to define what "feeling safe" is for an entire society? Many people "feel safer" knowing that, if there is a crime, an armed citizen will be there before the police.

There's a word for armed citizens on the scene of a crime. It's vigilante.

I know this is a gross generalisation, but a large part of America still wants to be a frontier society though it stretches from sea to shining sea...
Maybe I've absorbed more Old World sensibilities than I thought, but the solution to street crime is not armed citizens, it's better police.

Oh, and thanks for adding factual knowledge :D I didn't know it was just military issue ammunition.

Criminals love tight restrictions on firearms. They can still get them. The populace cannot.

Well, luckily most lowlifes kill other lowlifes and not regualar civilians.

What you "feel" doesn't matter. It's the reality that counts. Legally carrying firearms has not increased crime in any way.

You may consider it a "social problem", otherso consider the Gov't failure at reducing crime in the first place while preventing citizens from defending themselves a "social problem".

there comes a point that the country would be saturated with guns that it wouln't make a difference as every criminal that wants on has a gun. If guns (handguns in particular) were banned outright after awhile there would very few gun crimes. It would take some years/decades to remove them from circulation

"citizens from defending themselves" find that stat that supports that having a gun makes you safer, ask any cop if gun ownership has helped more than a handful of people defend themselves, Criminals will not give you the chance to retrieve your beloved gun to defend yourself.

There's a word for armed citizens on the scene of a crime. It's vigilante.

So if you were witnessing a crime and had the capability to stop it, you wouldn't?

Are you saying the authorities can stop every crime before or while it's happening?

I know this is a gross generalisation, but a large part of America still wants to be a frontier society though it stretches from sea to shining sea...
Maybe I've absorbed more Old World sensibilities than I thought, but the solution to street crime is not armed citizens, it's better police.

You're right. It's a gross generalization w/ no basis in reality. better police and armed citizens are part of the solution to crime.

Oh, and thanks for adding factual knowledge :D I didn't know it was just military issue ammunition.

Not a problem.

What if they succeed? Perhaps one government is successful where another is woefully inadequate? You should not use your own failings to discourage others from trying. After all, maybe they are better.

A great deal of US government social welfare programs over the past 40 years have been abject, repeated failures in one form or another.

So if you were witnessing a crime and had the capability to stop it, you wouldn't?
If I was witnessing a crime, I'd like to think that I'd step in. Being brutally honest, never having been a bystander when a violent crime was taking place, I don't know.
If I knew, for certain, that I had the ability to stop it, then yes.

Are you saying the authorities can stop every crime before or while it's happening?
Of course not. Just on balance a society with good law enforcement is better off without citizens wandering round armed with lethal weapons.

You're right. It's a gross generalization w/ no basis in reality. better police and armed citizens are part of the solution to crime.
Better police, yes. Armed citizens help prevent crime how? I have never seen any correlation between proportion of the population of an area with licences to carry concealed firearms and rates of muggings, rapes and othe crimes against the person.

there comes a point that the country would be saturated with guns that it wouln't make a difference as every criminal that wants on has a gun. If guns (handguns in particular) were banned outright after awhile there would very few gun crimes. It would take some years/decades to remove them from circulation

Proof of this? Why has crime in the US dropped then even w/ an increase in ownership?

"citizens from defending themselves" find that stat that supports that having a gun makes you safer,
I never stated that there is absolute causality. Show me where I did please.

ask any cop if gun ownership has helped more than a handful of people defend themselves, Criminals will not give you the chance to retrieve your beloved gun to defend yourself.

http://www.kc3.com/news/police_ccw_2.htm
http://www.legis.state.wi.us/senate/sen23/news/pdf%20files/PPA%20Law%20Enforcement%20Support%2002.pdf


Studies have shown anywhere from 200K to 2.5 million defensive gun uses / year.

Countries with a big welfare system(ie Europe) have slow or no growth economies with 2x the unemployment of the US. And countries with universal healthcare are struggling to keep the system alive. Many citizens are choosing private healthcare. Just look at Germany. They are raising the sales tax I believe by 3% to 19% just to keep their budget alive. Most agree this is really going to hurt the German economy which was growing early this year. Not to mention their healthcare is in shambles.


every counrty goes through bad economic times, will you mention Germany when they are going through a good period? Germany is also going through a period where it's population is falling, a unique problem faced by very few countires in modern history so dealing with it is challenge

Healthcare-universal healthcare is the best thing going-countries having difficulties financing it are having problems not related to the health care system, if you're population is falling and aging at the same time it changes the method of paying for it

Canada's universal healthcare costs about $2,000 dollars per person compared to the $4,000 per person in the USA-100% of Canadians have medical coverage, 44million americans have none, -Americans can become "uninsurable" medically, impossible in Canada with universal care-Canadians live on average 2 yrs longer than Americans.......not hard to figure out which system works better.

If I was witnessing a crime, I'd like to think that I'd step in. Being brutally honest, never having been a bystander when a violent crime was taking place, I don't know.
If I knew, for certain, that I had the ability to stop it, then yes.

And if you had a firearm, do you think you would use it?


Of course not. Just on balance a society with good law enforcement is better off without citizens wandering round armed with lethal weapons.
Better police, yes. Armed citizens help prevent crime how? I have never seen any correlation between proportion of the population of an area with licences to carry concealed firearms and rates of muggings, rapes and othe crimes against the person.

See, now that's more your opinion than anything else. I don't claim that more guns =less crime but there have been numerous occurences of CCW holders intervening and saving a life. Statistically, CCW holders are MORE law abiding than the average citizen.

hand guns allowed in Canada-very few-difficult to prove need of ownership if you are not part of a gun/target club, and go through a very long background check-hand guns have only one purpose-to kill people-they are not hunting equipment

defensive use of guns in Canada-zero, and I don't even need to look it up-you don't need them, the people who use them for defense are police and criminals

if you don't have them, the criminals have a difficult time getting them

handguns are the problem, long guns are not often used by criminals as they hard to conceal

hand guns allowed in Canada-very few-difficult to prove need of ownership if you are not part of a gun/target club, and go through a very long background check-hand guns have only one purpose-to kill people-they are not hunting equipment

False. There are numerous handguns used in hunting and target shooting. Try again.

defensive use of guns in Canada-zero, and I don't even need to look it up-you don't need them, the people who use them for defense are police and criminals

Of course you won't look them up because you have no proof and only an opinion.

if you don't have them, the criminals have a difficult time getting them

In your opinion.

handguns are the problem, long guns are not often used by criminals as they hard to conceal

So enforce the laws on the book.

Still care to support your police claim or that I claimed absolute causality?

every counrty goes through bad economic times, will you mention Germany when they are going through a good period? Germany is also going through a period where it's population is falling, a unique problem faced by very few countires in modern history so dealing with it is challeng.

A lot of what hurts Germany is its tax code and its labor law; their tax code has a lot of problems with its complexity that make it more expensive to do business in the country, and their labor laws make it hard to hire and fire workers making companies much more reluctant to hire. The result is high unemployment and sluggish growth; that's been the case since the early 90's and has little improved over the past decade.

Most of Europe's problems have nothing to do with their taxes, they have to do with how complicated their taxes are and how inefficient their labor markets are.

I'll put aside the unlikelihood of my having a firearm to consider your hypothetical situation.
And the answer is: only if I was fully prepared to use it. Otherwise it would be raising the stakes for no gain, especially if one or more of the criminals involved had, or then pulled out, a gun.

how exactly?

well lets go through the list:

gun control: i believe an instrument designed to kill should not be readily available to anyone, regardless of what a law might say. that law is wrong and should be made to reflect the serious and dangerous nature of these things - the law should restrict private posession of firearms as much as is possible.

crime (& death penalty): punishment is always a low moral stance, akin to revenge. punishment teaches what could be fully-functioning members of society nothing, and certainly the death penalty leaves no room for even a hint of rehabilitation. killing is wrong. to say that one person killing another is wrong, and then killing that first person makes no logical sense and is immoral.
we all make a pact with society to be a part of it; an unwritten contract to abide by the laws of the state and in exchange we get the state's protection and aid. for that state to simply punish individuals for infractions against those laws is not living up to its side of the contract, because as it can do more - in terms of attempting to rehabilitate or psychologically aid criminals - it thus should.

taxes: state welfare is necessary to ensure a minimum standard of life for all citizens. denying help to those who need it is immoral in my eyes, if it can be given. it certainly can be given by the richer of society, who must therefore pay a higher percentage of their earnings to help those not as advantaged as they. simple as that.
high taxes are worth the cost of economic growth in order to achieve this goal (and many others, such as free healthcare and education for all).
economic growth is actually pretty damn similar between countries with all kinds of tax rates - the USA has low taxes, britian has higher, france has higher still, and Norway has some of the highest in the world iirc. all have similar growth rates of GDP (on average; taking into account the pattern of trade) and Norway even has the highest standard of living in the world iirc.
to talk about taxation and its effect on the economy in such black-and-white terms is very simplistic and is simply inaccurate.



there :)

I'll put aside the unlikelihood of my having a firearm to consider your hypothetical situation.
And the answer is: only if I was fully prepared to use it. Otherwise it would be raising the stakes for no gain, especially if one or more of the criminals involved had, or then pulled out, a gun.

That is an excellent answer and one that is asked in every CCW class given. If you don't think you could/would use it, you shouldn't carry it.

But the point is, you don;t have to have a firearm to be considered a "vigilante".

gun control: i believe an instrument designed to kill should not be readily available to anyone, regardless of what a law might say. that law is wrong and should be made to reflect the serious and dangerous nature of these things - the law should restrict private posession of firearms as much as is possible.





Even if there is no evidence that restricting civilian ownership affects crime?

gun control: i believe an instrument designed to kill should not be readily available to anyone, regardless of what a law might say. that law is wrong and should be made to reflect the serious and dangerous nature of these things - the law should restrict private posession of firearms as much as is possible.

Criminals will simply ignore the law and find other ways to get firearms. The only people effected are the law-abiding citizens. Nice job.

That is an excellent answer and one that is asked in every CCW class given. If you don't think you could/would use it, you shouldn't carry it.

But the point is, you don;t have to have a firearm to be considered a "vigilante".

No, you can perfectly well be a vigilante with a baseball bat. But I can see my instincts on this are utterly misaligned with yours, so I'll leave it. No point repeating my point of view, with whatever statistics I can muster.

I think you went wrong by assuming that these positions are shared by all leftists.

I am a leftist who believes in minimal government, despises gun control, and has no opinion whatsoever on affirmative action.

Feel free to explain how this makes me not a leftist.


Uh, that makes you a Libertarian, bro (power to you, by the way). I personally don't consider Libertarians "Leftist" so much as "Extremistically Centrist by Way of Opposing Balances".

Ya know, what with the whole Socially Liberal, Economically Conservative, thing.

Oh, and Viva la Firearms!
*is a competitive shooter*
http://www.uspsa.com

No, you can perfectly well be a vigilante with a baseball bat. But I can see my instincts on this are utterly misaligned with yours, so I'll leave it. No point repeating my point of view, with whatever statistics I can muster.

Fair enough. My belief is that CCW makes criminals less effective. Statistically, it hasn't been shown conclusively, the same w/ gun control laws in the US.

I don't think every person should have a firearm nor should they be used in every situation.

My mom lives alone in a neighborhood where crime is increasing. I had her buy a handgun and have taught her to use it. I have also instructed her to bolt herself in the bedroom and call the police w/ the firearm ready.

In my home, I would confront them while the wife protects the kids and calls the police.

Different situations.

"False. There are numerous handguns used in hunting and target shooting. Try again." where the F*** does that come from-handguns are not a hunting weapon-in Canada it is "illegal" to hunt with a hangun-

Quote:
Originally Posted by Free Sex and Beer View Post
defensive use of guns in Canada-zero, and I don't even need to look it up-you don't need them, the people who use them for defense are police and criminals

"Of course you won't look them up because you have no proof and only an opinion." I don't need to look it up because I listen the news, gun crimes are rare here, the people who shoot at each other are criminals vs criminals or Police vs Criminals... if you don't believe me you do a search-there are no Canadians shooting at crimnals in self-defense...criminals rarely shoot at innocent victims...most murders are commited by people who know each other, "crimes of passion", being killed by a stranger is a rare event although the media would have you believe it happens every day-evidently you believe it...if there are no hand guns-you can't be killed by one-FACT

"False. There are numerous handguns used in hunting and target shooting. Try again." where the F*** does that come from-handguns are not a hunting weapon-in Canada it is "illegal" to hunt with a hangun-

http://www.handgunhunt.com/

Just because Canada doesn't allow it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Kind of a provincial viewpoint. I thought that was an american trait.



"Of course you won't look them up because you have no proof and only an opinion." I don't need to look it up because I listen the news, gun crimes are rare here, the people who shoot at each other are criminals vs criminals or Police vs Criminals... if you don't believe me you do a search-there are no Canadians shooting at crimnals in self-defense...criminals rarely shoot at innocent victims...most murders are commited by people who know each other, "crimes of passion", being killed by a stranger is a rare event although the media would have you believe it happens every day-evidently you believe it...if there are no hand guns-you can't be killed by one-FACT

So now you are not only refusing to even bother sourcing your claims your going to the mythcal "if there are no handguns" nonsense.

You claimed remorse and other nonsense. Is your only reference Stormfront?

Do you still deny that many police support concealed carry in the US?

Fair enough. My belief is that CCW makes criminals less effective. Statistically, it hasn't been shown conclusively, the same w/ gun control laws in the US.

I don't think every person should have a firearm nor should they be used in every situation.

My mom lives alone in a neighborhood where crime is increasing. I had her buy a handgun and have taught her to use it. I have also instructed her to bolt herself in the bedroom and call the police w/ the firearm ready.

In my home, I would confront them while the wife protects the kids and calls the police.

Different situations.last week - I locked the door and called the police, criminal types knew it and went away, Police arrived 2 minutes later-no guns no violence-police advised me on phone I could protect myself(bat or hammer) but please do not kill criminal type, do so only as last resort... and I don't even own a GUN! destroyed them 10 yrs back as I no longer hunt and i feel no need of one now...

last week - I locked the door and called the police, criminal types knew it and went away, Police arrived 2 minutes later-no guns no violence-police advised me on phone I could protect myself(bat or hammer) but please do not kill criminal type, do so only as last resort... and I don't even own a GUN! destroyed them 10 yrs back as I no longer hunt and i feel no need of one now...

That's nice. So your one anecdote holds true for every situation? Can't answer any of the other questions so you might as well just ignore them?

Fortunately for McRon Thompson, two armed teens up to no good proved to be not very bright. According to police, Thompson was washing his car when a 15-year-old boy forced him into the back seat at gunpoint while an 18-year-old man got behind the wheel. They drove to a vacant lot that, apparently unbeknownst to the carjackers, was just a few hundred feet from a police station. At that point, Thompson was able to retrieve his .40-caliber pistol from his pocket and open fire on his assailants. Police officers, hearing the shots from the station, quickly responded and caught the teens as they ran. The suspects were taken to the hospital with gunshot wounds and later faced aggravated robbery charges. (Houston Chronicle, Houston, TX, 05/27/06)

Unable to fend off an alleged intruder on her own, a woman ran to the home of her neighbor, Roger Ledford. But police say the suspect continued to pursue her, even shooting the lock off Ledford’s side door. As he attempted to breach the door, Ledford shot him with a shotgun, killing him. “The homeowner was fearful of what was going on and shot and killed him,” said Capt. Brad Stanley of the Forsyth County Sheriff’s Office. Police also said the assailant had poured a flammable substance inside the woman’s home. (Winston-Salem Journal, Winston-Salem, NC, 06/06/06)

http://www.handgunhunt.com/

Just because Canada doesn't allow it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Kind of a provincial viewpoint. I thought that was an american trait.

So now you are not only refusing to even bother sourcing your claims your going to the mythcal "if there are no handguns" nonsense.

You claimed remorse and other nonsense. Is your only reference Stormfront?

Do you still deny that many police support concealed carry in the US?

Hand guns ownership exsits in Canada for those who can prove a need to own one. Storage and transportation of handguns is tightly controled.
"Criminals obtain hanguns primarely through smuggling from the USA, secondary through theft from local owners

I could source my claims but you would only attribute them to an unreliable source such as "stormfront" who ever they are. My info comes from my friends who are cops.

"if there are no handguns" nonsense. "what's nonsense is that statement-if there were no cars could anyone be run over by one? people get killed by hanguns because they are sold to every idiot that wants one.

Now see, things like, "hanguns ... are sold to every idiot that (sic) wants one," are the sort of statement that highlights one of the fundamental differences between "leftists" and people like Libertarians: That leftists (ok, and some rightists) believe that most people are vastly incompetent and moronic and need to be protected from themselves, while libertarians and members of certain other groups believe that men (here meaning both the male and female of the species) are capable, intelligent creatures who should be allowed to do their own thing, for the most part.

Basically, "Leftists" are calling us too stupid to own scary things like firearms. A question I would just love to pose to some certain liberal congresspeople is "Why is the general populace too dumb to be allowed to own firearms while your bodyguards and the military are? Are they just that much smarter than the rest of us? Is that why the academic requirements for military service and bodyguard training are so high and shining?" It just sort of seems like an insult to me that these politicians and socialites seem to look down on most of their fellow countrymen in such a way.

Hell, what qualifies an active duty police officer to be better suited for weapons ownership than a retired cop, or even myself? Range time? I doubt. Most cops spend very little time behind the trigger. Just enough to make quals. I shoot USPSA competitions. I fire at least 300 rounds of .40S&W ammunition a month. Last month it was more like 500, since I shot the Tennessee State Sectional match. I have safety training and experience equal to most any policeman and I can drop 24 shots into the alpha zones of 12 targets in 24 seconds (did it at the TN match weekend before last!). I consider myself qualified, and I think I'm the only person I should have to convince of that.

Come on. Treat your populace as intelligent, capable citizens and they will expand to fill this role. If you treat your populace like they're stupid...

Remember: We're citizens, not subjects (at least here in the USA).

Hand guns ownership exsits in Canada for those who can prove a need to own one. Storage and transportation of handguns is tightly controled.
"Criminals obtain hanguns primarely through smuggling from the USA, secondary through theft from local owners

So that's the fault of legal firearm owners?

Let's take your idea a step further " Internet use exists for those who can prove a need to have it".

"The government has admitted on three separate occasions . . . that since handgun registration was implemented in 1934, not one single crime in Canada has been solved using the national pistol registry."

--MP Garry Breitkreuz

I could source my claims but you would only attribute them to an unreliable source such as "stormfront" who ever they are. My info comes from my friends who are cops.

Like your"Jewwatch" source which is the ONLY source you've presented? I've presented sources from US authorities supporting CCW. You've presented nothing.


"if there are no handguns" nonsense. "what's nonsense is that statement-if there were no cars could anyone be run over by one? people get killed by hanguns because they are sold to every idiot that wants one.

And more nonsense. Keep "supporting" your arguement. It makes mine even stronger.

Taxes: High taxes slow the economy. Why? Because when you take more money away from people they have less money to spend and put back into the economy making it slow down. And what does the government do with those high taxes? Waste them on failed government programs. So low taxes= strong economy and less wasted money.

Gun control: It is my right to have a gun. 2nd most important right according to the people who started this country. Efforts to take away or limit my guns ARE AGAINST THE LAW

Crime: Stop fucking cuddling criminals. Prison is supposed to be a punishment not a resort. They are in there because they are bad people who hurt society. If we punished them like we should we wouldn't have so many reoffenders because people would actually not like to go to prison. Theres a thought, uh?

Death Penalty: If you kill an innocent person for no reason, you deserve to die. Pretty simple really murders a waste of life.

affirmative action: its just reverse racism and its wrong. It seems like the only people who see race or make race a big deal are the people who claim they are fighting racism. Guess what? If you stop focusing on race and highlighting the differences and divisions of the races, it will all go away and people will see people as people.

Thats all I got for now. Feel free show me where I'm wrong, discuss, etc.


I mostly agree with all your points although I'd like to expand on two of your points a little bit. I do agree with the point that prison is for punishment, although some crimes are disproportionally punished more harshly than others and leads to criminalization itself, (mostly I'm thinking of certain drug laws here) and leads to criminalization and marginalization of those being punished. And in other cases, some of those incarcerated have not have ever actually had the benefit of a good work ethic and may wish to fit into society, but have no usable skills to offer in the workplace. So trade schooling behind bars (directly, for the inmate) can benefit us all (indirectly, for us) in society, and should be encouraged. That in itself is not coddling criminals. As long as it is offered without the promise of a reduced sentence for participation, it does not even compromise the concept of prison as punishment. It is encouraging them to explore other legitimate options. Then if they refuse to explore those options, by all means, habitual offender his pathetic *ss and put him back in for a longer stretch to think about it.

Someone posted a followup comment about affirmative action being a substitute of sorts for reparations to blacks for the injustices they suffered in the past. I think the reparations angle is already being explored. If I only knew for sure what side of the fence he was straddling with that comment, I'd probably jump ALL over that. I see reparations as being grossly unfair to everyone, unsustainable for us as a society, and being the sort of thing that might just inspire an armed rebellion. Out of time for comment for now. Have fun, y'all.

I have never fired a handgun in any situation save one: Competition style target shooting. It's a fun sport, and very relaxing. I don't even own the gun I use, I just rent one. Tightened gun control laws would harm this delightful, productive and peaceful hobby of mine. I would greatly disapprove.

Taxes: High taxes slow the economy. Why? Because when you take more money away from people they have less money to spend and put back into the economy making it slow down. And what does the government do with those high taxes? Waste them on failed government programs. So low taxes= strong economy and less wasted money.

And what does the government do with the money? Spend it and put it back into the economy.

Gun control: It is my right to have a gun. 2nd most important right according to the people who started this country. Efforts to take away or limit my guns ARE AGAINST THE LAW

I won't speak on the Constitutional merits of this argument, but I agree that self-defense is a human right - especially from the neo-fascist right.

Crime: Stop fucking cuddling criminals. Prison is supposed to be a punishment not a resort. They are in there because they are bad people who hurt society.

No. They are in there because they were convicted of doing something that is against the law. The law is not perfect. Nor is the criminal justice system.

If we punished them like we should we wouldn't have so many reoffenders because people would actually not like to go to prison. Theres a thought, uh?

Prison is pretty awful as it is; we still have lots of reoffenders. Perhaps it's time to rethink our methods?

Death Penalty: If you kill an innocent person for no reason, you deserve to die. Pretty simple really murders a waste of life.

So is all bloodshed - whoever it is you're killing. And how can you know for sure whether the person you execute is guilty?

affirmative action: its just reverse racism and its wrong.

No, it isn't. It's a remedy for racism, and essential to real equality of opportunity.

It seems like the only people who see race or make race a big deal are the people who claim they are fighting racism.

I advise you to open your eyes.

Guess what? If you stop focusing on race and highlighting the differences and divisions of the races, it will all go away and people will see people as people.

Actually, however strange it may be, problems don't go away just because you ignore them. Quite the opposite, in fact.

So that's the fault of legal firearm owners?

Let's take your idea a step further " Internet use exists for those who can prove a need to have it".

"The government has admitted on three separate occasions . . . that since handgun registration was implemented in 1934, not one single crime in Canada has been solved using the national pistol registry."

--MP Garry Breitkreuz

Like your"Jewwatch" source which is the ONLY source you've presented? I've presented sources from US authorities supporting CCW. You've presented nothing.

And more nonsense. Keep "supporting" your arguement. It makes mine even stronger.

'Let's take your idea a step further " Internet use exists for those who can prove a need to have it".when is the last time someone was killed by cyberspace-silly

Handgun registry in Canada was not created in 1934-probably 50-60yrs later. It was not intended to solve crime. It was intended to restrict ownership to very responsible owners and to track the guns, to know who owned one where it was and if sold to whom. The police like to know when answering a call if there are guns present in a home when they arrive. And crimes have been solved, when stolen guns are recovered they can be traced and returned to their owners. The Police like this law.

JewWatch-the first article was accurate and factual look at the aparthied nature of Israeli laws, written by a Jew in Israel in a Israeli newspaper-as I said giving you a source is a waste of time as you only believe what you want and dismiss anything contrary...you never read the article only dismissed as you knew it would contain facts that you could not dispute.

Criminals will simply ignore the law and find other ways to get firearms. The only people effected are the law-abiding citizens. Nice job.

gun control seems to work pretty well in britain and the rest of europe. the occasional gun-crime or violent crime involving guns, usually by gangs, yes... but nowhere near US levels.

you're talking US-specific as well. here we don't have the problem of people (and criminals) already having guns and gun control laws having to make them give them up. but that wasn't the issue in question (and not my problem) and i stand by what i said.

Handgun registry in Canada was not created in 1934-probably 50-60yrs later. It was not intended to solve crime. It was intended to restrict ownership to very responsible owners and to track the guns, to know who owned one where it was and if sold to whom. The police like to know when answering a call if there are guns present in a home when they arrive. And crimes have been solved, when stolen guns are recovered they can be traced and returned to their owners. The Police like this law.

So you don't even know your own countries laws. The first handgun registry started in 1934. Try and keep up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Canada

Why would they need to track firearms if not in an attempt to reduce or solve crimes? Your arguement is that the Gov't needs to control the citizenry for it's own good. Not a very good view of an alledgedly democratic society.

JewWatch-the first article was accurate and factual look at the aparthied nature of Israeli laws, written by a Jew in Israel in a Israeli newspaper-as I said giving you a source is a waste of time as you only believe what you want and dismiss anything contrary...you never read the article only dismissed as you knew it would contain facts that you could not dispute.

No, it was not accurate. It was heavily biased and only contained select aspects of what they wanted you to hear about.

Why don't you try and provide some evidence. Your anectdotes and "I've talked to" aspects just don't work.

gun control seems to work pretty well in britain and the rest of europe. the occasional gun-crime or violent crime involving guns, usually by gangs, yes... but nowhere near US levels.

Also primarily by gangs.

you're talking US-specific as well. here we don't have the problem of people (and criminals) already having guns and gun control laws having to make them give them up. but that wasn't the issue in question (and not my problem) and i stand by what i said.

Even though there is no correlation.

Yeah, actually the money IS removed from the economy. Like the billions of dollars spent invading Iraq and killing people. How exactly does that help the US economy? It's just wasted money - and wasted lives.

Well, yes, if money is used this way... and even so, US imposed to Iraqi that most of the rebuilding is done by US corporations, they took control of Iraqi's oil, ...

But well, I was referring to tax money spent inside the country, be it to pay teachers, policemen, to build schools or jails. I agree with the first, less with the second, but in both cases, the money is not withdrawn from the economy, and it's even more true for all "social help".

And as for HIGH taxation... well, since you're a french communist, I guess we can forgive you for having a love for that kind of totalitarianism. ;)

Communism is not totalitarian at all, quite the opposite ;)

Also primarily by gangs.

Not to mention gun control has been the law in Britain for ages. Even before the current left-leaning gun control laws were enforced, royalist laws forbade any but the nobles to own guns. There is virtually no history of gun ownership in the UK outside of the nobles. On the opposite end of the spectrum, the US has a strong history of egalitarian gun rights, and throughout American history, gun ownership is an omnipresent factor.

So you don't even know your own countries laws. The first handgun registry started in 1934. Try and keep up. -control of handguns have never been an issue here-the gun registry being disputed here is the recent long gun registry-

gun control seems to work pretty well in britain and the rest of europe. the occasional gun-crime or violent crime involving guns, usually by gangs, yes... but nowhere near US levels.

you're talking US-specific as well. here we don't have the problem of people (and criminals) already having guns and gun control laws having to make them give them up. but that wasn't the issue in question (and not my problem) and i stand by what i said.

I've been arguing for control of gun ownership, but I will say this.
Gun crime is on the rise, at the moment, in the UK. The fact that this has occurred largely since the tightening of the law (Dunblane etc) is a classic example of correlation not equalling causation, but I firmly believe the law here has gone too far.
After all, it is now so difficult to own a handgun in Britain that, unless I remember wrongly, Olympic athletes in shooting have to train out of the country; and a cadet unit holding only Drill Purpose rifles (can't shoot at all) has to have them in a locked room with steel door and an alarm linked to the nearest police station.
However, guns are quite hard to get hold of in the UK, as a result, and effective policing can and does remove them from circulation. A general failure in policing of this country, along with a growing desire to have guns for 'protection' amongst those who don't see the police as a desirable option, is the cause of rising gun crime - but the solution is not to arm law-abiding members of the public.

Countries with a big welfare system(ie Europe) have slow or no growth economies with 2x the unemployment of the US.

But still rank better than USA in all poverty-related indices. Sure, France has more unemployment than USA... but most unemployed french people are better off than people with jobs in the US ! So what's better ?

Many people in the US have to do TWO jobs to pay their daily costs. All the ones with only one job, and looking for another one, are not counted in unemployment statistics. But they are often worse off than unemployed people in western Europe.

For the growth of the economy, you've to remember than USA (and UK which follows a very similar pattern) growths are completly unstainable. USA and UK growth are made upon a huge, critical internal "domestic" debt, around 130% of the GDP in UK and 170% of the GDP in USA, while in "old Europe" (Germany and France) it's around 70%, a much more sustainable rate. Such a huge domestic debt will end up in an economical collapse on the short or medium term.

For USA, you can add the exrernal debt, which is partly paid by China (who massively stockpiles dollars to avoid the fall of the dollar, which would lower their ability to export goods). So, in a way, China is paying US growth, just because US control the international trade currency !

And countries with universal healthcare are struggling to keep the system alive.

Not really. European countries broke apart their system in the neoliberal reforms they did during the 80s and 90s, going towards MORE capitalism, LOWER taxes and more privatisation. That hurdted Europe a lot.

But even then, if you look at France for example, we spend much less money in healthcare than USA (9% of our GDP, compared to 13% in USA), but still, we have a much better health coverage, and a higher life expectancy. The system was damaged a lot by right-wing governements of 1986, 1995 and 2002, but our situation is much better than US one.

Just look at Germany. They are raising the sales tax I believe by 3% to 19% just to keep their budget alive. Most agree this is really going to hurt the German economy which was growing early this year. Not to mention their healthcare is in shambles.

They do it to... compensate a lowering of the tax on corporations ! Nice way for a right-wing governement to take less from corporations and more from citizen.

So you don't even know your own countries laws. The first handgun registry started in 1934. Try and keep up. -control of handguns have never been an issue here-the gun registry being disputed here is the recent long gun registry-

What does that have to do w/ anything. You stated there wasn't a handgun registry in 1934.

Handgun registry in Canada was not created in 1934-probably 50-60yrs later.

Now you're trying to dodge to the recent registry failure.

Care to make anything else up for your "arguement"?

No, much of the money gets "lost" in government beaucracy(sp?) and winds up in the hands of officials, never reaching those it was originally going to.

Which doesn't change much the overall economical effect. Even if it goes to the hands of officials, they'll spend it quickly, and the money will be reinjected into the economy.

I'm not saying bureaucry and/or corruption are good, they are not, but you are argument doesn't work.

Thats the spirit! Lets blame society for crimes others commit! Afterall, personally responsibility is bad:rolleyes:

Saying that the society is the primary cause of criminal behavior is a scientific truth. It doesn't mean that personal responsibility is bad or doesn't exist, bad that the correct way of preventing crime is too look at the CAUSE of crime, the ROOTS of crime, and to change that. That's probably the worst failure of the right: they never look at causes and roots of problems, but only try (harsh and violent) treatments of the symptoms... a bit like "doctors" of the middle age.

[QUOTE=Kecibukia;11642388]So you don't even know your own countries laws. The first handgun registry started in 1934. Try and keep up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Canada

Why would they need to track firearms if not in an attempt to reduce or solve crimes? Your arguement is that the Gov't needs to control the citizenry for it's own good. Not a very good view of an alledgedly democratic society.

No, it was not accurate. It was heavily biased and only contained select aspects of what they wanted you to hear about.

Why don't you try and provide some evidence. Your anectdotes and "I've talked to" aspects just don't work.[/QUOTE

MP Garry Breitkreuz and the rest of his party are opposed to the long gun registry of 1995

Why Track firearms-stupid qustion-so they are not resold to criminals and mentally unstable who forbidden from owning them, I think the same people are prohibited in the USA

"select aspects of what they wanted you to hear about." if 99% is harmless and 1% is racsist that 1% is what is all important. Most laws in Aparthied S Africa were not racsist but those that were all important. Muslims cannot return to their homes in Israel but a Jew from anywhere can immigrate to Israel even if his ancestors have never set foot there-THAT is Racsist! It seems you only want to see what you want to hear about.

MP Garry Breitkreuz and the rest of his party are opposed to the long gun registry of 1995

Right. And what does that have to do w/ the quote about the 1934 registry which you deny was made?

Why Track firearms-stupid qustion-so they are not resold to criminals and mentally unstable who forbidden from owning them, I think the same people are prohibited in the USA

ANd that isn't an attempt to reduce crime? You said it wasn't.

"select aspects of what they wanted you to hear about." if 99% is harmless and 1% is racsist that 1% is what is all important. Most laws in Aparthied S Africa were not racsist but those that were all important. Muslims cannot return to their homes in Israel but a Jew from anywhere can immigrate to Israel even if his ancestors have never set foot there-THAT is Racsist! It seems you only want to see what you want to hear about.

Your article didn't provide a single law that was "jewish only" or "muslim only" . If you had actually read the rest of the thread, you may have noticed links showing laws in Isreal apply to all citizens, Jewish, Muslim, and Christian. Lots of "alledgedlys", "may be used as", etc.

You may have also noticed if you had actually read, that "Jewwatch" was supported by Stormfront, a heavily racist organization. Learn the fact that sources like that, no matter how "factual" they may appear to be, are frowned on, especially if they don't provide external citations from legitimate sources.

Now see, things like, "hanguns ... are sold to every idiot that (sic) wants one," are the sort of statement that highlights one of the fundamental differences between "leftists" and people like Libertarians: That leftists (ok, and some rightists) believe that most people are vastly incompetent and moronic and need to be protected from themselves, while libertarians and members of certain other groups believe that men (here meaning both the male and female of the species) are capable, intelligent creatures who should be allowed to do their own thing, for the most part.

Basically, "Leftists" are calling us too stupid to own scary things like firearms. A question I would just love to pose to some certain liberal congresspeople is "Why is the general populace too dumb to be allowed to own firearms while your bodyguards and the military are? Are they just that much smarter than the rest of us? Is that why the academic requirements for military service and bodyguard training are so high and shining?" It just sort of seems like an insult to me that these politicians and socialites seem to look down on most of their fellow countrymen in such a way.

Hell, what qualifies an active duty police officer to be better suited for weapons ownership than a retired cop, or even myself? Range time? I doubt. Most cops spend very little time behind the trigger. Just enough to make quals. I shoot USPSA competitions. I fire at least 300 rounds of .40S&W ammunition a month. Last month it was more like 500, since I shot the Tennessee State Sectional match. I have safety training and experience equal to most any policeman and I can drop 24 shots into the alpha zones of 12 targets in 24 seconds (did it at the TN match weekend before last!). I consider myself qualified, and I think I'm the only person I should have to convince of that.

Come on. Treat your populace as intelligent, capable citizens and they will expand to fill this role. If you treat your populace like they're stupid...

Remember: We're citizens, not subjects (at least here in the USA).

every idiot-means exactly what it says, you only presume that it means everyone is an idiot-here if you have no criminal record-no record of mental health issues(I don't know to what degree) you can purchase a gun-a long gun for hunting or target practise or competion-handguns are more difficult, again you can buy one for taget shooting but not for hunting-for both theeir strict guidelines for storage, you just can't leave them lying about-locked storage-locked room and if you want to resell them the buyer must go through the same procedure for ownership to prevent a black market gun source for criminals

every idiot-means exactly what it says, you only presume that it means everyone is an idiot-here if you have no criminal record-no record of mental health issues(I don't know to what degree) you can purchase a gun-a long gun for hunting or target practise or competion-handguns are more difficult, again you can buy one for taget shooting but not for hunting-for both theeir strict guidelines for storage, you just can't leave them lying about-locked storage-locked room and if you want to resell them the buyer must go through the same procedure for ownership to prevent a black market gun source for criminals

So having to go through a background check and follow all local/state/federal laws in the US = "every idiot"?

"Safe Storage" laws do nothing to prevent crime. Neither do registries. Your own gov't admits this yet certain elements keep pushing for more of the same. It has nothing to do w/ "crime control", only population control.

"select aspects of what they wanted you to hear about." if 99% is harmless and 1% is racist that 1% is what is all important. Most laws in Apartheid S Africa were not racist but those that were all important. Muslims cannot return to their homes in Israel but a Jew from anywhere can immigrate to Israel even if his ancestors have never set foot there-THAT is Racist! It seems you only want to see what you want to hear about.

One (nitpicking) Muslims are not a race.
Two. The Muslims currently claiming the right of return number (last figure I saw) around 2 million. The total population of Israel is around 7 million (wiki). To allow an unrestricted right of return would scatter 20% of the total population, mostly opposed to Israel's very existence, throughout the country. On balance I can see why they don't allow it. That's not racism, that's national security and common sense. You can argue for years over how we got into this situation, but you have to accept that allowing that now would be lunacy and create MORE violence.

"Now you're trying to dodge to the recent registry failure."
Care to make anything else up for your "arguement"-actually the gun registry works there was no question of it failing-want to make anything else up for your arguement-

the dispute over the registry are stupid-there is no one denying anyone the ability to own a gun-excpt those not competent

registry works guns can not be sold to criminals or mentally ill

police know in advance when making a call (in particular domestic disputes)if there any known guns present

opposition to registry is childish-every car on the road is registered and cars aren't designed to kill, but people get stupid because they're asked to register a device where it's purpose is to kill.

only problem with the registry is the cost of running it, it's horrifically expensive but thats due to the government incompetence, car registration is profitable for the government

"Basically, "Leftists" are calling us too stupid to own scary things like firearms. A question I would just love to pose to some certain liberal congresspeople is "Why is the general populace too dumb to be allowed to own firearms while your bodyguards and the military are? Are they just that much smarter than the rest of us? Is that why the academic requirements for military service and bodyguard training are so high and shining?" It just sort of seems like an insult to me that these politicians and socialites seem to look down on most of their fellow countrymen in such a way."-actually as demonstrated by events in Iraq and many other wars many in the military shouldn't be allowed a firearm-I've met more than a few military types who were not screened very well-

"Now you're trying to dodge to the recent registry failure."
Care to make anything else up for your "arguement"-actually the gun registry works there was no question of it failing-want to make anything else up for your arguement-

the dispute over the registry are stupid-there is no one denying anyone the ability to own a gun-excpt those not competent

registry works guns can not be sold to criminals or mentally ill

police know in advance when making a call (in particular domestic disputes)if there any known guns present

opposition to registry is childish-every car on the road is registered and cars aren't designed to kill, but people get stupid because they're asked to register a device where it's purpose is to kill.

only problem with the registry is the cost of running it, it's horrifically expensive but thats due to the government incompetence, car registration is profitable for the government

SO now you admit that the handgun registry was first established in 1934? Since your own gov't has admitted that it has done nothing to curb crime, your support of expanding it to the tune of billions of dollars seems inane.
Criminals don't register their guns so the police still don't know if there is a firearm at the scene or not. You even stated earlier that it's ussually prior criminals who commit crimes/murders so they couldn't pass the registration in the first place legally. WHich is it?

You tried to attack my internet comparison earlier, why should your car comparison be any more valid? You don't need to register your car in the US to purchase it nor to drive it on private land, only to drive it on public roads. Would you support a national guh registration scheme like that?

Do you still deny that many police in the US support CCW?
Can you show me where I claimed the causality more guns = more crime?

Criminals will simply ignore the law and find other ways to get firearms. The only people effected are the law-abiding citizens. Nice job.

You should not forget that many (most, IIRC) crimes are committed on the "heat of the moment", or with a very short forth-thinking, not by carefully planning people who take the pain to locate illegal weapon sellers and buy those weapons. While if they had guns already reachable...

Tired, old repetitions of position. *yawn*

You should not forget that many (most, IIRC) crimes are committed on the "heat of the moment", or with a very short forth-thinking, not by carefully planning people who take the pain to locate illegal weapon sellers and buy those weapons. While if they had guns already reachable...

You mean "heat of the moment" during an already illicit activity? Like when the criminals are armed w/ them as a status symbol?

Taxes: The average DOW Industrial Average change is +.4% the day after a Democrat wins a presidential election. The average DOW change is -.28% after a Republican wins. Why? Because Democrats typically raise taxes. Seem oxymoronic to you? That's because you've never taken an economics class.

When individuals have money, they do this stange thing where the remove it from the market entirely: they put it away in savings accounts or retirement funds and it disappears from circulation, effectively decreasing the money supply without adjusting prices.

But when the government taxes that money, they do not save it, they spend it. They spend ALL of it. And where does that money go? Welfare. Social security. Medicare. Medicaid. Into the pockets of federal employees like teachers, elected officials, soldiers, local administrators, police, fire department, and some doctors. Don't forget that federally-employed workers make up a total of about 10% of every working person in this country. The money paid into welfare, social security, medicare, and medicaid also, typically, is spent right away: they are cost-of-living expenditures. As in, that money is immediately re-introduced into the economy.

That is why we have not had a Great Depression since the institution of social capitalism in the 1930s and 40s. Before that, we had one about every thirty or forty years, though you only hear about the Great one in school. The existence of the social safety net makes it impossible for a system such as ours to ever be reduced to the dire condition that economic conservatives like Herbert Hoover put it into.

The death penalty is a completely ineffectual system that actually costs the government more money, in terms of appeals, much higher salaries for death row prison security, doctor's fees to bribe medical officials into participating in the murder of American citizens, things like that. It has absolutely no effect on crime, and in fact, states like Massachusetts, which has no death penalty, have much lower crime rights than states like California and Texas, which do have the death penalty.

Morally, the premise of the death penalty is that it is better to set criminals free right away, with gas or an injection. Personally, I would rather have bloodthirsty criminals rot in prison for an extra 40 or 50 years before being passed along to oblivion by the equally-bloodthirsty Christian party.

Gun Control: 90% of every homeowner that dies during a home invasion is killed by his own firearm. Please, keep your gun, it may do us all a favor.

Crime: The Constitution that you right-wing types whine and scream about (then try to burn away with the USAPATRIOT Act) also has an 8th amendment, wherein it prevents "cruel and unusual" punishment. Did you forget that part? Did you skip over that? Of course you did, voluntary ignorance is a fundamental premise of the conservative political spectrum.

Affirmative Action: Maybe you don't hear about this in the all-white gated upper-class suburban Beverly Hills that you live in, but there exists in this country a genuine race problem. Remember that for centuries, there existed an institution known as "slavery" that was designed to ensure that black people would exist in America only as automatons, and following that, there was a very carefully-designed system whose purpose was to stack all economic activity against this country.

You whine about crime yet don't want to eliminate the number one cause of crime: poverty, which affects blacks at a much higher rate than whites. You whine about gun control, and yet the main reason gun control exists is because poor people use guns to kill each other all the time. You complain about taxes, but where do you think so much of welfare goes? The lowest, primarily racially-divided echelon of America's economic class: the poor, urban black community.

If you genuinely wanted any of these problems solved, you might sit back and think, "well gee, maybe if we had enough tax money to fully fund post-secondary education for all poor people, to make their schools good enough to give black people a fighting chance of elevating themselves out of typically dreary poverty, they wouldn't force governments to outlaw assault weapons by killing each other over drugs and gang warfare all the time, but no! It's easier to be a conservative and complain about all these things, because complaining is easier than thinking."

"If you stop focusing on race and highlighting the differences and divisions of the races, it will all go away and people will see people as people. " In her 2005 novel "Seeing a Colorblind Future," author Patricia Williams essentially tears apart the altruistic ignorance of this philosophy. Try exposing yourself to black authors and see why nobody, least of all black people, want peopl to act like race just goes away when you pretend it isn't there.

Hopefully, I have shown you the error of your ways, and you will promptly switch your voter registration to Democrat. And don't be afraid to circulate a before/after thing among your friends and family, with your idiotic series of complaints in the before, a copy of your new registration as the after, and my reply as the cure.

AIM- ChrisRay6000

Gun Control: 90% of every homeowner that dies during a home invasion is killed by his own firearm. Please, keep your gun, it may do us all a favor.



You have a source for this "goodfact"?

Taxes: What exactly did you base your ideas for tax on, a dream? Economics just doesn't work like that. Low taxes =/= Better. However neither does high taxes. If tax is low, then the government had less to spend on, as you put it, "failed government programmes". Like education, the civil services, fire, emergency medical care, and a whole raft of other stuff. If it os too high, then people will take their money elsewhere, to places like Jersey, Switzerland, Belgium etc. Ideally a flat tax rate would be a good way to go, but it would be very hard to convince people without giveing the entire country a crash course in economics.


Gun Control: Speaking as someone who lives in the UK, where guns are all but banned (farmers can have shotguns with a permit, and you can own and shoot air rifles and low calibre rifles for target shooting), I think the numbers pretty well speak for themselves. Yes, we have high rates of aggrevated assault, stabbings, and other equally unpleasant things. But the difference in the homicide rate between here and America is massive. And we don't have stories about kids shooting themselves by mistake with daddy's firearm.

Yes you can make the arguement that by banning guns you make it such that honest people are left without a defense against the "hordes" of gun-toting criminals. That opinion is, I feel, missing the point.

In America criminals EXPECT the homeowner to be armed, thus they come armed themselves. So you've got two people with guns, one of whom may just have woken up, and the other who will be both wide awake and very twitchy about getting a hole in the head. The homeowner surprises them, boom, dead homeowner. Doesn't matter if they were armed or not, in the burglar's eyes they probably were. (And then you get into discussions about people shooting innocents who knock on the door, and claim it was self defence.)

Now in the UK, while it is possible that the burglar may be armed, it's more likely that they won't be. And it's almost certain that the homeowner won't be. So why carry a gun? Getting caught with one is an instant ticket to several years in prison, and in extreme circumstances we do have armed police units. In short: in all probability neither party will have a gun. The criminal will be less worried about getting shot, and so won't be so twitchy. End result: The homeowner is waaaay more likely to survive. And so what if your stuff gets nicked? That's what insurance is for.

Dunno about you guys, but I personally would rather get beaten up than shot.


Crime: Prison is not about revenge. (And if it is, what does that make the judicial system?) It's about preventing people re-offending. Giving them hell is not going to make them want to reform, they're just going to hate the system even more for putting them through that. What would you prefer, Guantanamo Bay for all?


Death Penalty: Again I'm very happy to live in the UK. We don't have the death penalty here for any crime (Okay, except for high treason. But oddly enough there isn't much of that about these days ...). In America you do. The two main issues I feel are those of justice and revenge.

Justice: How is it just if you kill someone for killing another? "Eye for an eye?". How does making it a state-run operation suddenly make it acceptable? If some guy went and shot a load of "bad people", he'd be put to death. If the state does the same thing, people laud them for "killing such scum". And I know the second half of this had been mentioned many, many times, but that's because it's such a key point: What about when the state makes a mistake? In Britain we let them out, apoligise, give compensation, and though the person will have suffered and be hurt, they are still there to say sorry to. Now unless you've beefed up your medical procedures since I last looked, you can't bring someone who was executed back from the dead.

Revenge: "I want them dead." Not exactly a very nice way to think. but that's how practising capital punishment can make people think. I have been hurt, so I will hurt them. In Britain it is not an option, and the victim has time to cool off and to accept that just because they or their loved ones have been hurt does not give them the right to cause hurt in their turn. In America you get crowds crying for the death penalty. What does that teach people? That Revenge is a viable path?


Affirmative Action: I do agree with you on this point. A lot of the racial issues are due to people forming a "them and us" mentality. If you integrate, and learn that people are always people then you will get along much better. And if you make one group out to be the enemy, then not unreasonably they will feel resentful and hurt. The Cold War was a prime example. America turned Russia into "The Enemy", and went nuts over Communism. Russia, rather put out at the treatment, pushed back. Result: Near miss on a full blown nuclear war. And now Muslims are being made out to be the new enemy. Yea, great move guys ...let's tell everyone that these people are evil. Oh look, some people who belong to the "evil" part of the diagram attacked us. That proves it, they're bad.

Way to try and be a "free and open democracy"? I think not.

Gun Control: Speaking as someone who lives in the UK, where guns are all but banned (farmers can have shotguns with a permit, and you can own and shoot air rifles and low calibre rifles for target shooting), I think the numbers pretty well speak for themselves. Yes, we have high rates of aggrevated assault, stabbings, and other equally unpleasant things. But the difference in the homicide rate between here and America is massive. And we don't have stories about kids shooting themselves by mistake with daddy's firearm.
And the difference has been there for decades, even w/ the varying levels of "gun control". There is no correlation.

Yes you can make the arguement that by banning guns you make it such that honest people are left without a defense against the "hordes" of gun-toting criminals. That opinion is, I feel, missing the point.

That's nice. Let's move the goalposts to cover those red herrings.

In America criminals EXPECT the homeowner to be armed, thus they come armed themselves. So you've got two people with guns, one of whom may just have woken up, and the other who will be both wide awake and very twitchy about getting a hole in the head. The homeowner surprises them, boom, dead homeowner. Doesn't matter if they were armed or not, in the burglar's eyes they probably were. (And then you get into discussions about people shooting innocents who knock on the door, and claim it was self defence.)

And that's why crime dropped by over 50% even with an increase in legal ownership?

Now in the UK, while it is possible that the burglar may be armed, it's more likely that they won't be. And it's almost certain that the homeowner won't be. So why carry a gun? Getting caught with one is an instant ticket to several years in prison, and in extreme circumstances we do have armed police units. In short: in all probability neither party will have a gun. The criminal will be less worried about getting shot, and so won't be so twitchy. End result: The homeowner is waaaay more likely to survive. And so what if your stuff gets nicked? That's what insurance is for.

The UK just has higher number of "hot" burglaries in comparison to the US. It's easier to rob and rape someone when they know that, not only are they unarmed, it's discouraged to even defend yourself. The fact that there are more homeowners defending themselves w/ firearms than are being shot. The fact that the UK "subject control" laws have not lowered crime a bit.

Dunno about you guys, but I personally would rather get beaten up than shot.




I'ld rather not take the risk of a criminal "just" wanting to rob me and not hurt my family just for kicks. You can take that risk if you want.

Taxes: High taxes slow the economy. Why? Because when you take more money away from people they have less money to spend and put back into the economy making it slow down. And what does the government do with those high taxes? Waste them on failed government programs. So low taxes= strong economy and less wasted money.

Gun control: It is my right to have a gun. 2nd most important right according to the people who started this country. Efforts to take away or limit my guns ARE AGAINST THE LAW

Crime: Stop fucking cuddling criminals. Prison is supposed to be a punishment not a resort. They are in there because they are bad people who hurt society. If we punished them like we should we wouldn't have so many reoffenders because people would actually not like to go to prison. Theres a thought, uh?

Death Penalty: If you kill an innocent person for no reason, you deserve to die. Pretty simple really murders a waste of life.

affirmative action: its just reverse racism and its wrong. It seems like the only people who see race or make race a big deal are the people who claim they are fighting racism. Guess what? If you stop focusing on race and highlighting the differences and divisions of the races, it will all go away and people will see people as people.

Thats all I got for now. Feel free show me where I'm wrong, discuss, etc.
1. Agree

2. Agreee

3. We don't "cuddle" criminals. We try to make sure no one becomes criminals.

4. Agree

5. Agree

:eek: Holy shit.

It has absolutely no effect on crime, and in fact, states like Massachusetts, which has no death penalty, have much lower crime rights than states like California and Texas, which do have the death penalty.

Off chance there's more than just the death penalty affecting crime rates?

50% over what period? And there is no way of telling if the crime rate would have dropped anyway, or indeed if the presence of guns slowed the decline in the crime rate. Now you are the one making claims that cannot be substantiated.

On the subject of robberies we aren't going to come to a conclusion. you believe in "guns for all", I believe in "guns for no-one". Neither of us is going to budge.

However, broaching an equally relevant topic, what about such massacres as Dunblaine (1996), and Columbine (1999)?

It was a killing spree in 1987 that got the movement for banning guns really rolling. A man called Michael Ryan killed 16 people and injured a further 15 using a semi-automatic rifle and a handgun, both of which were legally owned. This started a move to control such weapons, and in 1988 semi-automatic rifles were banned.

Then came Dunblaine, where a man called Thomas Hamilton shot 16 children with their teacher, and wounded a further 14 people.In February 1997 a partial ban was introduced banning handguns over .22 calibre. Later that year in November, a total ban on handguns came into effect.

It was well after that in 1999 that the US had Columbine, where 2 students (Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold) killed 15 people and injured a further 24. A few changes were made with reference to safety measures on guns, and in preventing children getting hold of such guns.

But it was only last year that Jeffrey Weise killed 10 people and injured a further 15 in Red Lake, Minnesota.

Then you have the Washington Sniper, who killed 10 people and kept an entire state in near-permanent fear during the events of 2002.

Now explain to me, why is it more important to own guns than to try all you can to prevent such killings? If you want to use weapons to defend your country, fine, join the army. But why insist that anyone above the legal age can buy a semi-automatic rifle? Why do you need such a deadly piece of equipment?

50% over what period? And there is no way of telling if the crime rate would have dropped anyway, or indeed if the presence of guns slowed the decline in the crime rate. Now you are the one making claims that cannot be substantiated.

From '94 - '04. I in no way claimed that the drop was due to more firearms. You claimed more firearms would lead to more crime. That is shown to be false.

On the subject of robberies we aren't going to come to a conclusion. you believe in "guns for all", I believe in "guns for no-one". Neither of us is going to budge.

Once again you're beating a strawman. I don't claim "guns for all". I state availability for those who follow the law. At least you admit you want to encourage a police state.

However, broaching an equally relevant topic, what about such massacres as Dunblaine (1996), and Columbine (1999)?

So you feel the illegal use by a tiny minority is justification for removing the property and rights of millions?

It was a killing spree in 1987 that got the movement for banning guns really rolling. A man called Michael Ryan killed 16 people and injured a further 15 using a semi-automatic rifle and a handgun, both of which were legally owned. This started a move to control such weapons, and in 1988 semi-automatic rifles were banned.

And what did it do to crime levels? Can you prove a direct correlation?

Then came Dunblaine, where a man called Thomas Hamilton shot 16 children with their teacher, and wounded a further 14 people.In February 1997 a partial ban was introduced banning handguns over .22 calibre. Later that year in November, a total ban on handguns came into effect.

And what did it due to crime levels? Can you prove a direct correlation?

It was well after that in 1999 that the US had Columbine, where 2 students (Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold) killed 15 people and injured a further 24. A few changes were made with reference to safety measures on guns, and in preventing children getting hold of such guns.

And what laws were changed? Did the Columbine killers have them legally in the first place? Can you show any correlation between any changed laws and crime levels? If you could, you'ld be the first.

But it was only last year that Jeffrey Weise killed 10 people and injured a further 15 in Red Lake, Minnesota.

And he is being punished for it. I don't believe in pre-crime or punishing millions for the actions of a few. You apparently do.

Then you have the Washington Sniper, who killed 10 people and kept an entire state in near-permanent fear during the events of 2002.

Another case of an illegal purchase.

Now explain to me, why is it more important to own guns than to try all you can to prevent such killings?[/quote

Because there are more people that protect their families w/ firearms each year than all of the incidents you mentioned put together. Would you like me to start posting the hundreds of articles showing that?

[QUOTE=Trandonor;11643234]If you want to use weapons to defend your country, fine, join the army. But why insist that anyone above the legal age can buy a semi-automatic rifle?

Anyone? Where did I say that? Do you even know how a semi-auto rifle functions? You do realize that they are very common in hunting and target shooting?

Why do you need such a deadly piece of equipment?

It's only a "deadly piece of equipment" when people misuse them. As for the classic "need" arguement, do you want the gov't deciding what you "need"? Howabout your neighbors that know nothing about what they're talking about but feel the need to legislate your lifestyle? Would you support that?

First off, where exactly are you coming from with your comment about a "police state"? Nowhere in my opinions have I suggested that we should have the "Secret Police" or similar.

And, like it or not, I still don't see how letting people have guns is a good thing. (Yes, I can hear the rightous indignation coming off you from here, but I still don't get it.)

And you are deliberatley manipulating the way in which I've stated my opinions. I do not believe in pre-crime or thought-policing (a la the book "1984" by George Orwell). But my personal opinion is that providing people with the means to provide near-instant death to a crowd of their fellow man is pointless.

I'm sure you're going to correct me, but for me the points referring to gun-ownership are as follows:

1. Defence. I need a gun to protect myself. (No one I know feels the need to have one, or thinks they would sleep more securely at night if they had one. In fact the opposite is true, especially if a housebreaker was likely to have one as well.)

2. Power. Owning a gun makes me feel powerful, and that I am in control. (Scientific tests have proven this emotion. Having a firearm gives the weilder a sense of superiority over their unarmed/less well armed fellows. Oh good, so now we have both law-abiding people and criminals going around feeling powerful just because they've got a large rifle. Great, that'll help the police no end.)

3. Liberty. I should be allowed a gun because it's not the government's place to tell me what to do, and in addition the Second Amendment says I can. (By that token you should allow people to own any firearm they can afford. After all, by not letting you have them the government is restricting your freedom, right?)

Apologies to everyone else in the thread for taking the thread firmly in the direction of gun-control (or not as the case may be). But I do feel strongly about this topic, and since Kecibukia has the opposite opinion, we're arguing.

And yes I do partially agree with the NRA: "Guns don't kill people." No, the high-velocity lump of metal perforating you at over 100mph kills you.

(Just as I was finishing I found this website which might be of interest. Yes, it's a pro-control site, but every site to do with the subject will have bias. And it does have some hard statistics at least, even if you dismiss the rest: http://www.guninformation.org/)

*snip*

Gun control: It is my right to have a gun. 2nd most important right according to the people who started this country. Efforts to take away or limit my guns ARE AGAINST THE LAW

Crime: Stop fucking cuddling criminals. Prison is supposed to be a punishment not a resort. They are in there because they are bad people who hurt society. If we punished them like we should we wouldn't have so many reoffenders because people would actually not like to go to prison. Theres a thought, uh?
*snip*
I'll address these two bits.

Gun rights were for A WELL-REGULATED MILITIA. Hmm, citizen-soldiers... well-regulated... sounds a bit like the National Guard. With the presence of a national guard, the founding fathers would have seen little reason for possession of personal firearms (well, hunting rifles, but not handguns). And the order they are in is not necessarily representative of their importance.

As for crime: rehabilitation is proven to be more effective in reducing recidivism rates than simple punishment. Nobody likes to go to prison in the first place, and they're not resorts, not by a long shot.

First off, where exactly are you coming from with your comment about a "police state"? Nowhere in my opinions have I suggested that we should have the "Secret Police" or similar.

So now you're critisizing me for modifying your opinions? What do you call a state that only the gov't is armed?

And, like it or not, I still don't see how letting people have guns is a good thing. (Yes, I can hear the rightous indignation coming off you from here, but I still don't get it.)

So just because you personally can't see it means it shouldn't be allowed? Apparently you missed the part where I questioned having your neighbors legislate your lifestyle.

And you are deliberatley manipulating the way in which I've stated my opinions. I do not believe in pre-crime or thought-policing (a la the book "1984" by George Orwell). But my personal opinion is that providing people with the means to provide near-instant death to a crowd of their fellow man is pointless.

So what do you call punishing millions of people for the actions of a tiny minority because they "might" do something wrong?

Your opinion is just that.

I'm sure you're going to correct me, but for me the points referring to gun-ownership are as follows:

1. Defence. I need a gun to protect myself. (No one I know feels the need to have one, or thinks they would sleep more securely at night if they had one. In fact the opposite is true, especially if a housebreaker was likely to have one as well.)

So because 'noone you know" feels that way, everyone feels that way? Since most of the people I know feel the opposite, does that make it more valid?

2. Power. Owning a gun makes me feel powerful, and that I am in control. (Scientific tests have proven this emotion. Having a firearm gives the weilder a sense of superiority over their unarmed/less well armed fellows. Oh good, so now we have both law-abiding people and criminals going around feeling powerful just because they've got a large rifle. Great, that'll help the police no end.)

And the fact that the majority of police in the US support personal defense and CCW, this statement is also just "opinion". I'ld like to see these "scientific tests". Got a link?

3. Liberty. I should be allowed a gun because it's not the government's place to tell me what to do, and in addition the Second Amendment says I can. (By that token you should allow people to own any firearm they can afford. After all, by not letting you have them the government is restricting your freedom, right?)

It's considered an inalienable right. Not one the US constitution "grants".

Apologies to everyone else in the thread for taking the thread firmly in the direction of gun-control (or not as the case may be). But I do feel strongly about this topic, and since Kecibukia has the opposite opinion, we're arguing.

And yes I do partially agree with the NRA: "Guns don't kill people." No, the high-velocity lump of metal perforating you at over 100mph kills you.

(Just as I was finishing I found this website which might be of interest. Yes, it's a pro-control site, but every site to do with the subject will have bias. And it does have some hard statistics at least, even if you dismiss the rest: http://www.guninformation.org/)

Lot's of half-information on that site.

Try this:

www.guncite.com

I'll address these two bits.

Gun rights were for A WELL-REGULATED MILITIA. Hmm, citizen-soldiers... well-regulated... sounds a bit like the National Guard. With the presence of a national guard, the founding fathers would have seen little reason for possession of personal firearms (well, hunting rifles, but not handguns). And the order they are in is not necessarily representative of their importance.




False:

Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

Section 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.

Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

As a leftist, I must entirely agree with this statement.

I simply do not trust the government enough to hand over the weapons I may need to fight against that government.

I think the debates about crime and personal safety are secondary to this principle: we must be able to hold the government accountable for all its actions, including acts of violence and oppression against its own citizens. That is the essence of democracy.

A gun is a tool for holding government accountable. Understandably, it is a tool of last resort, but that only makes it more necessary. You may argue that my stance is reactionary and paranoid in a democracy that operates under rule of law. Feel free.

Is there ANYONE here who doesn't want their country to be fully armed? Or failing that, is there anyone else from the UK here?

What do you call a state where only the gov't is armed?

Safer, personally. Besides, you should re-read my statement. It says I believe in guns for NO-ONE. This includes the state. Sadly this is not an option since we still live in a world where war hapens and other countries have no banned guns in the same way. However I truly believe that if NO-ONE had guns, not civilians, not the state, and not anyone else then the world would be one hell of a lot safer. Living in the real world though where a lot of countries would have a heart attack if someone suggested they give up their guns, we have to accept such imperfections. I may not like it that the police have armed units, but they do because there are a few criminals who still have guns. It's not easy to get hold of them, but still a few people have them.

Your website, though interesting, isn't very useful for the "Gun Violence" statistics section. It shows statistics which are (Aside from Columbia in one chart) many years out of date. The statistics for the UK come from, at their most recent, 1997, (While some are from as far back as 1992) which is clearly from before the effect of handguns getting fully banned was felt. The full ban was only passed into law in November that year, and crime isn't about to simply plummet immediately. And somehow I don't think the current number of households with guns is 4.7% here ...

Also on the site it dismisses a relationship between guns and the suicide rate states that if people can't use guns then they will simply resort to other means. Possibly true, but such means are often reversable. If you have a gun then you can have hit deep depression, decide to end it al, and blow your brains out in one evening. Boom, skull gone, life ended. Over here it does take slightly longer. Plus you generally have to wait for a bit before you meet your end. Cut yourself open, you have to wait while you bleed to death. Take pills, it's a while before you drop dead. Jump off a bridge or in front of a train, you have to get to a suitable bridge or railroad. The longer you have to think about it before, during and after the event, the better. If you have a chance to say "Ooops, I guess maybe life isn't that bad after all." and to get rushed to hospital then I call that one hell of an improvement.

Another fundamental difference in our views is that we live in cultures that approach the issue from opposite directions. In the UK, guns are mostly banned, and so we see the advantages of not having them more than we see the advantages of having them. In America the opposite is true, you see first the good points of having them, then the bad points of not having them. In either case we're going to be biased to the way our society is at the moment, and hence less likely to accept the other viewpoint.

Taxes: High taxes slow the economy. Why? Because when you take more money away from people they have less money to spend and put back into the economy making it slow down. And what does the government do with those high taxes? Waste them on failed government programs. So low taxes= strong economy and less wasted money.

Gun control: It is my right to have a gun. 2nd most important right according to the people who started this country. Efforts to take away or limit my guns ARE AGAINST THE LAW

Crime: Stop fucking cuddling criminals. Prison is supposed to be a punishment not a resort. They are in there because they are bad people who hurt society. If we punished them like we should we wouldn't have so many reoffenders because people would actually not like to go to prison. Theres a thought, uh?

Death Penalty: If you kill an innocent person for no reason, you deserve to die. Pretty simple really murders a waste of life.

affirmative action: its just reverse racism and its wrong. It seems like the only people who see race or make race a big deal are the people who claim they are fighting racism. Guess what? If you stop focusing on race and highlighting the differences and divisions of the races, it will all go away and people will see people as people.

Thats all I got for now. Feel free show me where I'm wrong, discuss, etc.

You're ignorant.

Is there ANYONE here who doesn't want their country to be fully armed? Or failing that, is there anyone else from the UK here?

Is there ANYONE here who doesn't keep making the "support firearms = giving guns to everyone" fallacy?



Safer, personally. Besides, you should re-read my statement. It says I believe in guns for NO-ONE. This includes the state. Sadly this is not an option since we still live in a world where war hapens and other countries have no banned guns in the same way. However I truly believe that if NO-ONE had guns, not civilians, not the state, and not anyone else then the world would be one hell of a lot safer. Living in the real world though where a lot of countries would have a heart attack if someone suggested they give up their guns, we have to accept such imperfections. I may not like it that the police have armed units, but they do because there are a few criminals who still have guns. It's not easy to get hold of them, but still a few people have them.

That's right. I live in and recognize the real world. Gov't remain armed. Criminals remain armed. If you take away all the legitimate arms, the criminals can still make there own.

Your website, though interesting, isn't very useful for the "Gun Violence" statistics section. It shows statistics which are (Aside from Columbia in one chart) many years out of date. The statistics for the UK come from, at their most recent, 1997, (While some are from as far back as 1992) which is clearly from before the effect of handguns getting fully banned was felt. The full ban was only passed into law in November that year, and crime isn't about to simply plummet immediately. And somehow I don't think the current number of households with guns is 4.7% here ...

You're right, just like your website, some of it is out of date. The UK's crime rate has climbed since then, even w/ the "readjusting" of the numbers.
You may also notice that there are hundreds of references and citations on the site that link to both sides of the debate, many referencing the very sources your site uses and easily refutes them/

Also on the site it dismisses a relationship between guns and the suicide rate states that if people can't use guns then they will simply resort to other means. Possibly true, but such means are often reversable. If you have a gun then you can have hit deep depression, decide to end it al, and blow your brains out in one evening. Boom, skull gone, life ended. Over here it does take slightly longer. Plus you generally have to wait for a bit before you meet your end. Cut yourself open, you have to wait while you bleed to death. Take pills, it's a while before you drop dead. Jump off a bridge or in front of a train, you have to get to a suitable bridge or railroad. The longer you have to think about it before, during and after the event, the better. If you have a chance to say "Ooops, I guess maybe life isn't that bad after all." and to get rushed to hospital then I call that one hell of an improvement.

And the fact that suicide rates are higher in most of Europe and Japan totally negates this arguement.

Another fundamental difference in our views is that we live in cultures that approach the issue from opposite directions. In the UK, guns are mostly banned, and so we see the advantages of not having them more than we see the advantages of having them. In America the opposite is true, you see first the good points of having them, then the bad points of not having them. In either case we're going to be biased to the way our society is at the moment, and hence less likely to accept the other viewpoint.

A fundamental difference is that I don't claim that more guns = less crime or any version thereof. You however, claim more guns = more crime but the facts don't back you up.

You're ignorant.

Why? Be specific.

You're ignorant.

A compelling and well written argument.

I agree with everything except the death penalty ;), I think that is wrong purely because we can never know for sure who killed who.

And the fact that suicide rates are higher in most of Europe and Japan totally negates this arguement.

This is a direct copy + pate from the WHO website. Column 2 is the Year of the survey, 3 is the suicide rate amongst men, 4 the suicide rate amongst women.

UNITED KINGDOM 99 11.8 3.3
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 99 17.6 4.1
SWITZERLAND 99 26.5 10.0

Notice anything?

This is a direct copy + pate from the WHO website. Column 2 is the Year of the survey, 3 is the suicide rate amongst men, 4 the suicide rate amongst women.

UNITED KINGDOM 99 11.8 3.3
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 99 17.6 4.1
SWITZERLAND 99 26.5 10.0

Notice anything?

what I'm not noticing is your point....

This is a direct copy + pate from the WHO website. Column 2 is the Year of the survey, 3 is the suicide rate amongst men, 4 the suicide rate amongst women.

UNITED KINGDOM 99 11.8 3.3
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 99 17.6 4.1

Notice anything?

That's nice. Did I say the UK specific? Did you happen to ignore every other country w/ tight gun controls that have higher? Germany, France, Japan, Russia, Australia, etc. It's nice that you keep claiming causality when the source you use proves you wrong. When you don't selectively site data that is.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/12/27/npc127.xml
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1424319,00.html

Notice anything?

No, it isn't. It's a remedy for racism, and essential to real equality of opportunity.

Giving a certain group of people preferential treatment isn't racism? Affirmative action is racist, and it's also offensive. It's basically saying to blacks, "Here, you're obviously incapable of advancing on our own, so let's have the state do it for you." That's completely untrue. Blacks are just as capable of advancing on their own as anyone else. Look at Booker T. Washington, George Washington Carver, MLK, W.E.B. DuBois, etc. Blacks don't need a paternalistic nanny-state to help them succeed. No group of people is any more or any less capable of succeeding than any other group. Some groups may face additional obstacles - blacks, for instance, do have to deal with racism, which is appalling in this day and age - but there is absolutely no reason why those who try can't succeed. Affirmative action is insulting and a slap in a face to the people it ostensibly "helps." I don't know any person, black or otherwise, who would want to be accepted for college or a job just for having a certain level of skin pigmentation. People should be chosen based on merit; if an individual black meets the criteria better than an individual white, then the black should get the job, and vice versa. If anything, we could encourage people to be color blind and not see people as blacks or whites, but as people. Affirmative action does not encourage this.

what I'm not noticing is your point....

His point is that he is right only when he selectively picks the data and ignores the original question.

Gun control: It is my right to have a gun. 2nd most important right according to the people who started this country. Efforts to take away or limit my guns ARE AGAINST THE LAW

Do you really need an AK-47 with armor-piercing bullets? Or a high-calibur sniper rifle?

I'm for low-calibur self-defence pistols only; hunting is a whole different thing, but citizens do not need automatic weapons.

Do you really need an AK-47 with armor-piercing bullets? Or a high-calibur sniper rifle?

I'm for low-calibur self-defence pistols only; hunting is a whole different thing, but citizens do not need automatic weapons.

And you don't "need" that computer. Define "high caliber sniper rifle". Define "self-defense pistol". Define "automatic weapon".

Thanks for giving me those links, I must admit I forgot to check newspaper reports as sources.

"There is, however, some bleak consolation - gun violence, and murders, could be a lot worse if the young British criminals could get hold of better weapons.

Experts agree that there is a shortage of high-quality military guns and ammunition. The gunmen use what they can afford, or obtain, and much of it is home-made and inefficient."

So the fact that they can't get hold of high-class, reliable weapondry is limiting the violence? I count that as a good thing. Yes, being a nation that allows people in from time to time we're gonna have guns. But at least we can try and limit the quality and availability of them as much as possible. Yes they can make their own, but how good is a gun you put together in your garage?

And what Ravea is asking is "Why do you need armour piercing bullets that can perforate someone wearing military body armour?" Your comparison to computers is irrelevant, there is a valid use for high-end computers (ie running the high-end games etc). Now find a valid use for an AK-47 that couldn't be served by, if you have to have a weapon, a pistol when talking about defense?

Giving a certain group of people preferential treatment isn't racism?

Because of historic and present structures of discrimination? No.

Affirmative action is racist, and it's also offensive. It's basically saying to blacks, "Here, you're obviously incapable of advancing on our own, so let's have the state do it for you."

No. It's saying that racial privilege has disadvantaged blacks unfairly, and that this disadvantage should be remedied. It has nothing to do with the fact that they are black; if the situation were reversed, and it were whites who were an oppressed minority, the same principle would apply.

That's completely untrue. Blacks are just as capable of advancing on their own as anyone else. Look at Booker T. Washington, George Washington Carver, MLK, W.E.B. DuBois, etc.

Yet they face unique obstacles caused by racism.

Blacks don't need a paternalistic nanny-state to help them succeed.

Oppressed minorities do indeed deserve guarantees of truly equal treatment.

No group of people is any more or any less capable of succeeding than any other group.

Not in and of themselves, no. Racism, however, can lead to circumstances where certain groups of people are disadvantaged - not because there is something wrong with that group, but because people outside of that group are prejudiced against the group.

Some groups may face additional obstacles - blacks, for instance, do have to deal with racism, which is appalling in this day and age - but there is absolutely no reason why those who try can't succeed.

You have already stated why some of "those who try can't succeed" - the "additional obstacles" presented by historical and present racism.

Affirmative action is insulting and a slap in a face to the people it ostensibly "helps."

It's neither. It's a recognition that society has a duty to treat people equally, and that if that isn't happening, affirmative action needs to be taken to make it happen.

I don't know any person, black or otherwise, who would want to be accepted for college or a job just for having a certain level of skin pigmentation.

And I don't know anyone who would want to be refused just for having certain racial characteristics, either. Since racist discrimination exists, it should be recognized as existing and affirmatively combated through affirmative action programs.

People should be chosen based on merit; if an individual black meets the criteria better than an individual white, then the black should get the job, and vice versa.

I agree. That's why we need affirmative action to combat racist discrimination; without it (and even with it, though to a lesser degree), individual blacks who work just as hard and are just as talented as their white counterparts are disadvantaged by the continued effects of historical and present discrimination.

If anything, we could encourage people to be color blind and not see people as blacks or whites, but as people. Affirmative action does not encourage this.

Nor does it discourage it.

Thanks for giving me those links, I must admit I forgot to check newspaper reports as sources.

"There is, however, some bleak consolation - gun violence, and murders, could be a lot worse if the young British criminals could get hold of better weapons.

Experts agree that there is a shortage of high-quality military guns and ammunition. The gunmen use what they can afford, or obtain, and much of it is home-made and inefficient."

So the fact that they can't get hold of high-class, reliable weapondry is limiting the violence? I count that as a good thing. Yes, being a nation that allows people in from time to time we're gonna have guns. But at least we can try and limit the quality and availability of them as much as possible. Yes they can make their own, but how good is a gun you put together in your garage?

And you continue to keep dodging around the issues. Nice to know you ignore the facts when they don't support your bias.

And yet the numbers of murders in the UK as well as the percentage committed w/ illegal firearms has increased since '91 while the US's dropped.

Yet you still keep claiming causality.

And what Ravea is asking is "Why do you need armour piercing bullets that can perforate someone wearing military body armour?" Your comparison to computers is irrelevant, there is a valid use for high-end computers (ie running the high-end games etc). Now find a valid use for an AK-47 that couldn't be served by, if you have to have a weapon, a pistol when talking about defense?



And you continue to keep dodging around the issues.

Of course you're also moving the goalposts to change from the gov't deciding what you "need" to what should be available based on self-appointed "valid uses".

The best way to go about it is to start discouraging people, starting at as early an age as possible, from viewing people as black, white, etc., but instead to view them as just people. I think the affirmative action supporters have the same goal, but I think their methods are backfiring. By giving people preferential treatment on the basis of race is to make race itself an issue - which is in itself a bad thing.

And you don't "need" that computer. Define "high caliber sniper rifle". Define "self-defense pistol". Define "automatic weapon".

The last one I can do. A weapon which fires more than one round for one, continued, depression of the trigger.
Easy.
That's so simple even a lawyer can manage it.

The last one I can do. A weapon which fires more than one round for one, continued, depression of the trigger.
Easy.
That's so simple even a lawyer can manage it.

Those are regulated by the National Firearms Act and are really damned difficult to get these days.

And you continue to keep dodging around the issues. Nice to know you ignore the facts when they don't support your bias.

And yet the numbers of murders in the UK as well as the percentage committed w/ illegal firearms has increased since '91 while the US's dropped.

Yet you still keep claiming causality.

And you continue to keep dodging around the issues.

Of course you're also moving the goalposts to change from the gov't deciding what you "need" to what should be available based on self-appointed "valid uses".

Most credible commentators put rising gun-crime in the UK down to a combination of
1) worse policing
2) a lack of border controls within the EU, meaning that arms from (eg) Former Yugoslavia, once in the EU anywhere, can make it into the UK to supply gangs here.

The last one I can do. A weapon which fires more than one round for one, continued, depression of the trigger.
Easy.
That's so simple even a lawyer can manage it.

That's a fully-automatic weapon. Semi-automatic weapons are one trigger pull, one round.

You see where the specific terms are important and can be (and are) used to distort the issue?

Most credible commentators put rising gun-crime in the UK down to a combination of
1) worse policing
2) a lack of border controls within the EU, meaning that arms from (eg) Former Yugoslavia, once in the EU anywhere, can make it into the UK to supply gangs here.

Exactly. It has no proven connection to "gun control" laws. Yet certain people keep crying for more tightening of them.

The best way to go about it is to start discouraging people, starting at as early an age as possible, from viewing people as black, white, etc., but instead to view them as just people. I think the affirmative action supporters have the same goal, but I think their methods are backfiring. By giving people preferential treatment on the basis of race is to make race itself an issue - which is in itself a bad thing.

A different argument from calling it "racist."

Race is already an issue; the racists have made it one. It will not go away because we ignore it. "Discouraging" it has not worked so far, and frankly I doubt it will work until the "races" are actually living on equal terms.

And you don't "need" that computer. Define "high caliber sniper rifle". Define "self-defense pistol". Define "automatic weapon".

Last time I checked, computers didn't kill thousands of innocent people every year.

Alrighty, then: Automatic weapon: "An automatic firearm is a firearm that uses the energy of firing to extract and eject the fired cartridge case, and load a new case." This can refer both to semi-automatic and fully automatic firearms-usually it referrs to fully-automatic designs.

The case I'm making is that regular civilians don't need to carry Uzi's, AK's, and Colt .45's. Why would anyone need that sort of thing? Perhaps a tazer, or a pistol that fires rubber bullets, but there's no need to carry around such deadly weaponry.

You still haven't given me a valid reason to own an AK-47

My viewpoint is that you don't need one, and I've said why. Now you give me a reason why you do need anything quite so deadly. Yes, I know you've said it's only deadly in the wrong hands, but the fact remains that it can kill a fully armoured soldier in a war-zone which, unless that's what you define your city as, is a little in excess of what you need to defend yourself.

"Discouraging" it has not worked so far, and frankly I doubt it will work until the "races" are actually living on equal terms.

If only that would happen. :(

Last time I checked, computers didn't kill thousands of innocent people every year.

Alrighty, then: Automatic weapon: "An automatic firearm is a firearm that uses the energy of firing to extract and eject the fired cartridge case, and load a new case." This can refer both to semi-automatic and fully automatic firearms-usually it referrs to fully-automatic designs.

The case I'm making is that regular civilians don't need to carry Uzi's, AK's, and Colt .45's. Why would anyone need that sort of thing? Perhaps a tazer, or a pistol that fires rubber bullets, but there's no need to carry around such deadly weaponry.

You're supporting the supposition that the gov't should decide what you "need". "High powered computers" have been used to steal from and ruin the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. Why should your average person "need" something so powerful?

A colt .45 is an intermediate caliber semi-auto pistol. It could also use "rubber bullets" You put it in the same category as a fully-automatic weapon which are heavily regulated but still available to no effect in reducing crime. Nice way to confuse the data. You're also adding the point of "carrying them around". Most police in the US support CCW laws.

Tazers are not as effective nor are rubber bullets. Ironically, the various banners have pushed for those to be illegal as well as civilians shouldn't "need" them.

There are no proven results to "gun control" laws. The only effect has been further pushes to reduce the availability of firearms and restrict the rights of law-abiding citizens even further.

That is a painfully simplistic and innacurate view of how tax cuts effect the economy. Me thinks you need a briefer on how they might atually work:
http://www.slate.com/id/2146868/?nav=tap3



Again, you are interpreting it to your own bias. The 2nd Amendment is extremely vague- no where does it say the average citizen has a right to own a gun with no limits. (and considering the Gov limits freedom of speech, which is the 1st Amendment, it goes to show that they can limit this as well).



Again, a painfully simplistic approach. Did you ever stop to consider the world may not be black and white? Beyond that, I'd hold that (1) the death penalty falls under cruel and unusual punishment, and (2) it is much more punishment to make a person live in solitary confinement the rest of their life, as well as cheaper.

Cruel and unusual punishment is overrated and is really a modern phenomenon. There is nothing wrong with a cheap, effective hanging; string em up and string em high. Plus, you can reuse the rope. None of this "oh he might feel pain before he dies" bullshit. If you've committed a crime serious enough to warrant death, and there are plenty of them, then you should die. Even better if you suffer before hand. Give you time to reconsider your stance on life.

At least, the founders didn't consider the death penalty "cruel and unusual" punishment. But ah, what the hell do they know, eh?

You still haven't given me a valid reason to own an AK-47

Target shooting. Hunting.

There's two. Now you're going to claim I don't "need" them or that those aren't "valid" completely proving my point as to subjectivity of the terms.

My viewpoint is that you don't need one, and I've said why. Now you give me a reason why you do need anything quite so deadly. Yes, I know you've said it's only deadly in the wrong hands, but the fact remains that it can kill a fully armoured soldier in a war-zone which, unless that's what you define your city as, is a little in excess of what you need to defend yourself.

So can a rock.

You still haven't proven causality to crime, suicide, murder, or any of the other claims you've made. You've just dodged around the subjects.

I'll wait.

And you don't "need" that computer. Define "high caliber sniper rifle". Define "self-defense pistol". Define "automatic weapon".

I thinks that he is saying, it is better for society if Guns like that are not sold to society, because they can only cause harm.

I thinks that he is saying, it is better for society if Guns like that are not sold to society, because they can only cause harm.

Of course. However, he doesn't have any proof that they do "cause harm" to society besides vague terms and emotional arguements. I'm going to make him define his idea.

No, I asked for a good reason and you gave me what is in your eyes a good answer. Fair enough.

Quick question: Can a rock kill a soldier from 500m through body armour? Just wondering, you might have different rocks in the US.

And in addition you've ignored the point that I've made (albeit not stated in words of one syllable), and has been made by many others over time. Guns make suicide, murder, and violent crime EASIER. You feel down, you blow your brians out. He tries to take something of yours, you shoot him. You want to take something of his you bring along a gun. If he twitches, you shoot him.

No, I asked for a good reason and you gave me what is in your eyes a good answer. Fair enough.

Quick question: Can a rock kill a soldier from 500m through body armour? Just wondering, you might have different rocks in the US.

Never seen one dropped?

http://geocities.com/fightinghate/ThrowingStones-Jan-04.html

And in addition you've ignored the point that I've made (albeit not stated in words of one syllable), and has been made by many others over time. Guns make suicide, murder, and violent crime EASIER. You feel down, you blow your brians out. He tries to take something of yours, you shoot him. You want to take something of his you bring along a gun. If he twitches, you shoot him.

Like I said, emotional arguements w/ no basis in reality.
If it's "easier", then you would see more suicides universally in high firearm nations. Since that's not true, living in those other nations must really suck for them to go to such extreme measures to kill themselves. There have been less crimes in the US even w/ more firearms and the relaxation of useless laws. Civilians owning firearms makes it "harder" for criminals to victimize.

You have claimed causality yet can't prove it in any way.

Tallest building in the world is 448m. I defined my distance as 500m. So unless they're arranging rock-based airstrikes these days then no, soldiers don't exactly get killed by rocks from 500m.

Tallest building in the world is 448m. I defined my distance as 500m. So unless they're arranging rock-based airstrikes these days then no, soldiers don't exactly get killed by rocks from 500m.

And the goalposts are moved a little more. You really don't have much here, do you?

I defined my terms clearly, I have not moved the goalposts. I am still exploring this point as a part of the whole.

So in essence you're saying that rocks CAN'T kill armoured soldiers at 500m while guns can? So, by definition, not having such guns would thus render it rather more tricky to kill him at such a range. Gee, that's a pity ...

And no my arguements aren't becoming more sparse. It's just that I have different values to you. (I know you're going to take offense at that, even though I assure you it is not meant in a "taking the moral high-ground" way). I see it that any device that allows you to instantly kill someone with no chance for them to defend themselves is morally wrong, and anything we can do to limit or remove such devices is right. I do not see it as a limit on my freedom, even though technically it is.

I defined my terms clearly, I have not moved the goalposts. I am still exploring this point as a part of the whole.

So in essence you're saying that rocks CAN'T kill armoured soldiers at 500m while guns can? So, by definition, not having such guns would thus render it rather more tricky to kill him at such a range. Gee, that's a pity ...

No, you're moving the goalposts. Your original statement:

but the fact remains that it can kill a fully armoured soldier in a war-zone

Then you changed it to ranged. That's moving the goalposts.



And no my arguements aren't becoming more sparse. It's just that I have different values to you. (I know you're going to take offense at that, even though I assure you it is not meant in a "taking the moral high-ground" way). I see it that any device that allows you to instantly kill someone with no chance for them to defend themselves is morally wrong, and anything we can do to limit or remove such devices is right. I do not see it as a limit on my freedom, even though technically it is.

So you at least admit it is a limit on freedom that others do see it as.

I feel it's "morally wrong" for a gov't or society to deprive one of being able to defend themselves against a criminal (either a person or thier own gov't) when that gov't or society either can't or won't do it and , in many cases, punish the individual for even attempting to defend themselves. That, to me, is a failure of society/Gov't, not the legal availability and use of firearms by the populace.

snip a few points of purile simplistic ignorance

Why are there 11 pages based on this idiocy?

If I make a post entitled "where the right gets it wrong" that consists of the single sentence "not understanding complex issues" is it likely to go anywhere?

Maybe I'll try. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=11646921#post11646921)

It says I believe in guns for NO-ONE. This includes the state. Sadly this is not an option since we still live in a world where war hapens and other countries have no banned guns in the same way. However I truly believe that if NO-ONE had guns, not civilians, not the state, and not anyone else then the world would be one hell of a lot safer.
Your goal and the goal of gun advocates on the right are fundamentally similar. If the world was as you wish it to be, the people and the government would have equivalent armament. That's what the gun advocates want.

The only difference is they don't spend a lot of time wishcasting about a gun-free world. Since the world isn't gun-free, everyone should be permitted guns.

What? Giving everyone acess to guns is NOT the same as thinkng that no one should have guns. How is that a logical conclusion?

Yes the people and the government would have equivalent armament, ie they would all be UNARMED. What you are saying is that, in an ideal world, people should be given acess to military weapondry.

Are you advocating the opinion "Ah well, the world is imperfect. We obviously can't change that, so let's stop trying."?

What? Giving everyone acess to guns is NOT the same as thinkng that no one should have guns. How is that a logical conclusion?

Yes the people and the government would have equivalent armament, ie they would all be UNARMED. What you are saying is that, in an ideal world, people should be given acess to military weapondry.

And guess what, there is no such world that you profess. Even if there were, the criminals would still manage to be armed.

Are you advocating the opinion "Ah well, the world is imperfect. We obviously can't change that, so let's stop trying."?

As much as, "I'm trying to create my version of a perfect world so let's disarm the people trying to defend themselves first."

Happily there is no such world that Llewdor wants either, where all are armed with whatever they want.

And by and large the criminals will always find some way to gain an edge. You don't generally do something criminal unless you have at least moderate hopes of it being sucessful. So if you generally have guns, then they will get more or bigger guns than the normal householder. If you don't generally have guns, then they will need less of them. The less armed everyone is, the better.

Okay, you could end up staring down the barrel of an illegal pistol in the course of a house robbery in London. That's not good. But in the US you can end up staring down the barrel of a legally owned AK-47, while your gun is carefully stored just out of reach. It doesn't matter if it's in your bedside cabinet, if they wake you up weilding a rifle, would you move?

And isn't it better to have an ideal to aim for, rather than to simply accept the world as it is?

Happily there is no such world that Llewdor wants either, where all are armed with whatever they want.

And by and large the criminals will always find some way to gain an edge. You don't generally do something criminal unless you have at least moderate hopes of it being sucessful. So if you generally have guns, then they will get more or bigger guns than the normal householder. If you don't generally have guns, then they will need less of them. The less armed everyone is, the better.

False, because that gives the criminal an edge over a household.

Okay, you could end up staring down the barrel of an illegal pistol in the course of a house robbery in London. That's not good. But in the US you can end up staring down the barrel of a legally owned AK-47, while your gun is carefully stored just out of reach. It doesn't matter if it's in your bedside cabinet, if they wake you up weilding a rifle, would you move?

Nice false analogy. You obviously don't know much about US law or how expensive fully auto weapons are. In that particular instant no, would I go for mine if the opportunity arises, yes. Does that one hypothetical = every situation, no.

And isn't it better to have an ideal to aim for, rather than to simply accept the world as it is?

That is known as a false-dichotomy. My goal is an armed populace and a competant police/justice/social system to reduce crime.

I heart my M1.

And isn't it better to have an ideal to aim for, rather than to simply accept the world as it is?
Not if your ideal is impossible to achieve, because getting closer to the ideal without actually reaching might make the problem worse.

Notice how the majority of the anti-gunners have fled to the "anti-right wing" thread w/ the same arguements after having their pee-pee's spanked here?

Taxes: High taxes slow the economy. Why? Because when you take more money away from people they have less money to spend and put back into the economy making it slow down. And what does the government do with those high taxes? Waste them on failed government programs. So low taxes= strong economy and less wasted money.

Gun control: It is my right to have a gun. 2nd most important right according to the people who started this country. Efforts to take away or limit my guns ARE AGAINST THE LAW

Crime: Stop fucking cuddling criminals. Prison is supposed to be a punishment not a resort. They are in there because they are bad people who hurt society. If we punished them like we should we wouldn't have so many reoffenders because people would actually not like to go to prison. Theres a thought, uh?

Death Penalty: If you kill an innocent person for no reason, you deserve to die. Pretty simple really murders a waste of life.

affirmative action: its just reverse racism and its wrong. It seems like the only people who see race or make race a big deal are the people who claim they are fighting racism. Guess what? If you stop focusing on race and highlighting the differences and divisions of the races, it will all go away and people will see people as people.

Thats all I got for now. Feel free show me where I'm wrong, discuss, etc.

I think its not so much that the left get it wrong, just that they have a different perspective.

Right tends to be more individually focused
Left tends to be more focused on society as a whole

Taxes: Left/Right tends not to be so much about amounts of tax as to who you are taxing. Left likes to bias the level of tax so that the rich pay a large share, whereas right tends to keep it an even percentage.
Personally I think these days disparity in wealth is getting out of hand. I wouldn't think it would make much difference whether someone had 20 Mill or 40 Mill, their life would be pretty similar but someone earning 20K compared so someone earning 40K would be likely to live very differently. Sure on an individual basis taking 20 mill from one person and only 20K from another is grossly unfair but would it really make a difference to those peoples positions is society?? But you can take 20 Mill from one person and that would mean you could take 10K less from 2000 people. Meaning 1 person's standard of living is barely effected and 2000 peoples are dramatically effected.
On an individual basis, grossly unfair. On the society level the opposite is grossly unfair.

Gun control: Same issue. If you carry a gun you feel safer. (Whether it actually makes you safer is a whole nother issue) if I was in a room with 100 people and I knew 1 of them had a gun I would feel less safe than if I was in a room and I knew none of them had a gun. So sure the individual with the gun gets to feel safer but 99 others feel less safe. Left says thats unfair. Right says its that persons right to take action in order to feel safe. Neither is right or wrong its just a perspective thing.

Crime: Little more complex one here. I have some experience with this having been a teacher in juvenile prison. They are ugly places and yet you are right some people would prefer to be there than outside. We had a whole heap of offences committed just before Christmas because people would rather be in prison than on the streets. It has very little to do with the comfort in the prison and a whole lot to do with the discomfort outside the prison. Believe me you can't make prisons uncomfortable enough to be a disincentive compared to the places a lot of these people are coming from. And a large part of the reason they end up back in prison over and over again is that they get released to exactly the same place and people that caused them to be there in the first place. No big surprise that history repeats itself.
As a side note I knew of plenty of welfare initiatives that cost say 500K a year to run that prevented say 50 kids a year from reoffending that would be shut down due to lack of funds (seems like money pretty poorly spent right) but it costs 60K a year to keep 1 of those kids in prison. So they spent 3 Mil a year on prisons rather than spend 500K on preventing crime.
So you are right government can misspend its money but saving it for the "essentials" such as law enforcement and cutting welfare can in many ways be counterproductive. Who knows what’s essential and what’s not?

Death Penalty: Personal opion I guess, but no one "Deserves" to die. Especially not at the hands of the state. What makes it right for the state to kill someone? If I kill Jim cause he killed my brother does the state then kill me? Why is what the state doing right and what I did wrong? I think the state has to hold the higher moral ground on this one. And besides do you seriously think that people consciously weigh up 25 years in prison vs the death penalty before they murder someone? Most people either don't think about the consequences at all or if they do they think they are going to get away with it so the punishment is irrelevant.

Affirmative Action: Is the old individual vs society thing again. If the situation has been prejudiced in the past then removing prejudice will only maintain the status quo it won't restore the balance. So if the aim is have an unbiased situation as a whole then a bias has to be introduced at the individual level. Sure it sucks for the individuals involved, and yes its unfair on the individual level but the opposite is true when looking at society as a whole. Its unfair not to restore equality, and just maintain the inequality. If women are paid $5 an hour for a job and men are paid $10 an hour for the same job you are never going to end up with equal pay by giving the same pay rise to both men and women. Sure eventually it might be $45 for women and $50 for men and effectively the same but it will never be equal without some swing the other way. Is it fair that one person gets a $15 pay rise and someone else doing the same job only gets $5.. no but one person earning $15 and the other $10 for the same job isn't fair either. At some point the individual has to lose out to even it out for society.

So yeah its not that one idea is right and the other is wrong.. its just all about perspective.

You still haven't given me a valid reason to own an AK-47

My viewpoint is that you don't need one, and I've said why. Now you give me a reason why you do need anything quite so deadly. Yes, I know you've said it's only deadly in the wrong hands, but the fact remains that it can kill a fully armoured soldier in a war-zone which, unless that's what you define your city as, is a little in excess of what you need to defend yourself.
Why is it up to you to define what is in excess? Does the consitution say you can have only some guns but not others? no. What if your attacker is wearing armor and you need an Ak to get through it, is it still excessive.

I think its not so much that the left get it wrong, just that they have a different perspective.

Right tends to be more individually focused
Left tends to be more focused on society as a whole


Gun control: Same issue. If you carry a gun you feel safer. (Whether it actually makes you safer is a whole nother issue) if I was in a room with 100 people and I knew 1 of them had a gun I would feel less safe than if I was in a room and I knew none of them had a gun. So sure the individual with the gun gets to feel safer but 99 others feel less safe. Left says thats unfair. Right says its that persons right to take action in order to feel safe. Neither is right or wrong its just a perspective thing.


So yeah its not that one idea is right and the other is wrong.. its just all about perspective.

Here you're assuming you know what the other 99 are thinking. I could just as easily say that 98 out of that 100, the other two being you and the firearm owner, feel more safe and it would be just as valid an arguement.

As another silly hypothetical, would you feel more safe if one person had a legal firearm or less if another one of those 100 was a 'roided out biker who decided you had a purty mouth?

I think its not so much that the left get it wrong, just that they have a different perspective.

Right tends to be more individually focused
Left tends to be more focused on society as a whole
Wrong. The right actually looks at data, while the left makes decisions based on what makes them feel better.

Guess who's correct more often.

Burglars are wearing body armour as a matter of course now? I did not know that. I always assumed that if men with guns and full body armour burst into your house then they're not really just after the silver. I'd equate such behaviour with someone who knows what they're doing. If that's the case, then even if you have AP bullets, you're still screwed.

Burglars are wearing body armour as a matter of course now? I did not know that. I always assumed that if men with guns and full body armour burst into your house then they're not really just after the silver. I'd equate such behaviour with someone who knows what they're doing. If that's the case, then even if you have AP bullets, you're still screwed.

Now define armour piercing. Are you talking military grade AP or rounds that are capable of penetrating some forms of "body armor"?

Of course you've made the assumption that the criminal getting the drop on you first = the victim not being able to respond.

My knowledge of different "grades" of body armour not being perfect, I assume that AP bullets penetrate body armour. I'm also assuming that most normal criminals don't go to commit a crime quite so well equipped. Thus the invaders will have planned a bit more than most. If they have formed plans, this leads to the conclusion that they have a little more knowledge of the situation than average. Thus they are more likely to be trouble.

And if a guy gets the drop on you holding ANY sort of gun (defining "getting the drop on you" as "his gun is pointed at you before your gun is pointed at him"), are you gonna risk going for yours?

And if a guy gets the drop on you holding ANY sort of gun (defining "getting the drop on you" as "his gun is pointed at you before your gun is pointed at him"), are you gonna risk going for yours?
If he's close enough to you, you're better off trying to attack his weapon rather than go for yours.

My knowledge of different "grades" of body armour not being perfect, I assume that AP bullets penetrate body armour. I'm also assuming that most normal criminals don't go to commit a crime quite so well equipped. Thus the invaders will have planned a bit more than most. If they have formed plans, this leads to the conclusion that they have a little more knowledge of the situation than average. Thus they are more likely to be trouble.

And are therefore more dangerous, giving you the incentive to defend yourself more.

And if a guy gets the drop on you holding ANY sort of gun (defining "getting the drop on you" as "his gun is pointed at you before your gun is pointed at him"), are you gonna risk going for yours?

If the opportunity arises, yes.

This assumes that he is close enough. I know that houses are good places for close-combat, what with rooms being the size they are, but all he needs is to be maybe 2-3 metres away for grabbing his gun not to be an option. Or at least, not an option you are likely to recover from choosing.

@Kecibukia: Why are you so willing to take suicidal risks if armed gunmen enter your home and have a gun pointed at you? If they wanted you dead then they would have shot you already, as they, in this scenario, "got the drop on you".

You don't need to grab his gun - just strike it. Then it's not pointing at you for a moment and you can hit him.

This assumes that he is close enough. I know that houses are good places for close-combat, what with rooms being the size they are, but all he needs is to be maybe 2-3 metres away for grabbing his gun not to be an option. Or at least, not an option you are likely to recover from choosing.

Only in your dichotomized world. There's always options.

@Kecibukia: Why are you so willing to take suicidal risks if armed gunmen enter your home and have a gun pointed at you? If they wanted you dead then they would have shot you already, as they, in this scenario, "got the drop on you".

I consider NOT fighting back to be suicidal. You seem to assume that criminals are stable individuals that use reason to guide their actions. I have a family to protect. I won't take the risk of the criminal deciding that my wife and daughter are tasty treats.

All he has to do is move his finger a few milimetres. You have to cover whatever distance there is between him and you. If he's not stupid, and hence less of a threat anyway, then he will ensure that he has at least a second to react. A Relatively small gap can give him that.

@Kecibukia: Yes there are always options. But being out of reach of the wrong end of a gun doesn't give you many. Yes, he could make a mistake, but by doing anything rash like swiping at him you're not going to achieve anything.

Define "reasoned". He has reasoned that he wants something, and that by breaking in and pointing a gun at you he can get what he wants. And if his plans for the evening include your family, then why keep you alive? You're probably armed, and he doesn't know where that gun is. You're a useless complication in that case, so shooting is easier. The mere fact that you are still alive implies that his plans may not include such drastic actions. How many news stories have you seen of the "Robbery gone wrong", where the criminals only wanted goods or cash, but ended up shooting someone they percieved as a threat?

All he has to do is move his finger a few milimetres. You have to cover whatever distance there is between him and you. If he's not stupid, and hence less of a threat anyway, then he will ensure that he has at least a second to react. A Relatively small gap can give him that.

He has to be able to aim as well. Criminals tend not to do that very well.

Like I said, if the opportunity arises.

"Tend not to"? You're planning on risking your life on an observation that criminals are bad shots? How bad a shot does he need to be if he has a semi-automatic, or the aforementioned AK?

"Tend not to"? You're planning on risking your life on an observation that criminals are bad shots? How bad a shot does he need to be if he has a semi-automatic, or the aforementioned AK?

Do you mean how "good" a shot? Once again, you're assuming that a criminal, a person who has invaded your home and is threatening you w/ bodily harm "only" wants your stuff and won't harm you in any way. I assume a person like that is out to hurt me and my family and will do everything in my power to stop them.

And I assume that they have an objective in mind. They will be after something specific. If they want stuff, then it makes good sense to only take that stuff. The police put less emphasis on armed robbery than on homicide.

If he's after hurting you or your family, why hasn't he shot you yet? Men are typically the most dangerous, and fear is a useful tool. Kill the man, thus creating a terrifying mess, combined with the phychology of being in power, and the whacko who wants to hurt your family is feeling good. And now the rest your family is down on a member, and probably scared out of their minds.

Nutjobs aren't going to be swayed if you point a gun back. Robbers would rather not kill you. But if you want to cause trouble, I'm sure they'll oblige.

And I assume that they have an objective in mind. They will be after something specific. If they want stuff, then it makes good sense to only take that stuff. The police put less emphasis on armed robbery than on homicide.

If he's after hurting you or your family, why hasn't he shot you yet? Men are typically the most dangerous, and fear is a useful tool. Kill the man, thus creating a terrifying mess, combined with the phychology of being in power, and the whacko who wants to hurt your family is feeling good. And now the rest your family is down on a member, and probably scared out of their minds.

Nutjobs aren't going to be swayed if you point a gun back. Robbers would rather not kill you. But if you want to cause trouble, I'm sure they'll oblige.

Like I said, you're assuming they're rational. You do realize that many crimes are drug related, right? You do realize that my wife could also fight back, right?

If people are in my house threatening me, they are already a threat to both me and my family by definition. I don't assume that they'll say " ok mate, we've got your stuff, have a jolly day" and leave. You can. That's your right. What your goal is is to take away from me the ability to defend myself and my family.

Edit: of course the "nutjobs" are completely rational in the first place right?

No, my goal is to make it such that neither party has such a weapon.

If it's drug related, then you can fit them into the nutjob category. He came in, surprised you, and is in no state to rationalise about the consiquences. And he has a gun. Your immediate future is not looking healthy whether you own a gun or not.

No, I'm not expectiong them to tip you their cap, and leave, but as I've said, if they've got the goods, why kill you as an extra? They won't get an award for being nasty, it's an entirely pointless act. All they will get is more attention from a criminal investigation. And maiming you won't do any good either, again a simple robbery is a lot less important in the greater scheme of things unless the criminals make it so. And since the police force is not infinite, the worse crimes will get the most attention. Homicides get priority, in case the guy isn't a robber but a killer. They must be stopped. On the other hand robberis happen a lot, so the criminal stands a better chance of escape if he simply gets his loot and leaves.

Edit: Even the most deranged and depraived man or woman in the world has some rationale. It may make no sense to others, but it will be clear to them. No one storms into a house waving a gun around "just because they were passing". There is something that makes them want to enter your house. Thus, they have some sort of rationale.

No, my goal is to make it such that neither party has such a weapon.

Which gives the criminal the advantage and takes away my and my families ability to defend ourselves. Thanks.

If it's drug related, then you can fit them into the nutjob category. He came in, surprised you, and is in no state to rationalise about the consiquences. And he has a gun. Your immediate future is not looking healthy whether you own a gun or not.

So you would rather I not be able to defend myself against him?

No, I'm not expectiong them to tip you their cap, and leave, but as I've said, if they've got the goods, why kill you as an extra? They won't get an award for being nasty, it's an entirely pointless act.

Welcome to the mindset of the criminal. Do you want to take the risk that they won't "just because"?

All they will get is more attention from a criminal investigation. And maiming you won't do any good either, again a simple robbery is a lot less important in the greater scheme of things unless the criminals make it so. And since the police force is not infinite, the worse crimes will get the most attention. Homicides get priority, in case the guy isn't a robber but a killer. They must be stopped. On the other hand robberis happen a lot, so the criminal stands a better chance of escape if he simply gets his loot and leaves.

and yet by killing you there is less chance of witnesses, descriptions, etc. Plus the fact that you;re assuming they're rational.

Edit: Even the most deranged and depraived man or woman in the world has some rationale. It may make no sense to others, but it will be clear to them. No one storms into a house waving a gun around "just because they were passing". There is something that makes them want to enter your house. Thus, they have some sort of rationale.

Really? These things don't happen? You want to take the risk that their version of "rational" does not involve harming you or your family?

You are deliberatly warping my points, and working on your own view of the world. You insist that your view is correct, and that mine is wrong, while ignoring a lot of what I just said.

The criminal will ALWAYS have the advantage. Work on that basis. You are no expecting the intrusion, he is. When he enters you have to take time to work out if he is a burglar, something you're imagining as you're waking up, or if it's someone who doesn't need to be shot. The criminal goes in knowing that he is entering hostile ground, that anyone in there is an enemy, and that if he slips up he'll get shot. Now which of these would you realistically think has the advantage? It sure as hell isn't you.

I never said you shouldn't be able to defend yourself. Ever heard of non-lethal methods? Tazers ring a bell? You can incapacitate anyone coming in without worrying that they might not be a threat. If you shoot the wrong person, then you can just have killed your best friend who wanted to borrow a torch during a blackout. If you tazer him then sure he'll be pissed at you, but in a very short time he'll be fine, and more importantly, still able to breathe.

You're not listening to me, I'm working on logical principles that it is a bad move for them to shoot you. I've already discussed nutjobs who this does not apply to. With them you're in trouble no matter what. No, a criminal may break the law, but that doesn't automatically make him irrational. And also killing someone in cold blood when they are not threatening you does take a VERY specific mindset. The army has to work very hard to imprint this "shoot to kill" mindset in soldiers, but by and large the human race has not evolved as a killer of its own kind. If someone is attacking you, or doing something you know to be aggressive, then sure, self-defense instincts kick in. But without such stimuli the criminal, a fellow homo sapiens, will not feel comfortable about simply shooting you.

See above.

Now you are ignoring points I have explicitly stated. No one does anything that they do not have a reason for. You may well not understand their reasoning for entering your home, but they have a reason. It could be that your house seems suitably rich while not appearing too well secured. It could be that they have something against your race, creed, colour or religion. Hell, it could be that your child owns a pink paddling pool. I don't know. But there will be a reason for them to enter. If they're "sane" by most people's definition, then they may well just want cash. if they are not sane, ie nutjobs, then they may well want to murder you and everyone else in your house. In any case it comes back to my first point here, they have the advantage over you.

He has to be able to aim as well. Criminals tend not to do that very well.

Like I said, if the opportunity arises.

If you want some real good proof, (albeit sad proof)
that criminals cant shoot worth a damn, a few months ago
a little girl was gunned down by a bullet from an AK47, at full auto.
Now the story was that a guy pulled up to a house where some other guys
were sitting/standing around. What is the distance from the street to the front steps? 25-30ft? The guy starts shooting almost pointblank range at the guys on the stairs, misses ALL of them, and hits a girl 7 HOUSES down!
Honestly, how the hell can someone miss at pointblank range full atuo and hit a person that is completely way out of the way?

You are deliberatly warping my points, and working on your own view of the world. You insist that your view is correct, and that mine is wrong, while ignoring a lot of what I just said.

No, I'm just taking it into the real world.

The criminal will ALWAYS have the advantage. Work on that basis. You are no expecting the intrusion, he is. When he enters you have to take time to work out if he is a burglar, something you're imagining as you're waking up, or if it's someone who doesn't need to be shot. The criminal goes in knowing that he is entering hostile ground, that anyone in there is an enemy, and that if he slips up he'll get shot. Now which of these would you realistically think has the advantage? It sure as hell isn't you.

False. You assume the criminal "always" has the advantage. I assume that there may be a situation and plan for it.

I never said you shouldn't be able to defend yourself. Ever heard of non-lethal methods? Tazers ring a bell? You can incapacitate anyone coming in without worrying that they might not be a threat. If you shoot the wrong person, then you can just have killed your best friend who wanted to borrow a torch during a blackout. If you tazer him then sure he'll be pissed at you, but in a very short time he'll be fine, and more importantly, still able to breathe.

Tazers are not as effective as firearms and are limited to one use at a distance or you have to get close to them, giving them the advantage again. The emotional hypothesis are the only thing you're able to use.

You're not listening to me, I'm working on logical principles that it is a bad move for them to shoot you. I've already discussed nutjobs who this does not apply to. With them you're in trouble no matter what. No, a criminal may break the law, but that doesn't automatically make him irrational. And also killing someone in cold blood when they are not threatening you does take a VERY specific mindset. The army has to work very hard to imprint this "shoot to kill" mindset in soldiers, but by and large the human race has not evolved as a killer of its own kind. If someone is attacking you, or doing something you know to be aggressive, then sure, self-defense instincts kick in. But without such stimuli the criminal, a fellow homo sapiens, will not feel comfortable about simply shooting you.

No, you're going on unsupported ideas that assume the criminal "won't" hurt you. Breaking the law is by definition irrational. You also assume having a firearm automatically means that I'm going to go blasting away at anyone who comes in my door. The majority of self-defense cases (over 90%) involve brandishing the firearm.

See above.

For what? More implied psychological thesis?

Now you are ignoring points I have explicitly stated. No one does anything that they do not have a reason for. You may well not understand their reasoning for entering your home, but they have a reason. It could be that your house seems suitably rich while not appearing too well secured. It could be that they have something against your race, creed, colour or religion. Hell, it could be that your child owns a pink paddling pool. I don't know. But there will be a reason for them to enter. If they're "sane" by most people's definition, then they may well just want cash. if they are not sane, ie nutjobs, then they may well want to murder you and everyone else in your house. In any case it comes back to my first point here, they have the advantage over you.

And since your point is false, it still fails. Having a "reason" for something does not imply rationality. Whatever the "reason" may be, committing a crime is not a rational decision.

As always, you're continuing to give the benefit of the doubt to those who break the law while not giving it to those who follow the law.

You are deliberatly warping my points, and working on your own view of the world. You insist that your view is correct, and that mine is wrong, while ignoring a lot of what I just said.

The criminal will ALWAYS have the advantage. Work on that basis. You are no expecting the intrusion, he is. When he enters you have to take time to work out if he is a burglar, something you're imagining as you're waking up, or if it's someone who doesn't need to be shot. The criminal goes in knowing that he is entering hostile ground, that anyone in there is an enemy, and that if he slips up he'll get shot. Now which of these would you realistically think has the advantage? It sure as hell isn't you.

I never said you shouldn't be able to defend yourself. Ever heard of non-lethal methods? Tazers ring a bell? You can incapacitate anyone coming in without worrying that they might not be a threat. If you shoot the wrong person, then you can just have killed your best friend who wanted to borrow a torch during a blackout. If you tazer him then sure he'll be pissed at you, but in a very short time he'll be fine, and more importantly, still able to breathe.

I CAN"T CARRY A TAZER IN CHICAGO! NOT LEGAL!

You're not listening to me, I'm working on logical principles that it is a bad move for them to shoot you. I've already discussed nutjobs who this does not apply to. With them you're in trouble no matter what. No, a criminal may break the law, but that doesn't automatically make him irrational. And also killing someone in cold blood when they are not threatening you does take a VERY specific mindset. The army has to work very hard to imprint this "shoot to kill" mindset in soldiers, but by and large the human race has not evolved as a killer of its own kind. If someone is attacking you, or doing something you know to be aggressive, then sure, self-defense instincts kick in. But without such stimuli the criminal, a fellow homo sapiens, will not feel comfortable about simply shooting you.

I HAVE SEEN WAY TO MANY TIMES WHERE A CRIMINAL ROBS A PERSON ON THE STREET, THEN JUST SHOOTS AND KILLS THE VICTIM FOR NO REASON. I THINK THEY DONT THINK.

See above.

Now you are ignoring points I have explicitly stated. No one does anything that they do not have a reason for. You may well not understand their reasoning for entering your home, but they have a reason. It could be that your house seems suitably rich while not appearing too well secured. It could be that they have something against your race, creed, colour or religion. Hell, it could be that your child owns a pink paddling pool. I don't know. But there will be a reason for them to enter. If they're "sane" by most people's definition, then they may well just want cash. if they are not sane, ie nutjobs, then they may well want to murder you and everyone else in your house. In any case it comes back to my first point here, they have the advantage over you.
ONCE AGAIN, TOO MANY TIMES A HOME INVASION HAS LED TO EITHER THE HOMEOWNER GETTING, STABBED, RAPED, OR SHOT TO DEATH, EVEN ELDERLY PERSONS. MOST OF THEM ARE NUTJOBS THAT'LL ONLY UNDERSTAND A BULLET TO THE HEAD!

sorry bout the caps but I wanted to add my ideas to the lines!

If you want some real good proof, (albeit sad proof)
that criminals cant shoot worth a damn, a few months ago
a little girl was gunned down by a bullet from an AK47, at full auto.
Now the story was that a guy pulled up to a house where some other guys
were sitting/standing around. What is the distance from the street to the front steps? 25-30ft? The guy starts shooting almost pointblank range at the guys on the stairs, misses ALL of them, and hits a girl 7 HOUSES down!
Honestly, how the hell can someone miss at pointblank range full atuo and hit a person that is completely way out of the way?

Yep, I remember that story. It lead to King Dick calling for all legalgun owners to justify to him why they should be "allowed" firearms.

Here you're assuming you know what the other 99 are thinking. I could just as easily say that 98 out of that 100, the other two being you and the firearm owner, feel more safe and it would be just as valid an arguement.

As another silly hypothetical, would you feel more safe if one person had a legal firearm or less if another one of those 100 was a 'roided out biker who decided you had a purty mouth?

Look I don't think its really much of an assumption at all that people feel that their safty is threatened by things that can kill them.

If one of those people had a venomous snake people would feel less safe.

If one of them was a roided out biker then they would feel less safe.

Yeah sure if you were the roided out biker then you wouldn't be feeling threatened.. but the other 99 would.

I don't think that the other 98 people would feel more safe just because there was a guy in the room with a venomous snake and a roided out biker. So why should they feel safer if the thing that could kill them was a gun?

Wrong. The right actually looks at data, while the left makes decisions based on what makes them feel better.

Guess who's correct more often.

Look apart from the fact that thats clearly a ridiculous statement and both sides are likely to use data to support their arguements, data is only as good as the methods used to collect it.

Its as important what is left out of data sets as it is what goes into them.
If I can make a brick from scratch for 50c and sell it for 60c or I can get a second hand brick thats just as good for 5c and sell it for 55c which are you gonna do? Well from the given data you would sell the second hand bricks and make 5x the profit... but what if the second hand bricks you were selling were from your own house.. to begin with it wouldn't make any difference.. you could take a whole heap of bricks from you house and never notice the difference.. but eventually you are gonna find that your house is less structurally sound... its gonna cost you a fortune to fix the damage. But the data said that you were going to make a profit.. and in the short term you did. But its the info thats left out thats important.

Left and right are often about short term/long term conflicts... you can't just plan for the long term because you won't make it by in the short term, but you can't just plan for the short term either.. thats why you need a balance.

Look I don't think its really much of an assumption at all that people feel that their safty is threatened by things that can kill them.

Well, you can think that way all you want. It doesn't make it any more true than mine.

If one of those people had a venomous snake people would feel less safe.

If one of them was a roided out biker then they would feel less safe.

So you're comparing living things to an inanimate object?

Yeah sure if you were the roided out biker then you wouldn't be feeling threatened.. but the other 99 would.

I don't think that the other 98 people would feel more safe just because there was a guy in the room with a venomous snake and a roided out biker. So why should they feel safer if the thing that could kill them was a gun?

So you completely avoid my question and effectively go LALALA because you assume other people have as much fear of firearms as you?

Well I'll agree that his shooting wasn't very good. However the AK-47 is famous for fierce recoil. If that guy was firing from the hip, then he'd be hard pushed to hit a barn door at 50 paces. If you brace it properly, and use either short bursts or the semi-auto function, then yes it can be an accurate weapon. But if you just leap out, hold the trigger and "spray and pray", then you're not doing yourself any favours when it comes to hitting a man-sized target. Plus the guys could have dived for cover, or at least made themselves smaller targets. The girl just happened to catch a stray bullet.

Am I the only one to see this as an illustration of most of the bad points of having acess to such weapondry?

@Bluzblekistan: (There are other ways to comment than using all caps you know) Tazers are not illegal in a lot of other places. One guy I know owns one which he bought at a local store, over the counter, perfectly legally.

For crying out loud, will you stop envisaging criminals as inhuman? They are capable of basic mental trains of thought. If by becoming a criminal they lost all reason, then they would simply walk down a main street, waving their guns around, and totally ignoring any law enforcement in the area. Crime would be a minor problem, as the criminals wouldn't be bright enough to avoid getting arrested. In case you hadn't noticed, that isn't the case.

And in the case of shooting someone after robbing them, then this can be a deterrent against anyone else trying anything. "I have robbed someone using a gun" is a strong message, but "I've just killed someone using my gun. Get in my way and I could do the same to you to." Is better. Terror tactics can help them get away.

I am assuming you are in America, as you refer to Chicago. So in a place where households are allowed guns, you have still seen the homeowner get brutalised anyway? Wow, those guns must be very effective for home defense. Or maybe the criminal had the advantage? That ever cross your mind?

@Kecibukia: The best way to look at home defense is to assume that the criminal will have the advantage, as this is the case most of the time. I refuse to base my defensive strategy on "potential" situtuations. Which is what you seem to be doing. Optimism is all very well, but not when you are discussing people's lives.

Define effective. Tazers can incapacitate a fully drugged up rugby player who thinks you just said something indecent about his mother. Without killing him.

The criminal is following a very logical train of thought (ie a rational one). He wants to get the maximum gain with the minimum risk while using the minimum effort. Robbing you blind gets good results while taking relatively little effort. By breaking more laws than he has to, he is increasing both the effort required (he has to take more care to avoid the law), the risks he is taking (police will be looking for him more carefully), while decreasing the gain (he may well have to avoid robbing again for a while if there's a more directed search on for him).

Okay, so you don't blast at once. No ones brain functions instantly, thus you have a reaction time. You have to see the person, then fail to recognise them, then realise they are a threat. That process, while quick, still takes a finite amount of time. Time enough for the invader to be pointing his gun at you. He doesn't have to work out if you are someone he knows. He knew the answer to that before he came in.

I am not giving the criminals the "benefit of the doubt". At no point have I even suggested that their crimes are excuseable, or that they don't deserve to be locked up for many years. I was merely trying to put across the point that just because they appear ga-ga that they will have abandoned all cognitave processes. And if they truly have done such a thing, and completely lost it, then they'll be the ones running around shooting at anyone and everyone. I don't see a point in any of these cases where the presence of guns improves the situation.

Well I'll agree that his shooting wasn't very good. However the AK-47 is famous for fierce recoil. If that guy was firing from the hip, then he'd be hard pushed to hit a barn door at 50 paces. If you brace it properly, and use either short bursts or the semi-auto function, then yes it can be an accurate weapon. But if you just leap out, hold the trigger and "spray and pray", then you're not doing yourself any favours when it comes to hitting a man-sized target. Plus the guys could have dived for cover, or at least made themselves smaller targets. The girl just happened to catch a stray bullet.

Am I the only one to see this as an illustration of most of the bad points of having acess to such weapondry?

By a convicted felon, no. By a law abiding citizen. yes



For crying out loud, will you stop envisaging criminals as inhuman? They are capable of basic mental trains of thought. If by becoming a criminal they lost all reason, then they would simply walk down a main street, waving their guns around, and totally ignoring any law enforcement in the area. Crime would be a minor problem, as the criminals wouldn't be bright enough to avoid getting arrested. In case you hadn't noticed, that isn't the case.

And now you're presenting another false dichotomy that a person not being rational in committing a crime is totally insane.

As well as a strawman in that I never said criminals are inhuman. I just value the life and wellbeing of myself and my family above theirs.

And in the case of shooting someone after robbing them, then this can be a deterrent against anyone else trying anything. "I have robbed someone using a gun" is a strong message, but "I've just killed someone using my gun. Get in my way and I could do the same to you to." Is better. Terror tactics can help them get away.

And so can threatening them w/ a firearm.

I am assuming you are in America, as you refer to Chicago. So in a place where households are allowed guns, you have still seen the homeowner get brutalised anyway? Wow, those guns must be very effective for home defense. Or maybe the criminal had the advantage? That ever cross your mind?

False. Chicago has one of the strictest firearm laws in the US w/ handguns being banned and longguns being required to be locked up. Except for the elite of course. Try again.

@Kecibukia: The best way to look at home defense is to assume that the criminal will have the advantage, as this is the case most of the time. I refuse to base my defensive strategy on "potential" situtuations. Which is what you seem to be doing. Optimism is all very well, but not when you are discussing people's lives.

What is a situation before it happens but a "potential" one. You assume the criminal will have the advantage and plan for it as well as adapt it so it becomes less likely.

Define effective. Tazers can incapacitate a fully drugged up rugby player who thinks you just said something indecent about his mother. Without killing him.

Really? You haven't been reading up on recent events where tazers either didn't effect the individual at all or killed him.

The criminal is following a very logical train of thought (ie a rational one). He wants to get the maximum gain with the minimum risk while using the minimum effort. Robbing you blind gets good results while taking relatively little effort. By breaking more laws than he has to, he is increasing both the effort required (he has to take more care to avoid the law), the risks he is taking (police will be looking for him more carefully), while decreasing the gain (he may well have to avoid robbing again for a while if there's a more directed search on for him).

That's all based on your assumptions. There is little actual evidence anywhere. Do you have any evidence to support this?

Okay, so you don't blast at once. No ones brain functions instantly, thus you have a reaction time. You have to see the person, then fail to recognise them, then realise they are a threat. That process, while quick, still takes a finite amount of time. Time enough for the invader to be pointing his gun at you. He doesn't have to work out if you are someone he knows. He knew the answer to that before he came in.

And yet you are saying the criminals brains work instantaneously? They don't have "reaction time"?

I am not giving the criminals the "benefit of the doubt". At no point have I even suggested that their crimes are excuseable, or that they don't deserve to be locked up for many years. I was merely trying to put across the point that just because they appear ga-ga that they will have abandoned all cognitave processes. And if they truly have done such a thing, and completely lost it, then they'll be the ones running around shooting at anyone and everyone. I don't see a point in any of these cases where the presence of guns improves the situation.

You don't see it because you don't want to. You have assumed that the presense of firearms makes for more ills than one can count yet haven't been able to prove any of it. You assume that a criminal is a "rational being" when committing a crime yet don't trust those who actually follow the law to have reason to own a firearm. You consistently make the false dichotomy that to not be rational in committing a crime = total insanity.

All of your arguements are based on hypotheticals and emotional arguements because you personally don't like firearms. You want this mystical magical world where they would all disappear and the criminals won't ever hurt you. All this equals to taking away my rights and abilities and giving the advantages to those who choose not to follow the law.

Edit: BTW AK-47's do not have "fierce recoil" in comparison to most other rifles.

You ever actually been to Britain?

You ever actually been to Britain?

No, have you ever been to the US?

Nope. Right, so now we know that neither has basis for talking about pro-gun, anti-gun arguements.

Ah, wait. Britain USED to have looser gun laws. You could own an AK-47, or a handgun if you wanted. Then events like Dunblaine happened. The public wanted the law changed, and it got changed.

I have to admit I'm very happy with the result.

Now, what's your experience of living in a society where guns aren't the norm then?

Well, you can think that way all you want. It doesn't make it any more true than mine.

You're trying to tell me that people AREN'T afraid of things that can kill them?? Is that your point?

So you're comparing living things to an inanimate object?

Make it a Knife, a bomb, a spear, a sword.. inanimate/animate is not really the point.

So you completely avoid my question and effectively go LALALA because you assume other people have as much fear of firearms as you?
People are afraid of guns. If you are unarmed and I point a loaded gun at you and tell you I am gonna shoot you .. you're telling me you wouldn't be afraid? Have you ever had someone point a gun at you in anger? I have.. its not an enjoyable experience let me tell you.
I am not denying your right to own a gun all I am saying is that they are scary. I haven't for a second suggested they should take them away from you. So no need to be so defensive. Like you said cars are scary things.. does it mean you should take them away from people? But trying to suggest to anyone who has seen a hit and run or even just a car accident that cars aren't scary is madness. Same with guns.

My point is/was that its a balance.
A balance between an individual right to freedom and a groups right to freedom.
Most laws are based around this kind of balance.

If for instance I wanted to walk around naked, that desire is balanced against the rest of the populations desire not to see me walk around naked. Hence in a lot of places it is illegal to walk around naked as its judged that thats unacceptable. Individual rights curtailed for the rights of the masses. As a comprimise some beaches or parks are designated nudist friendly. In those places people who want to be naked can be without having much of an effect on the rest of society. Seems reasonable? There are extremes at each end. In singapore I believe that it is illegal to be naked anywhere in view, even in your own home. So if I am naked in my bedroom and someone looks into my window and sees me they can call the cops and get me fined. In my own home. So where you place the balance point is pretty subjective.

It has to be weighed up. Society in general might be annoyed by people with big noses. They may want them all killed so they don't have to look at people with big noses. People with big noses are in the minority (by definition otherwise they wouldn't be considered big) should you just kill all big nosed people.. well you have to weigh up the level of annoyance of the population vs the desire for big nosed people to stay alive. In this case people are probably not that annoyed, and big nosed people probably want to staty alive a lot.. hence you wouldn't make big noses illegal.

With guns it should be the same.. its just a matter of where you draw the line between individual freedom and society's freedom.

You're trying to tell me that people AREN'T afraid of things that can kill them?? Is that your point?

Make it a Knife, a bomb, a spear, a sword.. inanimate/animate is not really the point.

You're trying to compare inanimate objects w/ potentially dangerous living creatures w/ a will of their own. That's a false analogy.

People are afraid of guns.

No. Some individuals are afraid of them. Not everyone.

If you are unarmed and I point a loaded gun at you and tell you I am gonna shoot you .. you're telling me you wouldn't be afraid? Have you ever had someone point a gun at you in anger? I have.. its not an enjoyable experience let me tell you.

So you're afraid of firearms but not the person that wielded it? Are you so traumatized that you have fears of inanimate objects?

I wouldn't be afraid of the gun but the user w/ foul intent.


I am not denying your right to own a gun all I am saying is that they are scary. I haven't for a second suggested they should take them away from you. So no need to be so defensive. Like you said cars are scary things.. does it mean you should take them away from people? But trying to suggest to anyone who has seen a hit and run or even just a car accident that cars aren't scary is madness. Same with guns.

I'm not afraid of firearms, cars, candles, knives, flame, etc. I am cautious around these objects when they are being used and afraid of the people who don't know how to use them.

Nope. Right, so now we know that neither has basis for talking about pro-gun, anti-gun arguements.

And why is that? Because I've never been to the UK? That gives me no basis for defending firearm rights in the US?

Ah, wait. Britain USED to have looser gun laws. You could own an AK-47, or a handgun if you wanted. Then events like Dunblaine happened. The public wanted the law changed, and it got changed.

Really? When could someone in the UK own an AK? You mentioned the changed laws before. I asked you if they have been proven to have any effect on crime. You didn't answer.

I have to admit I'm very happy with the result.

Increased crime across the board? Cameras in every doorway? More and more restrictions w/ no effect on crime? Legislation to track all vehicular travel? Congradulations!

Now, what's your experience of living in a society where guns aren't the norm then?

Let's go to Mexico where the murder rate is over 25/100K. No legal firearms there. Or Russia w/ heavy restrictions and a massive murder rate.

Or lets try Canada w/ a higher per capita ownership rate. Or Switzerland.

You keep trying to make the causality and have yet to been able to prove it. Do you still want to defend the lie that firearms encourage suicide?

Kecibukia, now you're being pedantic. You know exactly what he means, yet you insist on insulting him and claiming he made a stupid arguement. Smooth.

He is talking about the COMBINATION of gun + person. That's the scary thing. One may not fear the collection of metal that is called "gun", nor a person angrily saying that they will kill you. But if you combine the two ...

That's the scary thing, and that's what Helspotistan is referring to.

Kecibukia, now you're being pedantic. You know exactly what he means, yet you insist on insulting him and claiming he made a stupid arguement. Smooth.

He is talking about the COMBINATION of gun + person. That's the scary thing. One may not fear the collection of metal that is called "gun", nor a person angrily saying that they will kill you. But if you combine the two ...

That's the scary thing, and that's what Helspotistan is referring to.

No, he's talking about a fear of firearms. He stated numerous times that he considers anyone w/ a firearm to be a threat.

You're being disingenous. I stated he made a false analogy. A comparison of two unlike things. You're the one that's calling it "stupid" when you have been consistently beating strawmen, moving the goalposts, and making false dichotomies to try and support your arguement.

My point is that you hve not had the experience of living in a country where firearms are not the norm. You live in America, where they have always been. I live in the UK, where they used to be, but are not any more. My point is that you need to have experienced, first hand, life on both sides of the board. Life with guns, and life without.

In 1987 the murderer Michael Ryan used an AK-47 and a Beretta handgun to kill 16 people and wound a further 15. Both guns were legally owned. One year later, semi-automatic weapons like the Kalashnikov were banned. That precise enough for you?

When I said I was "happy with the result.", you know full well I was talking about the difference between society having guns, and not having guns (as a matter of course). Except possibly for your first point (which neither of us can prove the cause for either way), none of the other points relate to guns at all. Now you're the one fudging the issue with emotive topics.

You cite four entirely different places, and then either omit to mention, or totally ignore, the cultural, economical, and social differences between them. You have proven nothing by that statement.

The key phrase here is "anyone with a firearm". Not a firearm, sitting in the middle of an infinite plane, with no one around. He has not said at all that he finds that scary. He has said numerous times however, that he finds a person with a firearm scary.

Clear enough for you?

I'm not afraid of firearms, cars, candles, knives, flame, etc. I am cautious around these objects when they are being used and afraid of the people who don't know how to use them.

Problem is you can't do anything about the people, but you can do something about the inanimate objects that they use. You can reduce the risk factors.

You're right a person with a gun is only as scary as the person. Whether that be due to malintent or incompetence. But the same scarey person without the gun is that much less scary. That means you can attribute a certain amount of that scare factor to the gun itself.

Scare factor of person with gun = X
Scare factor of person without a gun = Y
Scare factor of gun = X-Y

If you are clumsy theres probably little you can do about it. But you can put rubber corners on your furniture so that if you fall you won't hurt yourself so badly.

At the moment we don't have preemtive laws (and I hope we never do) so you can't lock someone up because they might shoot me. You have to wait till they do, or are in the process of doing it.

Hence the only thing that you have some control of is the gun factor....

My point is that you hve not had the experience of living in a country where firearms are not the norm. You live in America, where they have always been. I live in the UK, where they used to be, but are not any more. My point is that you need to have experienced, first hand, life on both sides of the board. Life with guns, and life without.

Why? I didn't grow up w/ firearms. The fact of the matter is that it is not firearms that account for crime.

In 1987 the murderer Michael Ryan used an AK-47 and a Beretta handgun to kill 16 people and wound a further 15. Both guns were legally owned. One year later, semi-automatic weapons like the Kalashnikov were banned. That precise enough for you?

Then he did not own an AK-47. He owned a semi-auto rifle that "looked" like an AK-47. There is a distinct difference. Now you get to ignore again the fact that these laws have had no effect on crime.

When I said I was "happy with the result.", you know full well I was talking about the difference between society having guns, and not having guns (as a matter of course). Except possibly for your first point (which neither of us can prove the cause for either way), none of the other points relate to guns at all. Now you're the one fudging the issue with emotive topics.

Right. You're happy w/ society being disarmed and encouraged not to defend themselves against an uncontolled criminal culture that is increasingly using firearms.

You cite four entirely different places, and then either omit to mention, or totally ignore, the cultural, economical, and social differences between them. You have proven nothing by that statement.

You keep trying to claim causality and have yet to prove any of it. At least now you admit that crime has more to do w/ social issues than the availability of firearms.

Problem is you can't do anything about the people, but you can do something about the inanimate objects that they use. You can reduce the risk factors.

You're right a person with a gun is only as scary as the person. Whether that be due to malintent or incompetence. But the same scarey person without the gun is that much less scary. That means you can attribute a certain amount of that scare factor to the gun itself.

If you are clumsy theres probably little you can do about it. But you can put rubber corners on your furniture so that if you fall you won't hurt yourself so badly.

At the moment we don't have preemtive laws (and I hope we never do) so you can't lock someone up because they might shoot me. You have to wait till they do, or are in the process of doing it.



Ok, now we're getting somewhere. There is no evidence that removing firearms reduces any risk factors. What reduces them is education and training. Would I give a loaded firearm to a 10 yr old that had never even seen one? No. Would I teach that child how to be safe and responsible around a firearm? Yes. The problem w/ the anti-gun groups is they go for the "see no evil" principle and believe that not having them at all and pretending they don't exist or teaching kids to be afraid of them is the best way. All that does is encourage kids when they find one.

For god's sake, I am reading this off the BBC website. Michael Ryan LEGALLY OWNED AN AK-47. Is that so hard to hammer into your thick skull? You don't believe me, look it up.

Oh, and I found something that does support my view that can't be dismissed as "emotive":

"Gun control advocates frequently attribute the UK's low rate of violent crime to its restrictive gun laws. They would do well to bear in mind that in 1919, the year before gun control legislation was introduced, the US homicide rate was almost twelve times that of the UK. After close to 80 years of rigorous gun control the gap has now narrowed to a factor of four."

I'd say that more than suggests a link, in the same way that your facts deny a link.

Ok, now we're getting somewhere. There is no evidence that removing firearms reduces any risk factors. What reduces them is education and training. Would I give a loaded firearm to a 10 yr old that had never even seen one? No. Would I teach that child how to be safe and responsible around a firearm? Yes. The problem w/ the anti-gun groups is they go for the "see no evil" principle and believe that not having them at all and pretending they don't exist or teaching kids to be afraid of them is the best way. All that does is encourage kids when they find one.

Its amazing how little evidence there is at all. You would think that statistics on this kind of thing would be reasonably easy to compile, but I guess not. I guess compiling them in an unbiased way is the tough bit. In which case its very difficult to use "evidence" or lack of evidence as any kind of argument at all.

So you probably just have to bring it down to some abstract measurement of the level of comfort gained by the individual who has the gun vs level of discomfort of the community regarding that individual having a gun...

Personally I wouldn't have thought that owning a gun would actually do you much good in many circumstances, and better safe than sorry, but thats just me. I guess until someone actually unravels the data in some kind of meaningfully unbiased way we will just have to put up with you feeling safe and me feeling unsafe and the whole sea of people in between :)

"Gun control advocates frequently attribute the UK's low rate of violent crime to its restrictive gun laws. They would do well to bear in mind that in 1919, the year before gun control legislation was introduced, the US homicide rate was almost twelve times that of the UK. After close to 80 years of rigorous gun control the gap has now narrowed to a factor of four."

I'd say that more than suggests a link, in the same way that your facts deny a link.

Um no offence Trandonor but that actually suggests that gun control has been fairly ineffective :(

With guns in UK: 12 in US die to every 1 in UK
Without guns in UK: 12 in US die to every 3 in UK

So now that there is strict gun control in UK 2 more people in the UK are dying.

Having said that the death rate in the US is still 4x that of the UK and we aren't living in the wild wild west anymore.. so I guess you could take it either way??

But thats what I mean.. the stats are not as straight forward as you might think :(

Erm, I can see where you're coming from but they are actually referring to a large drop in homicide rates in the US.

As in: US - 12, UK - 1
Down to: US - 4, UK - 1

For god's sake, I am reading this off the BBC website. Michael Ryan LEGALLY OWNED AN AK-47. Is that so hard to hammer into your thick skull? You don't believe me, look it up.

Listen idiot. The newspapers regularly report anything that looks like an AK-47 as one. It DOES NOT make it one. It was a semi-auto that looks like one. Completely different firearm. Can't you get that through your thick skull.

Oh, and I found something that does support my view that can't be dismissed as "emotive":

"Gun control advocates frequently attribute the UK's low rate of violent crime to its restrictive gun laws. They would do well to bear in mind that in 1919, the year before gun control legislation was introduced, the US homicide rate was almost twelve times that of the UK. After close to 80 years of rigorous gun control the gap has now narrowed to a factor of four."

I'd say that more than suggests a link, in the same way that your facts deny a link.

And completely ignoring the fact that US laws were lessened during the time that crime was dropping that the UK's were tightened and crime increased.
How quaint. You're showing that lessening gun laws reduces crime.

Its amazing how little evidence there is at all. You would think that statistics on this kind of thing would be reasonably easy to compile, but I guess not. I guess compiling them in an unbiased way is the tough bit. In which case its very difficult to use "evidence" or lack of evidence as any kind of argument at all.

So you probably just have to bring it down to some abstract measurement of the level of comfort gained by the individual who has the gun vs level of discomfort of the community regarding that individual having a gun...

Personally I wouldn't have thought that owning a gun would actually do you much good in many circumstances, and better safe than sorry, but thats just me. I guess until someone actually unravels the data in some kind of meaningfully unbiased way we will just have to put up with you feeling safe and me feeling unsafe and the whole sea of people in between :)

I've stated before that there is no absolute causality either way. It is a fact though, that in the US, people w/ CCW licenses commit crimes at lower levels than the citizenry in general and that they do stop crimes when the police are not present.

If you do not feel safe around firearms, by no means should you own one. Most firearm owners would be polite enough to keep them out of view in their homes if you asked. My issue comes from those whose own personal fears make them try and legislate what I can or can not own.

How come every single source I've found still calls it an AK-47 then? Give me a link to one that shows that it isn't an AK then. If shouldn't be too hard since you obviously got your info from somewhere.

Do tell, exactly where have I shown that lessening gun laws reduces crime?

My issue comes from those whose own personal fears make them try and legislate what I can or can not own.

You make out that thats not a legitimate reason. But other peoples personal fears is a perfectly legitimate reason to legislate. As I pointed out with the anti-nudity law, other peoples emotions effect legislation that effects you all the time. Why is gun ownership so different?

If enough people feel threatened by your personal freedom then your freedoms should be curtailed.. its just the way society works.

Why should people be restricted from taking heroin? It makes them feel good and they want to do it. The answer is because enough people feel threatened by it. Sure you may responsibly take heroin and never cause any trouble but someone else may not. The risk is deemed greater than the reward. Is it the right decission? Who knows.. but its kind of irrelavant.

I guess there are enough people in the US who own guns to make the balance a little more even, but in most places in the world the choice is pretty obvious. Just like nudity.

How come every single source I've found still calls it an AK-47 then? Give me a link to one that shows that it isn't an AK then. If shouldn't be too hard since you obviously got your info from somewhere.

Do tell, exactly where have I shown that lessening gun laws reduces crime?

Your own quote.

One year later, semi-automatic weapons like the Kalashnikov were banned.

It was a semi-automatic rifle. An AK-47 is not a semi-automatic, it is a select fire fully auto. If it was an AK-47, then he did not legally own it unless you're claiming that fully auto weapons WERE legal. Otherwise it was an SAR-1. A semi-auto rifle that LOOKS LIKE an AK-47. The media likes to make headlines. That's why "every source you found" calls it that. It's the same lie told by the anti-gun groups to get semi-auto's banned here.

Your own unlinked source shows crime levels balancing out between the two. It just ignored the fact that the US's laws were becoming less restrictive while the UK's became more. You're the one arguing for causality.

How does my quote show that?

"Finally, gun control advocates frequently attribute the UK's low rate of violent crime to its restrictive gun laws. They would do well to bear in mind that in 1919, the year before gun control legislation was introduced, the US homicide rate was almost twelve times that of the UK. After close to 80 years of rigorous gun control the gap has now narrowed to a factor of four."

Easier to understand now?

Edit: Oh, and a joint report by the "Bonn International Centre for Conversion", the "British American Security Information Council", "Saferworld", and "Small Arms Survey" (published in January 2004) still says that the gun Micheal Ryan used was an AK-47.

Nor a SAR-1, an AK-47.

You make out that thats not a legitimate reason. But other peoples personal fears is a perfectly legitimate reason to legislate. As I pointed out with the anti-nudity law, other peoples emotions effect legislation that effects you all the time. Why is gun ownership so different?

Well, first of all, you're going along the assumption I agree w/ those laws. Other peoples fears ARE NOT reason to restrict the rights of other people.

If enough people feel threatened by your personal freedom then your freedoms should be curtailed.. its just the way society works.

So you would accept restrictions on your freedom of speech if people "Felt" threatened by it, even if there was no clear and present danger?



Why should people be restricted from taking heroin? It makes them feel good and they want to do it. The answer is because enough people feel threatened by it. Sure you may responsibly take heroin and never cause any trouble but someone else may not. The risk is deemed greater than the reward. Is it the right decission? Who knows.. but its kind of irrelavant.

And I don't agree w/ that law either. If you don't hurt someone else, feel free.

I guess there are enough people in the US who own guns to make the balance a little more even, but in most places in the world the choice is pretty obvious. Just like nudity.

And yet nudity is acceptable in some places as well w/o destroying society.

How does my quote show that?

"Finally, gun control advocates frequently attribute the UK's low rate of violent crime to its restrictive gun laws. They would do well to bear in mind that in 1919, the year before gun control legislation was introduced, the US homicide rate was almost twelve times that of the UK. After close to 80 years of rigorous gun control the gap has now narrowed to a factor of four."

Easier to understand now?

Lets extend the bolding, shall we?

And what did US firearm laws do again?

Edit: Then they obviously have a political agenda, don't they?

Here, read up on what an AK-47 is:

http://kalashnikov.guns.ru/models/ka50.html

Now if you'ld actually look at what he was authorized to buy, it says 7.62 semi-automatic rifle. That does not fire 600 rds/min.

http://members.aol.com/gunbancon/Frames/Hungerford.html

Get control legislated for in 1919, and strangely enough after that the homicide rate dropped. No the UK's homicide rate did not skyrocket. Yes it went up, but not by that much. It was predomenantly the US' rate that came down.

You do know that the AK does have a selector to make it work as a semi-auto.

Come on man, what sort of political agenda could they be trying to support by mis-naming a weapon?

Get control legislated for in 1919, and strangely enough after that the homicide rate dropped. No the UK's homicide rate did not skyrocket. Yes it went up, but not by that much. It was predomenantly the US' rate that came down.

Did I say "skyrocket"? Nope, another strawman. I said increased. And yes, the US's came down even w/ less restrictive laws. Do you deny that?

What you "feel" doesn't matter. It's the reality that counts. Legally carrying firearms has not increased crime in any way.

You may consider it a "social problem", otherso consider the Gov't failure at reducing crime in the first place while preventing citizens from defending themselves a "social problem".

You are aware that the crime satictics, in how much and what kind of crime, and the level of gun ownership are both things that make the US very special in the world. why do you think this is?

Taxes: High taxes slow the economy. Why? Because when you take more money away from people they have less money to spend and put back into the economy making it slow down. And what does the government do with those high taxes? Waste them on failed government programs. So low taxes= strong economy and less wasted money.

Except that a progressive tax system is what helps limit the rich-poor gap. By flattening the tax rates across the board, such as the Republicans have done and continue to try to do, we get a widening gap between rich and poor.

Gun control: It is my right to have a gun. 2nd most important right according to the people who started this country. Efforts to take away or limit my guns ARE AGAINST THE LAW

Sure it is, which is why one of my missions in life is to get the 2nd Amendment repealed.

Death Penalty: If you kill an innocent person for no reason, you deserve to die. Pretty simple really murders a waste of life.

Uh, hate to break it to you dude, to be considered a murder requires four points: motive, means, capacity, and opportunity. To kill someone "for no reason" specifically removes motive, which means you no longer have a murder. Just a point of contention. Other than that, I agree the murderer needs to die. But I disagree that we (the State) should be the ones to kill him.

You are aware that the crime satictics, in how much and what kind of crime, and the level of gun ownership are both things that make the US very special in the world. why do you think this is?

Oh, goody, another noob that posts trying to prove absolute causality w/o any evidence.

Here's a question. If what you're implying is true, how do you explain an over 50% drop in crime over 10 years w/ an intense relaxing of local and federal firearms laws and an increase in ownership. Would you say it was due to gun ownership or would your bias make you a hypocrite and state another reason for it?

Sure it is, which is why one of my missions in life is to get the 2nd Amendment repealed.





So you support the abolition of inherant rights?

Well, first of all, you're going along the assumption I agree w/ those laws. Other peoples fears ARE NOT reason to restrict the rights of other people.



So you would accept restrictions on your freedom of speech if people "Felt" threatened by it, even if there was no clear and present danger?



And I don't agree w/ that law either. If you don't hurt someone else, feel free.


so in other words you would legalise drugs, public nudity, free restricted medicines, prostitution ext?


And yet nudity is acceptable in some places as well w/o destroying society.

so in other words you would legalise drugs, public nudity, free restricted medicines, prostitution ext?

Sure it is, which is why one of my missions in life is to get the 2nd Amendment repealed.
So you support the abolition of inherant rights?
That specific one, yes I do.

You do know that the AK does have a selector to make it work as a semi-auto.

Which makes it a select fire weapon. Not a semi-auto. Are you honestly trying to tell me it was legal before that for people to own a fully-auto capable weapon? I'ld like to see evidence of that. and if so, why would they only ban semi-auto's after that?

Come on man, what sort of political agenda could they be trying to support by mis-naming a weapon?

Are you really that naive? By making people thing they're banning "Dangerous machine guns" it makes it much easier to pass legislation for the reality that is semi-auto's. Same thing they did in the US.

so in other words you would legalise drugs, public nudity, free restricted medicines, prostitution ext?

Yep. I support individual accountability and responsibility.

No, but you implied as much. It could be suggested that the reason that crime came down so much, even with the relaxing of laws, is that crime was so bad before 1919 that when even some legislation was put in place to deal with it, the result was a continuous drop in crime. And even when the laws were relaxed, the downward trend continued in relation to the change made so many years before.

Yes I know you're about to accuse me of speculation, but neither of us can account for it using concrete figures. And it is a rather neat coincidence if guns aren't to do with the crime rate.

Edit: Kec, I did try to spell it out in words of one syllable, but that obviously wasn't good enough. The report which I cited was published in 2004. That was 2 years ago. Semi-autos were banned in 1987. That was 19 years ago. There is no possible reason for them to "cover up" after 17 years. No one is going to insist we get them back because the rifle they cited was different. And even if the rifle in question was an SAR-1, then people would STILL have supported the ban. There is no possible reason to deliberately mis-name the weapon used. Now stop with the conspiracy theories.

Oh, goody, another noob that posts trying to prove absolute causality w/o any evidence.

Here's a question. If what you're implying is true, how do you explain an over 50% drop in crime over 10 years w/ an intense relaxing of local and federal firearms laws and an increase in ownership. Would you say it was due to gun ownership or would your bias make you a hypocrite and state another reason for it?

calling me names and ansewering questions with questions...nice

what I was trying to do was to broaden your view on this thing. and I would like an ansewer if you have something thought up. Also your question/statement is very vague. can you give me some kind of evidence to which you base your question so I can study it and then ansewer when I have a broader picture of the situation.

That specific one, yes I do.
So what would you do if I supported restrictions on your freedom of speech. I don't think you need it.

calling me names and ansewering questions with questions...nice

what I was trying to do was to broaden your view on this thing. and I would like an ansewer if you have something thought up. Also your question/statement is very vague. can you give me some kind of evidence to which you base your question so I can study it and then ansewer when I have a broader picture of the situation.

Well maybe it you had read the thread, I've already stated I don't claim absolute causality and have pointed to numerous countries that have low ownership and high crime, high ownership and low crime, etc. There's also been links provided.

So what would you do if I supported restrictions on your freedom of speech. I don't think you need it.
You're free to oppose whatever you want, and if the 1st Amendment is ever repealed I will shut my goddamn mouth. At least until I got to the border and moved my family to another country. Which, of course, you would be more than welcome to do if we can get the 2nd Amendment repealed.

No, but you implied as much. It could be suggested that the reason that crime came down so much, even with the relaxing of laws, is that crime was so bad before 1919 that when even some legislation was put in place to deal with it, the result was a continuous drop in crime. And even when the laws were relaxed, the downward trend continued in relation to the change made so many years before.



Yes I know you're about to accuse me of speculation, but neither of us can account for it using concrete figures. And it is a rather neat coincidence if guns aren't to do with the crime rate.


So prove it and put it in correlation w/ the various gun control laws and relaxations thereof.

Provide links, data, something that supports your arguement.

Yep. I support individual accountability and responsibility.

you don't think there could be problems for the communities or soceties with legalizing any of the above?

You're free to oppose whatever you want, and if the 1st Amendment is ever repealed I will shut my goddamn mouth. At least until I got to the border and moved my family to another country. Which, of course, you would be more than welcome to do if we can get the 2nd Amendment repealed.

Oh, so love it or leave it? You wouldn't fight for your rights? You'ld just pack up and leave?

you don't think there could be problems for the communities or soceties with legalizing any of the above?

There may be some. Of course the justice system would actually have to stop it's revolving doors and call for personal accountability instead of blaming everyone else for their problems.

Now you get to provide proof of causality.

And I don't agree w/ that law either. If you don't hurt someone else, feel free.



And yet nudity is acceptable in some places as well w/o destroying society.
And yet banning heroine use and nudity are classic right wing policies?? Odd don't you think?

And yet banning heroine use and nudity are classic right wing policies?? Odd don't you think?

Not really. You find hypocrisy on both sides. For some freedoms, against others, etc.

Oh, so love it or leave it? You wouldn't fight for your rights? You'ld just pack up and leave?
Pretty much "love it or leave it." But if 3/4 of the states decide that it's no longer my right, then there's nothing left to fight about. Besides, after several years in the military, my fight is almost done.

If the first amendment were repealed, then the government could in fact make it illegal to protest. Good luck protesting or speaking your mind when it's against the law.

After all, those that disobey the law are, by definition "irrational".

Isn't that right, Kecibukia?

Pretty much "love it or leave it." But if 3/4 of the states decide that it's no longer my right, then there's nothing left to fight about. Besides, after several years in the military, my fight is almost done.

So yould give up on the freedoms you've spent years of your life defending. Great. I've been in on and off for 12 yrs now.

And yet banning heroine use and nudity are classic right wing policies?? Odd don't you think?
No, not really, because classic right wing (i.e., Puritanical) policies are about their freedoms, not yours. His right to his religion, not yours. His freedom of speech tells you to shut your trap. His right to a trial by jury forces you to put your clothes back on.

So yould give up on the freedoms you've spent years of your life defending. Great. I've been in on and off for 12 yrs now.
I said nothing about giving them up. But if they're taken from me, it's another story. Let me clarify: I wouldn't fight to get them back.

If the first amendment were repealed, then the government could in fact make it illegal to protest. Good luck protesting or speaking your mind when it's against the law.

After all, those that disobey the law are, by definition "irrational".

Isn't that right, Kecibukia?

Well being that the constitution doesn't grant the right of free speech, only provides gov't protection for it, abolishing it would be unconstitutional in the first place and hence not illegal.

And if the Gov't did try it, that, by it's original intent, is what the Second Amendment is for.

Nice try. You should read up on US law and history before you try that again though.

Now provide your proof of absolute correlation/causality.

I said nothing about giving them up. But if they're taken from me, it's another story. Let me clarify: I wouldn't fight to get them back.

That's truly sad.