NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.alternet.org/drugreporter/90295/

WHO survey of 17 countries finds that we have the highest rates of marijuana and cocaine use.

The United States has some of the world's most punitive drug policies and has led the cheering section for tough "war on drugs" policies worldwide, but a new international study suggests that those policies have been a crashing failure. A World Health Organization survey of 17 countries, conducted by some of the world's leading substance abuse researchers, found that we have the highest rates of marijuana and cocaine use.

The numbers are startling. In the United States, 42.4 percent admitted having used marijuana. The only other nation that came close was New Zealand, another bastion of get-tough policies, at 41.9 percent. No one else was even close. The results for cocaine use were similar, with the United States leading the world by a large margin.

This study is important because it's the first time a respected international group has surveyed drug use around the world, using the same questions and procedure everywhere. While many countries have their own drug use surveys, the questions and methodology vary, and comparisons between countries are difficult. This new study eliminates that problem.

Some of the most striking numbers are from the Netherlands, where adults are permitted to possess a small of marijuana and purchase it from regulated businesses. Some U.S. officials have claimed that these Dutch policies have created some sort of decadent cesspool of drug abuse, but the new study demolishes such assertions: In the Netherlands, only 19.8 percent have used marijuana, less than half the U.S. figure.

Even more striking is what the researchers found when they asked young adults when they had started using marijuana. Again, the United States led the world, with 20.2 percent trying marijuana by age 15. No other country was even close, and in the Netherlands, just 7 percent used marijuana by 15 -- roughly one-third of the U.S. figure.

Clearly the US needs to be even harder on those damned junkies. 1 year in jail for every molecule of a controlled substance found on your person. 2 years if you look like a drug dealer.

The answer to this is obviously education. Yes. Because it's a magic bullet which will supposedly rid the world of every ill, man-made or otherwise.

http://www.alternet.org/drugreporter/90295/



Clearly the US needs to be even harder on those damned junkies. 1 year in jail for every molecule of a controlled substance found on your person. 2 years if you look like a drug dealer.

Life or Capital Punishment if you're non-Caucasian.

Seriously, haven't we learned from Prohibition and The Satanic Verses?

Clearly the authors of this study were high when they conducted this survey :p

Clearly the authors of this study were high when they conducted this survey :p

The WHO are renowned stoners *nods*

Clearly the authors of this study were high when they conducted this survey :pWell it did say the survey was "conducted by some of the world's leading substance abuse researchers". *ahem*

Well it did say the survey was "conducted by some of the world's leading substance abuse researchers". *ahem*

A new career opportunity for Amy Winehouse.

Clearly the authors of this study were high when they conducted this survey :p

Or maybe, just maybe prohibition doesn't work :rolleyes:

Seriously, it shouldn't be such a surprise. Forbidden fruit sells.

Or maybe, just maybe prohibition doesn't work :rolleyes:

Seriously, it shouldn't be such a surprise. Forbidden fruit sells.

I didn't say prohibition does work. I'm against it. That previous post was making no real statement.

I was doing it for cheap laughs. :(

A wee little threadjack here.


So let me get this straight. Prohibition is a total failure for anything execpt guns? I've seen just about everyone who is against drug prohibtion(and prohibtion of everything else)on the grounds the the total banning of anything doesn't work, and yet the advocate it for firearms....

Can anyone else see the problem with that?

A wee little threadjack here.


So let me get this straight. Prohibition is a total failure for anything execpt guns? I've seen just about everyone who is against drug prohibtion(and prohibtion of everything else)on the grounds the the total banning of anything doesn't work, and yet the advocate it for firearms....

Can anyone else see the problem with that?

People use drugs on themselves; they use guns on other people. Slight difference (:

I was doing it for cheap laughs. :(

Cheap laughs are under prohibition :D !

How can anyone give WHO credibility when they will suppress test results that don't match their political agenda? This survey is just US-bashing from a PC thug.

People use drugs on themselves; they use guns on other people. Slight difference (:

Not all guns are used to kill people. Just because someone owns a gun doesn't mean that they are muggers/murders/robbers/crimminals.

A wee little threadjack here.


So let me get this straight. Prohibition is a total failure for anything execpt guns? I've seen just about everyone who is against drug prohibtion(and prohibtion of everything else)on the grounds the the total banning of anything doesn't work, and yet the advocate it for firearms....

Can anyone else see the problem with that?

Prohibition will fail for anything unless you can either totally remove the thing in question and any means of creating it or remove the need/desire to have it. Both of these things are pretty much impossible.

Lies! That study was obviously done by Liberal-Muslim-terrorists to corrupt our youth and turn them into communists!:D

But seriously, outlaw something, and it'll just push it underground. Prohibition, the war on drugs, prostitution...

And yet, people advocate the remove of the prohibtion on drugs, but at the same tme call for one on guns. I'm not calling you a hypocrit, just everyone else. ;)

A wee little threadjack here.


So let me get this straight. Prohibition is a total failure for anything execpt guns? I've seen just about everyone who is against drug prohibtion(and prohibtion of everything else)on the grounds the the total banning of anything doesn't work, and yet the advocate it for firearms....

Can anyone else see the problem with that?

I've yet to see anyone on this forum argue for outright banning all firearms and legalizing all drugs.

And yet, people advocate the remove of the prohibtion on drugs, but at the same tme call for one on guns. I'm not calling you a hypocrit, just everyone else. ;)

Prohibition on guns makes it harder for criminals to access them. Easy access to guns leads to side-effects such as the school shootings, as well as accidents, minors playing with them etc.

Ban on drugs mostly just raises the price.

I personally advocate ban on both but meh. Random guy using drugs doesn't hurt me. Random guy potentially supplying criminals with guns potentially harms me in the long run :p

Prohibition on guns makes it harder for criminals to access them. Easy access to guns leads to side-effects such as the school shootings, as well as accidents, minors playing with them etc.

Ban on drugs mostly just raises the price.

I personally advocate ban on both but meh. Random guy using drugs doesn't hurt me. Random guy potentially supplying criminals with guns potentially harms me in the long run :p
What about random guy selling guns to civilians for open carry purpose, thus deterring criminals?

What about random guy selling guns to civilians for open carry purpose, thus deterring criminals?

Sorry, but the truth is that the gun is far more likely to get stolen than actually helping the owner in any way. That is what I meant by potentially supplying criminals with firearms: The gun getting stolen. If I'm not mistaken majority of the guns in criminal hands are stolen.

I think that most things that are harmful should be allowed but just taxed to the point where it undercuts any black market operating. This way the government can have a closely watched monopoly and generate some income to pay for the inevitable time where the idiots cause damage to themselves or society due to substance abuse.

The Dutch are complete liars, they always do this. All like 'yeah I don't smoke up myself', and then seconds later you see them with a huge spliff in their mouth and they're like 'well, not all the time'.

19.8%, lies.

I don't really see any causation between U.S. drug laws and drug use, mostly because plenty of other countries have prohibition. Even in the Netherlands, marijuana is technically illegal.
What this study does suggest, I believe, is that current drug policies in the U.S. are no more effective than the Dutch policy of, uh, doing nothing. But I don't see how they can be attributed to raising the drug rate.

We've always been big drug users, as a culture. If anything, I'm surprised the numbers aren't higher.

In fact, I've always felt like an oddball for never having tried marijuana or cocaine or any other hard drug (or soft ones, if those exist) - the fact that more than half of Americans haven't used drugs makes me feel a bit more normal. :)

Edit: I'f I'm not mistaken, our rate of drug use is on the decline, even if it's relatively high overall. That would mean that whatever we've done recently (or however the culture has changed) has been a step in the right direction (if you consider abstinence the right direction).

We've always been big drug users, as a culture. If anything, I'm surprised the numbers aren't higher.

In fact, I've always felt like an oddball for never having tried marijuana or cocaine or any other hard drug (or soft ones, if those exist) - the fact that more than half of Americans haven't used drugs makes me feel a bit more normal. :)

When half the population is high, the other half doesn't need drugs to entertain itself.

Clearly the US needs to be even harder on those damned junkies. 1 year in jail for every molecule of a controlled substance found on your person. 2 years if you look like a drug dealer.

Yeah... like... you need to, like, chill-out man... you know? Like, totally uncool, man... Why do you want to restrict my freedom?

I've yet to see anyone on this forum argue for outright banning all firearms and legalizing all drugs.

That's because I no longer argue. Just spam. Although I suppose I really believe in the destruction of all firearms, not the prohibition of them.

A wee little threadjack here.
I somehow doubt that. :p

Ban on drugs mostly just raises the price.

Then you might be surprised to know that, adjusted for the higher purity, heroin is cheaper today than in 1970.
Very expensive, that War on Drugs, for something so ineffective.

Prohibition on guns makes it harder for criminals to access them. Easy access to guns leads to side-effects such as the school shootings, as well as accidents, minors playing with them etc.

Ban on drugs mostly just raises the price.

I personally advocate ban on both but meh. Random guy using drugs doesn't hurt me. Random guy potentially supplying criminals with guns potentially harms me in the long run :p

Then again if alot of people possess guns. A shooting is also less likely because the criminal might be afraid of being shot himself. Plus let's face it if 50 shoppers or students had guns, that out numbers the gunman 49 to 1 and he has to be really desperate to start shooting.

Not all guns are used to kill people. Just because someone owns a gun doesn't mean that they are muggers/murders/robbers/crimminals.
Yep. You totally need that handgun to go hunting.

Yep. You totally need that handgun to go hunting.
Self-defense.

Then again if alot of people possess guns. A shooting is also less likely because the criminal might be afraid of being shot himself. Plus let's face it if 50 shoppers or students had guns, that out numbers the gunman 49 to 1 and he has to be really desperate to start shooting.
And when a seven year old stumbles across his father's gun which wasn't stored properly and decides that it's a toy that should be brought to school and used on a classmate he doesn't like not knowing it would actually kill them...

Self-defense.
From the other people with handguns?

And when a seven year old stumbles across his father's gun which wasn't stored properly and decides that it's a toy that should be brought to school and used on a classmate he doesn't like not knowing it would actually kill them...
Ignoring the fact that MOST people with children, and even most of those without, lock up their guns properly, and that a seven year old would have trouble smuggling a gun into school.

From the other people with handguns?
Criminals are going to get guns. It doesn't matter if it's a partial ban or a complete ban, they're gonna get guns. So you might as well LEGALLY get one for yourself, so you have at least half a chance.

What about random guy selling guns to civilians for open carry purpose, thus deterring criminals?
I can't remember what the odds are of someone taking a person's traditional weapon from them during a struggle and turning it on them is, but I remember it being high. When I took a self defense course they advised against using traditional weapons for this reason. If you have a knife and your attacker gets it away from you, oh look, they just got a knife. If you've got car keys between your knuckles, however...

Criminals are going to get guns. It doesn't matter if it's a partial ban or a complete ban, they're gonna get guns. So you might as well LEGALLY get one for yourself, so you have at least half a chance.
Why is it that countries with stricter gun control laws tend to have less gun crime then? Even when gun ownership per person is comparable...

I can't remember what the odds are of someone taking a person's traditional weapon from them during a struggle and turning it on them is, but I remember it being high. When I took a self defense course they advised against using traditional weapons for this reason. If you have a knife and your attacker gets it away from you, oh look, they just got a knife. If you've got car keys between your knuckles, however...
They pry open your knuckles and you get scarred just as bad, AND you've lost your keys? Wow, bad luck you had there.

Why is it that countries with stricter gun control laws tend to have less gun crime then? Even when gun ownership per person is comparable...
HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Alright, alright, let's go over this....

Countries with stricter gun laws have less gun crime? Is that including, or not including the confiscations of illegal guns? And what about other forms of crime? Knife crime would'nt have risen, it's obvious all crime is caused by guns! Right? Right?

Ignoring the fact that MOST people with children, and even most of those without, lock up their guns properly, and that a seven year old would have trouble smuggling a gun into school.
Nevermind the fact that this has happened. Repeatedly.

http://www.nysun.com/national/8-year-old-brings-fathers-gun-to-day-care-shoots/26463/
http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/778806.html
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/faqs/?page=cap
http://www.charleston.net/news/2008/feb/06/gun_taken_into_school29704/

HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Alright, alright, let's go over this....

Countries with stricter gun laws have less gun crime? Is that including, or not including the confiscations of illegal guns? And what about other forms of crime? Knife crime would'nt have risen, it's obvious all crime is caused by guns! Right? Right?
Yes, clearly. Looking at this map: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Map-world-murder-rate.svg apparently the US doesn't have a higher murder rate than other industrialized countries... nope, not at all. And their rate (5.7) isn't more than twice as much as Canada's (1.85).

Nevermind the fact that this has happened. Repeatedly.

http://www.nysun.com/national/8-year-old-brings-fathers-gun-to-day-care-shoots/26463/
http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/778806.html
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/faqs/?page=cap
http://www.charleston.net/news/2008/feb/06/gun_taken_into_school29704/
And let's go over math, shall we? How many people have guns in the USA? Last estimate was 200 million guns in private hands. Assuming two guns for every person, that's 100 million people. Now, take that, and divide it by the number of incidents like that happen. Convert to a percentage of one hundred million. That's how often that happens. Not too often, eh?

Yes, clearly. Looking at this map: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Map-world-murder-rate.svg apparently the US doesn't have a higher murder rate than other industrialized countries... nope, not at all. And their rate (5.7) isn't more than twice as much as Canada's (1.85).
And it especially has nothing to do with the war on drugs, which isn't acting the same way that prohibition did, no matter what this graph says:
http://www.skilluminati.com/img/drug_war_murder_rate.jpg

And let's go over math, shall we? How many people have guns in the USA? Last estimate was 200 million guns in private hands. Assuming two guns for every person, that's 100 million people. Now, take that, and divide it by the number of incidents like that happen. Convert to a percentage of one hundred million. That's how often that happens. Not too often, eh?
Let's go over the fact that I only clicked on the first 4 google links and one of them provides many incidents as well as statistics on the subject while another discusses the fact that it was the x'th time in the same year that a student had brought a parent's gun to the same school.

And it especially has nothing to do with the war on drugs, which isn't acting the same way that prohibition did, no matter what this graph says:
http://www.skilluminati.com/img/drug_war_murder_rate.jpg
So what you're saying is that the war on drugs causes people to use guns to kill other people more frequently?

It's not like Canada is the Netherlands... as much as the cops won't care if you've got a dimebag on you, they'll go after you if you have enough to distribute.

Let's go over the fact that I only clicked on the first 4 google links and one of them provides many incidents as well as statistics on the subject while another discusses the fact that it was the x'th time in the same year that a student had brought a parent's gun to the same school.
The fifth time. I read the article.

You REALLY think that the third article is even half-way true? 1/4? And how did they find this out? "Excuse me sir, are your firearms safely locked up?"
"No, I jes' keep 'em under the coach here."
"Thank you sir, and have a nice day!"

I'm sure. The third article was a bunch of scaremonger dribble. I don't care if they "Said" it wasn't a feel-good law, it IS a feel-good law!

I'll agree that prohibiting something that people will still choose to go for is in the end worthless.

"Where there's a will, there's a way", is how it goes, right?

In all honesty, legalizing and taxing it will make the whole "forbidden-fruit" part of the attraction moot. Plus, you get plenty of extra dollars that would otherwise go entirely into a group of drug-pushers pockets.

At the very least, the newfound income can be used to sponsor state-substance abuse facilities, for all those who say that legalizing certain drug-use is selling out.

And yes I admit, this is a sellout. I just recognize the futility in ever trying to convince another person against taking a particular course as opposed to a more "acceptable alternative" if he/she has the means to do as they like.

Incidentally, this would also cut out the conmen (women as well?) who sell stuff which look similar to a particular drug but is really something else entirely.

So what you're saying is that the war on drugs causes people to use guns to kill other people more frequently?

It's not like Canada is the Netherlands... as much as the cops won't care if you've got a dimebag on you, they'll go after you if you have enough to distribute.
The war on drugs fuels crime, because people go underground to supply drugs. Whenever something becomes outlawed, gangs usually end up with it. Gangs use drug deals to get them money. In order to get more money, they have to run other gangs out of the way for more drug deals. Violence ensues, usually with murder. Understand?

The war on drugs fuels crime, because people go underground to supply drugs. Whenever something becomes outlawed, gangs usually end up with it. Gangs use drug deals to get them money. In order to get more money, they have to run other gangs out of the way for more drug deals. Violence ensues, usually with murder. Understand?
Other laws have drug laws that are tough too without all the violent crime though. Hell, Japan's got some very strict drug laws and their crime rate is very low.

Other laws have drug laws that are tough too without all the violent crime though. Hell, Japan's got some very strict drug laws and their crime rate is very low.
Source?

Source?
http://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/law/countries/japan/japan_law1.shtml

Today, mere possession of most illegal drugs (including small amounts of cannabis) can get you life in prison.

and

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

http://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/law/countries/japan/japan_law1.shtml

Japanese authorities also solve a high percentage of robbery cases (75.9 percent, compared with 43.8 percent for West Germany, 26.5 percent for Britain, and 26.0 percent for the United States) and homicide cases (95.9 percent, compared with 94.4 percent for Germany, 78.0 percent for Britain, and 68.3 percent for the United States). This is connected to the fact that prosecutions are less likely to be successfully challenged compared to the above mentioned countries, a fact that has caused human rights concerns and has led to a change in the law which will take effect in 2009.
*Ahem.
Photos of the teenager’s corpse show a deep cut on his right arm, horrific bruising on his neck and chest. His face is swollen and covered with cuts. A silhouette of violence runs from the corner of his left eye over the cheekbone to his jaw, and his legs are pocked with small burns the size of a lighted cigarette.

But police in Japan’s Aichi prefecture saw something else when they looked at the body of Takashi Saito, a 17-year-old sumo wrestler who arrived at a hospital in June. The cause of death was “heart disease,” police declared.

As is common in Japan, Aichi police reached their verdict on how Saito died without an autopsy. No need for a coroner, they said. No crime involved. Only 6.3% of the unnatural deaths in Aichi are investigated by a medical examiner, a minuscule rate even by nationwide standards in Japan, where an autopsy is performed in 11.2% of cases.

Forensic scientists say there are many reasons for the low rate, including inadequate budgets and a desperate shortage of pathologists outside the biggest urban areas. There is also a cultural resistance in Japan to handling the dead, with families often reluctant to insist upon a procedure that invades the body of a loved one.

But Saito’s case has given credence to complaints by a group of frustrated doctors, former pathologists and ex-cops who argue that Japan’s police culture is the main obstacle.

Police discourage autopsies that might reveal a higher homicide rate in their jurisdiction, and pressure doctors to attribute unnatural deaths to health reasons, usually heart failure, the group alleges. Odds are, it says, that people are getting away with murder in Japan, a country that officially claims one of the lowest per capita homicide rates in the world.


and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Japan
My source.http://articles.latimes.com/2007/nov/09/world/fg-autopsy9

Why is it that countries with stricter gun control laws tend to have less gun crime then? Even when gun ownership per person is comparable...

Much as I support firearm regulation, I don't know which part of the above is cause and which is the effect.
In Canada, we can regulate guns heavily because there isn't much gun crime in the first place. We can place controls on dangerous weapons because no-one really needs them for defense.

Not all guns are used to kill people. Just because someone owns a gun doesn't mean that they are muggers/murders/robbers/crimminals.

If you only outlaw guns, only gun-owners will be outlaws. :p

God bless America, land of opportunity.

It you ban drugs then only criminals will have drugs. *smug nod*

Hmm... that just doesn't sound quite the same as when said with 'guns' instead.

And it especially has nothing to do with the war on drugs, which isn't acting the same way that prohibition did, no matter what this graph says:
http://www.skilluminati.com/img/drug_war_murder_rate.jpgOr just maybe all the people who like to have guns went into the military, causing the rates to drop during the Second World War, Vietnam War.

Or something.

If the US legalized drugs, the economy of the Netherlands would crash.

If the US legalized drugs, the economy of the Netherlands would crash.
Care to explain?

Care to explain?

US tourists to the Netherlands go mostly for pot and sex.

All we have to do to eliminate that tourism (and bring more tourists to the US) is legalize prostitution and all drugs.

This will savage the Netherlands economy...

Or just maybe all the people who like to have guns went into the military, causing the rates to drop during the Second World War, Vietnam War.

Or something.

During WW2, people were too busy building tanks to kill the Nazis to kill each other. During the 60s, people were too high in pot and sat on the coach eating snack food instead of killing people.

US tourists to the Netherlands go mostly for pot and sex.

All we have to do to eliminate that tourism (and bring more tourists to the US) is legalize prostitution and all drugs.

This will savage the Netherlands economy...There are US tourists here? We'd just export our stuff to you guys, the research already shows we don't use it.;)

During WW2, people were too busy building tanks to kill the Nazis to kill each other. During the 60s, people were too high in pot and sat on the coach eating snack food instead of killing people.So you're saying Hitler did a good thing? you Nazi!

Kidding.:p

And let's go over math, shall we? How many people have guns in the USA? Last estimate was 200 million guns in private hands. Assuming two guns for every person, that's 100 million people. Now, take that, and divide it by the number of incidents like that happen. Convert to a percentage of one hundred million. That's how often that happens. Not too often, eh?

The math has been done. The rate (which already account for the population difference) of firearms in Canada is equal or slightly higher that USA's. The murder-by-guns rate (which already account for the population difference) of Canada is a lot lower than USA's.

Why is that?

It could be because of the tougher gun laws. It could be that you yankees crazy about your guns.

The math has been done. The rate (which already account for the population difference) of firearms in Canada is equal or slightly higher that USA's. The murder-by-guns rate (which already account for the population difference) of Canada is a lot lower than USA's.

Why is that?

It could be because of the tougher gun laws. It could be that you yankees crazy about your guns.

More than half of our firearm murders are black on black violence. Maybe we have a lot more African-Americans killing each other than you do.

Eliminate those, and we have less than half the rate you see now.

Don't tell me they're out there playing cowboys and Indians, or hunting deer, or doing IPSC shooting matches...

http://www.alternet.org/drugreporter/90295/



Clearly the US needs to be even harder on those damned junkies. 1 year in jail for every molecule of a controlled substance found on your person. 2 years if you look like a drug dealer.

Yes, it's clear that we need another Constitutional Amendment like the oh so successful Volstead Act to get this under control. And a side benefit of this would be to introduce more opportunities for people to attain wealth through untraceable and untaxable illegal activities.

More than half of our firearm murders are black on black violence. Maybe we have a lot more African-Americans killing each other than you do.

Eliminate those, and we have less than half the rate you see now.

Even if that were true, It's still much higher than ours.

Don't tell me they're out there playing cowboys and Indians, or hunting deer, or doing IPSC shooting matches...

Hunting, mostly. Our indians get testy when we try to rid them with bullet holes.

More than half of our firearm murders are black on black violence. Maybe we have a lot more African-Americans killing each other than you do.

Using magic faerie studies no doubt.

Using magic faerie studies no doubt.

Nope. You walked right into that one.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/wuvc01.txt

* Firearm violence rates for blacks age 12 or older (8.4
per 1,000 blacks) were 40% higher than rates for Hispanics
(6.0)

200% higher than rates for whites (2.8 per
1,000).

* Blacks were about 9 times more likely than whites to be
murdered with a firearm.

* On average black victims of firearm violence were 3
years younger than white victims -- 29 versus 32.

* From 1993 through 2001 blacks accounted for 46% of
homicide victims and 54% of victims of firearm homicide but
12% of the U.S. population.

Nope. You walked right into that one.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/wuvc01.txt

Hardly. I got just what I wanted - you would either give me an answer or fall on your face back pedaling.

Hardly. I got just what I wanted - you would either give me an answer or fall on your face back pedaling.

So what say you to the idea of ending the "War on Drugs", allowing major corporations to peddle them, and ending the internecine warfare between young black males?

It would save a LOT of lives.

Or just maybe all the people who like to have guns went into the military, causing the rates to drop during the Second World War, Vietnam War.

Or something.
Please tell me that was sarcasm.

Please tell me that was sarcasm.

I doubt it. It smelled like hot, steaming Euro-ignorance to me.

Please tell me that was sarcasm.
Sarcasm? On NSG?
I doubt it. It smelled like hot, steaming Euro-ignorance to me.You, being an American, can probably tell me everything about ignorance.

Sarcasm? On NSG?

Point taken.
You, being an American, can probably tell me everything about ignorance.
Now, now, I know hestarted, but lets not turn this into the USA vs. Europe.

Point taken.

Now, now, I know hestarted, but lets not turn this into the USA vs. Europe.

*Comes in with pop corn and his "EU vs USA 2008 world series" t-shirt * whaaaa????.....ahhhhhh :(

*leaves dissapointed*




I would like to see what kills more innocent people. Guns or drugs?

Now, now, I know hestarted, but lets not turn this into the USA vs. Europe.

Why not, its already been turned from drugs to guns. :rolleyes:

What I don't get is how anyone can possibly think that in any way a gun can be used for self defence. A gun is not a defencive tool it is entirely offensive it cannot prevent you from getting hurt it can only hurt others.

What I don't get is how anyone can possibly think that in any way a gun can be used for self defence. A gun is not a defencive tool it is entirely offensive it cannot prevent you from getting hurt it can only hurt others.

You are talking to people who come from the land of preemtive strikes. Think about it. Now go home. *nods*

What I don't get is how anyone can possibly think that in any way a gun can be used for self defence. A gun is not a defencive tool it is entirely offensive it cannot prevent you from getting hurt it can only hurt others.
You should know! You set off on a holy doctrine across the Galaxy! :p.

Guns can be used for defense, as much as crossbows were used for self-defense.
Self-defense (U.S. Spelling) or self defence (International) refers to actions taken by a person to prevent another person from causing harm to one's self, one's property or one's home.

While the term may define any form of personal defense, it is strongly associated with civilian hand-to-hand defense techniques.

Self-defense defines a civilian activity as opposed to Hand-to-hand combat in a military context.
If you wound them badly enough, you're pretty much stopping them from harming you, your property, or your home.

I've yet to see anyone on this forum argue for outright banning all firearms and legalizing all drugs.

I could easily argue for that.

What you do to yourself is your own business, what you do to others matters to society in general, so unless you want the gun to use on yourself, then it matters, whereas the drugs will only matter if you intend to use them on others. :p

What if I wanted to buy a gun so I could grind it up and smoke it? Should that be prohibited?

What if I wanted to buy a gun so I could grind it up and smoke it? Should that be prohibited?

No. Fine go ahead. You wouldn't need any ammunition to do that though, would you.

I had no idea it was that bad in the US. Here, there has been a major clampdown on the growing of weed. That stopped users more than an extended jail sentence ever would, especially since most smoke it in the privacy of their own home in the first place.

No. Fine go ahead. You wouldn't need any ammunition to do that though, would you.

What if I want to do a line of bullets?

Here, there has been a major clampdown on the growing of weed. That stopped users more than an extended jail sentence ever would, especially since most smoke it in the privacy of their own home in the first place
There's been a major crackdown?

I recall this story (http://www.theherald.co.uk/search/display.var.1303064.0.largest_ever_cannabis_farm_sniffed_out_by_police_officer.php) last year, and I only really remember it because it was a building I walked past most days and I'd noticed the smell myself, but I haven't heard anybody comment that it's getting harder to get hold of. Nor, for that matter, have there been any price increases... it costs the same to buy a lump of resin or bag of grass now as it did more than 20 years ago. The prohibition continues to fail.

What if I want to do a line of bullets?

You know you shouldn't mix narcotics, ground firearms and lines of bullets just don't mix. :D

I could easily argue for that.

What you do to yourself is your own business, what you do to others matters to society in general, so unless you want the gun to use on yourself, then it matters, whereas the drugs will only matter if you intend to use them on others. :p

So how does my target shooting and hunting affect society in general?

You know you shouldn't mix narcotics, ground firearms and lines of bullets just don't mix. :D
Hey! Who says I'm taking them all at the same time?:p

No. Fine go ahead. You wouldn't need any ammunition to do that though, would you.

Cocaine is for wimps. All the cool kids snort black powder. *nods*

Drugs are harmful to others if you operate a motor vehicle while under the influence. Guns are dangerous if you handle one without following the basic rules of firearm safety or with intent to harm others. A hammer can be used to build a house or splatter someone's brains across the room. None of these inanimate things are evil in and of themselves, it's the use that defines the crime.

So how does my target shooting and hunting affect society in general?

Guns affect others, regardless of what you personally do with them. Unless that is you can place your hand on your heart and promise that no one will ever use a gun anything other than target shooting or hunting. If you can do that then go ahead let anyone have a gun.

Guns affect others, regardless of what you personally do with them. Unless that is you can place your hand on your heart and promise that no one will ever use a gun anything other than target shooting or hunting. If you can do that then go ahead let anyone have a gun.

If I do that, you must pledge the same for ball bean hammers, screw drivers, pencils, cheese wire, rope with a not tried in it, ect, ect. All of those can be deadly if used improberly. But no one is calling for bans on them.

EDIT:

What concerns me more is not restrictions on who can own them, but on what kinds you can own. I belief that a sane, trained citizen should be able own Stinger/ Iglas/other MANPADS.

If I do that, you must pledge the same for ball bean hammers, screw drivers, pencils, cheese wire, rope with a not tried in it, ect, ect. All of those can be deadly if used improberly. But no one is calling for bans on them.

Anything can be deadly if used improberly (sic). Guns, however, are almost unique in that their sole purpose is to be deadly. They have no other genuine use. Try cutting cheese with a gun - you'll find it doesn't exactly do the job. How about extracting a screw with a glock - no I don't think so.

And how do you tie a not in a rope?

People are calling for bans on land mines, biological warfare research etc. Other things that have the sole purpose of being deadly, so why not guns as well. (Oh I forgot, half a dozen people more than two hundred years ago in one country said that we shouldn't ban them - that's a great reason - I withdraw my argument.)

EDIT:

What concerns me more is not restrictions on who can own them, but on what kinds you can own. I belief that a sane, trained citizen should be able own Stinger/ Iglas/other MANPADS.

Sure, great for target shooting and hunting. LoL.

Sure, great for target shooting and hunting. LoL.
Target...Shooting...With...Those...would...be...AWESOME!

Also, rebellion. Governments should fear their people, not vice-versa.

Sure, great for target shooting and hunting. LoL.

If they're sane, why can't they have them?

Anything can be deadly if used improberly (sic). Guns, however, are almost unique in that their sole purpose is to be deadly. They have no other genuine use. Try cutting cheese with a gun - you'll find it doesn't exactly do the job. How about extracting a screw with a glock - no I don't think so.

And how do you tie a not in a rope?

People are calling for bans on land mines, biological warfare research etc. Other things that have the sole purpose of being deadly, so why not guns as well. (Oh I forgot, half a dozen people more than two hundred years ago in one country said that we shouldn't ban them - that's a great reason - I withdraw my argument.)

OK, let's ban bows, crossbows, swords, spears, and everything else that makes a Rennaisance Faire fun. They serve no useful purpose in todays society, and they were designed for the sole purpose of inflicting harm upon others. For that matter, let's ban the kitchen knife as well. After all, they make pre-sliced cheese now.

they make pre-sliced cheese now.

That is no cheese. It is Faux-cheese.

OK, let's ban bows, crossbows, swords, spears, and everything else that makes a Rennaisance Faire fun. They serve no useful purpose in todays society, and they were designed for the sole purpose of inflicting harm upon others. For that matter, let's ban the kitchen knife as well. After all, they make pre-sliced cheese now.

When large numbers of acts of violence are perpetrated against members of society at large with bows, crossbows, swords and spears then we should consider banning them. As it is there are severe restrictions on where and when you can carry such items in most sane countries.

As to the kitchen knife - when they start growing ready chopped onions perhaps you'll have a point. (No factory chopped doesn't count - I like fresh food)

If they're sane, why can't they have them?
Can't you see the oxymoronic nature of that question?

When large numbers of acts of violence are perpetrated against members of society at large with bows, crossbows, swords and spears then we should consider banning them. As it is there are severe restrictions on where and when you can carry such items in most sane countries.

As to the kitchen knife - when they start growing ready chopped onions perhaps you'll have a point. (No factory chopped doesn't count - I like fresh food)

They make chopping machines that are far faster and safer than a knife. You need to stop clinging to your outdated traditions. :p

They make chopping machines that are far faster and safer than a knife. You need to stop clinging to your outdated traditions. :p

Do you know just how deadly those chopping machines can be - impossible to clean and bacteria everywhere - give a good wholesome kitchen knife over a festering nest of streptococci every time. :D

Can't you see the oxymoronic nature of that question?

I want you to tell me 3 good reasons why a sane person, that has no criminal background or connection to those that might use such weapons illegally, cannot own a MANPADS? And none of them can, "Well they might do something against the law."

I want you to tell me 3 good reasons why a sane person, that has no criminal background or connection to those that might use such weapons illegally, cannot own a MANPADS? And none of them can, "Well they might do something against the law."

Want away - can you give me three good reasons why a sane person would want to own them? Because I can't think of one.

Want away - can you give me three good reasons why a sane person would want to own them? Because I can't think of one.

Don't change the subject.

Don't change the subject.

No change of subject. Unless you are referring to the subject of the question, but that is just a grammatical subtlety.

No change of subject. Unless you are referring to the subject of the question, but that is just a grammatical subtlety.

What I meant was, don't turn my question on me. Answer my question, or are you dumbstruck?

What I meant was, don't turn my question on me. Answer my question, or are you dumbstruck?

I have no need to defend the banning of objects that no one could, for any sane reason, wish to own.

Before I have to defend this, you have to demonstrate why they should be available for general ownership. That you do not wish to do this simply demonstrates that there are no sane reasons.

I have no need to defend the banning of objects that no one could, for any sane reason, wish to own.

Before I have to defend this, you have to demonstrate why they should be available for general ownership. That you do not wish to do this simply demonstrates that there are no sane reasons.

I should not give any sane reasons simple because you will dismiss them as insane.

But I will anyway.

The government should be scared of its people, not the people scared of their government. With MANPADS, this would create this. Second, the people of the United states are the millita, as defined in the 2nd Amendment. While we have a right to bear arms, we are also the millita, not the National Guard(aka the police that are armed better than the rest, but only train on weekends) As such, we are need to a well equiped millita is important vital. This would free up the National guard to serve in Natural distasters, such as New Orleans after Katraina, not in Iraq, or the Mexican border. Thirdly, know what? I don't need a third one because you will simplely dismiss this as the ramblings of some insane redneck republician that goes to church 5 times a week, and sticks my dick in a shotgun. Am I wrong?


You have an irrantional phobia of an an object. Has anyone ever been killed by a gun that is just sitting on a table? No. It takes a person to kill a person.

I should not give any sane reasons simple because you will dismiss them as insane.

But I will anyway.

The government should be scared of its people, not the people scared of their government. With MANPADS, this would create this. Second, the people of the United states are the millita, as defined in the 2nd Amendment. While we have a right to bear arms, we are also the millita, not the National Guard(aka the police that are armed better than the rest, but only train on weekends) As such, we are need to a well equiped millita is important vital. This would free up the National guard to serve in Natural distasters, such as New Orleans after Katraina, not in Iraq, or the Mexican border. Thirdly, know what? I don't need a third one because you will simplely dismiss this as the ramblings of some insane redneck republician that goes to church 5 times a week, and sticks my dick in a shotgun. Am I wrong?


You have an irrantional phobia of an an object. Has anyone ever been killed by a gun that is just sitting on a table? No. It takes a person to kill a person.

Excuse me, but if we're the militia, shouldn't we be required to own guns, instead of just allowed to.

I have no need to defend the banning of objects that no one could, for any sane reason, wish to own.

Before I have to defend this, you have to demonstrate why they should be available for general ownership. That you do not wish to do this simply demonstrates that there are no sane reasons.

Your insinuation that anyone who wishes to own a firearm must be mentally unstable is not merely nonsense, it's downright offensive. You might not like to hear it, but there are situations where the use of firearms is justifiable. Obviously, no sane individual would want to be put in a position where they might have to use deadly force against an assailant, but it happens.

Guns, though they are mainly intended for the purpose of destruction, are merely tools, and are useless without a human operator. Blaming guns and other weapons for the actions of their users is pointless, counterproductive scapegoating that contributes absolutely nothing.

Your insinuation that anyone who wishes to own a firearm must be mentally unstable is not merely nonsense
Well, not EVERYONE but... :p

Seriously speaking, firearms are good as instruments of entertainment and as tools (eg. law enforcement, hunting) - Any use beyond that is IMO unjustifiable.


As for the topic: Correlation does not imply causation - Being tough on drugs doesn't mean people start using drugs.

They need to Legalize Pot... then the crime rates will go down most likely and probably less people will use it. Does anyone even remember the prohibiton of the 20's? Crime rates went up when it was illegalized, and down signifigantly when it was legalized! All those things they tell you abotu Pot are really just Government affected semi-facts. They tell you of teh bad thigns that happen very rarely, and not at all of the good things. The more forbiden something is, the more someone will want it! Laws are made to be broken, its always happened!

Prohibition will fail for anything unless you can either totally remove the thing in question and any means of creating it or remove the need/desire to have it. Both of these things are pretty much impossible.

Have you read The Anthem by Ayn Rand? It is about a civilisation in the future that enters a dictatorship state because they get rid of everythign that they think "harms" humankind, and they even get rid of lightbulbs! But what happens is that someone rediscovers a lightbulb and the people who run teh society are afraid of this for it might ruin their power... it basically shows what might happen if Prohibition works.

Also, it was said earlier that people say that pot and whatever shoul be legal, but guns shouldn't. I have no connection to wanting to prohibit guns and whatever, even though i am a pacifist, and i still want to legalize pot and whatever. Guns were originally placed into legalization so that if teh governemnt ever gets to Authoritarian or Totalitarian, or evenr just too powerful, the people could act as a militia and rise against to get rid of teh government which is too powerful. That one fo the reasons that the freedom to bear arms exists!

Excuse me, but if we're the militia, shouldn't we be required to own guns, instead of just allowed to.

You bring up a good point. I didn't think of that. Everyone between 18-35 should be required to own firearms, and everyone else is optionial.

Want away - can you give me three good reasons why a sane person would want to own them? Because I can't think of one.
1. They would be fricking awesome to shoot!
2. In case of invasion by another country.
3. In case of the government repealing freedom of speech, freedom to assemble, etc,.

1. They would be fricking awesome to shoot!
2. In case of invasion by another country.
3. In case of the government repealing freedom of speech, freedom to assemble, etc,.

It doesn't matter, because he will dismiss them as not being sane.

Allow me to rebut you. Donn't worry, I'm not about to say that the reasons are insane, just not well thought out. I;nm also just going to limit myself to your arguments, rather than add new ones.

1. They would be fricking awesome to shoot!

Can't argue with that, as I have never fired a gun

2. In case of invasion by another country.

If you can't depend on the American Army, and the various national guards, to defend against invasions then what's a bunch of random citizens armed only with guns going to do? especially against tanks and planes? (Am I asking for the gun advocates to say, give us rocket launchers?)

3. In case of the government repealing freedom of speech, freedom to assemble, etc,.

Elections, SCOTUS, Democrats (:)), fleeing to Canada, all work against this. Guns are far the only tool for stopping tyranny, as you seem to think (It's true that if the only tool you have is a hammer then every problem looks like a nail). That and if the Army doesn't go along, then you're not going to have to worry about it.

Your insinuation that anyone who wishes to own a firearm must be mentally unstable is not merely nonsense, it's downright offensive. You might not like to hear it, but there are situations where the use of firearms is justifiable. Obviously, no sane individual would want to be put in a position where they might have to use deadly force against an assailant, but it happens.

Guns, though they are mainly intended for the purpose of destruction, are merely tools, and are useless without a human operator. Blaming guns and other weapons for the actions of their users is pointless, counterproductive scapegoating that contributes absolutely nothing.

Before you jump into a discussion I suggest you read what has been posted.

What concerns me more is not restrictions on who can own them, but on what kinds you can own. I belief that a sane, trained citizen should be able own Stinger/ Iglas/other MANPADS.

was the subject where the necessity for a sane reason arose - not guns in general.

I have never blamed guns for anything, if you look back over what I have posted. I have blamed chopping machines, but not guns. What I have done is stated that people can not, in general, be trusted to use guns responsibly. Now that leaves you with the options of

a: accepting a bad situation
b: banning people
or
c: banning guns.

Now if you want to ban people, go ahead and try it, otherwise you are left with accepting a situation that is patently not good, or banning guns. Your choice.

Before you jump into a discussion I suggest you read what has been posted.



was the subject where the necessity for a sane reason arose - not guns in general.

Well, I did read all of those posts, but somewhere along the line I had forgotten exactly where the issue of sanity came up. Oh well, mistakes happen, I suppose.

No hard feelings then?

It doesn't matter, because he will dismiss them as not being sane.

Hardly - but they are not reasons.

It would be fricking awesome to drive at 200 mph, to earn $10,000 per hour etc. etc.
Declaring something to be fricking awesome is a statement of personal approval - not a reason.

Invasion by another country - Mexico or Canada - which one do you fear? Oh, and you have a military to defend you don't you - or if not - what are you paying your tax dollars for?

In case of the government going batshit. You mean to say it hasn't - see the patriot act - what use were any weapons against that?

The last two are arguments, just unfounded ones, and as such do not classify as reasons.

I notice however that 1010102 has not provided any reasons (sane or otherwise) or even any arguments.

No hard feelings then?

No - none. You have your opinion - I have mine.

I recommend that those who wish to own guns for defense, should go through the exact same training as police officers since they wish to perform the function of police officers. They should also be held to the same standard that we expect of officers of the law - required to fill out paperwork for any action they take in the name of lawfulness - required to take regular psychological tests as well as testing for substance abuse. :D

I recommend that those who wish to own guns for defense, should go through the exact same training as police officers since they wish to perform the function of police officers. They should also be held to the same standard that we expect of officers of the law - required to fill out paperwork for any action they take in the name of lawfulness - required to take regular psychological tests as well as testing for substance abuse. :D

As I said (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13823277&postcount=118) banning people is an option. This is a first step in that direction.

Allow me to rebut you. Donn't worry, I'm not about to say that the reasons are insane, just not well thought out. I;nm also just going to limit myself to your arguments, rather than add new ones.



Can't argue with that, as I have never fired a gun


If you can't depend on the American Army, and the various national guards, to defend against invasions then what's a bunch of random citizens armed only with guns going to do? especially against tanks and planes? (Am I asking for the gun advocates to say, give us rocket launchers?)
Y'know, that's probably what King George III said about the Americas early on. "What's a bunch of random citizens with guns going to do against the best army in the world?"

Elections, SCOTUS, Democrats (:)), fleeing to Canada, all work against this. Guns are far the only tool for stopping tyranny, as you seem to think (It's true that if the only tool you have is a hammer then every problem looks like a nail). That and if the Army doesn't go along, then you're not going to have to worry about it.
Democrats. Yeah. Whatever you say there. We don't elect the president. The electoral college does. Senators go back on their word all the time. The Supreme court is a joke (And, who appoints the Supreme court?;)) What's Canada going to do? They have immigration laws too, and if the US went Facist on us, they'd seal the borders! And what if part of the army went along with it? Say 75%?

Y'know, that's probably what King George III said about the Americas early on. "What's a bunch of random citizens with guns going to do against the best army in the world?"
The answer?

Call on the French. :p

Y'know, that's probably what King George III said about the Americas early on. "What's a bunch of random citizens with guns going to do against the best army in the world?"Apples and oranges. The armies of the 1700s were meant to fight in conventional warfare (two well defined armies meeting directly in thefueld of battle), and The American revolutionaries used guerilla tactics to great effect. Todays armies are trained to fight against guerilla armies and in Urban Environments, which puts a rebel force fighting them at the disadvantage. that and how effective are citizens armed only with guns against tanks anyway? If you have to rebel against the government use the method the French used in WWII.

Democrats. Yeah. Whatever you say there. We don't elect the president. The electoral college does. Senators go back on their word all the time. The Supreme court is a joke (And, who appoints the Supreme court?;)) What's Canada going to do? They have immigration laws too, and if the US went Facist on us, they'd seal the borders! And what if part of the army went along with it? Say 75%?My saying democrats was 50% joke and 50% noting that they have restricted freedom far less than republicans (though they'renotentirely innocent in this respect). And who thought up this system in the first place? The founding fathers, and it was set up so no one branch can get more power than any other (and you can't deny that SCOTUS has been doing it's job in keeping the other branches and the states in check, especially to prisoners of war, and in cases such as Miranda vs. Arizona, which granted Miranda Rights), and Brown Vs. Board of Education.

Apples and oranges. The armies of the 1700s were meant to fight in conventional warfare (two well defined armies meeting directly in thefueld of battle), and The American revolutionaries used guerilla tactics to great effect. Todays armies are trained to fight against guerilla armies and in Urban Environments, which puts a rebel force fighting them at the disadvantage. that and how effective are citizens armed only with guns against tanks anyway? If you have to rebel against the government use the method the French used in WWII.

I'm not too familiar with modern history (Read: Anything before 1890 :p), what exactly did the french do?
My saying democrats was 50% joke and 50% noting that they have restricted freedom far less than republicans (though they'renotentirely innocent in this respect). And who thought up this system in the first place? The founding fathers, and it was set up so no one branch can get more power than any other (and you can't deny that SCOTUS has been doing it's job in keeping the other branches and the states in check, especially to prisoners of war, and in cases such as Miranda vs. Arizona, which granted Miranda Rights), and Brown Vs. Board of Education.
The only reason they've restricted our rights less is because they're not in power (Admit it). I disagree with the "no one branch can get more power than any other". The Supreme court is...well... Supreme. The Supreme Court isn't elected, and they have MUCH more power then the other two branches. At times, this is a good thing. However, with how close the gun ban decision was...

I'm not too familiar with modern history (Read: Anything before 1890 :p), what exactly did the french do?Committed acts of sabatoge against railroads, arms factories, etc. is the most famous of their antics. They also sent intelligence to the allies, and in a few cases, set up guerilla attacks against the vichy government but this was ultimately secondary to their sabatoge.

The only reason they've restricted our rights less is because they're not in power (Admit it). I disagree with the "no one branch can get more power than any other". The Supreme court is...well... Supreme. The Supreme Court isn't elected, and they have MUCH more power then the other two branches. At times, this is a good thing. However, with how close the gun ban decision was...I would argue that The Supreme Court doesn't have more power than the other branches, because they are limited to hearing cases brought before them, and can't directly rule on laws, though to be perfectly honest, I would love to elect the SCOTUS justices, instead of appointing them

Committed acts of sabatoge against railroads, arms factories, etc. is the most famous of their antics. They also sent intelligence to the allies, and in a few cases, set up guerilla attacks against the vichy government but this was ultimately secondary to their sabatoge.

What are you going to use to sabotage everything? You need explosives, a gun in case you get caught, etc,etc,

I would argue that The Supreme Court doesn't have more power than the other branches, because they are limited to hearing cases brought before them, and can't directly rule on laws, though to be perfectly honest, I would love to elect the SCOTUS justices, instead of appointing them
Aye (for lack of a better word).

You bring up a good point. I didn't think of that. Everyone between 18-35 should be required to own firearms, and everyone else is optionial.

Agist! If everyone isn't required to own guns, then no one should be required to own guns. Next you'll be saying that women are exempt or people of religions of which you disapprove.

Equal opportunity requirements for gun ownership, I say!

A wee little threadjack here.


So let me get this straight. Prohibition is a total failure for anything execpt guns? I've seen just about everyone who is against drug prohibtion(and prohibtion of everything else)on the grounds the the total banning of anything doesn't work, and yet the advocate it for firearms....

Can anyone else see the problem with that?

The problem I see is you're trying to conflate two issues by positing a hypothetical, straw-man stance of hypocrisy in which reasonably opposing the War On Drugs (tm) goes hand in hand with supporting gun control. I for one don't propose total banning of either guns or drugs, so I am not a hypocrite and not dismissable by any accusation of hypocrisy (even if such an accusation wasn't simply an ad hominem fallacy).

So, what do you have to say about the findings shown in the OP?

You were right on the threadjack though, no one is talking about drugs and it's just Yet Another Gun Control Debate, with all the standard arguments.

What are you going to use to sabotage everything? You need explosives, a gun in case you get caught, etc,etc,

Aye (for lack of a better word).

And where is the average person going to come up with something more explosive than petrol? Explosive munitions are barred from private use IIRC, except in sanctioned demolitions work and similar.

What are you going to use to sabotage everything?
A wrench. The beauty of technology is that you only have to break one part to destroy the whole.

A wrench. The beauty of technology is that you only have to break one part to destroy the whole.

That's only if whoever designed the things didn't bother with replaceable parts.

Agist! If everyone isn't required to own guns, then no one should be required to own guns. Next you'll be saying that women are exempt or people of religions of which you disapprove.

Equal opportunity requirements for gun ownership, I say!
You know what? You're right.Change that to everyone above eighteen.:D

I got my copy of The Week today. I found this summary of an article in The Washington Post about gun control. It was saying that households that had a gun were found to be less safer than those without. In a seven year study of the Seattle area there were only nine 'bad guys' killed by a householder. But in the same period guns kept in homes were involved in 12 accidental deaths, 41 criminal homicides and 333 suicides. If that wasn't enough it went on to mention another study of 197 house break-ins in Atlanta. It found that "Intruders got to the homeowner's gun twice as often as the homeowner did."

I found those statistics to be pretty shocking. Certainly wouldn't want a gun in my home...

** The Week is a weekly published newspaper (duh?) of selected parts of the British and World press. It's for mugs like me who like to pretend they don't have enough time to read proper newspapers.
www.theweek.co.uk/sources