NationStates Jolt Archive

The US gun culture is certainly dangerous, and has little to do with gun ownership or the Second Amendment debate. Switzerland, for example, requires by law that every male of military age keeps an assault rifle in his home, and yet Switzerland has virtually no gun crime.

Those people are not using it for keeping out intruders and stuff. They are not allowed.

Just tax it. For every gun you have, you pay $3000. This money can be used to cure the victims of guns.

Too bad there is no such thing as victims of guns. If there was a mass murderer who ran around strangling people, would they be victims of rope?

Those people are not using it for keeping out intruders and stuff. They are not allowed.

Oh i see, so when an intruder breaks into your home and steals from you and rapes your wife and threatens your children you wont bother to reach for the rifle because its not allowed? Gotcha.

Oh i see, so when an intruder breaks into your home and steals from you and rapes your wife and threatens your children you wont bother to reach for the rifle because its not allowed? Gotcha.

Yes, such happens the whole time in Switzerland. Almost every housewife is raped several times a week...

Yes, such happens the whole time in Switzerland. Almost every housewife is raped several times a week...

Are you really that dense?

Where did IF say that it happened a lot?

Stocking up on guns is a little weird.

I can name a thousand things that people collect from ceramic cows to to Star Wars figures. One is no weirder then any other.

Too bad there is no such thing as victims of guns. If there was a mass murderer who ran around strangling people, would they be victims of rope?

It's rather difficult to strangle one. And I never heard about a school-strangle incident where one strangled 15 students in 20 minutes. It's almost impossible for a child to strangle an adult.

Guns are other meat.

Are you really that dense?

Where did IF say that it happened a lot?

Why protect yourself against something that probably never will happen?

It seems that many Americans are showing and obsessive compulsive personality disorder when they talk about guns.

Believe me, you don’t need a gun, even if you are American.

1)It's rather difficult to strangle one. 2) And I never heard about a school-strangle incident where one strangled 15 students in 20 minutes. 3)It's almost impossible for a child to strangle an adult.

Guns are other meat.

1. Not really.
2. True, but the problem really isn't the gun, it is the person who was/is unbalanced enough to decide that the cure for their ails is to go try and kill the people they know.
3. depends upon the child (and the adult)

It's rather difficult to strangle one. And I never heard about a school-strangle incident where one strangled 15 students in 20 minutes. It's almost impossible for a child to strangle an adult.

Guns are other meat.

Irrelevant, guns are inanimate objects EXACTLY like rope and should be treated exactly as inanimate objects.The existence of guns are not a problem in themselves. Guns dont roam the streets at night by themselves stalking and shooting people. People do and use guns as their tool for doing so. You punish PEOPLE for unlawful behavior not ban inanimate objects that have perfectly legitimate functions.

Mmm, using a rope to kill someone is really difficult. You need technique, force and luck. When the other party is bigger or stronger then you will probably not kill someone.

A mouse with a gun can kill an elephant.

Just tax it. For every gun you have, you pay $3000. This money can be used to cure the victims of guns.

If I'm even moderately wealthy, then I can certainly afford a good many guns. And I might as well use them to shoot people, that way I'd make sure to get my money's worth, right?

No, not a good suggestion you've made here.

Yes, such happens the whole time in Switzerland. Almost every housewife is raped several times a week...

Maybe they could put a tax on having a penis!

That'll limit the number of rapes!

Mmm, using a rope to kill someone is really difficult. You need technique, force and luck. When the other party is bigger or stronger then you will probably not kill someone.

A mouse with a gun can kill an elephant.

My post RIGHT above yours was made 8 min prior to this post. However your reply seems to discount its existence. Gun, rope, easy, hard it is all irrelevant. It is people committing crimes, not objects committing crimes.

If a mouse with a gun and an elephant with a knife both rob a bank, they both go to jail for the same amount of time. It doesnt matter what kind of weapon it was, or if it was the mouse or the elephant was holding the gun, they both are punished for robbing a bank with a weapon, period. Unsurprisingly, the gun and knife both remain unpunished.

If I'm even moderately wealthy, then I can certainly afford a good many guns. And I might as well use them to shoot people, that way I'd make sure to get my money's worth, right?

No, not a good suggestion you've made here.

You can do other things with $3000. And Obama will charge the rich more. :p
And even when you have some money, I know for sure that most trailer trash people doesn't have that much money.

How many people did you shoot already, anyway?

Maybe they could put a tax on having a penis!

That'll limit the number of rapes!

Sure, again:

I never heard of a mass school raping.
I never heard of a child that killed another child (or adult) with a penis.

For me it's clear: only dumb people have a gun. It's something as smoking cigarettes, drinking too much or dropping out school soon.

You can do other things with $3000. And Obama will charge the rich more. :p

People who invest money into guns are unlikely to suddenly stop investing money into guns. As is noted, the mere prospect of Obama is causing hoarding. An increase in the number of guns. Don't let basic math distract you from your poorly thought-out ideas, they're almost as funny as you think they are.

And even when you have some money, I know for sure that most trailer trash doesn't have that much money.

Oh, then the 'trailer trash' will have to just resort to crime to get more guns. More and more firepower will fall into the control of organized crime, just as happens when you try to prohibit anything (like, for example, alcohol) which there is a strong demand for. Crime will go up tenfold, murder, theft, and corruption - but hey at least the 'trailer trash' have it tougher!! You GO girl!

How many people did you shoot already, anyway?

Right, I disagree with you, therefore I must have shot people. Also I must surely be a McCain supporter, right? And 'trailer trash,' right? How many other stupid assumptions about me have you already made, and just haven't blurted out yet?

This was way over the line. I don't suggest you're a violent criminal just because you make ill-conceived arguments on the internet, so don't assume I'm one just because I tear them down.

For me it's clear: only dumb people have a gun. It's something as smoking cigarettes, drinking too much or dropping out school soon.

That would only be because for you, owning a gun = dumb.

People who invest money into guns are unlikely to suddenly stop investing money into guns. As is noted, the mere prospect of Obama is causing hoarding. An increase in the number of guns. Don't let basic math distract you from your poorly thought-out ideas, they're almost as funny as you think they are.



Oh, then the 'trailer trash' will have to just resort to crime to get more guns. More and more firepower will fall into the control of organized crime, just as happens when you try to prohibit anything (like, for example, alcohol) which there is a strong demand for. Crime will go up tenfold, murder, theft, and corruption - but hey at least the 'trailer trash' have it tougher!! You GO girl!

Right, I disagree with you, therefore I must have shot people. Also I must surely be a McCain supporter, right? And 'trailer trash,' right? How many other stupid assumptions about me have you already made, and just haven't blurted out yet?

This was way over the line. I don't suggest you're a violent criminal just because you make ill-conceived arguments on the internet, so don't assume I'm one just because I tear them down.

These are your lines:

"If I'm even moderately wealthy, then I can certainly afford a good many guns. And I might as well use them to shoot people, that way I'd make sure to get my money's worth, right?"

I never said you were trailer trash. In Europe, guns aren't that liked as in USA and crimes are lower as in USA. Are you aware that your jails are loaded the most in the world? Or that USA is counting the most serial killers around? So it seems that guns aren't preventing that many crimes.

So how many people did you already shoot? And why would you shoot people anyway?

The thing is that Gun Laws don't work. The show Bullshit! explained it best when they interviewed a gun dealer. He stated that criminals don't follow the law when it comes to rape, murder, and robbery, so why would they obey the laws pertaining to guns?

Cracking down on the black market and stricter enforcement of not allowing people with criminal records such as heavier fines and lengthier prison sentences for such violations are the only realistic way to at least curtail some of the gun-related crimes in the US. Better education about the dangers and responsible use of guns are good ways as well.

To simply just outlaw all guns in the US is impossible. There are too many guns, too many people with guns, and I'm sure there's some people out there who won't give them up that easy. Not to mention the storm of controversy over the whole idea. To have the government invade your home, take your guns and at the same time, revoking an amendment will send a wave of protests and make the American public afraid of their government. If they can take away the second amendment, what about the other amendments? Where will it end?

For me it's clear: only dumb people have a gun. It's something as smoking cigarettes, drinking too much or dropping out school soon.

I dont know how to say this without being offensive, but the ones that are really clear on things are usually the really dumb ones who havnt bothered to gather the facts yet or choose to ignore the ones that make things inconveniently less clear..

Sure, again:

I never heard of a mass school raping.
I never heard of a child that killed another child (or adult) with a penis.

Oh, so what you're saying is rape isn't so bad. So there shouldn't be penalties (for sex crimes) on having a penis similar to your penalties (for gun crime) on having a gun.

Nonsense! If your argument is valid and taxing gun owners for the 'victims of guns,' then it is also valid on taxing males for the victims of male sexual aggression.

Maybe though, since you don't think rape is so bad (there indeed not having ever been a "mass school raping" as you so delicately pointed out!), the tax should be less. So instead of $3000 as you suggested for guns, how about $1500? Or $1000? What do you think?

I am pro-responsible gun ownership. Most people who owns guns are not bad people. They are hunters, collectors, many for defense. Only a tiny tiny fraction are the gun-nuts like the Michigan Militia. Not all NRA members are homo-hating, hands off my guns, rednecks either. Heavier punishment of gun dealers who don't do backround checks and actually enforcing backround checks should be another program implemented.

Basically, the gun culture is the concept that owning a gun makes one super cool, that everyone will look upon you as if you are that, and it deifies guns to a super extent, making people care so much about their guns and their 2nd Amendment rights that they ignore everything else.

Odd, I've lived most of my life in an area where probably 75% of people own guns and it's nothing like what you describe here. Having a gun doesn't make you any cooler than having a snowmobile or some other recreational tool. I think this is what you want American "gun culture" to be, not what it actually is. Sure, there are some people like that but certainly not all gun owners are like that.

I never said you were trailer trash. In Europe, guns aren't that liked as in USA and crimes are lower as in USA. Are you aware that your jails are loaded the most in the world? Or that USA is counting the most serial killers around? So it seems that guns aren't preventing that many crimes.

Guns are not the cause of crime in the US. For the actual cause I direct you here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty#Effects_of_poverty

Gun crime is a symptom, not the disease itself. Remove the disease and gun crime won't be a problem.

Gun crime is a symptom, not the disease itself. Remove the disease and gun crime won't be a problem.

Well said, in the 1950s and 1960s you could buy handguns and rifles at the department store. I remember when you could order guns from Sears catalog. Pistol possession was completely unregulated. Guns were extraordinarily easy to get, yet there were never for example, school shootings back then.

America may have a crime problem, but we are nowhere near thee most violent nation or culture in the World, now or never.

I've never sat in my home afraid that 12yr olds with AK-47's are going to kick open my door and murder my whole family and town. My grandparents never had to sit there and tell me about how the Nazi's tried to exterminate them. I never had to watch a thief have his head cut off in the town square. I never had to watch a woman stoned to death. Or have a daughter's genitals mutilated due to some arcaic tribal belief.

I've never sat in my home afraid that 12yr olds with AK-47's are going to kick open my door and murder my whole family and town. My grandparents never had to sit there and tell me about how the Nazi's tried to exterminate them. I never had to watch a thief have his head cut off in the town square. I never had to watch a woman stoned to death. Or have a daughter's genitals mutilated due to some arcaic tribal belief.

Yes, we know the US isn't a Third World country. For the purposes of comparing crime statistics it's generally assumed that the US should be compared to other rich, industrialized countries. Of course, I'm not sure what exactly what you're trying to get at with your Nazi example.

Germany was and is an industrialized nation

Germany was and is an industrialized nation

Those events occurred over 60 years ago, although I'm still not sure what you're trying to get at.

That America is not the most violent nation in the world. People associate America and the gun culture as being a violent culture. Americans are not thee most violent people. Yes we have a crime problem but we are not the most violent nation.

That America is not the most violent nation in the world. People associate America and the gun culture as being a violent culture. Americans are not thee most violent people. Yes we have a crime problem but we are not the most violent nation.

Right, we're not as violent overall as the Nazis. Good on us!

But that doesn't mean we're not a violent country, nor does it speak of how we compare to Germany of, say, TODAY instead of WWII.

That America is not the most violent nation in the world. People associate America and the gun culture as being a violent culture. Americans are not thee most violent people. Yes we have a crime problem but we are not the most violent nation.

And who exactly is making that claim?

It does remain a fact that we have higher murder rates per capita than the rest of the rich, industrialized world. Why is that?

As for your example with Germany that violence was being carried out on the order of the German government. Gang violence in Detroit is not.

America is the worst when it comes to current industrialised nations. And as for the Nazi's, i'm certain that the crime rates were much lower there than in the USA now, simply because killing jews wasn't a crime to them, and it was a dictatorship, thus having harsher punishments for doing things and no right to fair trial.

And as for guns in America - its too late for you guys. Too many people have guns and too many people think its a right to carry them. While you may say that is not the guns that kill people, its the people that kill people, why does the USA have so much higher gun-related death rates than the UK and other countries?

America is the worst when it comes to current industrialised nations. And as for the Nazi's, i'm certain that the crime rates were much lower there than in the USA now, simply because killing jews wasn't a crime to them, and it was a dictatorship, thus having harsher punishments for doing things and no right to fair trial.

And as for guns in America - its too late for you guys. Too many people have guns and too many people think its a right to carry them. While you may say that is not the guns that kill people, its the people that kill people, why does the USA have so much higher gun-related death rates than the UK and other countries?

More guns? However again, the problem isn't the guns. I f I decide I'm going to kill someone and I don't have a gun, I am just going to use something else.

More guns? However again, the problem isn't the guns. I f I decide I'm going to kill someone and I don't have a gun, I am just going to use something else.

While you may say that is not the guns that kill people, its the people that kill people, why does the USA have so much higher gun-related death rates than the UK and other countries?

The whole point is i'm asking how it can't be more guns.

As for deciding to kill someone, with a gun, a frail old lady can kill a fit young man without any problems. Try doing that with a knife or other weapon. Guns are the great equaliser, everyone can get shot by one and everyone can use one. There is no skill in killing anymore :(

The whole point is i'm asking how it can't be more guns.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_united_states#Other_international_comparisons

Check out post-transfer relative poverty rates. That should answer your question.

The whole point is i'm asking how it can't be more guns.

As for deciding to kill someone, with a gun, a frail old lady can kill a fit young man without any problems. Try doing that with a knife or other weapon. Guns are the great equaliser, everyone can get shot by one and everyone can use one. There is no skill in killing anymore :(

Killing someone without a gun doesn't necessarily require any more skill.


Also, two factors in why there are more gun deaths in the U.S. (other than there being more guns available) are poverty (as has been pointed out several times before) and lack of education about guns.

Interesting concept, at least initially. It seems to have degraded into the 'Guns Kill People' debate again, though.

At least you're not blaming hip-hop. Dyakovo seems to have the right idea here. Besides the fact that the US has fairly liberal gun laws (three words that are NEVER seen together) and therefore more guns, poverty and a real lack of education on the topic would be the biggest factors.

For example, the concealed carry qualification course in my state is mostly a firearms safety course, with the laws about concealed weapons and a short range session thrown in. The classroom portion lasts about six hours and ends with a written test. The range portion is twenty rounds fired at a police-issue qualification target from ten feet. The students were a diverse cross-section of society, from a little old woman who was tired of her dogs getting attacked to two Armenian shop keepers, a few military guys (me included), and everything in between. There was even a 'gangsta' wannabe (or maybe he was just dressed like one) there as well.

The first portion of the class, the part dealing with the education portion, might be a nice thing to teach the public. The issue would be how. Schools aren't the best choice, hard-core liberals would denounce it as 'teaching our youth to kill' like they did with the marksmanship programs in my JROTC battalion when I was in highschool, and you'd also have to include some anti-gang and DARE programs in with it as well to prevent the knowledge the students gain from being used in a destructive fashion.

The only idea I have is to have it integrated within the DARE program. Formal school instruction would be tricky otherwise.

Let it be? Maybe?

This.

Interesting concept, at least initially. It seems to have degraded into the 'Guns Kill People' debate again, though.
Inevitable
At least you're not blaming hip-hop.
Can I start? ;)
Dyakovo seems to have the right idea here. Besides the fact that the US has fairly liberal gun laws (three words that are NEVER seen together) and therefore more guns, poverty and a real lack of education on the topic would be the biggest factors.
*bows*
The first portion of the class, the part dealing with the education portion, might be a nice thing to teach the public. The issue would be how. Schools aren't the best choice, hard-core liberals would denounce it as 'teaching our youth to kill' like they did with the marksmanship programs in my JROTC battalion when I was in highschool, and you'd also have to include some anti-gang and DARE programs in with it as well to prevent the knowledge the students gain from being used in a destructive fashion.

The only idea I have is to have it integrated within the DARE program. Formal school instruction would be tricky otherwise.
Agreed

<snip>Only a tiny tiny fraction are the gun-nuts like the Michigan Militia. <snip>

Just out of curiosity, how many Michigan Militia members have committed a murder? Timothy McVeigh was erroneously associated with the Militia by the mainstream media, but the Michigan Militia was later declared by the FBI to be clear of involvement with McVeigh and the Oklahoma City Bombing.

Well said, in the 1950s and 1960s you could buy handguns and rifles at the department store. I remember when you could order guns from Sears catalog. Pistol possession was completely unregulated. Guns were extraordinarily easy to get, yet there were never for example, school shootings back then.

^This.

The most gun-related deaths are probably due to gang warfare - and they aren't exactly getting their guns through the legal route that's paved with red tape that we are required to follow. Hindering the average citizen from obtaining a gun will not stop gang crime.

The most gun-related deaths are probably due to gang warfare - and they aren't exactly getting their guns through the legal route that's paved with red tape that we are required to follow. Hindering the average citizen from obtaining a gun will not stop gang crime.

:eek:
You mean criminals won't decide they should obey this law?

Bullet control
$100.00 to buy a bullet

Agreed. I bought my first handgun at age 18 in a small town market festival, a damaged Glock 23 for $450 cash. There was no background check, and no age verification. There was an exchange of money and I went home with a pistol with a broken slide stop, which I replaced and installed for five dollars. I still have no idea where that gun came from and I carried it for a while, strong side FBI cant in a Galco Speed Scabbard.

The whole legal red-tape issue is a needed evil. It deters those that have lost their right to own weapons from easy (relatively) access. The retarded laws that limit magazine capacity, 'Assault Weapon Bans', and other such nonsense aren't helping much. Bushmaster makes a top-loading AR-15 design to appease California gun laws that state rifles cannot have removeable magazines. You have to break the weapon down and load one round at a time into the welded-in magazine.

Granted, North Hollywood was bad, really bad. The bad guys had access to assault rifles and the cops didn't. That has since changed and made this country much safer. It was not, however, the fault of gunmakers. The weapons were illegally modified from factory specifications for fully-automatic operation and you can only modify a given design so far from its original design for semi-automatic operation and even then you can rig a rubber band to do basically the same thing. But I digress...

Making the gun harder to load and hold fewer bullets to use layman's terms won't stop people from using them for bad things, it just makes them think twice about it. If you really wanted to you could drive to Nevada and buy high-capacity magazines and cut the mag well back open again and have a semi-auto carbine, after you added a mag release of course. A toothpick can make a standard AK a fully auto one. We need limitations on that sort of stuff but removing features from guns isn't going to stop them from being used for nefarious purposes.

Education, both on the part of lawmakers and the citizenry, would go a long way towards making a great American hobby (and Constitutional Right) more fufilling. It would also eliminate these needless restricitions on certain features. If the gun was designed to hold fifteen rounds, let it hold fifteen rounds. The gangbanger who owns the exact same model already bought the damn thing illegally and he's not concerned that it's also illegal for him to own magazines that hold more than ten rounds. It's only hurting the 'good guys' as it were.

My point, which I think I failed to make during my tirade (sorry guys) is that criminals are going to get guns even if there's a national ban on them, just look at the United Kingdom. That would just make regular people easier prey for these evil bastards.

Bullet control
$100.00 to buy a bullet

You'd tank a sizeable portion of the US economy that way. The firearms (and by extension the ammunition) industry keeps a lot of machine shops, steel mills, and a myriad of other industries in business. Hunting and other outdoor spots like skeet shooting would vanish, since hunting bullets kill people just as dead. I can think of seven companies off the top of my head that exsist solely to customize different sorts of firearms and make the accessories to do so. They'd all go under, too.

It'd be like making gas $100 a gallon. Look at truck sales with the recent spikes in gas prices.

Just out of curiosity, how many Michigan Militia members have committed a murder? Timothy McVeigh was erroneously associated with the Militia by the mainstream media, but the Michigan Militia was later declared by the FBI to be clear of involvement with McVeigh and the Oklahoma City Bombing.

Here's the most serious thing the Michigan Militia was ever involved in.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE5DF1238F936A15755C0A963958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

The way Eric Maloney tells the story, the plan to blow up Camp Grayling, a National Guard base in northern Michigan, was hatched in late January when 70 members of the Michigan Militia Corps, a statewide right-wing paramilitary group, met at a truck-stop restaurant northwest of Detroit.

Here's the most serious thing the Michigan Militia was ever involved in.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE5DF1238F936A15755C0A963958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

Isn't Camp Grayling also a training sight for the MVDF?

Just tax it. For every gun you have, you pay $3000. This money can be used to cure the victims of guns.

As I said previously, I lost my rifle in a tragic boating accident in Long Island Sound. ;)

It's rather difficult to strangle one. And I never heard about a school-strangle incident where one strangled 15 students in 20 minutes. It's almost impossible for a child to strangle an adult.

Guns are other meat.

Actually firearms aren't any kind of meat. They're inanimate objects made of steel, aluminum, wood, and plastic. :D

Why protect yourself against something that probably never will happen?

It seems that many Americans are showing and obsessive compulsive personality disorder when they talk about guns.

Believe me, you don’t need a gun, even if you are American.

Of course I need a firearm. How else do you expect me to put holes in paper from hundreds of yards away? I can't throw a bullet as far or as accurately as firing it from a firearm. :tongue:

Mmm, using a rope to kill someone is really difficult. You need technique, force and luck. When the other party is bigger or stronger then you will probably not kill someone.

A mouse with a gun can kill an elephant.

Mice probably wouldn't be able to pull the trigger of most elephant guns. That, and they wouldn't be able to handle the recoil. :p

For me it's clear: only dumb people have a gun. It's something as smoking cigarettes, drinking too much or dropping out school soon.

How do you calculate that only dumb people have firearms? My brother in law has a lot of firearms. He's an electrician, working at UConn (which is a difficult job to get). I have a degree in Computer Systems, and I have a firearm.

Bullet control
$100.00 to buy a bullet

Something like that was already suggested. And as I pointed out in response to that post, it isn't rocket science to make your own ammo. Plenty of people do it.

I went to a gun show on Saturday. Sadly, the ammo prices were no better than at the local sporting goods store, and I don't have any oddball calibers or unusual guns that need parts so it was pretty much a wasted trip. Too bad I didn't have the coin for the nice HK91, or even an L1A1. I want a good semi-auto 7.62 NATO rifle.

I went to a gun show on Saturday. Sadly, the ammo prices were no better than at the local sporting goods store, and I don't have any oddball calibers or unusual guns that need parts so it was pretty much a wasted trip. Too bad I didn't have the coin for the nice HK91, or even an L1A1. I want a good semi-auto 7.62 NATO rifle.

Sadly, both those choices are banned in my state. Have you considered an M1a/M14?

Sadly, both those choices are banned in my state. Have you considered an M1a/M14?

yeah, like a gangbanger is gonna use a $2500 rifle to shoot up a school. I like the M14, but I didn't happen upon any for sale. I saw a Ruger Mini-14, but I don't want a .223 mouse gun :p I also don't like the safety switch inside the trigger guard - not the safest place IMHO

yeah, like a gangbanger is gonna use a $2500 rifle to shoot up a school. I like the M14, but I didn't happen upon any for sale. I saw a Ruger Mini-14, but I don't want a .223 mouse gun :p I also don't like the safety switch inside the trigger guard - not the safest place IMHO

Ah, I see. BTW, what do you have against .223?

/me looks at his AR15, and wonders.

Ah, I see. BTW, what do you have against .223?

/me looks at his AR15, and wonders.

I have a Thompson Encore with a .223 bull barrel. I would prefer a .308 rifle because .223 is not exactly the best choice for game here and I want a semi-auto because a follow-up shot is really awkward with the Encore. Plus, semi-auto is fun at the range.

I own guns. I am an intelligent, thoughtful, conservative American. (as much as some of you may want to think that an oxymoron) Why do I own guns?

I am a sportsman. I hunt, I trap shoot, I enjoy many of the hobbies that guns are so often associated with.

Though I am not generally afraid for my life, the fact remains, if someone ever threatened the me or my family, that I have some line of defense.

Most importantly; it can be noted that some of the most dangerous dictators in history have made sure to disarm their citizens before seizing power. Maybe this makes me a paranoid gun nut, but I do not trust the US government to have that SOLE monopoly on deadly force.

I certainly don't worship my guns, they're a tool. But the founding fathers were on to something when they GUARANTEED gun ownership as a right. It's very important to me, and to many Americans, and though many will take things the wrong way, I don't think there is any problem with the so called "gun culture" in the United States. I think, rather, than is a fundamental lack of unterstanding and tolerance between the two sides of the debate.

The real problem we need to confront is the culture of crime and dependency in our society. Eliminate that, and guns suddenly aren't so much of a problem.

I have a Thompson Encore with a .223 bull barrel. I would prefer a .308 rifle because .223 is not exactly the best choice for game here and I want a semi-auto because a follow-up shot is really awkward with the Encore. Plus, semi-auto is fun at the range.

Ah. I only use my AR15 at the range, so game-stopping power wasn't high on my list (I do agree with you on your last point :D).

Let us know what you decide to go with.

I do not trust the US government to have that SOLE monopoly on deadly force.


But sure, trust them with a few nukes tanks, and other fun technology that makes the gun culture pale in comparison :).

But sure, trust them with a few nukes tanks, and other fun technology that makes the gun culture pale in comparison :).

No, I really don't, actually. I think it's unfortunate that the governments of the world have forced eachother to grab as much power from their own citizens as they can, in order to defend themselves from eachother.

Imagine the power each individual on Earth could have if every world government would just leave things the heck alone, and let people handle most problems for themselves.

No, I really don't, actually. I think it's unfortunate that the governments of the world have forced eachother to grab as much power from their own citizens as they can, in order to defend themselves from eachother.

Imagine the power each individual on Earth could have if every world government would just leave things the heck alone, and let people handle most problems for themselves.

That idea doesn't get you much popularity here. Of course, I'm a fairly radical libertarian, so I may have a slightly skewed view, but a lot of NSg'ers are in favor of an authoritarian government.

For me it's clear: only dumb people have a gun. It's something as smoking cigarettes, drinking too much or dropping out school soon.

American Deaths, 2005: (most recent figures available)

Automobiles: 43,443
Poisoning: 32,691
Firearms: 30,694

NHTSA link: http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/08/motorcycle_deaths.html
CDC link: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/pubs/pubd/hestats/injury99-05/injury99-05.htm

Is everyone that owns a car REALLY dumb then? How about people that own DRANO? Ban Windex now!! CLEAN KITCHENS KILL!!! (lol)

...and, btw: the over HALF of all firearms death is from suicide (17,002 in 2006, I'd reckon about the same for 2005...). I guess it's just easier than jumping off a bridge or razorblading in the tub.
CDC link: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm

That idea doesn't get you much popularity here. Of course, I'm a fairly radical libertarian, so I may have a slightly skewed view, but a lot of NSg'ers are in favor of an authoritarian government.

Alot of them LIVE in authoritarian governments too. ;)

as Chris Rock said:

We dont need no gun control. You know what we need? We need some bullet control. We need to man.. we need to control the bullets. Thats right, I think all bullets should cost five thousand dollars. Five thousand dollars for a bullet, you know why? Cuz if a bullet costs five thousand dollars then there'd be no more innocent bystanders!

Yeah, everytime somebody gets shot people'd be like "Damn he musta done somethin! shit they put fifteen thousand dollars worth of bullets in his as$!"

And people will think twice before they kill somebody if a bullet costs five thousand dollars.

"Man i would blow your ****in head off... if i could afford it! Imma get me another job, imma start savin some money, and youz a dead man! You better hope i cant get no bullets on layaway!"

I am going to take the liberal approach.
The reason people buy guns and bullets and glamorize it so much is because they are outlawed and restricted. the solution is to stop giving government justification to the gun culture by removing the outlaw status associated with the gun. Remove all regulation and decriminalize all weapons. You see similar drops in usage in the EU when they decriminalized drugs.

Isn't Camp Grayling also a training sight for the MVDF?

I'm fairly certain it is. Grayling is used by all the arms of the state military establishment as well as various police agencies throughout the state. Grayling is actually the largest military base (if one counts impact areas and such) east of the Mississippi.

as Chris Rock said:

We dont need no gun control. You know what we need? We need some bullet control. We need to man.. we need to control the bullets. Thats right, I think all bullets should cost five thousand dollars. Five thousand dollars for a bullet, you know why? Cuz if a bullet costs five thousand dollars then there'd be no more innocent bystanders!

Yeah, everytime somebody gets shot people'd be like "Damn he musta done somethin! shit they put fifteen thousand dollars worth of bullets in his as$!"

And people will think twice before they kill somebody if a bullet costs five thousand dollars.

"Man i would blow your ****in head off... if i could afford it! Imma get me another job, imma start savin some money, and youz a dead man! You better hope i cant get no bullets on layaway!"

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14152515&postcount=225

I'd suggest Gun classes part of PE, with marksmanship training. Did you ever notice how the bulk of accidents are from regions where they don't use guns daily and rarely encounter them?

I'm fairly certain it is. Grayling is used by all the arms of the state military establishment as well as various police agencies throughout the state. Grayling is actually the largest military base (if one counts impact areas and such) east of the Mississippi.

The irony is rather amusing, no?

The irony is rather amusing, no?

It's delicious. I wonder if anyone in the Michigan Militia realizes how ironic that is.

I am going to take the liberal approach.
The reason people buy guns and bullets and glamorize it so much is because they are outlawed and restricted. the solution is to stop giving government justification to the gun culture by removing the outlaw status associated with the gun. Remove all regulation and decriminalize all weapons. You see similar drops in usage in the EU when they decriminalized drugs.

Um... weapons aren't criminalized. At least for the moment, it's perfectly legal (though expensive for type 3s) to go and buy any firearm you can think of in the USA.

But I do agree that there should be far less restrictions. Prohibition was an abject failure; the war on drugs is likewise. And all gun control should be is a license, granted with the minimum requirements -- just like a car licsense is granted at the DMV. In return, concealed carry in 50 states. Done. :)

Why protect yourself against something that probably never will happen?

It seems that many Americans are showing and obsessive compulsive personality disorder when they talk about guns.

Believe me, you don’t need a gun, even if you are American.

Why have car insurance when you probably will never get into an accident, your fault or not? Why have home insurance when you probably will never have a fire, be hit be a flood or tornado or hurrican?

So banning firearms from lawabidding people makes complete and utter sense. You know, because that guy that hunts upland game (birds like pheasent and quail), water fowl (like ducks or geese), or big game (deer or elk), is really the guy we want to take firearms away from. The guy that participates in accuracy competitions and skeet/clay target competitions is really the guy who should have laws placed against him. The guy that collects rare guns for show is someone to really fear, right?

You know those folks are the real problem with firearm ownership. It's not the shady dealers or illegal black-market dealers offering guns to crazy people. It's can't be criminals that laugh at the gun laws already in place, and only know enough about firearms in how to load them and which end to point away from themselves. It isn't the gang bangers that are doing drive-bys and hitting innocent kids and adults while shooting at rival gangs with illegal firearms. No, it's really the lawabiding folk who are the problem. They are the real trouble you have to deal with.

It is like the anti-gun crowd never thinks beyond their own narrow view of the world and realize that by making gun ownership by private citizens illegal will do nothing to end gun crimes. I think DC is a prime example of this where guns were illegal but they had a very high level of gun related crimes happening daily. To them itis like hunting, sport shooting, or even personal protection is a crime.

Guns are not something to fear. They are to be respected and treated approprately. It is the burglers, muggers, gang-bangers, Mobsters, and other criminals that you need to fear. Even if you eliminated all firearms with a wave of your hand, you know that crime wouldn't stop.

I think DC is a prime example of this where guns were illegal but they had a very high level of gun related crimes happening daily. To them itis like hunting, sport shooting, or even personal protection is a crime.... It is the burglers, muggers, gang-bangers, Mobsters, and other criminals that you need to fear. Even if you eliminated all firearms with a wave of your hand, you know that crime wouldn't stop.

So, what would you do about gun violence in the USA? Do you have a solution?

So, what would you do about gun violence in the USA? Do you have a solution?

Gun violence has dropped substantially over the past 10 to 15 years.

Do I have to post the Department of Justice statistics link over and over again?

All the while gun ownership has increased substantially, and almost every state now allows concealed carry of pistols.

If more guns meant more violence... but it doesn't.

The violence drop is probably the result of destroying concentrated subsidized housing in America, a process that began in 1995. Disperse the poor and get rid of ghettos like Cabrini Green, and the violence drops substantially.

More than half of the firearm violence in the US is an urban black problem - maybe you should wonder why their culture results in a substantially higher risk of firearm violence than any other subculture in the US.

More than half of the firearm violence in the US is an urban black problem - maybe you should wonder why their culture results in a substantially higher risk of firearm violence than any other subculture in the US.

At least there's no need to wonder what your views are on the subject.

At least there's no need to wonder what your views are on the subject.

And you're ignorant of the statistics:

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.

And you're ignorant of the statistics:

You base this on what, exactly?

You base this on what, exactly?

You think I'm saying they're a problem just because they're black.

Well, the statistics show that they're more than half the problem.

Gun violence has dropped substantially over the past 10 to 15 years.

Good. Soon the USA might have gun crime statistics as low as the rest of the developed world.

All the while gun ownership has increased substantially, and almost every state now allows concealed carry of pistols.

Are you saying that the increase in guns has led to a decrease in gun violence? I need to see proof of causation.

If more guns meant more violence... but it doesn't.

Good thing I'm not claiming that.

The violence drop is probably the result of destroying concentrated subsidized housing in America, a process that began in 1995. Disperse the poor and get rid of ghettos like Cabrini Green, and the violence drops substantially.

That's an interesting opinion.

More than half of the firearm violence in the US is an urban black problem - maybe you should wonder why their culture results in a substantially higher risk of firearm violence than any other subculture in the US.

I like the way you assume that it is their 'culture' that makes them prone to gun violence. Other than your racism, do you have any evidence for such an assumption?

I like the way you assume that it is their 'culture' that makes them prone to gun violence. Other than your racism, do you have any evidence for such an assumption?

Maybe you need to look at the stats I posted. What, does a gun magically make a black person more likely to commit crime, or is it their pattern of socialization that has done so?

You think I'm saying they're a problem just because they're black.

I think you're a racist because you're suddenly talking about what a "problem" black people are.

Hmm... I just used my magical ability to think, and nope, your racism doesn't mean I'm "ignorant" of anything at all.

Well, the statistics show that they're more than half the problem.

You're only proving my point.

Maybe you need to look at the stats I posted. What, does a gun magically make a black person more likely to commit crime, or is it their pattern of socialization that has done so?

Your stats do not show why blacks are more associated with gun violence. They do not say it is because of balck culture, whatever that is. You are the one who said it was due to their culture. Now prove it.

Your stats do not show why blacks are more associated with gun violence. They do not say it is because of balck culture, whatever that is. You are the one who said it was due to their culture. Now prove it.

It's obviously a problem they have. I've proven that much.

Now, are you going to say it's the tooth fairy, or "whitey forcing them to shoot each other" or are you going to say the politically incorrect thing, and say it's their own damn fault?

It's obviously a problem they have. I've proven that much.

Now, are you going to say it's the tooth fairy, or "whitey forcing them to shoot each other" or are you going to say the politically incorrect thing, and say it's their own damn fault?

Do I have to choose one of your stupid options, or can I choose one that actually has something to do with reality?

So.. Blacks are evil murderers, and because of their culture, inclined to be criminals, is that the point your trying to get at? (Hello folks, new here)

It's obviously a problem they have. I've proven that much.

Now, are you going to say it's the tooth fairy, or "whitey forcing them to shoot each other" or are you going to say the politically incorrect thing, and say it's their own damn fault?

You're not saying it's anyone's fault. You're saying it's "black culture's" fault.
(Yes, we know what you mean by 'culture.')

Your thinking leads to: "I didn't kill anyone, Your Honor. It was my culture made me do it."

The exact opposite of personal responsibility. But if it's any consolation, you're wrong about so many other things that you won't even notice this once more.

Um... weapons aren't criminalized. At least for the moment, it's perfectly legal (though expensive for type 3s) to go and buy any firearm you can think of in the USA.

But I do agree that there should be far less restrictions. Prohibition was an abject failure; the war on drugs is likewise. And all gun control should be is a license, granted with the minimum requirements -- just like a car licsense is granted at the DMV. In return, concealed carry in 50 states. Done. :)

IN DC it is criminalized. Or was some supreme court case might have changed it. But yeah gun violence will stop when you stop making the glamor of violating the law. I also meant decriminalize concealed carry. Make it something that anyone can do, and carrying a gun in your belt stops being the be all end all of the thug life.

People who are, by nature, violent (that'd be Americans in general) will tend to gravitate toward more efficient methods of violence. Lucky for us, it's guns and not, say, home-made semtex, ANFO cocktails, or other, less selective, methods of demonstrating how poorly we as a culture get along.

It's not a "Gun Culture" or "Black (violence) culture", it's American Culture. Walk into a video-rental place, count the number of boxes with some top-name star holding a gun on the cover-posing with it, brandishing it.

Including stars that speak at workshops and fundraisers for gun-control groups.

Kids see this, they see weapons glorified as the path to power-and nobody craves power like adolescents and those whose personal development runs toward adolescent revenge fantasies.

The thing about a Gun, is that it makes you just as lethal as a three-hundered pound professional fighter. A gun "Equalizes" your relative available force if you're small, or weak, or not-very-fast. No other (non bomb) weapon does that.

The problem is, just like with the Vote or any other Liberty, it's dangerous in the hands of the irresponsible (er, to be more politically correct, the "Responsibility Challenged"). In places where people tend to be more personally responsible (NOT the Inner City) you really don't need one, which is the paradox of an armed culture- because responsible people don't idolize criminals and want to be like them.

It's not the fault of "media", that's just a Symptom. The fault lies in a culture that increasingly looks to outside sources (government, 'society') both to lay blame, and to come save them from themselves. If you want to put paid to urban violence and gun-crimes, you have to address the underlying issue-which isn't the weapons, it's the socialization that encourages the mindset that creates the criminal.

So, what would you do about gun violence in the USA? Do you have a solution?

I do, but it involves those convicted of homicide with any weapon (gun, knife, car, lead pipe, etc) to be given mandatory 20 year sentences of hard labor per incident.
If this happened we'd see a big reduction of crime. Why? Because to a reasonably large portion of the population, jail is better than the street. And most people really, really hate hard labor. ;)

IN DC it is criminalized. Or was some supreme court case might have changed it. But yeah gun violence will stop when you stop making the glamor of violating the law. I also meant decriminalize concealed carry. Make it something that anyone can do, and carrying a gun in your belt stops being the be all end all of the thug life.

DC now allows firearms. Sort of. (But bizarely anything with 12+ rounds is still considered a machine gun.)

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-07-05-dc-gun-ban_N.htm

Exactly so. I totally agree.

So, what would you do about gun violence in the USA? Do you have a solution?

Just a repost of my previous statement:

Instead of gun laws that do nothing to curb any gun violence, how about outlawing gangs? Gang-related firearm crime make up a large segment of the gun crimes commited in the US so making gangs illegal could help police in combating this issue? How about laws that make it a felony to be in a gang? I don't know this is just off the top of my head and I haven't put serious thought into it since I don't live in an area where we worry about drive-bys or firearm violence.

Maybe an automatic 5-10 years in prision, no possibility for parol, for using a weapon during the commission of any violent crime.

Minimum 10 years in jail and life-time parole for anyone that uses a gun in a commission of a crime.

Things like that may help more than the laws we have now. Do I know if they would? No, I would be a fool to say this is a certainty. All I can say is I believe it would be likely.

Now, personally I'm not going to willingly give up my rights to a hunting rifle (which is basically a semi-automatic version of the M-16) or my hunting shotgun (which is a semi-automatic version of an automatic assult shotgun used by police), just so you can have an illusion of safety living in a major metro area.

I want to also point out the infamous "North Hollywood Shootout". Bank robbers armed with automatic weapons (illegally bought and illegally modified), steel-core ammunition (imported) and armored vests (illegally purchased materials to create their own armor) didn't care about gun laws. They bought their goods from black markets dealers and shady importers. Not a single gun law helped stop this incident. Not a single gun law has stopped any of the school shootings from happening.

What do you think will happen by making guns illegal? You honestly, in your heart and mind, believe that gun crimes will end? That violence in the city will end and you will be as safe as someone living in a small town in rural North Dakota or Nebraska is? Do you believe that making it illegal for the average lawabiding citizen to own a gun will stop gun crime? We made alcohol illegal in the 1920's and it did nothing to stop people who wanted to drink from getting their drinks. We made drugs illegal but it doesn't stop people who want to get high/stoned/cranked/blasted/whatever from aquiring drugs. Why would you actually believe, given these facts, that making firearms illegal for the average person to own would stop firearm crimes (or from people to own firearms?)

You also realize that there is a LARGE number of Americans that hunt (bird, small and big game) and/or sport shoot (target shooting, skeet shooting, accuracy shooting, quick draw etc) and because a few kids in gangs and some serious criminals (bank robbers and such) are misusing firearms, you want to take away guns from everyone? Well with that logic, if some one doesn't have a driver's license, steals a car (or buys a stolen car), then uses it to run down a rival gang member or uses it in the commission of a crime, should we then start looking at banning cars? No, because cars are used for many other peaceful purposes. Guns are the same.


I think you're a racist because you're suddenly talking about what a "problem" black people are.

Hmm... I just used my magical ability to think, and nope, your racism doesn't mean I'm "ignorant" of anything at all.

You're only proving my point.

Actually, I am not agreeing with either of you but I will say the statistics just say that there is a disportionate number of firearm related crimes committed by the black population. There is nothing racist about pointing out the facts as recorded by the Department of Justice. You can't scream "YOU ARE A RACIST" if the cold, impersonal facts point to show the disportionate numbers. Statistics of all violent crimes committed in the time frame of the study by the DOJ (they have ice pick and even SCISSOR related violent crimes in that report), point out the cold facts by the government. How is that racist?

WHY are the stats are like that? I can only speculate that it comes from the urban ghettos and gang related violence, but that isn't listed in the stats so it is just a guess.

EDIT: I glanced over the report and wish to make the correction to my prior statement in the fact that the report by the DOJ does state in that violent firearm crimes are more likely to happen in the ghettos, and gang related firearm violence is more common than your un-affiliated/lone criminal using a firearm in the commission of a crime.

Actually, I am not agreeing with either of you but I will say the statistics just say that there is a disportionate number of firearm related crimes committed by the black population. There is nothing racist about pointing out the facts as recorded by the Department of Justice. WHY are the stats are like that? I can only speculate that it comes from the urban ghettos and gang related violence, but that isn't listed in the stats so it is just a guess.

No it's not listed, yet Hotwife used these statistics nonetheless to say that black 'culture' was a 'problem,' and obviously has a racist bent to this line of 'argument.' No, pointing out statistics is not inherently racist. Pointing out statistics like this and using them along with a basically racist premise and outputting a racist conclusion is, however.

It's like when anti-Semites tell us about how there's a disproportionately large amount of Jews in 'the media.' ZOMG JEWS CONTROL THE MEDIA! Same kind of 'reasoning.' It assumes some sort of negative racial conspiracy or trait, like Jews being an power-hungry cabal, or black people being inherently violent. Hotwife may deny it, or more likely ignore it and pretend he didn't, but he made a flawed, and racist argument.

This is a direct copy/paste from the very start of the report. I bolded what hotwife pasted in their post that you replied to. Honestly it just looks like they copy and pasted (like I just did). I can see how you can take that as racist, but then again it's a direct copy/paste from the report :(



U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Special Report

Weapon Use and Violent Crime
National Crime Victimization Survey, 1993-2001

September 2003, NCJ 194820


--------------------------------------------------------------
This file is text only without graphics and many of the tables.
A Zip archive of the tables in this report in spreadsheet format
(.wk1) and the full report including tables and graphics in
.pdf format are available from:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/wuvc01.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------

By Craig Perkins
BJS Statistician

--------------------------------------------
Highlights

For nonfatal violent crimes, offenders were more likely to
have a firearm than a knife or club. From 1993 to 2001 the
rate of firearm violence fell 63%

* Approximately half of all robberies, about a quarter of
all assaults, and roughly a twelfth of all rapes/sexual
assaults involved an armed assailant. About 90% of
homicide victims were killed with a weapon.

* 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.

* The likelihood of an injury was the same for victims
facing armed and unarmed offenders (26%); serious injury
was more likely from armed offenders (7% versus 2%).

* From 1993 through 2001 the number of murders declined
36% while the number of murders by firearms dropped 41%.

* From 1994 through 1999, the years for which data are
available, about 7 in 10 murders at school involved some
type of firearm, and approximately 1 in 2 murders at
school involved a handgun.


EDIT: I found Hotwife's PRIOR post and now I understand the back and forth comments.
More than half of the firearm violence in the US is an urban black problem - maybe you should wonder why their culture results in a substantially higher risk of firearm violence than any other subculture in the US.


Well given the statistics in the report, you can come to the conclusion that there is a problem if a disproportionate number of people in one group makes up for most of the gun related crime. I DON'T believe it is a culture thing. I believe it is a social problem. When you are poor and hungry and the only way of life you have known is either you need to bust your ass in school to get to college and out of the ghetto, or you fall in with a gang, I can see how some kids may fall in with the gang. Also, I think that the gansta-rap stars may be adding to the problem in a way that they glamorize gangs and crime. Their music videos are filled with diamonds, money and beautiful women while they rap about shooting, committing crimes and other illegal activities. I would hope most people can see it isn't that way in real life, but as an impressionable pre-teen or teenager, I could see how some would want to emulate that. They want to "protect their rep" so they kill someone because of some real or immagined infraction. I can also see the younger kids looking up to the older gang-bangers (those they think are cool guys or it could be family members like brothers and cousins they are looking up to) and wanting to be just like them, so they would commit crimes and be willing to use a gun against anyone that 'stepped to them'. Again, it's not culture. It is a social problem. If we take away the reason to use violence, then perhap the issue would stop...or maybe it won't. Drugs are a big business where someone without a college education (or even finishing high school) can make more than some doctors and lawyers. You have to protect your 'sales area' from outside sellers so I can see guns being used to get rid of the competition (or to expand your area of influence). If you either are going to flip burgers or pick up trash or some other ego-crushing, minimum wage job for nearly the rest of your life, or you could sell drugs and make a large amount of money...and with that comes using guns to protect yourself or take out rivals, then perhaps the way to solve the problem is to offer more opprotunities to get out of the ghettos. Again, it isn't a race issue...it's a class issue, IMHO. Blacks that do not live in the ghetto and have the same opprotunities as whites, hispanics, asians or any other race would rather go to a normal 9-5 or 8-5 job than sell drugs. Hell all of my middle-class black, indian, white or Hispanic friends (I do not have any asian friends since they are very very rare here in the Dakotas and I just haven't bumped into any) work 8-5 jobs and none of them are inclined to gun related violence.

I believe that it was Chicago that implemented a program to move families from the 'project' housing into middleclass neighborhoods that were predominately white, and years later there was statistical proof that nearly all children in families which were in the program had chosen a life of regular, respectable work and not one of gang-related life. More programs like this might actually cut the gun related violence down since we are taking away the reason to use a gun.

I am just guessing. I could be wrong and hey, I'm the first one to admit it.

This is a direct copy/paste from the very start of the report. I bolded what hotwife pasted in their post that you replied to. Honestly it just looks like they copy and pasted (like I just did). I can see how you can take that as racist, but then again it's a direct copy/paste from the report :(

I replied to this ugly post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14162953&postcount=323).

More than half of the firearm violence in the US is an urban black problem - maybe you should wonder why their culture results in a substantially higher risk of firearm violence than any other subculture in the US.

And this one (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14162997&postcount=327), in which he says black people "are more than half the problem." Or this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14163014&postcount=329) in which he declares that black persons' "pattern of socialization" makes "them" commit crimes.

CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION. Repeat it with me, you and Hotwife. Your implicit assumptions that it does are completely irrational. There are many factors in gun crime, and blaming "black culture" is not just racist, it's fucking retarded.

I replied to this ugly post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14162953&postcount=323).



And this one (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14162997&postcount=327), in which he says black people "are more than half the problem." Or this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14163014&postcount=329) in which he declares that black persons' "pattern of socialization" makes "them" commit crimes.

CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION. Repeat it with me, you and Hotwife. Your implicit assumptions that it does are completely irrational. There are many factors in gun crime, and blaming "black culture" is not just racist, it's fucking retarded.


I just read your post but I had gone back and added to mine before I saw yours.

I said, prior to reading your post, that it isn't (in my opinion) a culture issue but a social issue...a class issue. Again I admit I don't live in a big city. I don't live in the ghetto. I only ask, given the cold statistics, what is the causation that a disportionate number of the firearm related crimes are committed by blacks that live in the ghettos? I can only think that it is because they see their lives have only two outcomes....get through high school and college and climb out of the ghetto, or join a gang (or go off on their own and commit crimes like stealing cars or selling drugs)

I believe if we can give them more options...more opprotunities and let them choose, I believe most would want to chose a clean life away from gangs, guns, drugs, and violence.

Give everyone guns require that they be carried at all times. Now guns are not associated with criminals. Instead the criminals will be those who are unarmed. Rappers and heavy metal songs will go on about how they don't have a gun and are proud to be breaking the law.

It's delicious. I wonder if anyone in the Michigan Militia realizes how ironic that is.

I don't think Michigan Militia members know what Irony is. But you could point to their plan to blow up Camp Grayling as an epic form of it.

I don't think Michigan Militia members know what Irony is. But you could point to their plan to blow up Camp Grayling as an epic form of it.

At least the Michigan Militia has this going for it.

http://www.michiganmilitia.com/gallery.htm

At least the Michigan Militia has this going for it.

http://www.michiganmilitia.com/gallery.htm

How in the hell did they get two black women to pose for them?

How in the hell did they get two black women to pose for them?

Who knows. I'd assume most or all of the women exchanged sexy posing for currency.

Hmmm! Sex and death. Very Hemingway!

Hmmm! Sex and death. Very Hemingway!

Ironically enough, Hemingway used to spend a great deal of time in northern Michigan, where the Militia used to be based.

How in the hell did they get two black women to pose for them?

so militia = hates minorities? I'd say you're a bit prejudiced...

How in the hell did they get two black women to pose for them?

You didn't hear??? All the white militia groups formed a co op with black militants. The whites go train in the inner city and the blacks come out to train in the country. The new black panthers recently just had a cow girl posing for them.

Who knows. I'd assume most or all of the women exchanged sexy posing for currency.

How do you know the Michigan Militia has this so called "currency"? I would think such masters of the Ironic would have little need for such governmentarian goods.

I would like to point out that violence in general has been a major part of human society forever. Any laws that restrict gun ownership would only affect those of us who follow the rules. No law will ever be able to remove weapons from the hands of those who already break the law.

http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=6166

America is bad. I blame the gun lobby as people get so keen to hold and protect their gun ownership. There is no other country with a gun lobby as powerful as the US

How do you know the Michigan Militia has this so called "currency"? I would think such masters of the Ironic would have little need for such governmentarian goods.

I bet they'd use Liberty Dollars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_Dollar)

Just an aside for our Leftist friends...

The Michigan Militia sometime in the nineties placed a gentleman of colour in their highest internal position, that is, in their most senior leadership position. This was also about the time they realized their fundraising efforts could be turned into a genuine business that was self-sustaining apart from their political stance.

i.e. "The Michigan Militia" is a company, that is, a commercial entity now. They sell stuff, they make money. They do not HAVE a 'position on race'.

Just an aside for our Leftist friends...

The Michigan Militia sometime in the nineties placed a gentleman of colour in their highest internal position, that is, in their most senior leadership position. This was also about the time they realized their fundraising efforts could be turned into a genuine business that was self-sustaining apart from their political stance.

i.e. "The Michigan Militia" is a company, that is, a commercial entity now. They sell stuff, they make money. They do not HAVE a 'position on race'.

Number one, no, Norm Olsen was always the commander of the organization.

Number two, regarding positions on race, they do. From their website.

Because a well-armed citizenry is the best Homeland Security, and can better deter crime, invasion, terrorism, or tyranny...The intention of this MichiganMilitia.com website is to inform, promote and facilitate the development and training of the militia. Everyone is welcome, regardless of race, creed, color, tint, or hue; regardless of your religion (or lack thereof); regardless of your political affiliation (or lack thereof, with this caveat: If you intend to bring harm or destruction to our fellow citizens, you are NOT welcome); regardless of anything else: if you are a US Citizen or have declared your intent to become such, who is capable of bearing arms, or wishes to support someone doing so, then you ARE the militia...

However, just because they moderated their positions in recent years doesn't mean we're not going to pick on them.

Also, you're making quite the assumption when you call both TSI and I "leftists".

OOps, I wasn't meaning to offend in such a way-'tis more a matter of referencing those too timid to post... (headbash-headbash-headbash).

and thanks for the correction. It's been a long time since I was "involved", and with age comes senility, dontcha know.

OOps, I wasn't meaning to offend in such a way-'tis more a matter of referencing those too timid to post... (headbash-headbash-headbash).

and thanks for the correction. It's been a long time since I was "involved", and with age comes senility, dontcha know.

Actually I am a leftist, but I don't think TSI would identify himself as such. The reason I took issue with it is that you seemed to be running under the assumption of "Oh, they're making fun of the Militia, they must be a bunch of gun-grabbing lefties". While I may be a leftist I'm also very pro gun.

don't need to, you just need to out maneuver them.

again nope. owning guns won't mean the state will constantly check on you. MISUSING guns will do that. ;)


Will, Determination and Planning.

When the Americans rebelled against the British, the British had better ships, better Guns, more money and definately better training. but the Americans had the Will, and Determination.

planning can get around things like lack of money, Resources and equiptment. Only a fool goes into a stand-up fight against a superior armed force. but a smart man will deploy what he has with intelligence.

Yes but the British had one small problem, the British navy (it was the best in the world at that time, twice the size of the second and third largest navies combined!) couldn't move troops in the US fast enough, the troopships were delayed and destroyed by Spanish, French and pirates, if America was closer then the British would have beat the crap out of the Americans, also the colour of the British uniforms were red, which could easily be spotted and most of the troops were convicts sentenced to the army, the Americans were also funded by France (bankrupt after the war) and Spain without the funding then the Americans wouldn't even had proper weapons. Like you said they had a larger force, better trained men and better technology. They just weren't prepared. But I do agree that Americans do have a good fighting spirit, but sometimes they can become slightly too aggressive.

Just a repost of my previous statement:

Instead of gun laws that do nothing to curb any gun violence, how about outlawing gangs? Gang-related firearm crime make up a large segment of the gun crimes commited in the US so making gangs illegal could help police in combating this issue? How about laws that make it a felony to be in a gang? I don't know this is just off the top of my head and I haven't put serious thought into it since I don't live in an area where we worry about drive-bys or firearm violence.

Wait a moment... You'd reduce freedom of assembly?
How do you define gang?

Very easy solution to your problem:
1) Gun licence US wide, allowing concealed/open carry. Difficult enough to deter from buying a gun those that really do not mean it (you know, the I bought a gun 5 years ago for personal protection but I don't know any more where it is). Yet easy enough to get if shooting at the range is your favorite sport.
2) Stiff sentences for carrying a gun without the licence (or without the supervision of a licence carrying person).

Actually this is kind of the way it generally works in Europe (except the concealed carry part, but that varies from state to state).

Whatever you do, or what the government does, won't stop gun use, the world isn't ready for it, guns have been around for hundreds of years and for hundreds of years to come, although most people don't like guns there will always be a percentage of people who believe that the use of weapons can win battles, gun restrictions don't help that much, trying to tell someone to surrender their weapon is very difficult. educating people about how bad guns are is very difficult work, because all a kid can think of are guns and how they are "cool". There's basically almost nothing we can do, unless if the government knocks off a few stuff from the constitution (and people dont like that). The only way to stop or reduce the use of guns is if the US turns into a police-state or something, and gun owners and gun enthusiasts will be very pissed off.

Make the price of bullets so high that no-one will shoot anyone unless they really really really deserve it. say about $2000 per bullet should do it.

Make the price of bullets so high that no-one will shoot anyone unless they really really really deserve it. say about $2000 per bullet should do it.

Chris Rock's suggestion has already been posted at least half a dozen times.

Chris Rock's suggestion has already been posted at least half a dozen times.

that's because it's simple and it's funny.

that's because it's simple and it's funny.

Funny because it'd never work? I think so. It is relatively easy to make your own ammo, people do it all the time.

1) Gun licence US wide, allowing concealed/open carry. Difficult enough to deter from buying a gun those that really do not mean it (you know, the I bought a gun 5 years ago for personal protection but I don't know any more where it is). Yet easy enough to get if shooting at the range is your favorite sport.

You do know that like 39 states have mandatory reporting laws - if a firearm goes missing, and you don't report it, you can be charged with a crime?

I suggest replacing it with a gin culture. G and T anyone?

I do, but it involves those convicted of homicide with any weapon (gun, knife, car, lead pipe, etc) to be given mandatory 20 year sentences of hard labor per incident.
If this happened we'd see a big reduction of crime. Why? Because to a reasonably large portion of the population, jail is better than the street. And most people really, really hate hard labor. ;)

Do you have any evidence that such a plan would work?

...how about outlawing...making...illegal...laws that make it a felony...

Not a single gun law helped stop this incident. Not a single gun law has stopped any of the school shootings from happening.

Do you have any evidence to suggest your laws will work better than these other laws that you claim are ineffective?

...What do you think will happen by making guns illegal?...Why would you actually believe, given these facts, that making firearms illegal for the average person to own would stop firearm crimes (or from people to own firearms?)...

Please do not assume that I am pro gun control. Even those of who are anti gun control can ask what we should do to end gun violence.

Do you have any evidence that such a plan would work?


Of course not. But given the current prison system isn't working, it's worth a try, no?

America may have a crime problem, but we are nowhere near thee most violent nation or culture in the World, now or never.

Not if you compare it to third world countries. But compared to Europe, Japan, Canada, Australia and a few others, it's a leading criminal country.

Yes but the British had one small problem, the British navy (it was the best in the world at that time, twice the size of the second and third largest navies combined!) couldn't move troops in the US fast enough, the troopships were delayed and destroyed by Spanish, French and pirates, if America was closer then the British would have beat the crap out of the Americans, also the colour of the British uniforms were red, which could easily be spotted and most of the troops were convicts sentenced to the army, the Americans were also funded by France (bankrupt after the war) and Spain without the funding then the Americans wouldn't even had proper weapons. Like you said they had a larger force, better trained men and better technology. They just weren't prepared. But I do agree that Americans do have a good fighting spirit, but sometimes they can become slightly too aggressive.

Don't forget:
1) At the time of the American Revolution, Philadelphia was the second largest city in the British Empire.
2) Also, 1 out of every 3 British ships was American made at this period. The loss of colonial timber was going to be a problem.
3) The British generally believed they could retake the colonies for a generation or two after the Treaty of Paris. This is why the "War of 1812" is sometimes refered to as the "Second War of American Indepenence".
4) Coming off the Seven Years War, Britain was not in a great position to secure the American Colonies. It was also bitter for the cost of the American Theatre (French & Indian Wars).
5) Uniform color really doesn't matter most of the time in this period. 99% of all troops had muskets (not rifles) and they were woefully inaccurate at less than a hundred yards or so. Battles weren't fought in lines on an open field because everyone was stupid! ;) THAT was why Americans armed with Kentucky rifles sniping (especially at officers) so horrified the Brits.

Not if you compare it to third world countries. But compared to Europe, Japan, Canada, Australia and a few others, it's a leading criminal country.

Europe has as much or more crime as the US. It has less GUN crime, granted.
IE: the murder rate in NYC per 100,000 is 7.6... Amsterdam is 7.7, Moscow is 9.6, & Lisbon is 9.7.

Japan is a homogenous island. (easily controlled borders, few internal tensions)
No one actually lives in Canada or Australia. ;)

I think that guns are for cowards. A real man doesn't need an AK47.

I think that guns are for cowards. A real man doesn't need an AK47.

A real man doesn't drink Vanilla soy lattes and drive a Lexus SUV either.

Europe has as much or more crime as the US. It has less GUN crime, granted.
Japan is a homogenous island.
No one actually lives in Canada or Australia. ;)

Europe doesn't have more criminality as USA. Even if you include the poor former East European countries or countries like Serbia, Croatia or Bosnia. These countries left a war a few minutes ago...

And even if it was...you are suggesting that guns do not kill crime. So why having them?

A real man doesn't drink Vanilla soy lattes and drive a Lexus SUV either.

I agree. :)

Europe doesn't have more criminality as USA. Even if you include the poor former East European countries or countries like Serbia, Croatia or Bosnia. These countries left a war a few minutes ago...

And even if it was...you are suggesting that guns do not kill crime. So why having them?

I edited that post to point out three Euro capitals with higher murder rates than NYC. Depending on what crime, you'll find areas in Europe with rates equal or higher than in the US. Sure, Stockholm has fewer muggings than NYC. How about Rome though?

Yes, a war that crime-free Europe stood by and allowed to happen.

Guns do not kill crime. Guns do not cause crime. Same goes for knives and cars. Or vanilla soy lattes.

I edited that post to point out three Euro capitals with higher murder rates than NYC. Depending on what crime, you'll find areas in Europe with rates equal or higher than in the US. Sure, Stockholm has fewer muggings than NYC. How about Rome though?

Yes, a war that crime-free Europe stood by and allowed to happen.

Guns do not kill crime. Guns do not cause crime. Same goes for knives and cars. Or vanilla soy lattes.

Rome is pretty safe. I visited it five or six times. Going more south could be dangerous. The area of Napoli is just sick. Your gun will not help you there, au contraire, the Camorra boys would have a nice deadly chat with you.

Europe is not crime free zone, not even close. You'll always have some level of crimes in any society. If Europe was loaded with guns then we couldn't prevent that war. It was written in the stars that Yugoslavia would implode after the death of Tito.

Knives and cars could be dangerous. And you could use them to commit a crime. But again, I never heard of a mass school slaughter with a knife nor didn't I hear a story about one that entered a school with his car and killed 20 people.

Rome is pretty safe. I visited it five or six times. Going more south could be dangerous. The area of Napoli is just sick. Your gun will not help you there, au contraire, the Camorra boys would have a nice deadly chat with you.

Europe is not crime free zone, not even close. You'll always have some level of crimes in any society. If Europe was loaded with guns then we couldn't prevent that war. It was written in the stars that Yugoslavia would implode after the death of Tito.

Knives and cars could be dangerous. And you could use them to commit a crime. But again, I never heard of a mass school slaughter with a knife nor didn't I hear a story about one that entered a school with his car and killed 20 people.

Only if you don't shoot them. If enough people were able to do that, they wouldn't be so powerful.

No war is a given, and that the EU did so little to stop it was a travesty. The problem is that Europe is so used to the US defending it that they cannot effectively defend and police the continent.

Um?
A man armed with a knife has killed seven people and injured 10 others in central Tokyo, Japanese media say.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7442327.stm

A youth accused of the manslaughter of four teenage girls in a car crash on a mountain road in Powys has been named in court for the first time.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/south_east/6757599.stm

Only if you don't shoot them. If enough people were able to do that, they wouldn't be so powerful.

No war is a given, and that the EU did so little to stop it was a travesty. The problem is that Europe is so used to the US defending it that they cannot effectively defend and police the continent.

Um?
A man armed with a knife has killed seven people and injured 10 others in central Tokyo, Japanese media say.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7442327.stm


You seem to forget that Europe isn't like USA. Europe is a group of several countries that is forming a union. This union is pretty new and is not working perfect yet (it will never be). Some countries wanted to invade, other don't. In the end it looked they were doing nothing.

Great that you found that knife assault, but I'm sorry I will not show you a list with all gun-shooting around the world. The Nationstates server can not handle that much data.

You seem to forget that Europe isn't like USA. Europe is a group of several countries that is forming a union. This union is pretty new and is not working perfect yet (it will never be). Some countries wanted to invade, other don't. In the end it looked they were doing nothing.

Great that you found that knife assault, but I'm sorry I will not show you a list with all gun-shooting around the world. The Nationstates server can not handle that much data.

The US *is* a union of several states forming a union. This union is pretty old and is not working perfectly yet (it will never be). Our Federal structure allowed us to decide to intervene.

I'm just pointing out that it is the person, not the inanimate object. Rock and stick violence has been at a low for a very long time now.

Knives and cars could be dangerous. And you could use them to commit a crime.

Guns could be dangerous. And you could use them to commit a crime.

But again, I never heard of a mass school slaughter with a knife nor didn't I hear a story about one that entered a school with his car and killed 20 people.

Oh, did you hear about the car that killed 1.2 million people and injures and mains as many as 50 million EVERY YEAR (http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/publications/road_traffic/world_report/en/)?

Yeah, I guess you didn't, or you wouldn't have seriously tried to claim that guns are a bigger threat.

I think that guns are for cowards. A real man doesn't need an AK47.

I think that fear of an inanimate object is cowardice. A real man doesn't fear inanimate objects.

How else do you expect us to get 7.62x39mm bullets (or any other caliber) to the targets? Throw them? Sorry, but a firearm is more accurate and farther ranging than my arm, so I'm going to stick with firearms.

You seem to forget that Europe isn't like USA....

THANK GOD that one of you hoplophobes FINALLY admitted that. Now maybe you'll all stop pushing that, "Well, it works in Europe, so it'll work in the US" line we always hear in this debate.

I think that fear of an inanimate object is cowardice. A real man doesn't fear inanimate objects.

How else do you expect us to get 7.62x39mm bullets (or any other caliber) to the targets? Throw them? Sorry, but a firearm is more accurate and farther ranging than my arm, so I'm going to stick with firearms.

Actually, I'm all for banning guns so long as we do it fairly: we'd also have to ban everything else from before 1355. ;)

Man, I'm going to miss indoor plumbing and not being a serf.

Of course not. But given the current prison system isn't working, it's worth a try, no?

It would be more intelligent to try something that has been shown to work, rather than an untested hypothesis.

Why do other developed nations have much lower rates of gun violence? If you can figure that out, and implement similar situations in the USian context, it may do the same thing.

Just to be clear, I don't mean gun control laws. I do not think that laws curb violence. Maybe it's related to easy access to decent education. Maybe it's related to nutrition or rates of single parent families below the poverty line or quality of urban infrastructure or all of these.

The gun control crowd has to stop pretending that laws will get rid of guns and that will stop gun violence. The anti-gun control crowd has to stop pretending that gun violence is not a problem.

Britain, Australia top US in violent crime (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21902)

Britain, Australia top US in violent crime (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21902)

That's an editorial providing their interpretation of results from a survey done in 2001.

Do you have a link to the actual survey? Or a similar survey done since then?

That's an editorial providing their interpretation of results from a survey done in 2001.

Do you have a link to the actual survey? Or a similar survey done since then?

Just pointing out that the "Americans wade through blood due to teh violence of guns" argument is not necessarily accurate and that the US isn't exactly the most violent nation around.

Maybe we have higher gun crime rates, but overall the violent crime rates here are relatively low - and most of the gun crimes are committed with illegally owned guns in relation to other illegal acts such as the drug trade.

Tangential idea: Instead of suggesting outlawing/regulating guns more, what about de-regulating drugs so there isn't the web of crime that always comes with black markets? Likewise, decriminalize prostitution and reduce the hazards connected with that industry. This would have the effect of removing a large portion of the underground culture that glamorizes guns. Why is every other proposed solution to every problem likely to involve MORE laws?

The solution is mandate the EU adopt the 2nd amendment and export the gun culture to Europe.

It would be more intelligent to try something that has been shown to work, rather than an untested hypothesis.

Why do other developed nations have much lower rates of gun violence? If you can figure that out, and implement similar situations in the USian context, it may do the same thing.

Just to be clear, I don't mean gun control laws. I do not think that laws curb violence. Maybe it's related to easy access to decent education. Maybe it's related to nutrition or rates of single parent families below the poverty line or quality of urban infrastructure or all of these.

The gun control crowd has to stop pretending that laws will get rid of guns and that will stop gun violence. The anti-gun control crowd has to stop pretending that gun violence is not a problem.

Um, becuase the other devoloped nations have more homogenous populations with less immigration, religious diversity, and are more compact so they are easier to police? Less stife tends to lead to less violence. And therefore less gun violence.

I wish UKians, Republicans (read: the Irish, French, Italians), Kingdomians (read: the Spanish, Swedish, Netherlanders, Norwegians, Danes, etc), and Federals (read: Germans), etc. would understand that.

A youth accused of the manslaughter of four teenage girls in a car crash on a mountain road in Powys has been named in court for the first time.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/south_east/6757599.stm

That isn't an instance of a car being used as a weapon. Manslaughter isn't murder - the people who died were passengers in an accident. It's not exactly a school mass-run-overing.

That isn't an instance of a car being used as a weapon. Manslaughter isn't murder - the people who died were passengers in an accident. It's not exactly a school mass-run-overing.

Who said anything about murder? HALF of all US gun deaths are suicides! Never mind how many accidents there are with firearms. It works both ways.

It isnt a weapon? Did or did not the car kill the girls?

Mass run-overing? Please. Feel free to go look up the number of mass shootings in the US every year, then look up the number of multi-death car crashes (drunk driving, weather related, etc) and get back to me.

But again, I never heard of a mass school slaughter with a knife nor didn't I hear a story about one that entered a school with his car and killed 20 people.

Hmmmm, really (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing)?

It isn't the tool that is at fault. It never is. It is the people behind them who use them to commit crimes that are at fault. Blaming the tool is simply a salve for the conscience so you can divorce yourself from the reality that there are people who, for no other reason than being at the right place and time, will kill you with whatever is at hand.

Anything can be a weapon. Even the most harmless of things, with a bit of imagination and inventiveness, can become far more deadly than a mere firearm. With ammonium nitrate, a bit of petrol, and a bag of nails, I could produce a weapon capable of injuring or killing many if I were to use it in a crowded place like a train or shopping mall. Will you ban those too?

Who said anything about murder?

Well, the fact that it was posted in response to this:

But again, I never heard of a mass school slaughter with a knife nor didn't I hear a story about one that entered a school with his car and killed 20 people.

I don't have any opinion on the issue otherwise. It just looked like an irrelevant response.

Just pointing out that the "Americans wade through blood due to teh violence of guns" argument is not necessarily accurate and that the US isn't exactly the most violent nation around.

If you want to ignore the fact that the USA has a rate of gun violence comparable to the developing world, while the rest of the developed world has a much lower one, go ahead. But like I said before, the anti-gun control crowd in the USA does itself no favours by pretending the problem doesn't exist.

Maybe we have higher gun crime rates, but overall the violent crime rates here are relatively low - and most of the gun crimes are committed with illegally owned guns in relation to other illegal acts such as the drug trade.

And I am asking what should be done to address that violence.

Tangential idea: Instead of suggesting outlawing/regulating guns more,.... Why is every other proposed solution to every problem likely to involve MORE laws?

I have an idea too. Instead of suggesting that I am arguing for outlawing/regulating guns more, why don't you actually read what I wrote?

Um, becuase the other devoloped nations have more homogenous populations with less immigration, religious diversity, and are more compact so they are easier to police? Less stife tends to lead to less violence. And therefore less gun violence.

I wish UKians, Republicans (read: the Irish, French, Italians), Kingdomians (read: the Spanish, Swedish, Netherlanders, Norwegians, Danes, etc), and Federals (read: Germans), etc. would understand that.

Canada has less homogeneity of population, more religious diversity, and much less population density. Consequently, we should have a much higher rate of such violence than the USA. This is not the case. Therefore, you are wrong about what causes gun violence.

Um, becuase the other devoloped nations have more homogenous populations with less immigration, religious diversity, and are more compact so they are easier to police? Less stife tends to lead to less violence. And therefore less gun violence.

I wish UKians, Republicans (read: the Irish, French, Italians), Kingdomians (read: the Spanish, Swedish, Netherlanders, Norwegians, Danes, etc), and Federals (read: Germans), etc. would understand that.

I would argue that you are underestimating the amount of immigration and religious diversity in countries with a colonial past.

On 3 February 1990, David Zaback attempted to hold up H&J Leather & Firearms Ltd., a gun shop located in Renton Highlands near Seattle, Washington. About 4:40 p.m. that day, he entered the crowded shop and announced his intention to rob it by Gun telling everyone to put their hands on the counter and saying if anybody moved, he'd kill them. He then spotted a uniformed policeman having coffee with Wendall Woodall, the shop's owner. What happened next is less than clear in terms of who shot first, but there was an exchange of gunfire between David Zaback, the would-be robber; Timothy Lally, an 18-year veteran of the King County police force; and Danny Morris, one of the shop's clerks.

Zaback, who had fired three times, was shot three times in the chest and once in the arm. He died in the hospital about four hours after the shooting. No one else was injured during the incident, and no charges were subsequently laid against Lally or Morris.

The e-mailed narrative holds up as a news item for the most part, but some of its elements have been altered to make for better storytelling.

Upon seeing the officer, the would-be robber announced a hold-up, and fired a few wild shots from a .22 target pistol. The officer and a clerk promptly returned fire, the police officer with a 9mm Glock 17, the clerk with a .50 Desert Eagle, assisted by several customers who also drew their guns, several of whom also fired.

Although the Darwinized account presents the encounter in the humorous light of a hapless robber waving a pop gun being felled in a hail of bullets by a mass of heavily-armed gun shop patrons, that wasn't precisely the way of it. Zaback's weapon was a .38-caliber semiautomatic pistol, not the .22 target pistol of the e-mailed account. The clerk, Morris, fired a 10mm semiautomatic pistol, not a .50 Desert Eagle, and the policeman, Lally, fired a 9mm semiautomatic pistol. As for the participation of others, according to Renton police Capt. Don Persson, although several other customers had guns and pulled them, they did not shoot — the only ones involved in the exchange of lead were Zaback, Lally, and Morris.

The robber was pronounced dead at the scene by Paramedics. Crime scene investigators located 47 expended cartridge cases in the shop. The subsequent autopsy revealed 23 gunshot wounds. Ballistics identified rounds from 7 different weapons.

It's unclear how many shots were fired, in part because some of the suspect's shots struck ammunition on a counter, causing the ammunition to explode. "There were slugs all over that place," Persson said. As for Zaback, he died with four wounds in him, one in the arm and three in the chest, not the 23 wounds claimed in the colorized account.

Yet one item of the Darwinized version one would otherwise suspect to have been the product of overwriting does indeed hold up: Renton police Capt. Don Persson said, "The surprising thing is that the man had to walk right past a marked police car to get in the front door."

Barbara "red light district" Mikkelson

Source: Dumb crook robs gun shop (http://www.snopes.com/crime/dumdum/gunshop.asp)

If you want to ignore the fact that the USA has a rate of gun violence comparable to the developing world, while the rest of the developed world has a much lower one, go ahead. But like I said before, the anti-gun control crowd in the USA does itself no favours by pretending the problem doesn't exist. And I am asking what should be done to address that violence.

Less gun ownership restrictions for law-abiding citizens.

I have an idea too. Instead of suggesting that I am arguing for outlawing/regulating guns more, why don't you actually read what I wrote?

I was voicing an opinion, not attempting to create an argument.

Canada has less homogeneity of population, more religious diversity, and much less population density. Consequently, we should have a much higher rate of such violence than the USA. This is not the case. Therefore, you are wrong about what causes gun violence.

Your premises as to what causes violence might be wrong. For example, there seems to be a correlation between high population density and violent crime. Where the US has more dense population centers, there is an abnormally high violent crime rate. The sparse population of Canada and the small number of major metropolitan centers would contribute to the lower crime rate. The US has more cities, larger cities, and worse gang problems.

Solving the gang problems is the hard part. I have no idea how, except that government welfare has not reduced anything and therefore needs to be reconsidered.

Less gun ownership restrictions for law-abiding citizens.



I was voicing an opinion, not attempting to create an argument.



Your premises as to what causes violence might be wrong. For example, there seems to be a correlation between high population density and violent crime. Where the US has more dense population centers, there is an abnormally high violent crime rate. The sparse population of Canada and the small number of major metropolitan centers would contribute to the lower crime rate. The US has more cities, larger cities, and worse gang problems.

Solving the gang problems is the hard part. I have no idea how, except that government welfare has not reduced anything and therefore needs to be reconsidered.
Where the United States has a large population density, it also has a large amount of poverty. That's the source of the crime, not the density.

Where the United States has a large population density, it also has a large amount of poverty. That's the source of the crime, not the density.

Precisely what I've said several times in this thread.

Guns don't kill people
People do
Dangerous minorities do
Magic missiles do
Chuck Norris does


Guns aren't near as dangerous as alot of other things, such as doctors:

(A) The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.
(B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000.
(C) Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171.

(Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept. of Health Human Services)

Guns
(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000.
Yes, that is 80 million.

(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000188.

Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.
Remember, "Guns don't kill people, doctors do."

FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR.

Please alert your friends to this alarming threat. We must ban doctors before this gets completely out of hand!

Out of concern for the public at large, I have withheld the statistics on lawyers for fear the shock would cause people to panic and seek medical attention.

I would argue that you are underestimating the amount of immigration and religious diversity in countries with a colonial past.

So you're saying that's why Brazil is so safe? ;)

Name an example.

So you're saying that's why Brazil is so safe? ;)

Name an example.

Well I would say that the UK population is as diverse as the US given that we have communities from all parts of the former empire, and we probably have more immigration for our size than the US does.

Guns don't kill people
People do
Dangerous minorities do
Magic missiles do
Chuck Norris does


Guns aren't near as dangerous as alot of other things, such as doctors:

(A) The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.
(B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000.
(C) Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171.

(Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept. of Health Human Services)

Guns
(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000.
Yes, that is 80 million.

(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000188.

Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.
Remember, "Guns don't kill people, doctors do."

FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR.

Please alert your friends to this alarming threat. We must ban doctors before this gets completely out of hand!

Out of concern for the public at large, I have withheld the statistics on lawyers for fear the shock would cause people to panic and seek medical attention.

Can i say that doctors aren't used to kill people on sight, and they can't be used to start a rebellion or civil war.
Most of the accidental deaths you speak of are people who are given the wrong operation because the information systems in hospitals desperately need re-vamping.
and those figures where on 'accidental deaths' what about the deaths caused by shooting on purpose?
Or the unreported people shot by guns eh?

What to do about guns in America? When Obama gets into the White House, start stcking the Supreme Court until the gun control numbers are there and then get them to reverse their own interpretations on the "right to bear arms" so that people can't carry them on the street except with special permits, so that automatic and semi-automatic weapons can be used only under special circumstances, so that noone with a criminal history, a history of mental illness or addiction to alcohol or drugs can get them. etc.

Whatever it takes. I'm sure that the gun lobby will stop Obama if he tries to make it an issue. Those gun freaks don't bat an eyelid when some nutter goes into a mall or school and kills people. They bleat, "Guns don't kill people; people kill people" as if that is supposed to mean something.
(The perfect reply is "People with guns kill people".) Please oh gun nutter, don't get into raves about "our liberties". Constitutions can be changed - they introduced and repealed Prohibition. When the US joins the civilised world and passes enough laws to restrict these homocidal maniacs, Americans will feel safer in their neighbourhoods - but that time may be a long way off.The crazy gun toting Texan and his sidekick "Deadeye Dick Cheyney" still are in the White House till Jan 20th.
Hey there's an idea.....why not get Dick Cheyney to invite all the Supreme Court judges who interpreted the "Right to Bear arms" so liberally this year, to go out on a hunting party with him? He'll fix 'em up!

and they can't be used to start a rebellion or civil war.


Except that was part of the original intent for gun-ownership. Forget hunting and self-defense (though both are important in my opinion), the purpose of an armed population has always been to keep the government in check, thus protecting all of our other liberties. An armed population is the greatest enemy of tyranny. Hitler, for example, disarmed the German population as part of his takeover, knowing full well that an armed population would threaten his power. The best kind of government, in my opinion, is one that fears its citizens.

Except that was part of the original intent for gun-ownership. Forget hunting and self-defense (though both are important in my opinion), the purpose of an armed population has always been to keep the government in check, thus protecting all of our other liberties. An armed population is the greatest enemy of tyranny. Hitler, for example, disarmed the German population as part of his takeover, knowing full well that an armed population would threaten his power. The best kind of government, in my opinion, is one that fears its citizens.

Godwin. Plus ignoring that Hitler's rise to power was based on use of paramilitary organisations like the SA.

A government that fears civil revolution is one that is focussed on that, rather than the proper governance of the country.

Godwin. Plus ignoring that Hitler's rise to power was based on use of paramilitary organisations like the SA.

A government that fears civil revolution is one that is focussed on that, rather than the proper governance of the country.

Replace Hitler with any of a dozen other dictators. It doesn't matter -- my statement wasn't made with the purpose of invoking Godwin's Law. My point is, a government is far more able to oppress its people if the citizens are unarmed and defenseless. Paramilitary organizations are far more effective if their victims can't shoot back.

And I would argue that a government that fears civil revolution due to oppression (so you know that I'm not condoning rebelling because of foolish things) is one that would try to prevent it. Governments exist to maintain power; a revolt could compromise their power. On the other hand, an oppressive regime has nothing to fear from a defenseless population, and can then take away rights with impunity.

Replace Hitler with any of a dozen other dictators. It doesn't matter -- my statement wasn't made with the purpose of invoking Godwin's Law. My point is, a government is far more able to oppress its people if the citizens are unarmed and defenseless. Paramilitary organizations are far more effective if their victims can't shoot back.


They're more effective when they can shoot in the first place. An armed populace allows the formation of private armies.

And I would argue that a government that fears civil revolution due to oppression (so you know that I'm not condoning rebelling because of foolish things) is one that would try to prevent it. Governments exist to maintain power; a revolt could compromise their power. On the other hand, an oppressive regime has nothing to fear from a defenseless population, and can then take away rights with impunity.
[/quote]
You're arguing in favour of the ability of the populace to rebel, that will extend to foolish reasons. A government that fears civil revolution (and it won't just restrict itself to oppression) is one that tries to prevent it, via preventing freedom of assembly etc.. A government that does not fear it does not feel the need to prevent it.

On the other hand, an oppressive regime has nothing to fear from a defenseless population, and can then take away rights with impunity.

I don't think gun ownership makes much of a difference to the ability of a people to oppose the government. If a rebellion in the UK started against the government, I'm sure Colonel Gaddafi will give us loads of guns and bombs and stuff. He's very generous like that.

Godwin. Plus ignoring that Hitler's rise to power was based on use of paramilitary organisations like the SA.

A government that fears civil revolution is one that is focussed on that, rather than the proper governance of the country.

His attempt to use Para military to come to power Failed and he wound up in jail.
He was elected into power. Then he either absorbed into the army or disbanded the paramilitary units of the Nazi party.
He also executed all the Freikorps(group of Veterans who stoped a Russia back attempt at communist revolution in the Chaotic aftermath of WWI) members he could find.

So historically in Germany Democratic elections lead to Nazism and the para militants stopped Stalin style communism.

What to do about guns in America? When Obama gets into the White House, start stcking the Supreme Court until the gun control numbers are there and then get them to reverse their own interpretations on the "right to bear arms" so that people can't carry them on the street except with special permits, so that automatic and semi-automatic weapons can be used only under special circumstances, so that noone with a criminal history, a history of mental illness or addiction to alcohol or drugs can get them. etc.

Whatever it takes. I'm sure that the gun lobby will stop Obama if he tries to make it an issue. Those gun freaks don't bat an eyelid when some nutter goes into a mall or school and kills people. They bleat, "Guns don't kill people; people kill people" as if that is supposed to mean something.
(The perfect reply is "People with guns kill people".) Please oh gun nutter, don't get into raves about "our liberties". Constitutions can be changed - they introduced and repealed Prohibition. When the US joins the civilised world and passes enough laws to restrict these homocidal maniacs, Americans will feel safer in their neighbourhoods - but that time may be a long way off.The crazy gun toting Texan and his sidekick "Deadeye Dick Cheyney" still are in the White House till Jan 20th.
Hey there's an idea.....why not get Dick Cheyney to invite all the Supreme Court judges who interpreted the "Right to Bear arms" so liberally this year, to go out on a hunting party with him? He'll fix 'em up!

In that case, it'll be a new American Revolution. I WILL shoot anyone who tries to take away my gun. Please note that this is not intended as a threat - I will not initiate violence, but if anyone tries to start something, I'm gonna finish it. The 2nd amendment is a barometer of tyranny - when they try to take it away is when you need to use it. Law-abiding gun owners aren't a threat to anyone unless you try to atack then or take away their guns. Gun crime is an issue where 1. legal ownership is most restricted and 2. where minorities are segregated into slums. In case you didn't notice, guns are forbidden on school grounds. That doesn't stop the shootings - rather, it alerts the psycho killers that they have a free shooting gallery for AT LEAST 15 minutes before the cops show up. Now some schools here are having the cops bring guns to school, but even the cops lock their guns in lockers while on school grounds - not on hand if needed.

His attempt to use Para military to come to power Failed and he wound up in jail.
He was elected into power. Then he either absorbed into the army or disbanded the paramilitary units of the Nazi party.
He also executed all the Freikorps(group of Veterans who stoped a Russia back attempt at communist revolution in the Chaotic aftermath of WWI) members he could find.

So historically in Germany Democratic elections lead to Nazism and the para militants stopped Stalin style communism.

His original putsch failed. The SA still played an important role in his rise. Then when he'd used them to gain power, he destroyed them so they couldn't be used in a coup against him.

And the Freikorps were a paramilitary organisation as were the Spartacists. The sort of street war that went on in Weimar Germany shows the downside of an armed populace.

In that case, it'll be a new American Revolution. I WILL shoot anyone who tries to take away my gun. Please note that this is not intended as a threat - I will not initiate violence, but if anyone tries to start something, I'm gonna finish it. The 2nd amendment is a barometer of tyranny - when they try to take it away is when you need to use it. Law-abiding gun owners aren't a threat to anyone unless you try to atack then or take away their guns.
Last time I checked those countries high on the freedom index was not solely dominated by countries with low gun control. It seems tyranny does not break out as soon as people take their fingers off the trigger.


Gun crime is an issue where 1. legal ownership is most restricted and 2. where minorities are segregated into slums. In case you didn't notice, guns are forbidden on school grounds. That doesn't stop the shootings - rather, it alerts the psycho killers that they have a free shooting gallery for AT LEAST 15 minutes before the cops show up. Now some schools here are having the cops bring guns to school, but even the cops lock their guns in lockers while on school grounds - not on hand if needed.

The problem is where you have gun restrictions next to loose control. If you have guns freely available outside schools but not allowed in schools then it's easy for someone to get a gun into a non-gun zone. Same with neighbouring states, if guns are easily available nearby then it makes enforcement of gun control an impracticality.

And slums aren't going to disappear anytime soon.

His original putsch failed. The SA still played an important role in his rise. Then when he'd used them to gain power, he destroyed them so they couldn't be used in a coup against him.

We think they set fire to the German Paralimentry building, but we aren't certain not like ti takes a paramilitary group to set something on fire.

And the Freikorps were a paramilitary organisation as were the Spartacists. The sort of street war that went on in Weimar Germany shows the downside of an armed populace.

The Spartacist were given arms by Russians so they were going to be armed anyways. However, the Freikorps were only armed domestically. Without Freikorps Germany would like be in the same boat Russia is today just with out oil to sink 30% of your economy on.

A domestically Armed paramilitary group can keep a Foreign armed paramilitary group from taking power ?

We think they set fire to the German Paralimentry building, but we aren't certain not like ti takes a paramilitary group to set something on fire.
No, but they did a hell of a lot more than that in terms of intimdation/riots etc.


The Spartacist were given arms by Russians so they were going to be armed anyways. However, the Freikorps were only armed domestically. Without Freikorps Germany would like be in the same boat Russia is today just with out oil to sink 30% of your economy on.
The spartacists weren't even the primary movers in the uprising, and the workers involved sourced weapons from elsewhere than Russia.


A domestically Armed paramilitary group can keep a Foreign armed paramilitary group from taking power ?
Open war on the streets where society has broken down, democracy is compromised and plenty of civilians are getting shot.

In that case, it'll be a new American Revolution. I WILL shoot anyone who tries to take away my gun. Please note that this is not intended as a threat - I will not initiate violence, but if anyone tries to start something, I'm gonna finish it.

Well self defence must be justifiable to the circumstance. If someone steals your pen should you go after them with a baseball bat?

The 2nd amendment is a barometer of tyranny - when they try to take it away is when you need to use it. Law-abiding gun owners aren't a threat to anyone unless you try to atack then or take away their guns. Gun crime is an issue where 1. legal ownership is most restricted and 2. where minorities are segregated into slums.

Well firstly the second ammendment is far from clear but leaving that i will go on to your excuses of what causes gun crime

1) So im sure there is some other reason why countries with the tightest gun controls have the lowest numbers of death.

2) Also nice that you state the minorities are to blame instead of looking at the social policies of previous governments which effect everyone. For example abortion is partly to blame http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect as well as lack of education.

In case you didn't notice, guns are forbidden on school grounds. That doesn't stop the shootings - rather, it alerts the psycho killers that they have a free shooting gallery for AT LEAST 15 minutes before the cops show up. Now some schools here are having the cops bring guns to school, but even the cops lock their guns in lockers while on school grounds - not on hand if needed.

And if schoolchildren had guns on ground I grant you there would be less mass killings but there would be far more emotional killings where someone gets into a fight, is bullied for a day, gets insulted, fails an exam etc etc and being young without a fully formed brain they are far more likely to shoot in a emotive state.

To make matters better since this is a grounp of young children with guns they may fire back in the room missing their target. Prehaps guards should be on the outside of schools where crime is a problem but thinking about giving a bunch of hormonal tennagers guns? WTF

What to do about guns in America? When Obama gets into the White House, start stcking the Supreme Court until the gun control numbers are there and then get them to reverse their own interpretations on the "right to bear arms" so that people can't carry them on the street except with special permits, so that automatic and semi-automatic weapons can be used only under special circumstances, so that noone with a criminal history, a history of mental illness or addiction to alcohol or drugs can get them. etc.

Whatever it takes. I'm sure that the gun lobby will stop Obama if he tries to make it an issue. Those gun freaks don't bat an eyelid when some nutter goes into a mall or school and kills people. They bleat, "Guns don't kill people; people kill people" as if that is supposed to mean something.
(The perfect reply is "People with guns kill people".) Please oh gun nutter, don't get into raves about "our liberties". Constitutions can be changed - they introduced and repealed Prohibition. When the US joins the civilised world and passes enough laws to restrict these homocidal maniacs, Americans will feel safer in their neighbourhoods - but that time may be a long way off.The crazy gun toting Texan and his sidekick "Deadeye Dick Cheyney" still are in the White House till Jan 20th.
Hey there's an idea.....why not get Dick Cheyney to invite all the Supreme Court judges who interpreted the "Right to Bear arms" so liberally this year, to go out on a hunting party with him? He'll fix 'em up!

I hope you're not lumping all firearms owners together under the bolded part. I haven't killed anyone, and if I can keep to my plan, I never will. My brother in law has never killed anyone, and I'm sure he hopes that doesn't change. My friends that own firearms have never killed anyone, and I doubt that fact bothers them.

They're more effective when they can shoot in the first place. An armed populace allows the formation of private armies.


You're arguing in favour of the ability of the populace to rebel, that will extend to foolish reasons. A government that fears civil revolution (and it won't just restrict itself to oppression) is one that tries to prevent it, via preventing freedom of assembly etc.. A government that does not fear it does not feel the need to prevent it.
Well, I prefer to look at history and draw the conclusion that leaders as a group and class of people can rarely be trusted. Yes, I am arguing in favor of the populace being able to rebel, but I strongly disagree that it will automatically extend to "foolish reasons." Throughout the history of civilization, uprisings typically only occurred under dire circumstances. Something to remember is that citizens on the whole do not like war or conflict.

Who would want to rebel? Nobody wants to rebel, but the founding fathers recognized that sometimes the population needs to as an alternative to tyranny. I’m not saying that we need a population that is ready to rebel at any moment at all times; I’m am arguing that we need a population with the means and will to rise up if absolutely necessary. I sincerely hope that we would never need to, but the surest way to ensure that we would need to is to allow ourselves to lose the ability.

And to anyone who doesn’t think rising up would make any difference, just look at Iraq and Vietnam, where lightly armed and poorly equipped guerrilla fighters with intimate knowledge of the landscape can cause costly losses and casualties and destroy moral – and that is nothing compared to an uprising against a tyrannical regime in the United States, which has wealthier citizens, a larger population, and a much larger area of territory. An American revolt could potentially be devastatingly effective – certainly far more effective than if the general population was unarmed and defenseless.

I hope you're not lumping all firearms owners together under the bolded part. I haven't killed anyone, and if I can keep to my plan, I never will. My brother in law has never killed anyone, and I'm sure he hopes that doesn't change. My friends that own firearms have never killed anyone, and I doubt that fact bothers them.

Dear GM,
Nah! Obviously not all gun owners are homicidal maniacs or America would quickyl run out of
1. non gun owners or
2. gun owning homicidal mainiacs

But you only need a small minority of homicidal gun owning maniacs to ruin someone's day.

America HAS THE HIGHEST RATE OF GUN-RELATED HOMICIDES IN THE WORLD

Australia learnt its lesson after the Port Arthur massacre in Australia. The then PM, John Howard banned automatic weapons and launched a gun buy - back scheme. It was a reasonable compromise and the overwhelming majority of Australians felt safer.

One has to balance community safety with liberty. I will always vote for the freedom to walk domn the street without getting shot at any time.

The US doesn't need minute men to defend themselves against the redcoats any more.

Dear GM,
Nah! Obviously not all gun owners are homicidal maniacs or America would quickyl run out of
1. non gun owners or
2. gun owning homicidal mainiacs

But you only need a small minority of homicidal gun owning maniacs to ruin someone's day.

America HAS THE HIGHEST RATE OF GUN-RELATED HOMICIDES IN THE WORLD

Australia learnt its lesson after the Port Arthur massacre in Australia. The then PM, John Howard banned automatic weapons and launched a gun buy - back scheme. It was a reasonable compromise and the overwhelming majority of Australians felt safer.

One has to balance community safety with liberty. I will always vote for the freedom to walk domn the street without getting shot at any time.

The US doesn't need minute men to defend themselves against the redcoats any more.

Bullshit.

Columbia? Mexico? South Africa? etc?

We sure hell do need minutemen to defend against gangs and the government.

That entire point of the second amendment is to provide a check against the government.

Well, I prefer to look at history and draw the conclusion that leaders as a group and class of people can rarely be trusted. Yes, I am arguing in favor of the populace being able to rebel, but I strongly disagree that it will automatically extend to "foolish reasons." Throughout the history of civilization, uprisings typically only occurred under dire circumstances. Something to remember is that citizens on the whole do not like war or conflict.
Not necessarily foolish reasons necessarily, but armed uprisings have rarely led to good things I would say.


Who would want to rebel? Nobody wants to rebel, but the founding fathers recognized that sometimes the population needs to as an alternative to tyranny. I’m not saying that we need a population that is ready to rebel at any moment at all times; I’m am arguing that we need a population with the means and will to rise up if absolutely necessary. I sincerely hope that we would never need to, but the surest way to ensure that we would need to is to allow ourselves to lose the ability.
Here's the point, firstly the likelihood of an armed rebellion succeeding in modern America is minute. The world is very different to how it was when the founding fathers lived (and America needs to start saying 'this is how we think it should be' rather than 'this is how those guys said it should be'. They need to be de-deified.

And to anyone who doesn’t think rising up would make any difference, just look at Iraq and Vietnam, where lightly armed and poorly equipped guerrilla fighters with intimate knowledge of the landscape can cause costly losses and casualties and destroy moral – and that is nothing compared to an uprising against a tyrannical regime in the United States, which has wealthier citizens, a larger population, and a much larger area of territory. An American revolt could potentially be devastatingly effective – certainly far more effective than if the general population was unarmed and defenseless.
They had a definitive uniting cause, namely 'them foreigners in our country' that difficult to replicate when rebelling against a countries own government. If there was an uprising in an area the government would squash it quickly.

Iraq and Vietnam was fought by people who had nothing to lose (and in Iraq's case often with religion as a contributing factor) Americans have a lot to lose, and lack that obvious uniting cause.

An American civilian uprising would not be widespread, would not be as fierce, and would fail, quickly.

And to gard outr Trolls! They're bloody dangerous!

I've heard all those arguments before! Most of the cowboys are gone. They took most of the Indians with 'em. Perhaps the Indians should have demanded their second amendment rights before the gun-totin' whities exercised their constitutional freedoms so liberally.
"Oh give me a home, where the buffalo roam
And I'll show you an untidy room....."

I do hope the NRA puts Dick Cheyney on their front cover.

Not necessarily foolish reasons necessarily, but armed uprisings have rarely led to good things I would say.


Here's the point, firstly the likelihood of an armed rebellion succeeding in modern America is minute. The world is very different to how it was when the founding fathers lived (and America needs to start saying 'this is how we think it should be' rather than 'this is how those guys said it should be'. They need to be de-deified.

They had a definitive uniting cause, namely 'them foreigners in our country' that difficult to replicate when rebelling against a countries own government. If there was an uprising in an area the government would squash it quickly.

Iraq and Vietnam was fought by people who had nothing to lose (and in Iraq's case often with religion as a contributing factor) Americans have a lot to lose, and lack that obvious uniting cause.

An American civilian uprising would not be widespread, would not be as fierce, and would fail, quickly.

That all depends on the circumstances of the uprising, and the willingness of the military to put it down. Hell, some of the military might even back the uprising.

And to gard outr Trolls! They're bloody dangerous!

I've heard all those arguments before! Most of the cowboys are gone. They took most of the Indians with 'em. Perhaps the Indians should have demanded their second amendment rights before the gun-totin' whities exercised their constitutional freedoms so liberally.
"Oh give me a home, where the buffalo roam
And I'll show you an untidy room....."

I do hope the NRA puts Dick Cheyney on their front cover.

And your not an American, so you just can't understand. It is that simple

Dear GM,
Nah! Obviously not all gun owners are homicidal maniacs or America would quickyl run out of
1. non gun owners or
2. gun owning homicidal mainiacs

But you only need a small minority of homicidal gun owning maniacs to ruin someone's day.

America HAS THE HIGHEST RATE OF GUN-RELATED HOMICIDES IN THE WORLD

Australia learnt its lesson after the Port Arthur massacre in Australia. The then PM, John Howard banned automatic weapons and launched a gun buy - back scheme. It was a reasonable compromise and the overwhelming majority of Australians felt safer.

One has to balance community safety with liberty. I will always vote for the freedom to walk domn the street without getting shot at any time.

The US doesn't need minute men to defend themselves against the redcoats any more.

I've never had a fear of getting shot while walking down the street, even when I visited big cities like New York City, Chicago, Baltimore, D.C. or Seattle. The only fear I felt while visiting those cities was the fear of being hit by a car.

And you're right, we don't need to defend against the redcoats. But what happens when the great paper target revolution begins? :tongue:

And your not an American, so you just can't understand. It is that simple

because americans have such a unique perspective on fire arms that nobody in the world could possibly have considered those arguments before :rolleyes:

We sure hell do need minutemen to defend against gangs

Did you seriously just advocate for armed vigilantism? Seriously? You're shitting me right?

Apology to my fellow readers. I was wrong.
America comes fourth in the NUMBER of homicides that are gun-related. South Africa whomps the States in this regard:

Rank Countries Amount (top to bottom)
#1 South Africa: 31,918
#2 Colombia: 21,898
#3 Thailand: 20,032
#4 United States: 9,369
#5 Philippines: 7,708
#6 Mexico: 2,606

Go for Gold America!

Well I put a link for different stats before. That considered population. For example I would not be too surprised if China was near the top because like Thailand it has a much bigger population.

But look at whom America is ranked with there. Not any first class democracy

Not necessarily foolish reasons necessarily, but armed uprisings have rarely led to good things I would say.


I would say that they lead to better things than living under a tyrannical regime.


Here's the point, firstly the likelihood of an armed rebellion succeeding in modern America is minute. The world is very different to how it was when the founding fathers lived (and America needs to start saying 'this is how we think it should be' rather than 'this is how those guys said it should be'. They need to be de-deified.


Well, I already argued why I think a real uprising could be quite effective. And while I vehemently disagree with the idea that we need to rewrite the constitution, this isn’t the thread for that discussion.


They had a definitive uniting cause, namely 'them foreigners in our country' that difficult to replicate when rebelling against a countries own government. If there was an uprising in an area the government would squash it quickly.

Iraq and Vietnam was fought by people who had nothing to lose (and in Iraq's case often with religion as a contributing factor) Americans have a lot to lose, and lack that obvious uniting cause.

An American civilian uprising would not be widespread, would not be as fierce, and would fail, quickly.

Defending themselves against tyranny wouldn’t be a uniting cause? I think it would be. I believe that if things got bad enough for the population to rebel, it would be fairly widespread. Both urban and wilderness areas would be nightmares for soldiers trying to suppress revolt, and the moral of troops would drop sharply as they find themselves constantly in danger in their own country from their own citizens.

But let’s even assume for a moment that you are right about everything you said. Would you rather than the population be defenseless against its government? Do you trust our leaders that much? Do you think it would be better to have a tyrannical government than to even have the slightest risk of an uprising? I’m having difficulty grasping your line of thinking.

If we get rid of legal ownership of guns, won's criminals smuggle them in anyways...

And I think of how in 1984 that guns were banned...

I get wary about statistics about gun violence due to lurking variables and Simpson's paradox...

because americans have such a unique perspective on fire arms that nobody in the world could possibly have considered those arguments before :rolleyes:

Non Americans don't have the American perspective.

Did you seriously just advocate for armed vigilantism? Seriously? You're shitting me right?

That wasn't what I was meant, but I see no reason why citizens shouldn't organize and clear out the gangs. The cops sure as hell aren't.

I would say that they lead to better things than living under a tyrannical regime.



Well, I already argued why I think a real uprising could be quite effective. And while I vehemently disagree with the idea that we need to rewrite the constitution, this isn’t the thread for that discussion.



Defending themselves against tyranny wouldn’t be a uniting cause? I think it would be. I believe that if things got bad enough for the population to rebel, it would be fairly widespread. Both urban and wilderness areas would be nightmares for soldiers trying to suppress revolt, and the moral of troops would drop sharply as they find themselves constantly in danger in their own country from their own citizens.

But let’s even assume for a moment that you are right about everything you said. Would you rather than the population be defenseless against its government? Do you trust our leaders that much? Do you think it would be better to have a tyrannical government than to even have the slightest risk of an uprising? I’m having difficulty grasping your line of thinking.

Exactly. I bet a large portion of the military would either refuse to fight, or join the rebels.

Apology to my fellow readers. I was wrong.
America comes fourth in the NUMBER of homicides that are gun-related. South Africa whomps the States in this regard:

Rank Countries Amount (top to bottom)
#1 South Africa: 31,918
#2 Colombia: 21,898
#3 Thailand: 20,032
#4 United States: 9,369
#5 Philippines: 7,708
#6 Mexico: 2,606

Go for Gold America!

The US population is 301,139,947 people... so 9,300, while tragic, is not too much percentage wise....

Apology to my fellow readers. I was wrong.
America comes fourth in the NUMBER of homicides that are gun-related. South Africa whomps the States in this regard:

Rank Countries Amount (top to bottom)
#1 South Africa: 31,918
#2 Colombia: 21,898
#3 Thailand: 20,032
#4 United States: 9,369
#5 Philippines: 7,708
#6 Mexico: 2,606

Go for Gold America!
The US population is 301,139,947 people... so 9,300, while tragic, is not too much percentage wise....


To put things in perspective...

Rank Countries Amount (top to bottom)
#1 South Africa: 31,918 (.0712%)
#2 Colombia: 21,898 (.051%)
#3 Thailand: 20,032 (.0331%)
#4 United States: 9,369 (.0033%)
#5 Philippines: 7,708 (.0087%)
#6 Mexico: 2,606 (.0025%)

%ages based on listed gun-related homicides and latest census figures

So, what are your suggestions?Context, of course.

Non Americans don't have the American perspective.

Only if we presume that such a nonsensically stupid thing as the "american perspective" exists. Like there could be some universal perspective common among 300 million people spread across 10 million square kilometers.

That wasn't what I was meant, but I see no reason why citizens shouldn't organize and clear out the gangs.

So you ARE advocating for armed vigilantism. Is this the "American perspective" you're talking about? If so I think europeans should count themselves lucky to not share it, it's disgusting.

I get wary about statistics about gun violence due to lurking variables and Simpson's paradox...
Could God microwave a burrito so hot that He Himself could not eat it?
?
I think this was on a Mormon thread.

Well self defence must be justifiable to the circumstance. If someone steals your pen should you go after them with a baseball bat?



Well firstly the second ammendment is far from clear but leaving that i will go on to your excuses of what causes gun crime

Its unclear until you read it in 18th century English. Only revisionist who attempt to read it in 21st century English find it unclear.
That failing a reading of the federalist papers makes it clear as day the 2nd amendment protects the right of all citizens to own firearms.
1) So im sure there is some other reason why countries with the tightest gun controls have the lowest numbers of death.
First death is really too broad to define so I am going to assume you mean homicides.
2nd Several countries with the lowest homicide have lose gun laws and Switzerland and I think Finland have mandatory gun ownership laws.

2) Also nice that you state the minorities are to blame instead of looking at the social policies of previous governments which effect everyone. For example abortion is partly to blame http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect as well as lack of education.
The abortion hypothesis is pretty much disproved, largely because those who can afford to have abortions were not the ones who would have produced children prone to criminality.


And if schoolchildren had guns on ground I grant you there would be less mass killings but there would be far more emotional killings where someone gets into a fight, is bullied for a day, gets insulted, fails an exam etc etc and being young without a fully formed brain they are far more likely to shoot in a emotive state.

Agreed no guns in school. Especially high school and lower.

To make matters better since this is a grounp of young children with guns they may fire back in the room missing their target. Prehaps guards should be on the outside of schools where crime is a problem but thinking about giving a bunch of hormonal tennagers guns? WTF

no guns in schools though A guard could just as easily miss. Anyone given a gun should be given training. At least if they will have it on them in public.

The wonderful thing about this thread is that all the Charlton Heston impersonators emerge from the woodwork grimacing:
"When you prise them from my cold dead fingers!"

When I think of it Charlton was always carrying a gun in his movies - talk about product placement for the NRA! I wonder if Cecil B De Mille coaxed him into playing Moses in the Ten Commandmentsby saying, "Now Chuck, just imagine this staff yopu're holding is an M1 and you are going to waste Pharoah's army."

I love you guys in the US imagining that we don't have beer swilling rednecks over here - some of them even have pick-ups complete with the rebel flag. Sigh! We can be so-o-o culturally derivative! Guys, you care so much about guns because they remind you of your weiners! Sigh! Most of you might grow ou tof them when you actually get some!

The wonderful thing about this thread is that all the Charlton Heston impersonators emerge from the woodwork grimacing:
"When you prise them from my cold dead fingers!"

When I think of it Charlton was always carrying a gun in his movies - talk about product placement for the NRA! I wonder if Cecil B De Mille coaxed him into playing Moses in the Ten Commandmentsby saying, "Now Chuck, just imagine this staff yopu're holding is an M1 and you are going to waste Pharoah's army."

I love you guys in the US imagining that we don't have beer swilling rednecks over here - some of them even have pick-ups complete with the rebel flag. Sigh! We can be so-o-o culturally derivativr! Guys, you care so much about guns because they remind you of your weiners! Sigh! Most of you might grow ou tof them when you actually get some!

You might want to cut back on your trolling...

The wonderful thing about this thread is that all the Charlton Heston impersonators emerge from the woodwork grimacing:
"When you prise them from my cold dead fingers!"

When I think of it Charlton was always carrying a gun in his movies - talk about product placement for the NRA! I wonder if Cecil B De Mille coaxed him into playing Moses in the Ten Commandmentsby saying, "Now Chuck, just imagine this staff yopu're holding is an M1 and you are going to waste Pharoah's army."

I love you guys in the US imagining that we don't have beer swilling rednecks over here - some of them even have pick-ups complete with the rebel flag. Sigh! We can be so-o-o culturally derivative! Guys, you care so much about guns because they remind you of your weiners! Sigh! Most of you might grow ou tof them when you actually get some!



Here's the Deal. You leave us alone about our gun culture, We don't export/smuggle our guns to your rednecks.

I would say that they lead to better things than living under a tyrannical regime.

I would say armed uprisings are more likely to lead to tyranny than away from it.



Defending themselves against tyranny wouldn’t be a uniting cause? I think it would be. I believe that if things got bad enough for the population to rebel, it would be fairly widespread. Both urban and wilderness areas would be nightmares for soldiers trying to suppress revolt, and the moral of troops would drop sharply as they find themselves constantly in danger in their own country from their own citizens.

What is tyranny exactly? An oppressive government is more likely to salami slice away rights. Where's the line when everyone rebels? People will have different opinions and different places where they'll stand up. And I think the first lot to do so will be condemned as traitors and put down hard enough to discourage significant members of the population from repeating the idea.


But let’s even assume for a moment that you are right about everything you said. Would you rather than the population be defenseless against its government? Do you trust our leaders that much? Do you think it would be better to have a tyrannical government than to even have the slightest risk of an uprising? I’m having difficulty grasping your line of thinking.
As I said at the top, I think an armed populace is more likely to lead to tyranny than away from it.

Only if we presume that such a nonsensically stupid thing as the "american perspective" exists. Like there could be some universal perspective common among 300 million people spread across 10 million square kilometers.



So you ARE advocating for armed vigilantism. Is this the "American perspective" you're talking about? If so I think europeans should count themselves lucky to not share it, it's disgusting.

There probably isn't a universal American perspective, but there are probably several common American perspectives. One of those is the perspective on guns. People have the right to own them, and should have the right to own. I don't think that's an uncommon belief.

Also, I'm not advocating it, but I would have no problem with armed vigilantism under certain circumstances. Also, you are making a mountain out of a molehill, as this was not the point I was trying to make. You just love to take points you don't like and attack them to death.

But just for fun, tell me why you think that is disgusting.

Here's the Deal. You leave us alone about our gun culture, We don't export/smuggle our guns to your rednecks.

Heh! Heh! Good one!;)

I agree with Forsakia though. There are times when an armed population has resisted a fascist coup (like in Republican Spain in 1936) but more often than not people who are armed have sided with the fascist elements - like when the German ex-servicemen were given guns by the German state to crush the Spartacist revolt in 1919.

These of course were extreme periods before and after wars.

And Dyako, trolling is in the eye of the beholder! Maybe I was rattlin' your cage a little - but don't shoot me! I'm sorry!:hail:

We don't export/smuggle our guns to your rednecks.You lie. We'll ALWAYS end up doing it when the price is right.
ALWAYS.
That's another angle of American culture .... the sell-out. And it's a mighty big one.

You lie. We'll ALWAYS end up doing it when the price is right.
ALWAYS.
That's another angle of American culture .... the sell-out. And it's a mighty big one.

I mean on a government/CIA level. We could have the EU flooded with a 10 guns for each YOB ratio over night if we wanted too and put our money into it.

I mean on a government/CIA level. We could have the EU flooded with a 10 guns for each YOB ratio over night if we wanted too and put our money into it.True.

True.

turn Europe into one big ghetto it would be fun.

turn Europe into one big ghetto it would be fun.On and off through the ages, actually. :)

For those that don't understand, read Federalist #51, and think about it from a perspective of someone a little bit less safe, a touch less inclined to be Obedient, a hair less likely to inform on their neighbours, family members, and "Friends" (term used loosely) when your leaders do something atrocious for "The common good" (or maybe "For your own good").

Even the symbolic nature of it-(sure, a semi-auto AR-15 won't do much to a tank) is important, as a reminder in whom the Sovereignty of the Nation was invested at the founding.

It's also, just an aside here, notable that the highest murder rates, including gun-crime rates, in the U.S. occur in cities where firearms ownership is most strictly controlled or outright banned. This is per-capita numbers, not merely raw quantities. D.C. and Detroit, for instance. This condition is peculiar to the United States, it is not modeled anywhere else in the world, hence, "An American Thing".

Where do all the illegal firearms used to kill victims come from? South Africa? Columbia? Thailand?

Where do all the illegal firearms used to kill victims come from? South Africa? Columbia? Thailand?


Gunrunning is big business. A few years into the Clinton administration, BATF made a pretty big bust-a Chinese cargo-ship at San Diego loaded with military AK-47's (that's the full-auto version) and AKMs(full-auto capable version). shortly after the end of the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua, Ragnar Benson (notable weirdo on the far, far, looney-far right) was offered a warehouse of soviet-made weapons at a going rate of $25 per rifle-a price he rejected, as AK values at the time were significantly lower on the global market.

One of the main reasons the AK became a symbol of "The Gangsta" lifestyle in the U.S. in the eighties, was that they could be had, and not the semi-auto versions, on the American Black Market, cheaper than U.S. made AR-15's that had not been converted from semiauto to full.

The arms bazaars in Somalia were chock-full-of weapons ranging from WW1 era pistols and rifles, all the way up to the current Soviet Standard of the time (AK-74), for cash, and for really, REALLY cheap.

This doesn't draw into the occasional reappearance of "Destroyed" arms sent to the Crushers which mysteriously turn up in the hands of American Criminals, nor the thousands of stolen weapons on the streets that have been on the streets as stolen weapons for DECADES.

A friend of mine, about ten, maybe fifteen years ago, was instrumental in locating a consignment of M-16s that had gone missing from Ft. Lewis (a military base), and were being sold to gangsters and other sorts out of a garage in Lake Stevens (that's a city in Washington). When I mustered out in the nineties, a fellow who may yet be in Leavenworth offered to procure for me an Army-issue Sniper rifle for the sum of $700. While I informed CID and helped get this blackmarketing fuck arrested, others may tend to not be so ethical.

Short form, for the ignorant: Criminals will get weapons even when non-criminals can not, and there are so many sources it's a bit like trying to decide which river contributed to the wave of water that just washed your house out to sea.

What a nightmare! I'd hate to be in neighborhood where those guns are!

When I was at Ft. Polk in the months after 5th I.D. left for Hood (and changed their unit des to 3rd AD), there was a serious problem in the Post Housing area-local gangs and the local Racists were running around with Military-Issue weapons traceable back to 5th I.D.'s period at that post. SERIOUS hardware, the CID guys and the MP's were up to their eyeballs trying to get it back from the street gangs in Post Housing, and the KKK just outside the post's boundaries. For a while, it was the Murder capital of the U.S. Army (CONUS), as Soldiers were forbidden to carry their Personally-Owned weapons in a ready condition off duty, and were required to keep them under lock-and-key in the arms-rooms... kind of a state of "Gun Control" if you will.

The whole environment was highly educational.

The wonderful thing about this thread is that all the Charlton Heston impersonators emerge from the woodwork grimacing:
"When you prise them from my cold dead fingers!"

When I think of it Charlton was always carrying a gun in his movies - talk about product placement for the NRA! I wonder if Cecil B De Mille coaxed him into playing Moses in the Ten Commandmentsby saying, "Now Chuck, just imagine this staff yopu're holding is an M1 and you are going to waste Pharoah's army."

I love you guys in the US imagining that we don't have beer swilling rednecks over here - some of them even have pick-ups complete with the rebel flag. Sigh! We can be so-o-o culturally derivative! Guys, you care so much about guns because they remind you of your weiners! Sigh! Most of you might grow ou tof them when you actually get some!

I'm no Charlton Heston impersonator. As I said before, when they come to seize my firearm, I'm not going to shoot it out with them while yelling, "From my cold dead hands". I'll have to relay the tale of how I lost my firearm in a tragic boating accident in Long Island Sound.

BTW, Charlton Heston didn't always carry a firearm in his movies. Check his IMDB page (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000032/) if you want to see a list of the roles he's played.

And again with that same lame personal attack is used. Big surprise there. :rolleyes:

Heh! Heh! Good one!;)

I agree with Forsakia though. There are times when an armed population has resisted a fascist coup (like in Republican Spain in 1936) but more often than not people who are armed have sided with the fascist elements - like when the German ex-servicemen were given guns by the German state to crush the Spartacist revolt in 1919.

These of course were extreme periods before and after wars.

And Dyako, trolling is in the eye of the beholder! Maybe I was rattlin' your cage a little - but don't shoot me! I'm sorry!:hail:

*shoots Collectivity*

For those that don't understand, read Federalist #51, and think about it from a perspective of someone a little bit less safe, a touch less inclined to be Obedient, a hair less likely to inform on their neighbours, family members, and "Friends" (term used loosely) when your leaders do something atrocious for "The common good" (or maybe "For your own good").

Even the symbolic nature of it-(sure, a semi-auto AR-15 won't do much to a tank) is important, as a reminder in whom the Sovereignty of the Nation was invested at the founding.

Except for the fact that the extremist, pro-gun portion of the populace are also extremist in their support for the faction of government that is most likely to strip us of our rights that the gun nuts don't care about, ie all but the right to own guns.

Another classic argument easily debunked with observed facts.

Less gun ownership restrictions for law-abiding citizens.

To me, this does not stop violence. It allows good people to partake in the violence, in order to defend themselves, but the fact is that the violence still exists. Wouldn't it make more sense to deal with the root causes of the violence?

Your premises as to what causes violence might be wrong. For example, there seems to be a correlation between high population density and violent crime. Where the US has more dense population centers, there is an abnormally high violent crime rate. The sparse population of Canada and the small number of major metropolitan centers would contribute to the lower crime rate. The US has more cities, larger cities, and worse gang problems.

The are not my premises. They are Markreich's. I was showing him/her that his/her premises were wrong. Perhaps it is a combination of religious and ethnic heterogeneity and a high population density, rather than a low one, but I'm not inclined to believe it.

Most cases of gun violence seem to be between gang members or close friends and family. People shoot each other for control of crime or for all those reasons that a husband shoots a wife. Maybe I am wrong, but these seem to be the majority of cases and religious and ethnic strife don't seem to be a major factor in these.

Solving the gang problems is the hard part. I have no idea how, except that government welfare has not reduced anything and therefore needs to be reconsidered.

Why do gangs exist in the first place?

Do you have any evidence that government welfare systems haven't reduced violence?

I would say armed uprisings are more likely to lead to tyranny than away from it.


Armed uprisings have the possibility to lead from form of tyranny to another. That's still preferable because it at least puts the people's fate in their hands.


What is tyranny exactly? An oppressive government is more likely to salami slice away rights. Where's the line when everyone rebels? People will have different opinions and different places where they'll stand up. And I think the first lot to do so will be condemned as traitors and put down hard enough to discourage significant members of the population from repeating the idea.


In the case of the United States, the government tends to resort to salami slicing rights away because we have an armed population. A government with nothing to fear from its people won't even bother with that pretense. I'm sorry, but I just can't grasp your logic. It makes no sense that you would rather citizens merely be at the mercy of their leaders.
Even a slim chance of success in revolt is better than no chance whatsoever. Maybe you trust governments to always act in their population's best interestes, but I'm not so trusting as you. Being prepared for war is the most effective way of preserving peace, in my opinion.


I agree with Forsakia though. There are times when an armed population has resisted a fascist coup (like in Republican Spain in 1936) but more often than not people who are armed have sided with the fascist elements - like when the German ex-servicemen were given guns by the German state to crush the Spartacist revolt in 1919.


You missed an important factor, there. They were given guns by the government, meaning that the government, not the people, decided who had guns and who didn't. There's a huge difference there.

If you took guns out of the equation people would use knives to commit crimes. If you outlaw knives they'd use forks and spoons.

The purpose of gun ownership, in America, is to protect the citizenry from the tyrrany of the government. If you want to make guns less desireable, make government less prone to tyrrany.

That entire point of the second amendment is to provide a check against the government.

More like defense against the English government...I know I'm generalising.

Well I would say that the UK population is as diverse as the US given that we have communities from all parts of the former empire, and we probably have more immigration for our size than the US does.

Ah! You'd be wrong then:

USA
Race: White 79.96%, Black 12.85%, Hispanic 15.1%, Asian 4.43%, Alaskan/Amerindian 0.97%, Hawaiian & Pacific Islander 0.18%
Language: 82.1% English, 10.7% Spanish, Other Euro 3.8%, Asian lang. 2.7% Other 0.7%
Religion: 51.3% Protestant, 23.9% Roman Catholic, 1.7% Mormon, 1.6% other Christian, 1.7% Jewish, 0.7% Buddhist, 0.6% Muslim 2.5% other, 12.1% Unaffiliated

UK:
Race: White 92.1%, Black 2%, Indian/Pakistani 3.1%, Other 1.6%
Language: English 99%, with 60,000 Scottish speakers and 750,000 Welsh speakers
Relgion: 71.6% Christian, 2.7% Muslim 1.6% other, 23.1% Unaffiliated

Legal immigration:
2007: 60 Milllion British, with a net immigration of 200,000.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1047606/Immigration-births-non-British-mothers-pushes-British-population-record-high.html
...about 0.3%

2007: 300 Million Americans, with a net immigration of averages 880,000
http://www.census.gov/population/www/pop-profile/natproj.html
...about 0.3%

NOW, do you really think the UK has proportional illegal aliens to the USA? LOL!

Canada has less homogeneity of population, more religious diversity, and much less population density. Consequently, we should have a much higher rate of such violence than the USA. This is not the case. Therefore, you are wrong about what causes gun violence.

Um... less population density means LESS crime and LESS gun violence!

Feel free to cite those numbers.

Ah! You'd be wrong then:

USA
Race: White 79.96%, Black 12.85%, Hispanic 15.1%, Asian 4.43%, Alaskan/Amerindian 0.97%, Hawaiian & Pacific Islander 0.18%
Language: 82.1% English, 10.7% Spanish, Other Euro 3.8%, Asian lang. 2.7% Other 0.7%
Religion: 51.3% Protestant, 23.9% Roman Catholic, 1.7% Mormon, 1.6% other Christian, 1.7% Jewish, 0.7% Buddhist, 0.6% Muslim 2.5% other, 12.1% Unaffiliated

UK:
Race: White 92.1%, Black 2%, Indian/Pakistani 3.1%, Other 1.6%
Language: English 99%, with 60,000 Scottish speakers and 750,000 Welsh speakers
Relgion: 71.6% Christian, 2.7% Muslim 1.6% other, 23.1% Unaffiliated

Legal immigration:
2007: 60 Milllion British, with a net immigration of 200,000.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1047606/Immigration-births-non-British-mothers-pushes-British-population-record-high.html
...about 0.3%

2007: 300 Million Americans, with a net immigration of averages 880,000
http://www.census.gov/population/www/pop-profile/natproj.html
...about 0.3%

NOW, do you really think the UK has proportional illegal aliens to the USA? LOL!

The Daily Mail is unreliable at the best of time. When it comes to immigrants they're insane. The ethnic guidelines are misleading since Poles and other Eastern Europeans make up a large proportion of immigrants. And how you're using any of these to measure illegal immigration I don't know.


If you took guns out of the equation people would use knives to commit crimes. If you outlaw knives they'd use forks and spoons.
It's actually a tad more difficult to commit crimes with a gun.


The purpose of gun ownership, in America, is to protect the citizenry from the tyrrany of the government. If you want to make guns less desireable, make government less prone to tyrrany.
What exactly are you suggesting?

Armed uprisings have the possibility to lead from form of tyranny to another. That's still preferable because it at least puts the people's fate in their hands.

Or the possibility to lead from peace and democracy into tyranny. I'd suggest that they've more often done that than vice versa.


In the case of the United States, the government tends to resort to salami slicing rights away because we have an armed population. A government with nothing to fear from its people won't even bother with that pretense. I'm sorry, but I just can't grasp your logic. It makes no sense that you would rather citizens merely be at the mercy of their leaders.
Even a slim chance of success in revolt is better than no chance whatsoever. Maybe you trust governments to always act in their population's best interestes, but I'm not so trusting as you. Being prepared for war is the most effective way of preserving peace, in my opinion.
I fear private armies and more than corrupt governments. I think tyranny is more likely to come from a coup d'etat than an elected government imposing it.


You missed an important factor, there. They were given guns by the government, meaning that the government, not the people, decided who had guns and who didn't. There's a huge difference there.
He's wrong there, most of those veterans had just forgotten to give their guns back after WWI.

More like defense against the English government...I know I'm generalising.

Aside from that, it was so their own government wouldn't be tempted to get too tyrannical, and so the people could revolt again if it did.

Or the possibility to lead from peace and democracy into tyranny. I'd suggest that they've more often done that than vice versa.


Except people rarely revolt if conditions are favorable, or even barely tolerable.


I fear private armies and more than corrupt governments. I think tyranny is more likely to come from a coup d'etat than an elected government imposing it.


Expanding on what I said above, the vast majority of the times, private armies perform coups on regimes that are already oppressive. And if they intend to form a regime that is even more oppressive, one of the first things the new group in power will do is disarm their opposition. Besides, an armed population with citizen militias is a different animal entirely to private armies.

And again I make the point that I would far rather have the government at the mercy of the people than the people at the mercy of the government. Since you apparently think the opposite way, we’ll just need to agree to disagree.

Except people rarely revolt if conditions are favorable, or even barely tolerable.
They revolt for a wide variety of reasons. The american civil war being a case in point.


Expanding on what I said above, the vast majority of the times, private armies perform coups on regimes that are already oppressive.

I disagree.


And again I make the point that I would far rather have the government at the mercy of the people than the people at the mercy of the government. Since you apparently think the opposite way, we’ll just need to agree to disagree.
Fair enough. I'm highly skeptical off the possibility of a nationwide popular revolt happening or ending well. I fear armed gangs more than governments.

The Daily Mail is unreliable at the best of time. When it comes to immigrants they're insane. The ethnic guidelines are misleading since Poles and other Eastern Europeans make up a large proportion of immigrants. And how you're using any of these to measure illegal immigration I don't know.


ROTFLMAO!!!! Okay, can you cite more reliable numbers for "Melting Pot UK"? I mean, the DM did take the numbers from your government and all. :rolleyes:

What's next, complaining that there are too many cheap laborers hanging out at the Home Depot in Croydon? :D

The Daily Mail is unreliable at the best of time. When it comes to immigrants they're insane. The ethnic guidelines are misleading since Poles and other Eastern Europeans make up a large proportion of immigrants. And how you're using any of these to measure illegal immigration I don't know.



We have 10 million Poles in the US. % of total population 3.3%.
There are also Irish, Italians and so on.
The UK according to the 2001 census 5.27% of the population is white Non British. Where as No singular white ethnic group holds majority status with in the US. The largest ethnic group would be the German Americans with 17% of the population.
Now you may Think the UK is more diverse then it is if you live in London. And that's because 50% of all the non Europeans live in London.
But as you should be used to telling Americans by now London is not the UK.

ROTFLMAO!!!! Okay, can you cite more reliable numbers for "Melting Pot UK"? I mean, the DM did take the numbers from your government and all. :rolleyes:

What's next, complaining that there are too many cheap laborers hanging out at the Home Depot in Croydon? :D

I didn't read the DM article, mea culpa. They have a history of being less than reliable. The point about ethnicities being misleading stands.

I'm from Newport, South Wales. I don't know the stats but I suspect we're probably over-average for minorities.


We have 10 million Poles in the US. % of total population 3.3%.
There are also Irish, Italians and so on.
The UK according to the 2001 census 5.27% of the population is white Non British. Where as No singular white ethnic group holds majority status with in the US. The largest ethnic group would be the German Americans with 17% of the population.
The 2001 census is significantly out of date due to the EU enlargement, with significant levels of immigration from that. And that's first generation migrants not nth generation decendants.

I didn't read the DM article, mea culpa. They have a history of being less than reliable. The point about ethnicities being misleading stands.

I'm from Newport, South Wales. I don't know the stats but I suspect we're probably over-average for minorities.


The 2001 census is significantly out of date due to the EU enlargement, with significant levels of immigration from that. And that's first generation migrants not nth generation decendants.

yes but a lot of the poles go back after they make money. Even more so as the polish economy has improved.
We don't have a guest worker system all our immigrants are seeking to move here.
And as for first generation Id say 12% of our population is Hispanic.

We don't have a guest worker system all our immigrants are seeking to move here.
You do actually. It's part of a system that is frankly a pile of crap (the entire US legal immigration system is), but it does exist.

You do actually. It's part of a system that is frankly a pile of crap (the entire US legal immigration system is), but it does exist.

I dont know how anyone gets through the system to be honest.

I didn't read the DM article, mea culpa. They have a history of being less than reliable. The point about ethnicities being misleading stands.

I'm from Newport, South Wales. I don't know the stats but I suspect we're probably over-average for minorities.


The 2001 census is significantly out of date due to the EU enlargement, with significant levels of immigration from that. And that's first generation migrants not nth generation decendants.

The point does not stand, as you have not yet defended it.

I live near Bridgeport, CT. If you walk 2km from Beardsley Park (it will be on any map), you can find Polish, Russian, Slovak, German/Austrian, Puerto Rican, Jamaican, and Italian neighborhoods. The city has 30 different houses of worship: Temples, Mosques, Catholic, Greek Orthodox, every shade of Protestant, Jehovah's Witness, etc.
I can get by in some areas speaking only Slovak. I have relatives that have never learned English that came here in the 1960s!
Now, while this doesn't play out in every city in the US... it does in most. Two of my dorm mates in the early 90s in college were Viet Namese... from Iowa.

EU enlargement, while finally bringing a little diversity within Europe for the first time since WW2, simply pales in comparison to the US. In a few generations when you guys finally Federalize and become a United States of Europe people will move around like Americans do... and a block of Germans in Croydon will raise no more of an eyebrow than a block of New Yorkers in Maryland.

Well gun sales have increased 45% in the last 2 months. Democrats have done far more for arms proliferation then i ever would have expected! :)

I have previously ever owned one gun in my life, a Glock 17 and havnt fired it in a decade. And when i do shoot its strictly target or fun stuff to make explode like fruit. I just ordered an assult rifle Colt AR15 A3 because Obama has already made it clear he intends to ban them and previously i didnt have a spare $3k for a weapon. Im actually very excited for it to arrive. However, I cant be qualified as a crazy dangerous assult gun toting gun nut, i havnt even fired the one gun ive owned for 20 years for a decade. I shoot on my own land. So why should i be banned from getting one? Rediculous.

and a block of Germans in Croydon will raise no more of an eyebrow than a block of New Yorkers in Maryland.

I wonder who would raise more eyebrows, a block of Germans in Croydon or a block of New Yorkers in Texas.

Ah! You'd be wrong then:

USA
Race: White 79.96%, Black 12.85%, Hispanic 15.1%, Asian 4.43%, Alaskan/Amerindian 0.97%, Hawaiian & Pacific Islander 0.18%
Language: 82.1% English, 10.7% Spanish, Other Euro 3.8%, Asian lang. 2.7% Other 0.7%
Religion: 51.3% Protestant, 23.9% Roman Catholic, 1.7% Mormon, 1.6% other Christian, 1.7% Jewish, 0.7% Buddhist, 0.6% Muslim 2.5% other, 12.1% Unaffiliated

UK:
Race: White 92.1%, Black 2%, Indian/Pakistani 3.1%, Other 1.6%
Language: English 99%, with 60,000 Scottish speakers and 750,000 Welsh speakers
Relgion: 71.6% Christian, 2.7% Muslim 1.6% other, 23.1% Unaffiliated

Legal immigration:
2007: 60 Milllion British, with a net immigration of 200,000.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1047606/Immigration-births-non-British-mothers-pushes-British-population-record-high.html
...about 0.3%

2007: 300 Million Americans, with a net immigration of averages 880,000
http://www.census.gov/population/www/pop-profile/natproj.html
...about 0.3%

NOW, do you really think the UK has proportional illegal aliens to the USA? LOL!

Looks like I was wrong. Possibly because I live in Leicester where we have a rather different population profile
http://www.leicester.gov.uk/index.asp?pgid=1009

surely according to your theory having the most diverse population we should have more strife and gun crime? It doesn't seem to work that way.

The statistics for USA are interesting but a little flawed!! Just add up the percentages for race. It ought to total 100%. Instead the total is 113%!!! Some mistake, surely?

<snip> I just ordered an assult rifle Colt AR15 A3 <snip>

It isn't an "assault" rifle if it doesn't have a burst or full auto firing mode. It's just a gun that looks like an assault rifle.

It isn't an "assault" rifle if it doesn't have a burst or full auto firing mode. It's just a gun that looks like an assault rifle.

True but whats the distinction really? I could probably in fact kill more people on a semi setting then i could on auto as you would run out of ammo rather quickly before needing to reload. It doesnt take THAT long to squeeze a trigger 20 times on say 20 different targets vs blowing a half a magazine on one target. (Mind you this is purely a theoretical issue and not a discussion on how to kill more people lol)

It isn't an "assault" rifle if it doesn't have a burst or full auto firing mode. It's just a gun that looks like an assault rifle.

true but that's why it will be banned. Looks.

true but that's why it will be banned. Looks.

Unfortunately, that's the way it is in 7 states already. Hopefully, a new federal AWB can be stopped though, because I eventually want to move to a no-ban state.

Unfortunately, that's the way it is in 7 states already. Hopefully, a new federal AWB can be stopped though, because I eventually want to move to a no-ban state.

I have no problems with state bans. Federal bans however are unconstitutional.

The statistics for USA are interesting but a little flawed!! Just add up the percentages for race. It ought to total 100%. Instead the total is 113%!!! Some mistake, surely?Markreich is using flawed data, the dated statistics he's quoting include hispanics in the other races (mostly whites) as well as giving a seperate figure.

US census figures for 2006 are actually:

Black persons 12.8%
American Indian and Alaska Native persons 1.0%
Asian persons 4.4%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 0.2%
Persons reporting two or more races 1.6%
Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin 14.8%
White persons not Hispanic 66.4%

I won't even bother with the languages but it looks like his religion figures are a little skewed too. His protestant figures without even breaking down for all the various branches, are a little high and his Catholic and other christian figures are likewise low. The other religions are close with the notable exception of unaffiliated (which includes atheists and agnostics) which is more like 15%. Religion figures I quote are for 2001 and it should be noted that all prodestant religions have been losing ground for the decade prior, catholics have been holding about even and the percentage of other christians and unaffiliateds has been growing steadily.

The statistics for USA are interesting but a little flawed!! Just add up the percentages for race. It ought to total 100%. Instead the total is 113%!!! Some mistake, surely?

that has to do with Hispanics. They get counted twice. as they have a listing for white Hispanic and black Hispanic and often get counted with those races. Then get listed separately.
Its caused by being PC as many Hispanics identify with being European or African. Though it also confuses people as to my knowledge the majority prefer to identify with being Hispanic.
white non Hispanic % of the population is closer to the mid 60 percentage range.

True but whats the distinction really? I could probably in fact kill more people on a semi setting then i could on auto as you would run out of ammo rather quickly before needing to reload. It doesnt take THAT long to squeeze a trigger 20 times on say 20 different targets vs blowing a half a magazine on one target. (Mind you this is purely a theoretical issue and not a discussion on how to kill more people lol)

Say that louder! Make the government suddenly require us to all have full auto only in the name of safety! :p

Educate all children about the safe use and handling of firearms, promote responsible gun ownership and increase severely the penalties for using a gun in a crime or furnishing a gun to a criminal.

Educate all children about the safe use and handling of firearms, promote responsible gun ownership and increase severely the penalties for using a gun in a crime or furnishing a gun to a criminal.
NOW you're using too much sense. that'd never play in Chicago, Detroit, Washington D.C., Seattle, San Francisco, Boston, Philadephia, New Orleans, or any other centre of power. It might start reducing the Fear, you see, and it might bust the Illusions and the Totemism/mystique/fantasies.

Plus, it requires that you require something that the majority of people don't like to do-it requires that people start acting and thinking in a responsible way-and in the big cities, that's just not a-gonnna happen.

Education would make sense. You need a car liscence to risk peoples lives on the road. Why dont you need to go through more for a more lethal item? Or should we just remove the car liscence to make this fair. My 8 year old cousin wants to try driving

Education would make sense. You need a car liscence to risk peoples lives on the road. Why dont you need to go through more for a more lethal item? Or should we just remove the car liscence to make this fair. My 8 year old cousin wants to try driving

If it were as easy to get a firearms license in most cities as it is to get a driver's license, I'd be all for that-there are a HOST of folks who shouldn't be on the road at all. The scary part about that is, consider how you see people on the freeway or city streets-speeding (breaking the law and endangering others), running red lights (breaking the law, endangering lives), following too close (Endangering lives AND property), driving erratically (Cell Phones!!! again endangering lives and property).

If only Automobiles were as heavily regulated as firearms-in most large cities, this would mean that the crack-addict coming out of the bar would have to wait for a bus while drunk, instead of hopping behind the wheel to swerve and speed his way through neighbourhoods to his home, vehicular homicide would be a capital offense, which would cut down a LOT on reckless driving, and providing an automobile to someone who is non-compos-mentis or lost his driving privelages would be a Felony with hard time.

For that matter, most Felons wouldn't be allowed to drive, and anyone that provided them a car, or sold them one, would be on the way to prison... you know, the Authoritarian tyrant in me really likes that idea...hmmmm.

I wonder who would raise more eyebrows, a block of Germans in Croydon or a block of New Yorkers in Texas.

That depends if Basil mentions the war. ;)

The point does not stand, as you have not yet defended it.

I live near Bridgeport, CT. If you walk 2km from Beardsley Park (it will be on any map), you can find Polish, Russian, Slovak, German/Austrian, Puerto Rican, Jamaican, and Italian neighborhoods. The city has 30 different houses of worship: Temples, Mosques, Catholic, Greek Orthodox, every shade of Protestant, Jehovah's Witness, etc.
I can get by in some areas speaking only Slovak. I have relatives that have never learned English that came here in the 1960s!
Now, while this doesn't play out in every city in the US... it does in most. Two of my dorm mates in the early 90s in college were Viet Namese... from Iowa.

EU enlargement, while finally bringing a little diversity within Europe for the first time since WW2, simply pales in comparison to the US. In a few generations when you guys finally Federalize and become a United States of Europe people will move around like Americans do... and a block of Germans in Croydon will raise no more of an eyebrow than a block of New Yorkers in Maryland.

The point that since any particular ethnicity, such as 'white' doesn't indicate culture and amount of indigenousness then comparing % of ethnicites as levels of diversity is not accurate. Also with other ethnicities being present for a long period of time (thinking of African-Americans mostly) to the point that they are part of the indigenous (or the new indigenous that replaced the native americans).

Ethnic diversity does not necessarily equate with cultural diversity.

Looks like I was wrong. Possibly because I live in Leicester where we have a rather different population profile
http://www.leicester.gov.uk/index.asp?pgid=1009

surely according to your theory having the most diverse population we should have more strife and gun crime? It doesn't seem to work that way.

You've got a large contingent of Indians. That makes it more like Quebec (a dual city) than a melting pot. At 281,000 that about the same size as Newark, N.J.:
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ACSSAFFFacts?_event=&ActiveGeoDiv=geoSelect&pctxt=fph&_lang=en&_sse=on&geo_id=16000US3451000&_state=04000US34

So while Newark is 10% "whiter" than Leicester, be keen to note that almost all of Leicester's minority population is made up of Indians. Yet Newark has larger black and latino populations (BOTH) than Indians in Leicester.
But more importantly: I'd imagine that minorities in Leicester typically speak English and also come from areas with similar traditions. (British, that is.)

As for more crime, I'm not about to hunt through British websites to try to figure that one out. Do you have more crime than (say) Bolton?

It's a simple question. How do we counter the effects of the Gun Culture in the United States? Preferably without actually curtailing Second Amendment freedoms ...
So, what are your suggestions?


Keep guns, ban bullets?

The statistics for USA are interesting but a little flawed!! Just add up the percentages for race. It ought to total 100%. Instead the total is 113%!!! Some mistake, surely?

My bad. The white number should be 64%. I failed to deduct the hispanic % from it.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html#People if you want to see the reason.