[PCE]el_Prez
Vault Fossil
oh yeah and i forgot those smartguns that the US is developing now... those are pretty sweet.
Guns
- Thread starter [PCE]el_Prez
- Start date
Vault Fossil
bob_the_rambler
Where'd That 6th Toe Come From?
[PCE said:
guns are still slowly but steadly evolving. Good night more fun tomarow
welsh
Junkmaster
gun control?
Ozrat, some great posts.
Here's just a couple of points.
First- there are countries that have more guns than they US that don't have our murder rate. Just go north of the border and one will find very few murders taking place (with or without guns) compared to the US. If you doubt this, spend some time in Detroit and then go over the river to Canada and see the difference.
Although I am unsure of this, I had heard that the Swiss maintain weapons in most homes. If this is true (and any confirmation and correction would be appreciated) than this a second case for disconfirming the more guns leads to higher crime rates.
That said the argument that guns and weapons lead to human evolution needs to be very carefully reconsidered. For example the modern state system was not the creature of guns and weapons technology, but the processes of war-making leading to state making in which countries underwent reorganization of political, financial and social institutions.
If guns and weapons led to a better society, than we would expect many warzones throughout Africa and the middle east to be peaceful. But they're not. Rather they weapons kill and maim countless people, and allow for other more potent killers, like disease, to do their work.
So the relationship of culture to violence matters.
However, even here we have to be careful least we go down the fruitless path of good culture= no violence, bad culture= violence.
Most countries, even the most most peaceful, have a history of violence.
But historical evolution has involved the control of that violence, the mediation of disputes so that conflicts are not personalized, and that the costs of violence are reduced.
With regard to the guns, violence and murder in the US, the question really needs to be examined as to why so many people get killed in this country. Even accepting that this is a large country with a higher population, and thus should have more victims of violent crime does not explain the great disproportions.
To the best of my knowledge, most homicides take place in the home and start as domestic disturbances. This usually means a family member kills another family member or close friend.
This is where the spouse comes homes and finds the other spouse has made a date on Match.com and is still screwing the date on the living room couch. Or its the teenager who is pissed off with Dad and Mom because they won't let him borrow the car. Or its the kid who decides to play with guns and gets someone killed.
And often it's the idiot who gets pissed off in a bar and comes back in, drunk, with a .38, or the drunk or stoner who decided to try some target shooting with his friends out back and ends up shooting one of his buddies.
Not everyone who dies from guns is murdered. Sometimes it criminal negligent homicide, sometimes its manslaughter.
And its probably the asshole who gets a power trip from carrying a 9mm that either kills someone or gets killed.
That's what kills most people.
The problem with guns is a matter of discipline and empowerment, and in the US, fear. One need not learn the discipline needed to be a master of a martial art to kill someone with a gun. Guns give quick empowerment without discipline. And despite great decreases in the level of violent crime in the US over the past century, Americans are now probably more afraid of the random drug dealer, thief, psychopath, or sniper that probably doesn't exist. When one is insecure, one is more likely to respond with extreme measures.
If you shoot the man who is breaking into your house with a crowbar, in many states that's called murder. If you set up a deathtrap with a shotgun that blows away the person who breaks into your abode, that's murder. The idea is that no one private indivdiual has the right to utilize self-help means (meaning a gun) to kill someone else unless they have to. The standard of necessity to use lethal force for self defense is pretty high.
I'm sorry guys. As an American I acknowledge that you have a constitutional right to bear arms. I can also understand why the founding fathers thought it was an essential right. I also understand that there are pundits on both sides that spread a lot of propaganda on either side of the argument. But that's not worth a single life.
The fact of the matter is that there are too many people who lack the discipline or the sanity to bear guns responsibly in this country. It is a cultural phenomena, and the proof of it is in the numbers getting killed. There is something terribly wrong in killing each other at the levels we are.
And I am sorry, but I don't want my wife, or the kids I hope to have one day, being killed by some citizen who is on a power trip because they own a gun, or was afraid of state repression, or just had a bad day.
Until I know that we can be responsible with our guns, than those guns need to be controlled. That means stiff penalties for those who use guns and restricting the kinds of guns that are out there.
Especially if those who own guns can't even spell.
You're right to collect AK-47 does not outweigh my right not to be shot by the bastard who might have stolen your rifle.
Ozrat, some great posts.
Here's just a couple of points.
First- there are countries that have more guns than they US that don't have our murder rate. Just go north of the border and one will find very few murders taking place (with or without guns) compared to the US. If you doubt this, spend some time in Detroit and then go over the river to Canada and see the difference.
Although I am unsure of this, I had heard that the Swiss maintain weapons in most homes. If this is true (and any confirmation and correction would be appreciated) than this a second case for disconfirming the more guns leads to higher crime rates.
That said the argument that guns and weapons lead to human evolution needs to be very carefully reconsidered. For example the modern state system was not the creature of guns and weapons technology, but the processes of war-making leading to state making in which countries underwent reorganization of political, financial and social institutions.
If guns and weapons led to a better society, than we would expect many warzones throughout Africa and the middle east to be peaceful. But they're not. Rather they weapons kill and maim countless people, and allow for other more potent killers, like disease, to do their work.
So the relationship of culture to violence matters.
However, even here we have to be careful least we go down the fruitless path of good culture= no violence, bad culture= violence.
Most countries, even the most most peaceful, have a history of violence.
But historical evolution has involved the control of that violence, the mediation of disputes so that conflicts are not personalized, and that the costs of violence are reduced.
With regard to the guns, violence and murder in the US, the question really needs to be examined as to why so many people get killed in this country. Even accepting that this is a large country with a higher population, and thus should have more victims of violent crime does not explain the great disproportions.
To the best of my knowledge, most homicides take place in the home and start as domestic disturbances. This usually means a family member kills another family member or close friend.
This is where the spouse comes homes and finds the other spouse has made a date on Match.com and is still screwing the date on the living room couch. Or its the teenager who is pissed off with Dad and Mom because they won't let him borrow the car. Or its the kid who decides to play with guns and gets someone killed.
And often it's the idiot who gets pissed off in a bar and comes back in, drunk, with a .38, or the drunk or stoner who decided to try some target shooting with his friends out back and ends up shooting one of his buddies.
Not everyone who dies from guns is murdered. Sometimes it criminal negligent homicide, sometimes its manslaughter.
And its probably the asshole who gets a power trip from carrying a 9mm that either kills someone or gets killed.
That's what kills most people.
The problem with guns is a matter of discipline and empowerment, and in the US, fear. One need not learn the discipline needed to be a master of a martial art to kill someone with a gun. Guns give quick empowerment without discipline. And despite great decreases in the level of violent crime in the US over the past century, Americans are now probably more afraid of the random drug dealer, thief, psychopath, or sniper that probably doesn't exist. When one is insecure, one is more likely to respond with extreme measures.
If you shoot the man who is breaking into your house with a crowbar, in many states that's called murder. If you set up a deathtrap with a shotgun that blows away the person who breaks into your abode, that's murder. The idea is that no one private indivdiual has the right to utilize self-help means (meaning a gun) to kill someone else unless they have to. The standard of necessity to use lethal force for self defense is pretty high.
I'm sorry guys. As an American I acknowledge that you have a constitutional right to bear arms. I can also understand why the founding fathers thought it was an essential right. I also understand that there are pundits on both sides that spread a lot of propaganda on either side of the argument. But that's not worth a single life.
The fact of the matter is that there are too many people who lack the discipline or the sanity to bear guns responsibly in this country. It is a cultural phenomena, and the proof of it is in the numbers getting killed. There is something terribly wrong in killing each other at the levels we are.
And I am sorry, but I don't want my wife, or the kids I hope to have one day, being killed by some citizen who is on a power trip because they own a gun, or was afraid of state repression, or just had a bad day.
Until I know that we can be responsible with our guns, than those guns need to be controlled. That means stiff penalties for those who use guns and restricting the kinds of guns that are out there.
Especially if those who own guns can't even spell.
You're right to collect AK-47 does not outweigh my right not to be shot by the bastard who might have stolen your rifle.
bob_the_rambler: calm down. There's no sense in starting to call people names, nor is there any need to get agressive just because you don't agree with them. Even if you don't agree with Ozrat, you should at least agree that he is making sense. If you don't think he is making any sense, you should do what he says and backtrack a bit to check your knowledge of the facts.
As for gun control;
If there's one conclusions I've been able to draw from what information I got on gun control and the discussion I've had with Gwydion and Tone, then it's that the situation isn't black and white (which is logical, as pretty much no situation is black and white).
Whether or not gun control is usefull in your country depends completely on how your culture is structured. Let's start with America:
Americans need to have guns. This isn't an obsession of the people, that wouldn't be fair to say. They really DO need guns, to defend themselves, partially, but that's first and foremost because the founding fathers built their nation on such grounds that self-defence becomes necessary, because of an overload of freedom every human is given (ultimate freedom is ultimately bad. We don't live in a neo-darwinist society where everyone can just hug each other, humans aren't ultimately evil or good, but they can't be trusted either way)
Moore's fear theory ties into this nicely, and so does the "control"-theory gathered from whatever book the movie "Instinct" is based on. Either way, Americans would be hardpressed to give up their guns. And maybe that's all for the best, because looking at the structure of the nation, you might be one of the countries that WOULD revolt against an "evil" government. What America needs for and foremost is a culture change. Heck, every Western nation needs a culture change. We're rotten through the core, and balancing on the point of collapse (can't remember the book, I'll name it as soon as I can).
Switch to Switzerland:
The Swiss have always been independent, proud people. Every Swiss (male, I think) aged 16 goes to the military, learns to use a gun, learns to be responsible with his gun, then gets to keep the gun under his bed. Does Switzerland have a lot of crime? No, obviously not, who wants to break into the house of a person carrying a gun and possessing enough skill to use it?
This is one of the major differences with America, everyone there is trained and knows how to handle his gun responsibly. Someone like Tone also knows this, he's in the military. Some half-wit yokel in Texas going "Yeeehaw, maw, I gots me a gun" does not. That's a real problem, but to create an obligatory "gun-ownership course" would be unconstitutional (btw; the "don't change the constitution"-law is really stupid).
The second difference being obvious; the Swiss are damned rich. Not rich like the Americans, with a small top, a huge middle and a bottom that's bigger than the top but smaller than the middle, but all of them rich. Nazi-gold, y'know. Who wants to rob anyone if you can make more money through taxfraud anyway?
On the Holland;
We don't want gun laws. We don't need gun laws. The crime rates in Holland are pretty rediculous (though I think they've gone down after the most recent Interpol numbers, but that's another case, and I'd have to try and get my hands on some numbers), but this is not because of our restrictive gun laws. We've always had these laws, yet the Netherlands had almost utopic times from the '60's to the '80's. We have a policing problem, a law-processing problem. We don't have a gun problem, nor do we want one.
"But don't you need the ability to protect yourself from your own government?"
Yes, maybe, but not only do we not have a rediculous system like the US, let's calculate; 50% of the Americans vote, less than 50% of those vote Bush, i.e. Bush has less than 25% REAL support from voting Americans. Seems pretty near to the 23.5% that the bolsjewistic party had in the election of '17. By comparision; about 80-90% of the Dutch vote, the government has 55-60% support from those, if not more.
But also, I can't exactly be proud of the Dutch in their ability to "be involved". "As long as it doesn't touch me, I don't care". If we get an opressive fascist government that decides to evict all foreigners, chances are none of us will do anything about it, guns or not. I can't be proud of it, but that's the way our society has been structured since before WW2, and nobody is really doing anything to change it, even though we really, REALLY need to.
PS: "99% of all gun crimes by criminals". Yip, but I bet only a small percentage of your gun deaths are counted as crimes.
PPS: "Anti-Americanism caused by envy" is so typical. That's one of the reasons there is anti-Americans; the Americans are so bloody arrogant. And with reason, you are the biggest, but it's still annoying.
"We must hold steady in our belief that right makes might" (or something) - Abraham Lincoln. Notice how he doesn't say "might makes right", which is, in fact, the world-wide situation between America and the rest of the world right now.
As for gun control;
If there's one conclusions I've been able to draw from what information I got on gun control and the discussion I've had with Gwydion and Tone, then it's that the situation isn't black and white (which is logical, as pretty much no situation is black and white).
Whether or not gun control is usefull in your country depends completely on how your culture is structured. Let's start with America:
Americans need to have guns. This isn't an obsession of the people, that wouldn't be fair to say. They really DO need guns, to defend themselves, partially, but that's first and foremost because the founding fathers built their nation on such grounds that self-defence becomes necessary, because of an overload of freedom every human is given (ultimate freedom is ultimately bad. We don't live in a neo-darwinist society where everyone can just hug each other, humans aren't ultimately evil or good, but they can't be trusted either way)
Moore's fear theory ties into this nicely, and so does the "control"-theory gathered from whatever book the movie "Instinct" is based on. Either way, Americans would be hardpressed to give up their guns. And maybe that's all for the best, because looking at the structure of the nation, you might be one of the countries that WOULD revolt against an "evil" government. What America needs for and foremost is a culture change. Heck, every Western nation needs a culture change. We're rotten through the core, and balancing on the point of collapse (can't remember the book, I'll name it as soon as I can).
Switch to Switzerland:
The Swiss have always been independent, proud people. Every Swiss (male, I think) aged 16 goes to the military, learns to use a gun, learns to be responsible with his gun, then gets to keep the gun under his bed. Does Switzerland have a lot of crime? No, obviously not, who wants to break into the house of a person carrying a gun and possessing enough skill to use it?
This is one of the major differences with America, everyone there is trained and knows how to handle his gun responsibly. Someone like Tone also knows this, he's in the military. Some half-wit yokel in Texas going "Yeeehaw, maw, I gots me a gun" does not. That's a real problem, but to create an obligatory "gun-ownership course" would be unconstitutional (btw; the "don't change the constitution"-law is really stupid).
The second difference being obvious; the Swiss are damned rich. Not rich like the Americans, with a small top, a huge middle and a bottom that's bigger than the top but smaller than the middle, but all of them rich. Nazi-gold, y'know. Who wants to rob anyone if you can make more money through taxfraud anyway?
On the Holland;
We don't want gun laws. We don't need gun laws. The crime rates in Holland are pretty rediculous (though I think they've gone down after the most recent Interpol numbers, but that's another case, and I'd have to try and get my hands on some numbers), but this is not because of our restrictive gun laws. We've always had these laws, yet the Netherlands had almost utopic times from the '60's to the '80's. We have a policing problem, a law-processing problem. We don't have a gun problem, nor do we want one.
"But don't you need the ability to protect yourself from your own government?"
Yes, maybe, but not only do we not have a rediculous system like the US, let's calculate; 50% of the Americans vote, less than 50% of those vote Bush, i.e. Bush has less than 25% REAL support from voting Americans. Seems pretty near to the 23.5% that the bolsjewistic party had in the election of '17. By comparision; about 80-90% of the Dutch vote, the government has 55-60% support from those, if not more.
But also, I can't exactly be proud of the Dutch in their ability to "be involved". "As long as it doesn't touch me, I don't care". If we get an opressive fascist government that decides to evict all foreigners, chances are none of us will do anything about it, guns or not. I can't be proud of it, but that's the way our society has been structured since before WW2, and nobody is really doing anything to change it, even though we really, REALLY need to.
PS: "99% of all gun crimes by criminals". Yip, but I bet only a small percentage of your gun deaths are counted as crimes.
PPS: "Anti-Americanism caused by envy" is so typical. That's one of the reasons there is anti-Americans; the Americans are so bloody arrogant. And with reason, you are the biggest, but it's still annoying.
"We must hold steady in our belief that right makes might" (or something) - Abraham Lincoln. Notice how he doesn't say "might makes right", which is, in fact, the world-wide situation between America and the rest of the world right now.
"Without guns humans would have over populated, war is nessicary 80% of the time (though in Viet Nahm war was not appropriate) "
Was that because you lost that war?
Nevermind, are you saying that war is nessicary, that whenever we think that there is too much people around we should start a war and kill somebody so that there would be room for the strongest, the ones with a gun. Ha!
Then we should do just that. China and india should dissolve into anarchy and kill and maim and murder until there is somewhere around 50 million left in each country. Would that not be a blast? Overpopulation would be out of the picture for some time.
In norway you have to pass test for only to own guns for hunting. We who take that course is trained to use weapons with the outmost care, just to point at people with an empty gun is considered to be stupid.
To buy weapons for selfdefence is not allowed, why? Because we have a police force here that will take care of that.
When you pass army service in norway, most people are given an ag-3 that they can take home, and every bloody year we hear about some poor familiy father that snaps and kill himself and his familiy with that, gun. The gouverment recently
"the people with the weopons survive and the protesters die, thats all there is to it"
That right there, is social darwinism.
"you are @#$%^&* outrageious you must be one of those tree huggers, you think your so smart but in the real world im shure your just another hippie (nothin wrong whith smoking pot if thats what your into) but damn your vews are screwed, if people like you ruled there would be total anarchie "
I don't call that much of an argument. If you checked you would see that anarchy ,in the true meaning of the word, would be perfect world, with peace. Unfortunatly human nature makes that impossibole. And no i'm not an anarchist.
Was that because you lost that war?
Nevermind, are you saying that war is nessicary, that whenever we think that there is too much people around we should start a war and kill somebody so that there would be room for the strongest, the ones with a gun. Ha!
Then we should do just that. China and india should dissolve into anarchy and kill and maim and murder until there is somewhere around 50 million left in each country. Would that not be a blast? Overpopulation would be out of the picture for some time.
In norway you have to pass test for only to own guns for hunting. We who take that course is trained to use weapons with the outmost care, just to point at people with an empty gun is considered to be stupid.
To buy weapons for selfdefence is not allowed, why? Because we have a police force here that will take care of that.
When you pass army service in norway, most people are given an ag-3 that they can take home, and every bloody year we hear about some poor familiy father that snaps and kill himself and his familiy with that, gun. The gouverment recently
"the people with the weopons survive and the protesters die, thats all there is to it"
That right there, is social darwinism.
"you are @#$%^&* outrageious you must be one of those tree huggers, you think your so smart but in the real world im shure your just another hippie (nothin wrong whith smoking pot if thats what your into) but damn your vews are screwed, if people like you ruled there would be total anarchie "
I don't call that much of an argument. If you checked you would see that anarchy ,in the true meaning of the word, would be perfect world, with peace. Unfortunatly human nature makes that impossibole. And no i'm not an anarchist.
Loxley said:
Aye, anarachism, like Socialism and the original version of Liberalism before it was turned into the neo-Liberalism now implemented in most of the Western World, are all social-darwinism.
And since social-darwinism as a philosofy is wrong, to be blatant, the above political forms of governing are wrong.
welsh:
Agree with you on 100%.
On envy:
I'm well-aware that the reasons given by many to explain their dislike of american foreign policy are not envy. What I meant was one could find a billion things wrong with any country's foreign policy, but would choose to ignore or rationalize them if he were to face its own nation. For better or worse United States are the only Western superpower and a good portion of European and Middle-Eastern politics involve US. It's a very privileged position, and it is frightening for some people abroad who would otherwise not be concerned with it if it were THEIR country on top. Just try asking a psychologist about this to get his opinion.
Agree with you on 100%.
On envy:
I'm well-aware that the reasons given by many to explain their dislike of american foreign policy are not envy. What I meant was one could find a billion things wrong with any country's foreign policy, but would choose to ignore or rationalize them if he were to face its own nation. For better or worse United States are the only Western superpower and a good portion of European and Middle-Eastern politics involve US. It's a very privileged position, and it is frightening for some people abroad who would otherwise not be concerned with it if it were THEIR country on top. Just try asking a psychologist about this to get his opinion.
Loxley said:
He he he... Do you keep a police force in your closet in case of home invasion? Or does a lady carry a police force in her purse if someone decides to rape her? Or is it a police state where there are cops on every corner watching you 24/7 to prevent crime?
Then again maybe as Kharn pointed out some countries just don't need guns.
Would you rather have him snap and beat his family to death with a bat, stab them to death with a knife, strangle them, or tie them up and burn them alive? In Philadelphia area there are plenty of domestic disturbance cases where someone ends up death without a gun involved.
Of course it's cheaper to just keep the guns away as opposed to providing counseling and a psychologist...
bob_the_rambler
Where'd That 6th Toe Come From?
i belive in some of the finer points of gun controll, sutch as the age restriction and even the banning of some guns, but some politicians take it to far, intead of teaching kids gun safety they teach that guns are bad and that guns kill, and in reallity the guns dont kill people people kill people
as far as the ensults to ozrat im sorry, it just pisses me off to see guns take all the blame it is not the guns fault its owner pulled the trigger
i think gun safety should be explaned more in puplic schools, if children were to learn from a reasonable age how to be responsible and learn to take guns seriesly, most children think that guns are toys and that they are fun to play with thats where the trouble starts.
guns dont kill people they have no minds of there own its human nature that kills people, so its not the guns fualt its the humans fualt
As for why humans need weopons i think it boils down to the primitive instinct of defence, humans have always needed some way to protect themselfs either from nature or other men. please dont trie and take my guns away, not a threat just dont trie to leave my family defenceless
i have grown up in a family that stresses gun safety to the limit and then some, you must be responsibal when shooting and even when reloading, the gun must be faceing down range, if you mess up once you lose the privilage to shooting
sorry for all those ive offended im just a bottle, some issuses unsrew my lid
as far as the ensults to ozrat im sorry, it just pisses me off to see guns take all the blame it is not the guns fault its owner pulled the trigger
i think gun safety should be explaned more in puplic schools, if children were to learn from a reasonable age how to be responsible and learn to take guns seriesly, most children think that guns are toys and that they are fun to play with thats where the trouble starts.
guns dont kill people they have no minds of there own its human nature that kills people, so its not the guns fualt its the humans fualt
As for why humans need weopons i think it boils down to the primitive instinct of defence, humans have always needed some way to protect themselfs either from nature or other men. please dont trie and take my guns away, not a threat just dont trie to leave my family defenceless
i have grown up in a family that stresses gun safety to the limit and then some, you must be responsibal when shooting and even when reloading, the gun must be faceing down range, if you mess up once you lose the privilage to shooting
sorry for all those ive offended im just a bottle, some issuses unsrew my lid
bob_the_rambler
Where'd That 6th Toe Come From?
AS for the police in the USA the average resonse time is 1 to 2 hours
thats 1 hour of pure terror and death, Guns are very nessisary in the USA without them many law abiding citizens would die.
i was at a friends house and on several occasions we have had to call the cops, they have a band of thugs that have terrorized them for years, but over the past two years the thugs have grown agressive, breaking windows and killing there pets the cops have always shown up alot to late.........see why my country needs guns
thats 1 hour of pure terror and death, Guns are very nessisary in the USA without them many law abiding citizens would die.
i was at a friends house and on several occasions we have had to call the cops, they have a band of thugs that have terrorized them for years, but over the past two years the thugs have grown agressive, breaking windows and killing there pets the cops have always shown up alot to late.........see why my country needs guns
That's not true. Most murders are committed by people "known" to the victim. This includes the relationship between pimps, prostitutes and johns; cab drivers and their fares; drug dealers and users; gang members; etc. Most murders don't start in the home.
That has not been the case I have seen. In some states, Oregon and Alaska are two I know for sure, the law specifically states that deadly force is reasonable if someone is illegally entering an occupied building. That's not just homes either. There was a recent case in Alaska in which a minister shot two burglars breaking into the Sanctuary. The police haven't as yet pressed charges because the Sanctuary was occupied by the minister at the time.
Lethal booby-traps are only illegal if the building isn't occupied.
Not as high as you seem to think, and thankfully so. It's impossible to read the mind of someone breaking into your home. When they're willing to go that far, it's entirely possible they're willing to kill for whatever cash or valuables they can carry with them. Citizens shouldn't have to cower in fear while a criminal with unknown intentions enters their home.
That being said, most of the time it isn't necessary to kill. In about 98% of the cases where guns are used for defensive purposes in America, the perp isn't even wounded. Most of the time, it's simply enough to brandish the gun, or even to make reference to the gun.
Murders and even accidental gun deaths are at significant lows right now. Despite the increased media coverage and ignorant individuals screaming about evil assault weapons and the epidemic of accidental child deaths, it's getting better. The Bias Against Guns! Read it!
That being said, I will agree that far too many people are ignorant of proper gun ownership and use. This is not recent. President Teddy Roosevelt once remarked, "The great body of our citizens shoot less as time goes on. We should encourage rifle practice among schoolboys, and indeed among all classes, as well as in the military services by every means in our power." It's too bad that anti-gun figures in our country demonize organizations that offer solutions, like the NRA. If people would grow a brain and some guts to boot, we could add firearms to the physical education curriculum and I believe we would see a drastic reduction in the number of accidental gun deaths.
Just out of curiosity, do you even know off the top of your head how many people are murdered per capita every year in America? Just those killed by guns? Off the top of your head, mind you.
Then you'd better buy a gun to protect them. Make sure they all know how to use it, in case you aren't around. Practice firearm safety, and take them shooting often. Then you will be able to protect your family, and even your neighbors if need be. When your children grow up and have families of their own, hopefully they will pass on these values, and all members your family line from then on will have the ability to protect themselves against such rare occurances. Isn't that more valuable then eliminating a weapon used in only 10% of violent crimes?
Let's ignore the fact that this will only ever happen with 1% of the guns in America, and consider the statement itself. How does my ownership of this gun hurt you? It doesn't. The theft and subsequent battery of that gun hurt you. You need to have the ability to distinguish between a criminal and a law-abiding citzen. Until you do, you will never get over this paranoid fear that gun owners will burst down your door and shoot you to pieces.
More Guns, Less Crime The Bias Against Guns Guns and Violence: The English Experience
Check them out in the library, welsh. I don't know what options are available to the foriegners on the board, but I really recommend that you do read these. It will help you put these arguments in perspective, and it will eliminate some of the negative emotions that you get from the media.
You're too ignorant to make any judgements about America. There are very specifically outlined guidelines for amending the Constitution. However, until the Constitution is amended, no law may be passed (theoretically) which contradicts the Consitution or extends the powers of the government beyond what the Constitution grants it. That's not stupid, that makes sense. If you can't appreciate the concept of a contract between the states and the federal government, then I don't think you understand democracy.
Gwydion said:
And I could say you're too ignorant to make any judgements about Europe, yet you've insisted on many occasion that freedom in gun laws should be implemented in Europe. Not to mention that you say stuff like "Europe is ashamed of its violent past", showing that you have no understand of the continent, at all. We're all talking out of our asses here, anyway, but the point kind of is to learn.
And that doesn't make sense, nor is it democratical. What a democracy would require is to make it impossible for the government to amend to constitution without full backing of the people, represented by, in your case, the House and the Congress.
Rather, like you said, nobody has the ability to change the law at all. Yet laws aren't meant to be held forever, laws are made to be changed as culture changes. It was rather arrogant of the Founding Fathers to consider themselves so perfect that their law could be implemented to all future generations, and history will most likely prove them wrong.
P.S.: The above is how I got it from my History textbook. American history isn't one of my major subjects (which are Indonesia, USSR and the Netherlands from 1950-1990), but it was stated somewhere that "The constitution was declared holy and could not be altered", though it could be added to. Correct me if I am, or rather the book is, wrong
Kharn said:
Don't you think they could work in Britain? You've said yourself that Britain is very similar to the US. They clearly already work in Switzerland. I don't think they'd cause any problems in most other nations either.
That statement was made in the context of Britain's dominance and abuse of the world and Germany's holocaust as brought up by Michael Moore. You don't think the statement is true in that context?
That is exactly what we have. In fact, not only can amendments be made at the federal level, if 2/3 of the states ratify an amendment in their state constitutions, the amendment is considered proposed exactly if one of the houses of Congress proposed it.
And that's exactly what I'm talking about. In five minutes you could have found a copy of the Constitution on-line and you could read it for yourself.
Gwydion said:
Yeah, Britain's pretty much the one with the biggest shot at being an exception. Spain might be another one, and Italy, perhaps. Maybe Greece too. The European culture is very divided, more so than most non-Europeans would think, I guess.
It wouldn't work in the Rhineland countries, though (Germany + Benelux), nor in the Scandinavians. Or in France, for that matter. At least, from as far as I can tell.
It's, of course, very difficult to say, but scroll up for my reasons why I think Switzerland is more capable of properly having gun laws and of implementing the rights tied to it than, for instance, Holland.
Perhaps more so, but then the statement would still be weird, because a lot of Americans are ashamed of Vietnam and Korea, right? (not all, but alot)
And the British aren't REALLY ashamed of their colonialism. No European country really is, which is rather strange, when you think about it, but it's how it is. I guess we feel it's too far in the past, which is stupid.
But, come to think of it, most Germans aren't too ashamed of WW2 either, as they don't see it as their responsibility. "It was the nazi's fault", kind of. You'd have to ask a German, though, I'm not sure.
Even we Dutch aren't that ashamed about the fact that of all European countries, Jewish death ratings were highest in ours.
We should be ashamed of that. Bloody hypocrits is what we are.
Sorry, I edited my post to notify you of how I could be mistaken, but apparently too late.
Hmmm, either I need to be more critical of that particular History book method or I misread (the second is more likely).
Anyway, my bad, that's basically the system we have here. It's why the first statement in our constitution bans all forms of racism, which hasn't always been so.
Heh, but lawbooks tend to be really thick and hard to get through. I could've, though, but I was just trusting to memory in this case.
You try looking up Dutch gun laws once, I'll guarentee you it'll be damned hard to dig up through the stacks and stacks of paperwork, especially since we think it's necessary to write down all laws that are no longer enacted as well.
Ok, I did miss the book thing. If the book made that statement, then the book is wrong. Consider the amendment enacting prohibition: it was repealed with another amendment after people realized how stupid it was.
I've never been aware of Korea as a point of shame, although it's somewhat true about Vietnam. Even then, it was always a minority, and many today feel that the execution is what was flawed, not the fact of our presence.
Well, that's a lot of what's wrong with that quote of mine. I have a tendency to think of Europe as a whole region rather than drastically different nations. Maybe it's because I'm so used to thinking of individual states as members of the United States.
And one more thing. If I want to reference the Constitution, I usually use this one. I haven't noticed any errors so far, but I'd probably have to do a word-for-word examination with other printings to catch any discrepencies.
I've never been aware of Korea as a point of shame, although it's somewhat true about Vietnam. Even then, it was always a minority, and many today feel that the execution is what was flawed, not the fact of our presence.
Well, that's a lot of what's wrong with that quote of mine. I have a tendency to think of Europe as a whole region rather than drastically different nations. Maybe it's because I'm so used to thinking of individual states as members of the United States.
And one more thing. If I want to reference the Constitution, I usually use this one. I haven't noticed any errors so far, but I'd probably have to do a word-for-word examination with other printings to catch any discrepencies.
Gwydion said:
Wait, wait, wait. "amendment enacting prohibition"? So there was a prohibition? Or not? Because my book wasn't stating that the "no change"-law was still there, just that it was originally there.
'k, fair enough.
Aren't there some differences between the individual states? I mean, you have seperates laws 'n all, right?
And Europe is hugely diverse. The difference between Holland and England are very large, for instance, even though we're right next to each other. Same goes for France and Spain. Or France and Italy. It clusters together a bit, though, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxemburg (also referred to as the Benelux) are very similar, and in turn those three are similar to Germany.
And that's just Western Europe. The difference between West and East is really too big to even compare them.
Thanks, I'll keep that link
Kharn said:
Yes. Between 1919 and 1933, the sale and consumption of Alcohol was illegal. In 1933, Amendment 21 was passed which repealed Amendment 18, the prohibition Amendment.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean, but this is Article 5 of the Constitution. It has always been there.
The Framers said:
Sure, but that's true even down to the level of towns and cities.
I was pretty well aware that there was a difference between western and eastern (Is this what's referred to as the "Soviet Bloc?") Europe. I'll try to keep all of this in mind, though.
bob_the_rambler
Where'd That 6th Toe Come From?
damn i love this subject cant get enough, though im still learning im studing as fast as i can to keep up i love it
well, this discussion has grown quite long and interesting, and i find it rather enlightening. though i have stated all my arguments several pages ago, i still want to add one thing, only to prevent confusion my last post may have caused. namely, i'm not anti-American. on the contrary, unlike most people in my country, i'm very pro-American. so far i supported all US foreign interventions (even Vietnam, though it was very poorly executed). i'm also one of 10% Europeans who fully support the latest intervention in Iraq. i admire American patriotism and democratic tradition, though i don't like the arrogance which sometimes surfaces in discussions like this. i know many Americans and was lucky enough to spend some time in Florida (and visit Disneyland 
) and i know for fact that most Americans are nice, open, outgoing and kind people. so i really have no reason to dislike USA - in my view they have done many good things for the world (helping Europe in WWI and WWII not being the least of them) which signifantly outweigh the bad things (like certain subtle neo-imperialist tendencies). to claim that i (or any other European for that matter) am envious of USA is stupid - everyone likes his country most. personally, i'd like to spend some time in USA, maybe even get US citizenship, but I would never even consider stopping being a Croat. all the shine and glory of USA can never replace the primitive beauty of Croatian villages, medieval towns, valleys and, of course, our beautiful and beloved seaside. our old town of Dubrovnik, which is considered one of the most beautiful cities in the world, used to be a proud and independent republic through many centuries. its moto, written on the traditional flag of Dubrovnik, was something like this: "Non bene pro toto libertas venditur auro." ("Liberty cannot be traded for any treasure.") i sincerely believe that "country" can be inserted instead of "liberty" without much changing the meaning of this beautiful sentence. anyway, i got a little carried away now. I hope I cleared some things up. i'm not pissed with America, i was just pissed with several American people 
i hope there won't be any grudges based on nationality on this forum. they bring nothing but trouble.
) and i know for fact that most Americans are nice, open, outgoing and kind people. so i really have no reason to dislike USA - in my view they have done many good things for the world (helping Europe in WWI and WWII not being the least of them) which signifantly outweigh the bad things (like certain subtle neo-imperialist tendencies). to claim that i (or any other European for that matter) am envious of USA is stupid - everyone likes his country most. personally, i'd like to spend some time in USA, maybe even get US citizenship, but I would never even consider stopping being a Croat. all the shine and glory of USA can never replace the primitive beauty of Croatian villages, medieval towns, valleys and, of course, our beautiful and beloved seaside. our old town of Dubrovnik, which is considered one of the most beautiful cities in the world, used to be a proud and independent republic through many centuries. its moto, written on the traditional flag of Dubrovnik, was something like this: "Non bene pro toto libertas venditur auro." ("Liberty cannot be traded for any treasure.") i sincerely believe that "country" can be inserted instead of "liberty" without much changing the meaning of this beautiful sentence. anyway, i got a little carried away now. I hope I cleared some things up. i'm not pissed with America, i was just pissed with several American people i hope there won't be any grudges based on nationality on this forum. they bring nothing but trouble.