[Beowulf]

I'm not sure what you mean Stryke. It's not right to defend yourself? Funny, I seem to recall the sight of a gun to be a deterent to crime. I also seem to recall most gun owners are much more hesitant to engage in a quarrel or altercation when having a gun on their person.

I am not talking about criminals here... I am talking about LAW ABIDING citizens who buy LEGAL guns. There is a myth out there that most gun owners are irresponsible. This is simply not true.

Now if only it were legal to carry in more states.... crime rates would drop, GARUNTEED. How do I know this? Because EVERY study of gun control has yielded the following results: (1) change in crime and gun death has remained unaltered or increased; or (2) armed (any weapon) crime has remained static or risen; or (3) results can not be confirmed, more data needed.

About Bush... as much as I want to like the man, I just cannot. He:
(1) Blatantly ignored the 1st Amendment (Campaign finance reform bill)
(2) Affirmed affirmative action (June 23, 2003 -- GRATZ et al. v. BOLLINGER et al. -- The day America died)
(3) Passed the largest Welfare bill in the past 30 years
(4) Started distributing billions of American dollars to countries that hate us to fight a disease that is caused by ignorance.
(5) Renamed the White House Christmas tree the "Holiday Tree".


Guess the only good thing he is doing is bringing the fight to the terrorists and brought us out of Clinton's recession.

Originally posted by Stryke 9
Honestly, even given the minor chance that Bush is actually honest (and, let's be realistic here, he isn't. I haven't even personally met a Republican who still buys that crap after Iraq), there's still no reason to trust him or the rest of the current setup in Washington. Even on the infinitesimal chance that they somehow do have the peoples' best interest in mind, there's nothing to lose from distrusting them. There is nothing we won't lose if we trust them when we should not.

Ohh... and the Democrats surely have everyone's best intrests in mind, what with the tax hikes, abortion, judicial activism, welfare, affrimative action, gun control and the like. All the programs that have destroyed America.

Or would you suggest the greens?


~Beowulf

[Kamikaze]

Originally posted by Stryke 9
I haven't even personally met a Republican who still buys that crap after Iraq

I have, the guy is rather depressing.

[neo_hermes]

...who are the candidates for the green party?

[Setekh]

I heard about this on the local news. *moves world one notch closer to "police state" on wall chart*

[karajorma]

Beowulf you do realise that studies have also shown that you're more likely to be killed by your own gun than ever have to use it to defend yourself?

And yes the fact is that it isn't gun ownership that causes the high gun crime in America. It's americans. The swiss have a much higher gun ownership record than the Americans and yet have virtually no shootings. The fact is that like the british you americans are too violent to be allowed to have guns. The difference is the brits have realised that fact and done something about it.

As for the fingerprinting thing. America is moving towards becoming a totalitarian state and no doubt this will be something that is abused when it get there but it is not a bad thing in and of itself. I see how it's any more intrusive than the passport/immagration form check you have to go through anyway to be honest. That's all it really.

What everyone needs to complain about are the actual abuses of the american ideals that Stryke mentioned.

[Solatar]

Some of the Americans have realised it, but the government is too stupid to do anything about it anyway...afraid they are going to lose the election more than doing something good for the country.

[karajorma]

I know that some americans have realised that but as you say the vast majority of people are unwilling to do anything about it.

[Rictor]

Somehow, the phrase "False Security" springs to mind. The implication that all immigrants are dangerous and subversive and need to be kept track of is not only a gross breach of civil liberties, its also just not true. And yes, civil liberties apply to all people, not just citizens. As Stryke said, its not like anyone actually willing to do harm to the US will be caught by this dragnet, they're far too clever. The only people its gonna hassle are regular immigrants and so forth.  

And Beowulf, let me get this straight? However, you dislike Bush because you find him to be too soft? Affirmative action, giving aid to countries that hate you, spent money on Welfare? Is this right? Well, atleast we agree in our dislike of him, but it seems to me that if you want to hate the man, there are far better reasons to do so. Stuff like ..oh, like starting wars, creating the largest deficit ever, giving the environment the finger, ****ing over the poor to give tax breaks to the rich. You know, that sort of stuff.

As for the whole guns in your home thing, let me ask you this. How many times have you or someone you know been saved by the presence of a gun in your house? How many times has someone broken in onyl to turn tail and run at the sight of you .45? Don't answer, its a rhetorical question. The answer is none. That gun law (The Right to Bear Arms) dates back several hundred years. Those were different times. Should we all also start running around with a sword at our side, for p[rotection right? Gimme a break. Its a excersie is stupidty, plain and simple.

[Nico]

Hey, that would be cool if we could caryy a sword around. Quite useful when you forget your keys, you slip the blade between the... huh? Oh, sorry, wrong forum

[karajorma]

Lets face it the 2nd amendment exists for the sole purpose of preventing the british from invading. Is that likely to happen any time soon?

[demon442]

If having a gun is a crime, then only criminals will have guns.  What you need to see is, there is no way to stop shooting deaths and armed crime, so why encourage it by stripping the weapons of the victims?

[karajorma]

Is that why Britain has less armed crime than America then?

It's not like Britain is a peaceful calm place. There are plenty of violent idiots in both countries. The reason why Britain has a death rate from shootings that is 500 times less than that of America is because we don't have guns.

If you're so certain that having guns prevents crime why not make carrying guns mandatory! Surely according to your theory that would eliminate all crime.

[Nico]

Originally posted by demon442
If having a gun is a crime, then only criminals will have guns.  What you need to see is, there is no way to stop shooting deaths and armed crime, so why encourage it by stripping the weapons of the victims?

You won't shoot if you don't have a gun. Is that so difficult to understand? rather than giving guns to everybody, doesn't it make more sense to remove all guns?
All that crap about self defense, anyway, it's ape poo, people want guns coz they think it's cool to have one. I'm pretty sure 80% of the people who own one never used it, 10% use it for hunt, and 9.9% accidently killed or injured someone else with it. Which leaves 0.1% for real self defense. I purposly meft the ones used for real crimes out, that would be too unbalanced

[01010]

Originally posted by karajorma
Lets face it the 2nd amendment exists for the sole purpose of preventing the british from invading. Is that likely to happen any time soon?

Just wait until it's gone, I'm gonna be the first over.

[vyper]

[q]The reason why Britain has a death rate from shootings that is 500 times less than that of America is because we don't have guns. [/q]

Interesting fact to note: under British law there is no defence for carrying a loaded gun - if you carry a loaded weapon you MUST (in the eyes of the law) be intending to use it.

[q]The terrorists won, end of story. We may be killing them, but they killed all our rights.[/q]

Quite so.

[Ace]

Originally posted by vyper
[q]The reason why Britain has a death rate from shootings that is 500 times less than that of America is because we don't have guns. [/q]

Interesting fact to note: under British law there is no defence for carrying a loaded gun - if you carry a loaded weapon you MUST (in the eyes of the law) be intending to use it.

Instead in Britain, crazies hack you up with swords. I remember some news a few years back about someone going crazy and attacking a whole church congregation that way.

Anyway, on the loaded gun thing. I do think that if a rule like that was held in the US, a lot of firearms accidents would not happen and it would support more gun safety.

[magatsu1]

Originally posted by Flipside
Quite frankly, it was Britains inability to decisively take any action about anything that led to us being Al Quaida's favourite part of Europe.

Makes you wounder when a certain hook handed cyclops says whatever the hell he likes without worry of being kicked out.

"Inciting racial hatred" I think it's called.

[Nico]

Originally posted by vyper

Interesting fact to note: under British law there is no defence for carrying a loaded gun - if you carry a loaded weapon you MUST (in the eyes of the law) be intending to use it.

Under britain law,  in Yorkshire you can kill a  scotsman outside the city walls after 10 pm or something. Same goes at Edinburgh, but this time it's an english you can kill.
Go wonder

[magatsu1]

I think it's legal to kill a scotsman with a bow 'n' arrow in the Hadrians Wall area. Dates back to Roman times or something.

[Beowulf]

Bunk. All of it.

(1) Second Amendment

The Second Amendment was not written to protect against invading forces. That is merely an added objective. The first is to protect against an oppressive government, the second and third are added bonuses: protect the nation from foreign threats and to protect our families.

(Ever read the Federalist Papers?)

If you don’t believe me, do some actual study of history. Sure, I’m no doctor on the subject, but nonetheless, I’ve done enough research to establish that the founding fathers were brilliant men and one can understand their intentions. America was forged for personal freedom. Not personal oppression. One of those freedoms is the right to defend yourself. This is called personal choice. Any man who would deny another man this most basic right holds himself higher than his neighbors.

(2) Some Facts:

In America:

Guns are used over 2 million times a year for defensive purposes.

It has been shown that victims using guns have been consistently less likely to loose cash or other valuables REGARDLESS of the weaponry possessed by the offender.

Victims are less likely to report themselves injured if possessing a gun at the time than those who did not defend themselves or used another means to do so.

While 33% or robbery victims are injured, 25% of those who offer no resistance are injured, while of those who defend with a gun, this rate is 17%. For surviving assault victims these numbers are 30%, 27% and 12%, respectively.

Of studies on interviews of felons, one of the primary reasons for avoiding occupied homes is the chance to get shot.

While it is often said that a person who has a gun in their home is 43 percent more likely to shoot a family member than a criminal, this is simply not true. Kellerman (Who did this study) added up all gun suicides, murders, and accidents and compared this number to the justifiable homicides. In fact, in his study NEARLY ALL GUN DEATHS were attributed to suicide. Not to mention Kellerman DID NOT include cases that were acquitted do to acting in self defense. Most of all, Kellerman does not specify as to the type of person owning the gun... the vast majority of these accidents take place in homes of persons prone to self-destructive, reckless behavior; or in the homes of persons with arrest records for violent felonies; or in the homes where the police have had to intervene to deal with domestic violence.

While gun control reduces gun suicides, it does not reduce overall suicides. Japan, which prohibits all rifles and hand guns has a suicide rate of more than DOUBLE the US.

In a study of accidents, of those involved in a firearm accident, they are "disproportionately involved in other accidents, violent crime, and heavy drinking." (Philip Cook)

Fatal gun accidents declined by almost 60% from 1975 to 1995, even though the number of guns per capita increased by almost 40%

Fatal gun accidents involving children (aged 0-14) also fell significantly, from 495 in 1975, to under 250 in 1995. More children die from accidental drownings or burns than from gun accidents

81% of all homicide defendants have at least one arrest on their record.
66% have two or more arrests.
67% have at least one felony arrest.
56% have two or more felony arrests.
70% have at least one conviction.
54% have at least one felony conviction.

The National Criminal Justice Commission estimates that about 30 million Americans--approximately 15% of the U.S. population over age 15--have an arrest record. Studies of homicide, however, reveal that typically about 70% of U.S. offenders have been arrested in the past.

--- ---- ---

What can we gain from all this?

(1) You are more likely to NOT be injured if you possess and brandish or use a gun during a robbery or assault.
(2) People who are already criminals commit the overwhelming majority of gun crimes.
(3) Suicide rates are independent of gun ownership
(4) Accidental deaths happen a lot less frequently than reported and usually happen to someone who is engaged in reckless behavior.

The most important reason which should be good enough on its own: The right to bear originates as a protection against government, not foreign enemies.



~Beowulf