Taijitu
Forum Meta => Archive => General Discussion Archive => Topic started by: Ryazania on April 27, 2007, 08:25:12 PM
-
Every time a tragedy takes place, people immediately become emotional, irrational, and begin to blame gun laws and the guns themselves as the scapegoat. They claim that if only guns were harder to attain legally, then less gun violence would take place. This isn't an entirely unreasonable conclusion, but it is entirely misguided and entirely FALSE when the facts are considered. In fact, history proves that gun control does NOT work, and has actually made gun violence worse once it has been implemented, as I will prove later.
Also, people think that school shootings and such are an exclusively American phenomena, and that this is only due to our relatively lax gun laws, but this is entirely untrue. People only think this way because they focus all of their attention on the US, ignore other variables such as race, geography, the SHOOTER etc.. and just blame it on the gun.
People also constantly ignore that many similar tragedies have taken place in countries where gun laws are much stricter than our own. Yet these events have never garnered as much attention as the Columbine shooting, and will certainly be all but forgotten after the recent massacre. People all over the world focus all of their attention on the US, overemphasize what takes place in our country, and ignore their own problems, and their own similar tragedies. This causes the ignorance towards our gun laws. Most notable tragedies are:
- The École Polytechnique Massacre in 1989 in Montreal, Quebec, Canada in which 14 people were killed, plus the shooter.
- The Dunblane Massacre in Scotland in 1996 in which 17 people were shot and killed.
- The Erfert Shooting in Germany in 2002 in which 18 people were shot and killed.
Now, these crimes were committed with simple semi-automatic weapons firing pistol rounds, (and in the case with the Montreal shooting, a civilian model semi-automatic rifle). These type of semi-automatic pistol caliber firearm is what was used in the recent VT shooting, and is what has received the demonization by the gun-control advocates.
These types of weapons are legal everywhere, and are still entirely legal in Canada and Germany.
But the UK got caught up in a liberal frenzy and overreacted, and made a gigantic legal blunder .
After the aforementioned Dunblane Massacre in Scotland in which 18 were killed, the UK legislature voted decisively and banned all legal ownership of handguns in their country in 1997. This irrational law actually caused UK handgun crime to GO WAY UP.
UK handgun violence continued to go up exponentially. Then in 2003 (6 years into the ban) they had TWICE the amount of handgun crimes than they did in 1997 before the ban was enforced!!!
Think about that... by banning handguns, they actually entirely defeated the entire motive for doing so in the first place! By banning handguns, they made gun violence worse. By disarming law abiding citizens, they did nothing to address the actual source of crime, which is the group of people who ILLEGALLY attain handguns and who will not obey gun laws. Committing this major legal blunder only resulted in emboldened criminals who could prey upon citizens knowing that their prey were unarmed.
Now, certainly this simple fact will be ignored by the liberals in the US and elsewhere that will call for changes in US gun laws. Or perhaps if they are actually aware of what happened in the UK, they might pretend that the US might have better success than the UK did if similar gun control is implemented.
But the history and the current reality of our own country shows that this will not work here either.
Take a look here. Compare the murder rate/violence rate in US states, and then consider their respective gun laws:
#1 District of Columbia (Washington D.C mind you) : 3.597 per 10,000 people
Washington D.C. (which is a federal district, not a state) had the tightest gun control laws in the entire country, until just last month, all handguns and concealed carry of any weapons was entirely illegal. Yet it has the HIGHEST murder rate.
#16 Texas : 0.597 per 10,000 people
Texas has very, very lax gun laws as I'm sure you're aware. It has about 1/6th the murder rate as Washington D.C and is at number 16.
#33 Washington (the STATE) : 0.302 per 10,000 people
Washington State, has a much lower murder rate. This state's gun laws are similar to those of Texas. The are a blue (Democrat majority) state, but wthey still have a gigantic gun lobby and moderate Democrats who opposed a bill that would have enforced California-style gun laws, numerous times.
Then you look at the state with the LOWEST murder rate:
#51 Maine: 0.136 per 10,000 people
It's #51 (among 50 states and 1 federal district), it has the lowest murder rate in our entire country, yet Maine has been continually criticized for it's lax gun laws by delusional liberals. Maine has probably THE LEAST AMOUNT OF GUN CONTROL in our entire country. Maine has NO permits or licenses required for any firearm, and no waiting lists, yet it has the LOWEST MURDER RATE IN THE COUNTRY.
Don't you see that? The tighter the gun control, the higher the murder rate. Counterintuitive? Not really, because when law-abiding citizens are disarmed, criminals who don't obey the laws in the first place have free reign. They have defenseless citizens to prey upon. All gun control does is make it so that the only people with guns are the criminals.
So to all the misguided liberals; Are you really honest about your desire to reduce gun crime and violence? Or are you just really against guns first and foremost? Are you against the gun itself, do you hate the inanimate object, or do you hate the person who actually uses it illegally?
Because... it seems that if you REALLY want gun crime tp be reduced, you should be PRO-GUN! You should be AGAINST gun-control if you look at the facts instead of allowing your irrational emotional response to a tragedy to dictate your views.
Conclusion:
GUN CONTROL IS NOT THE ANSWER. IT WILL ONLY MAKE THINGS WORSE.
-
Enforcable gun-control would work. As it is now, it doesn't. However, the rate of crimes committed is not only linked to gun laws or to any single aspect of society for that matter.
-
*Talmann tears hair out in frustration
You people just can't listen to facts! If and when said "Enforceable gun-control" is implemented, organized crime will change accordingly. You are dealing with humans, a constantly-changing variable, that will continue to do what they've always done. The policy that you would like to "enforce" would only work in a small, isolated community, not in a country as big as the US (or even the UK).
-
1. I'm proud to live in Maine, where dumbass liberals can't take away my right to bear arms.
2. Gun beats person. That's obvious, and gun control will never get rid of all weapons out in the black market. However, it's also obvious that "Gun may or may not beat person with gun". Would you rather have a chance to die or die, period?
-
as i said in other topic, the shooter must be led to justice, either if i die or not. if i kill the guy with the gun, im the shooter, and i will have to accept iv murdered someone.
i wouldnt point that gun control made it worse in UK, the law isnt as enforced as it is in most of other european countries, what happened in UK was a escalate of violence, involving guns or not, either terrorist or not. And you gotta see that the circumstances are different, there was even an incident in a school in Russia that you didnt listed, if was done by a criminal, not a young kid from school. The apparent reasons are totally different. Plus Columbine was more terrible imo than this last one, 2 guys having all that guns entering a school like that. This last one, if im not mistaken, it began at the campus, and it could have been much softer if the Police had close the place.
Plus lets not compare the numbers about crimes with guns there. :p
-
It's not murder if you're defending yourself against a guy who wants to shoot you.
-
no it isnt, but killing him is. i would knock him down with a baseball bat, maybe even break his skull, something awful, but i wouldnt kill him. everyone has the right to live, even Saddam and Hitler.
If i had a gun, i would probably shoot him...means kill him. Do you see the difference? If i'v a gun i most likely kill him, if i dont i have to knock him out, i dont have to kill him. If we had guns for all, the dead by shooting would rise drastically, to the point as it is in USA. Glad we dont have guns for all. Even if it's more difficult to control the guns in the black market, its much more difficult to buy one, plus it isnt legal. You'll get a warning from the police, or else you get jailed.
-
There are few, if any, of such shooting case in East Asia, simply because almost nobody can obtain guns here! Without the means to kill, even gang fights are considered "violent crimes" here. A really serious case here would be seizing armfire from the police and using it to kill 3 over 5 years! Why should we even have guns then?
-
Well, since certain liberals would rather ignore a good argument and give their "guns are bad" argument over and over, let's provide more examples, getting past the United States:
South Africa
South Africa has the highest murder rate in the world, with a height of 51.39 people out of every 100,000 murdered. Coincidentally enough, that height was achieved in 2000, the same year the government cracked down on weapons and made everyone re-register their firearms, even if they had already been registered. Past that date, it reached a low of 47.53/100,000 people murdered, which obviously isn't a big difference. Now, let's look at...
Pakistan
Oh, that's right. Pakistan. They have the lowest murder rate in the entire world, with 0.05/100,000. Not only that, there are more people in Pakistan than South Africa. It's only natural for one to think that with a higher population, comes more homicides. WRONG. As I'm sure many of you know, Pakistan is a hugely Muslim country, and most Muslim countries do not have tight gun laws.
Mexico
Mexico is ranked 12th in the world in homicide rate, with a peak at 14.11/100,000 and the most recent at 13.04/100,000. Sure enough, a search of "Gun politics in Mexico" yields:
The United Mexican States or Mexico (Spanish: Estados Unidos Mexicanos or México) has some of the strictest gun laws in the world. It is in many ways similar to the United Kingdom, except with much more severe prison terms for even the smallest gun law violations.
And Hitler deserves to live?!?! HE KILLED 6 MILLION PEOPLE. WHAT DOES IT TAKE FOR YOU TO REALISE THAT PLACES HIS LIFE ABOVE THEIRS?!
-
You have to realize that some people actually THINK before grabbing their guns. We aren't all members of gangs or hillbillies toting rifles to shoot people on sight. Lower-level America, yes, might need gun-control, but none of them will listen to "the man" because they have to defend their pride by shooting people. Myself and people I associate myself with (not to mention most all middle-tier America) would only use guns if we were in such an immediate crisis, but we would have to be able to have the gun in the first place.
Delfos- you realize in order to get a hold on the black market, the police force would have to rise drastically. and the US doesn't have that kind of funds, our Social Security cost is too high and is growing higher. And you actually assume that our police can find these hooligans and prove that there's an arms ring. I laugh at that, because, as I said, our police force is too small, and we're too worried about civil rights to search the ghetto for said rings.
-
And you could shoot him in the foot. Knock him down, but not kill him.
Not to mention in Delfos' utopia, the police force doesn't have guns so they have to politely ask the criminals to give up, and hope they don't get shot. And, Delfos, you don't live in America. You know nothing about us. The black market here cannot be stopped. Someone can buy drugs, and the chances of them getting caught isn't too high for an experienced person. That's the black market.
-
You have to realize that some people actually THINK before grabbing their guns. We aren't all members of gangs or hillbillies toting rifles to shoot people on sight. Lower-level America, yes, might need gun-control, but none of them will listen to "the man" because they have to defend their pride by shooting people. Myself and people I associate myself with (not to mention most all middle-tier America) would only use guns if we were in such an immediate crisis, but we would have to be able to have the gun in the first place.
Delfos- you realize in order to get a hold on the black market, the police force would have to rise drastically. and the US doesn't have that kind of funds, our Social Security cost is too high and is growing higher. And you actually assume that our police can find these hooligans and prove that there's an arms ring. I laugh at that, because, as I said, our police force is too small, and we're too worried about civil rights to search the ghetto for said rings.
Indeed, the enforcement is the determining factor - for instance, in Singapore and Hong Kong, it is next to impossible to own firearms, and a crackdown on even a few guns can make the headline...
-
Yes, our black market is so huge that many kids at our schools are drug dealers, if they don't just purchase illigal drugs, even with 30+ police on the campus 24-5
-
neva said they should hold on the black market, said if they couldnt get it legally it would be harder to get it from black market, thats what happens around here. plus i do realise people think before holding a gun, and that most of them dont intend to kill. problem is they do kill. South Africa and Pakistan and other countries around that area are nutorious accessing to guns, any gang in europe who wants really weaponary goes to Africa or Middle East to get them. In Afghanistan kids sell american mines they find in the sand, actually they are even more smart, they hide in teh bushes and see where the americans put the mines, then they go there and dig them up, smart heh? thats how they get guns, almost free, thats why theres that mortality, only prooves that higher access to guns is equal to higher mortality by guns.
With no gun to grab, there wont be killing, most probably theres more killing by the criminal side because you try to reach your own gun..it's the same thing as the 'far west' with cowboys and all, its how they show us and how we see it in USA.
in Delfos' Utopia police has guns, not firearms, electric guns, guns that paralize but they dont kill or severely damage the person. it exists already, even the american SWAT uses it. you can bark that SWAT is very professional, heres one thing i like them, they enforce the law, people must be led to justice, they rather not kill.
you are not the law, criminals must be led to justice, you are not lady justice, if someone shoots you that person must be led to justice, not to murder. (anyway i would murder someone that would kill my mother for example if he hadnt been led to justice yet, but that would make me a murderer, and i would willingly go to prison) <-thats how things are run here
Takasia says almost the same thing as i do, and they are 2 different perspectives, eastern asia and western europe.
Everyone deserves to live, even Hitler. No i dont put his life in higher estime than the 6million you yell about, altho died more russians than jews, lets not forget that. What Hitler did was wrong, but it's wrong to kill him, like they killed Saddam. If you kill him you'r no more than him, you'r a murderer, it's the same thing i say. Gadly, if what they say is true, Hitler commited suicide. I think it was a suicide like Hannibal of Cartaghe. Anyway lets not forget he was a genious, even if mad and killed all those people. Einstein was a genious too and invented the most mass killing machine that we know of, great that he aknowloged it and was ashame of it as some history books say.
-
You don't get it! With civilians having no gun (because they do what is legal), then crime can run amuck. And with your ideal police force, all they gotta do is kill any cop they see or stay out of range. You would have us sink to that kind of anarchy? I think not.
-
You don't get it! With civilians having no gun (because they do what is legal), then crime can run amuck. And with your ideal police force, all they gotta do is kill any cop they see or stay out of range. You would have us sink to that kind of anarchy? I think not.
Anarchy? You mean anarchy in Japan, Korea, Hong Kong, Malaysia and Singapore (and more)? I have never run into such anarchy, where civilians own no gun, and the police do not kill.
-
But a) we already have guns, b) it is unlikely to remove all guns, and c) we value our gun rights too much.
-
haha... if you are in a police state like Stinkapore, it wouldn't be a problem....
-
You would have us sink to that kind of anarchy?
Sadly, it looks like you have enough on your hands as it is. There are a lot of measures probably not-applicable to the US because of the present situation, mentality and the bigger dimensions. But something should be done, at least that's the way it looks like from here.
Myro dear, of course we do not live in the States, but that does not mean we cannot voice an opinion. I am sorry to see that arguing has become more important to you then reason and friendship.
Anyways, if you guys mean that the solution to the present crisis situation - that is if you do not consider a society where gangs fight drugs wars, where you can get shot while stepping on somebeody's propriety and children go around shooting their colleagues while asking them if they believe in the Allmighty (but which tries to regulate the wrongs of peoples over-seas in a poorly-argumented attack which aims at securing influence and exploitation) to be in perfect shape- is getting more guns on the street, turning your homes into fortresses or showing the children how to use an automatic pistol in case a neighbour would ever try to hurt him, I think you might be wrong. There's one certain thing, nonetheless. If somebeody is likely to ever conquer space while holding a revolver, it's the U.S. ;)
-
all true, still, if something must be done, what is it then? I do see that banning guns at sudden is not a very good idea, as for the comments originated about them say criminals will kill guys without guns, instad of guys with guns kill criminals (which isnt 100% true). Happens that in USA, the 'gun population' is so huge, that even criminals have them. In other countries of the world criminals dont have guns that easly, alot of the murdering is done by knife or spanking, ofc the majority is by gun, guns they stole somewhere, and therefore, is easier to track down a criminal with a gun. In USA, how can you distinguish a shooter with a civilian? both have guns...it's much more hard...what happens is that both are killed. A proof of that is the civilian murdering during US invasions, actually most of them were unarmed. Theres this sad fact about a guy that was rushing in an ambulance with people hurt inside and US army just turnt the van in a french cheese (like those with holes all over). Thats how i see US doesnt care for civilians, and it's a sad truth, i belive it's influence back from homeland=shoot everything that moves. Like the westerns.
-
Life isn't like the westerns, you know. Even out in rural Texas people live in peace. And that fact disturbs me, I haven't heard it before. Can you site that, please? Perhaps there was other motives or reasons that that ambulance got shot at....
-
I'm not saying you don't have a right to argue, I'm saying you don't know firsthand how the US black market works because you don't live here.
-
With no gun to grab, there wont be killing, most probably theres more killing by the criminal side because you try to reach your own gun..
Criminals do not kill only when they fear for their own lives. Criminals do kill unarmed people who are not threatening them in any manner. Removing guns from non-violent citizens does not prevent them from being killed by a violent person.
i would knock him down with a baseball bat, maybe even break his skull, something awful, but i wouldnt kill him. ... If i had a gun, i would probably shoot him...means kill him. Do you see the difference? If i'v a gun i most likely kill him, if i dont i have to knock him out, i dont have to kill him.
Shooting a firearm does not necessarily result in the target's death, any more than hitting him over the head with a baseball bat. On the other hand, a baseball bat over the head certainly can result in death, just as shooting them with a gun can. Knives can be used to injure and kill just like guns and baseball bats can. So can a car antenna.
If the number of killings needs to be reduced, then removing the most popular weapon will not remove the motivation to kill - there will be other ways, and something else will then become the most popular method. In order to reduce the amount of deaths, then we need to remove either the motivation for people to kill, or remove those people who kill. Unfortunately, if that was a relatively easy task, there would be no killings at all.
If we had guns for all, the dead by shooting would rise drastically, to the point as it is in USA.
Personally, I've lived in the US all my life, in many different places. I'm 43 years old. I have never been shot or shot at. I've never personally seen anyone shot or shot at. None of the people I know have ever been shot or shot at, aside from those who served in wars. There are some areas in the US where crime is high, and that's where much of that happens. I avoid those, as do most people. In the town where I live, people generally only lock their doors when they go on vacation, and there's more far risk of dying in a car accident than by being shot. There is an average of ZERO murders per year in my county (that's county, not country). The fact that high-crime areas do exist drives up the overall per capita rate for the nation, but that does not mean that the rest of America is necessarily a dangerous place to live.
it's the same thing as the 'far west' with cowboys and all, its how they show us and how we see it in USA.
Don't believe everything you see in the movies. They're fiction, stories that someone wrote, and do not necessarily have any similarity to reality. The Old West hasn't existed for awhile now, and it wasn't like the movies generally portrayed it even when it did. The purpose of movies is not to give an accurate historical portrayal. It is to provide entertainment for profit, and since sensationalism sells, that's what's produced.
-
neva said it said it was in the movies, and we'r talking again that its not all US, but it's about numbers, i would never guess which areas in US would have greatest murder rate, and i do know it's not everywhere. Same goes when some americans say Iran is evil and they are all fanatics and all that. Actually i belive only a minority is 'evil/fanatic' aka musslim extremist, the TV likes to show the minorities as majorities, because minorities yell louder than majorities.
But the 2nd amendment is for all USA, thats why theres we generalize, if there must be a fix to the 2nd amendment it must affect all USA, it's not because where you live that the law cant be enforced. right?
Im grabbing your example, do you feel the need to have a gun where you live? i mean, for what (specially myroria) they tell, you need a gun to protect yourself, do you need a gun where you dont need protection, more than the police is protecting? if you have weapons you will probably hunt with them, not for protection...not for shooting at criminals in sight, right?
-
Khabian (mentioning knives, baseball bats and so on as weapons to kill): but please these tools require direct contact and force. Firearms require no direct contact and you don't feel the force you use. Actually you feel much less responsibility. Baseball bats and knives generally are NOT used to kill strangers (people the killer does not know), firearms YES.
But I have an idea: it looks to me that so far we thought that the would-be-killer is blocked by the potential that he/she can loose his/her own life. After these shootings (and BTW the suicide bombers) it turns out that this is not a blocking factor anymore (they kill themselves - no problem). So we have to put sg. again at the stake to block them. What should it be? I have my own suggestion but am open for other suggestions.
My suggestion: have a person who signs 'responsibility' for the person who wants to have a gun. If the owner commits 'lethal sin' but kills himself/herself then the 'responsible person' should face the civil consequences (not the penal ones; think of injured peoples, police costs). I know this does not reduce the number of weapons (the father signs it for his son/daughter) but he/she should know that it is not the end of the story if he/she commits suicide after mass-murder and somebody who trusted him/her is betrayed by this. It can stop such lonely killers like the VT guy. A kind of control: not by the state but by your own family or friends.
-
a) please, people kill with knives all the time. Now, more times than not it is 2nd degree (not planned, crime of passion) but when they use a knife they normally stab more than once, to ensure the death of the victim.
b) Having people responsible for other people's problems is crazy talk. You would be entangling innocent people for crimes they didn't commit. And again, you're ruling out the black market. The VT guy bought those guns before they knew he was supposed to be going to a mental hospital, therefore he seemed an okay guy to sell to.
@Delfos- We know it's the minority of Muslims are extremist, that's why most of Iraq doesn't mind the US being there (last time I checked). But the media likes to report everything and strech it for as far as it can go. And actually, sometimes the ghetto isn't enforced very well due to "civil rights". In fact, they let a guy get away in East LA after a half-hour police chase with 30+ cars on him and getting him down to rims and overwhelming evidence against him (he threw crack out the window, for pete's sake). So where you live can determine how strict the enforcement is, unfortunately.
-
Talmann: please read again.
a) I told they kill with knives people they know because of direct contact. nobody said knives are not used to kill.
b) I'm sure many victim's families are looking for responsible people for this guy's problem. The other day the English professor appeared on CNN 'I already reported problem in 2005 based upon his writings but nobody listened to me'. But you're looking now, AFTER the problem (sorry, this is 32 dead people, not a 'problem'!).
Furthermore: nobody said that we can avoid buying guns (unless making it illegal). But it is when you want to use this way we need sg. that stops you. Your own death does not stops you. Then what? You should come up with sg. to answer this.
Yeah. I don't want to find a solution for all killing. I know black market, organized crime and so on. My suggestion is just to avoid (more probably) when everyday people get mad and start to use a gun like a toy.
Society is not a set of individual people but a responsible community. You personally are responsible for the laws of your society unless you expressed your protest but were defeated on a vote, in which case your responsibility is restricted but not nullified. (IMHO)
-
FT, if you're going to kill yourself, why would you care about the feelings of those left behind, especially if they're important to you seeing as you're already going to hurt them?
-
'Going' is the key word. You have to make your decision when you are still alive (before killing others and yourself). And at that point you really do count that you don't want to betray people who trusted you. As far as I can imagine, these people first cut all ties to anybody else to create their own rules. This would be a tie they cannot cut: it becomes more and more important and binding as they get closer to their act of misusing their gun.
I have another idea which is a little bit similar: this is about death penalty. As most probably everyone knows death penalty is issued by the state (just as any other sentence). As a citizen of the state I can feel that I myself kill that criminal (I 'agreed'). I don't want to feel that (I myself against death penalty in any case) together with many other people so this is why many nations drop death penalty. But we can get a workaround for this:
- the state never issues a death penalty but defines (in the penal code) crimes when death penalty is allowed
- in a case the judge decides whether death penalty can be applied (opens only the option)
- when the option is open somebody should personally come and say: 'I want the death penalty to be executed'. should be repeated (let's say in 72 hours) and cannot be made anonymous and should say it to the criminal personally.
legally it lifts the burden from me (the state is free of killing anybody in my name), morally it does not allow people just to wish anybody else's death without any responsibility. of course the person who wanted the death penalty should live 20-30-50-70 years with that. I don't expect people to stand proud 'I wanted the death of him' except some rather exceptional case.
-
theres a bunch of suicides, as styles i mean, they are not all equal, you got Hannibal's Suicide, so thatt he romans couldnt get him alive, you have 'regular' suicide, when person is not happy with his life, mostly he rather be dead than alive, normaly to end some kind of pain (i defend that people have the right to euthanasia), theres suicides like the Columbine guys..i'll quote from a familiar gun game Unreal Tournament, those suicides are known as God Like, where you immortalize your doing by it, which carries the message you want to deliver...and you must agree, those guys are immortalized, theres even a great movie called Elephant, theres references all over the world, etc.
How i and most people around here see death penalty: the law isnt enforced, the criminal isnt being led to justice, what happens is that you take another life, and the criminal isnt making up for the crimes he commited. A reasonable way of putting him up his crimes is to lock him up, even if its till the rest of his life, with hard labor or whatever. Prisons being comfy or not, it's not the questions, a prison is to lock people that are a threat to others, normally taking away the rights and needs of that person, so he's exactly excluded from the society, he isnt free, thats what matters. If you lock a person to the rest of his life in a prison, that person wont kill again, no need to end his life, everybody has the right to live, even those who dont have rights like others who are in prison, life is an human right. Whenever you kill someone you'r violating the human rights, why do you think saddam was accused of violating human rights? Still he claimed innocence, since those who he killed were (for them) criminals, so it was like the american death penalty. To die/death penalty is to free of prison, plus it's against human rights, thats why we dont have it.
This issue comes with gun control, we dont have guns, because guns are made to kill, baseball bats are made to play baseball, knife are made to slash or cut things, not necessarily people. Can you play baseball with a gun? or cut things? Only thing else you can do with gun is shooting sports (i love this winter sport called Biathlon), and hunting, excepting for shooting sports, guns are made to kill, plus the guns in those sports are slightly different from normal rifles.
-
FT- you don't realize that some people DON'T CARE. They don't care if they betray people, because they see the world as betraying them (referencing VT). And, no, it should stay with the state issuing it, 'cause then people who have a problem with it come to the state, and not to the person who says "I want so-and-so dead." I mean, come on, that'll only get that person attacked, and then no one will issue the death penalty, which you've agreed is needed in some cases.
-
Delfos, you just contradicted your principles by saying he should be locked up. I quote Anton Chekhov:
"Capital punishment kills immediately, whereas lifetime imprisonment does so slowly. Which executioner is more humane? The one who kills you in a few minutes, or the one who wrests your life from you in the course of many years?"
If you believe every criminal has a right to live, and, as a liberal, you also believe that they should be handled humanely, why not go for capital punishment? Hard labor only increases the criminal's hate toward the state and prison system, perhaps leading to a break-out, where he will aquire a gun on the black market and start his murders all over again.
-
when you jail someone it's not supposed that he breaks out, the labor is to compensate what they took from the society, but if you see it as slavery then you'r right. As i said, killing him wont make him regret doing the crime.
-
Like I said before, we all die. I personally wouldn't grant a mass murderer the relief of dying this year if I can make his life a living hell for fifty more. Plus, you could broadcast the torture on pay-per-view to boost their ratings and get money out of it.
-
shucks Sol... :trout: I hope I never live to see such happen...pay-per-view executions. I'd also like to see criminals sentenced to forced labor instead of being supressed. In fact I'd force all jailed criminals to labor, so that they at least do not cause any costs if not produce some profit. With all the young-people taking advantage of the open European labor-market, we don't just need them, we should impose it on them. Work innobilates.
-
Who said anything about executions? I'm talking about primetime torture!
Hell, you could even make it a reality tv show!
-
I like guns and am for death penalty.
Gun laws restrict gun ownership to law-abiding citizens...Criminals can and often do purchase weapons illegally...a law would not stop them from getting guns in the black market.
-
neva said it said it was in the movies, and we'r talking again that its not all US, but it's about numbers, i would never guess which areas in US would have greatest murder rate, and i do know it's not everywhere.
I apologize, Delfos. I misunderstood what you were saying in that earlier post.
Im grabbing your example, do you feel the need to have a gun where you live? i mean, for what (specially myroria) they tell, you need a gun to protect yourself, do you need a gun where you dont need protection, more than the police is protecting? if you have weapons you will probably hunt with them, not for protection...not for shooting at criminals in sight, right?
That's a very good point. In my own home, we just have hunting rifles, and a shotgun for scaring wild animals away from our garbage cans or the gardens. I haven't owned a handgun for many years, but most people in my town do. Mine is a rural area, and the police would have quite a drive to get here if anything did happen. And as is common in rural and farming communities, people here have a tendency toward preparedness and self-reliance anyway. A situation where it might be needed is extremely rare around here, but people feel better when they're prepared for the possibility anyway. And then there are the gun collectors, some of whom never even use them for any purpose - it's not an uncommon hobby here.
With all these guns around in all our homes, our murder rate is still zero. That's enough proof for me that the real solution would be removing the motivation to kill, rather than removing one possible method of doing so.
This issue comes with gun control, we dont have guns, because guns are made to kill
Another excellent point, and one that helps in understanding the thinking behind both sides of the issue. Because where I live, people look at it differently - handguns are made for defense, a tool for made for a specific purpose, which is why our police carry them. And that puts them in the very same category as knives and baseball bats, in our minds; any of those can be used by criminals for a purpose other than which it was intended.
On the other hand, most people in the US who are against gun control are also against things like machine guns becoming legalized - to us, THOSE are the ones made for the purpose of killing, not the handguns. Those who do want that sort of thing legalized here consider it a civil rights issue - "don't tell me what I can and can't own as long as I'm not doing anything illegal with it".
Khablan (mentioning knives, baseball bats and so on as weapons to kill): but please these tools require direct contact and force. Firearms require no direct contact and you don't feel the force you use. Actually you feel much less responsibility. Baseball bats and knives generally are NOT used to kill strangers (people the killer does not know), firearms YES.
Speaking in terms of the psychology behind it, guns are a more popular choice for attacking because there's less chance of physical contact, and therefore less chance of getting icky blood on you, and less chance of being physically overpowered. So you're absolutely right there. But knives are also routinely used in attacks as well - they're easier to get at any age, easier to conceal, and they're silent.
Those who have a history of violent crime are less likely to feel squeamish about direct contact with the victim. Those types are the ones we need to deal with in order to best reduce crime rate, because they're the ones who are most likely to repeat the crimes as well as escalate to more serious ones. They're also the ones least likely to be stopped by gun laws, since it will give them no motivation to stop committing the crimes, and they can either use other weapons or get guns by other means.
killing him wont make him regret doing the crime.
I personally wouldn't grant a mass murderer the relief of dying this year if I can make his life a living hell for fifty more.
To me, "making him pay" or "making him regretful" is beside the point. As far as I'm concerned, the goal is to: 1) remove the threat to society by removing the perpetrator, and 2) preventing this sort of crime from happening in the first place. Not that I don't think such comments belong here - just pointing out it's a separate issue. Personally? I don't care whether he learns a lesson. I don't care whether he's miserable. I don't care about payback - what's done is done. He's warped, and he's a danger, and I want him out, period. But then again, I've never been a victim of such a crime, and never personally known anyone whose loved one was involved. If I had, then I might feel differently on that.
If somebeody is likely to ever conquer space while holding a revolver, it's the U.S.
Only if we still have a Texan president. (Sorry, I can't help thinking of him as a pompous cowboy.) lol
Hell, you could even make it a reality tv show!
Good lord, please not another one! There's too many as it is! lol
Aaaanyway...
On the subject of murder-suicide: That is a completely different type of crime. The perpetrator has a totally different mindset, and therefore it doesn't fit well into any general discussion on whether gun control will reduce the overall murder crime rate.
Those people don't think the way other people do. When a person has reached the point of deciding to kill themselves as well as a large number of other people, that is very unique psychological state, and you simply can't apply would work in average situations. These people will NOT respond to things the way others would; their values are different, their priorities are different. The things that matter to them are different.
They're in a state of psychological disassociation, and all emotional ties that they once had to other people are now dissolved. They have emotional attachments to NO ONE. They do not care what happens to anyone else after they're gone, and that includes their families, because they no longer have those emotional ties to them. Thus, the threat of repercussion to family members will not affect them; they are already too far gone to care what happens to anyone.
In the past, guns, poison, bombs, and other things have been used for such massacres, so gun laws would not remove the possibility of such a thing happening again. Bombs can be homemade out of ordinary things, and poisonous substances will always be there. And of course, guns would still be available through illegal means, which would make them more difficult to obtain, but not impossible.
So how do we reduce that threat? The ONLY successful way would be to recognize those people who are approaching that point, and deal with it before it happens. It won't matter what sort of weapon was being contemplated; the threat will have been removed. Obviously not an easy thing to do.
Since we've seen an increase in such incidents at schools in recent years, let's take a look at that. It would seem to present an ideal place to keep an eye out for kids who exhibit signs of psychological problems. Yet the vast majority go unnoticed. If the ratio of teachers to students was higher, then it would give more opportunity for teachers to pick up on the subtle clues. But that's not likely to happen anytime soon.
Public schools have increasingly become more like factories. The overwhelming majority of teachers are there for the paycheck. Those who entered the field with optimistic ideals soon become defeated and resigned; if they try to implement new methods in their classrooms that are not standard practice, the system fights them. Any such out-of-the-ordinary means that are more successful than the standards makes the other teachers look bad and puts pressure on them to do better. Children start nagging for them to do the same; parents begin to complain because the other kid's teacher is doing such-and-such, why won't my kid's? Therefore, it is resented, and complaints generally become strong enough for the administration to force the teacher to stick to standard practices. That leads to the new, idealistic teachers to either adopt the same attitudes as those who've been in the field longer, or change their field altogether.
Because the majority of teachers are resigned, they are that much less likely to be motivated to be alert for subtle signs of psychological problems. If a kid isn't an immediate problem in the classroom, there is little need to pay close attention to him. Kids come along, stay in their classroom for a semester or two, and then move on. Other kids come in to take their places. Teachers don't get to know their students very well; there's a lot to do in a day, and too many kids to really know any of them who don't particularly stand out. If there is a note in a kid's school record from a former teacher who noticed something out of the ordinary, the new teacher is not likely to be particularly alert for problems that aren't overtly obvious; they're more concerned with doing day-to-day tasks and keeping the immediate troublemakers under control.
This latest incident at the university is a perfect example. The boy had shown what would seem to be obvious signs all through his life. Family, neighbors, teachers, and classmates all noticed his pronounced oddities, such as his utter lack of ability to operate in a social level, and his total inability to form bonds of friendship or love. If that isn't a huge red flag, I don't know what is. And yet he was not prevented from getting to this point.
I am not saying that the schools are to blame; on the contrary, my point in mentioning schools is that they would be the ideal place to introduce a better filtering system in order to recognize such problems before they snowball into similar incidents. The problem with that is that the system would need to change in order to do that effectively. Teachers, as things stand, are not equipped for that responsibility - even if they were given sufficient training in order to recognize certain behaviors as symptoms, there isn't enough time to do that well even if they sincerely wanted to.
-
:clap:
You missed my point, though... Guaranteeing 50 years of incredible punishment is incentive to not commit the crime in the first place.
-
damn long post, altho wise words, had to jump few lines :clap: or wouldnt end today :clap:
You gave an alternate view for weapons in remote part of USA, still you havent answered if you really need the guns for protect or not, only that is a 'scare away' factor for criminals. it's not having more guns than other person that makes you invincible, look at vietnam :p and Iraq for that matters.
about puting him out of the society, thats the same way we view it, thats what prison are for, but prison is also reabilitation, redemption, someone that spends 3y in a prison for a small crime is suposed to be redempted after those 3y and not doing it again...and since we have alot of..spiritual background, as in catholicism or whatever, they must redempt to death if needed, so we shouldnt kill them. it's also a moral/ethical/human thing for not killing anyone, we love human rights, accusing Saddam of violating human rights when the invaders violate them too is bs, lets not forget the lie about the mass destruction weaponary he should have, as i heard someone saying that every intel agency in the world thought there were, thats a lie. I bet even CIA knew there was no weapons of mass destruction, majority of europe was convinced so, ofc allways excepting the brittish..even after they killed that scientist that knew there was no WMD.
-
*Talmann pulls out whip*
Don't pull out the WMD card. Let's keep this discussion focused.
:whip:
-
This is typical of any part of the pro-gun lobby - the wielding of unclear statistics, the "shooter not the gun" argument bla bla bla.
Ryazania's first post is a great example. Unclear statistics used as the backbone to the entire argument. Is this murder/violence rate the number by firearms alone or all murders? And is it murder/violence rate as stated at the top or murder rate as stated at the bottom? If the former, what constitutes violence? There are lies, damn lies ...
Then there is banging on about how useless a police force is if it every officer is armed. Typical of a certain mindset I suppose - might is right. Having a gun=better police. Whatever happened to quality of investigation and bringing a suspect to account? There are 65 police forces in the UK, only one of them issues a firearm as standard to all officers. Some do not even use pepper spray!
So, Maine has a murder rate of 0.140 per 10,000, according to the FBI and US Uniform Crime Reports 2005. For the same figure and year (the latest I can find is 2005), the UK has 0.117 for the whole country, according to the Home Office. But then let us look at the whole of the US and UK, since every state (and DC) has more lax gun laws than Bonnie Old England - 0.537 homicides per 10,000 population. That's 0.420 higher than the UK.
Now, as I said at the top of this post, there are lies, damn lies and statistics, and I'm not one to trust them all that much. Correlation is not causation, as the old adage goes. How is it that VA, with laws which appear to be almost as lax as Maine (Seung-Hui Cho got his weapons legally despite having a history of mental illness on his medical records), is 20/51 for homicide? The fact is that in the US there are more murders than the UK, despite how "safe" guns apparently make everyone. Then there is this little gem from the US DoJ:
The FBI's Crime in the United States estimated that 66% of the 16,137 murders in 2004 were committed with firearms
If you were wondering about the UK, that figure is 5%. How I wish we had lax gun laws, then I would be so much safer!
Now, the pro-gun lobby will fling around the usual "all the murders committed with firearms which were illegal" argument. Rubbish. Quite apart from the fact that there are no readily available stats for that assertion (although I'm sure the NRA will help with some friendly unbiased tables and charts), it is still the case that by legalising weaponary in the first place, even the wrong people can get hold of it very easily. And hey, Seung-Hui Cho bought his weapons and ammunition legally, as I stated above.
At the end of the day, we all know America will not get rid of the 2nd amendment. The pro-gun people, in Taijitu as well, claimed after the VT massacre that more guns was the answer, because if the students were armed they could have shot back. Maybe, although we'll never know, and there are a myriad things wrong with that assumption.
What the US should really be doing, however, is asking why it is that anyone should feel it necessary to take a weapon to school at all. This debate does and should run deeper than gun laws, but not for the reasons the pro-gun lobby would like it to.
-
Holy smokes. Now that I look at what I wrote, that WAS a heck of a long post! Sorry - it isn't often that I get to exchange thoughts with people on serious subjects such as this. Guess I got a bit wordy. lol
You gave an alternate view for weapons in remote part of USA, still you havent answered if you really need the guns for protect or not, only that is a 'scare away' factor for criminals.
That's a difficult question to answer. But then, I'm the sort of person who sees few things in black and white. Let's see whether I can explain this well. If you live in an area where the murder rate is 0, do you need a gun for self-defense?
"Just in case." "What if." That's the key to understanding the mindset. When I think about it, I suppose that if we never read newspapers and never watched TV, it would probably never occur to us out here to buy one. But we hear of things happening in other places, and criminals don't necessarily stay in their own hometowns, so we wonder if one might come here. We watch the movies and the cop shows and the dramas, where there's all those people being attacked and robbed and killed... I have to wonder whether that affects our feelings of safety too.
So we think to ourselves, if anyone ever came and tried to harm our children, or the people we love, we want to be able to protect them, and to be able to protect ourselves. And so we think about buying a gun. Just in case. And that gun sits in a box tucked away somewhere, maybe taken out for oiling or target practice now and then, but otherwise just collecting dust.
So do we -need- a handgun for protection? If you're looking at the crime rates, maybe that's a silly waste of money. But the way we think, who's to say a situation will never happen, just because it hasn't so far? So then we think it might not be a bad idea to have one anyway. If we never need it, then there's no harm done. But if we do, then we have one. That's the best explanation I can give for the rationale around here.
it's not having more guns than other person that makes you invincible
You're absolutely right. But that's not the way handgun-owners think. They just feel that having NO gun means you're completely at the mercy of someone pointing a gun at you, and that having one at least improves the odds a bit. People fear being powerless against the unknown.
Then there is banging on about how useless a police force is if it every officer is armed.
I honestly don't know what it's like in other countries. But here, criminals do sometimes have guns. And they'll shoot police officers rather than go to jail. And so, our officers are armed, because they never know when someone -will- have a gun.
Cartwrightia - I agree with you that people tend to give out statistics that are more based on what they think than on fact. So I did verify the statistic for my county's murder rate through my state government's records before posting it.
-
If they have you at gunpoint and you reach for your gun, they will shoot you. If you don't have a gun, they think they have an upperhand against you and get cocky. Also, if they want to kill you, they will.
-
Is Soly Solath? anyway,
Soly said what i did say somewhere else, most of the time, if the criminal sees that you have a gun or you gonna reach it, you'r dead. Having a gun isn't then, the best solution, but i guess most of the people see the issue as Khablan explained.
And another issue, said somewhere too, that if everyone has a gun to solve criminal situations, why do you need cops, or law for that matters? It's useless if everyone is 'brought to justice' with domestic handguns. the fact and concept to 'bring to justice' is why we here rely our defense on cops, if anything, there's even armed forces coming to save us or to jail the criminal, and in our prisons the escapes are legendary, i only remember a story here in Portugal, about some guys that ran away digging the prison's walls with spoons, and that it was long time ago where prisons werent as they are today.
So when we jail criminals, they stay there, they rather come out after rehabilitation, or else, never. We belive that even if you comit a crime, you can redempt (as i said before), imagine you walk in your gf's house, you see something pretty and grab it, suddendly the mother or father comes with shotgun and shoots you to death cuz she/he neva saw you in theire lives and think you'r a robber, how you gonna escape the 'law' of the guns? or if you do, how you gonna get out of prison if you cannot redempt, you'r just put away from the society forever? It's not "poor guy, innocent and now jailed", it's "poor society, is jailing or shooting everyone that look like a criminal". We leave to the cops or the law to decide whether he's a criminal or not.
If we'r shot dead by a criminal because we didnt had a way to defend ourselves in time, whats my concern? The law will do something...plus, im dead.
To backup Soly's post, let's say every time that one of the victim/criminal has a gun, there's a shooting, means most of the cases at least 1 die, and that if both have handgun, one will die for sure, what? criminal gonna be afraid of someone's aim? if he's doing the robbery or whatever hes doing, he's capable of shooting you. unless he doesnt have a gun. For this theory, if in european countries, most of the people dont have guns, the robber is not going to shoot you, because he knows you dont have gun, hence less deaths.
JUST LOOK AT THE NUMBERS! And tell me it's not like in the westerns! They are frightening!
-
The pro-gun people, in Taijitu as well, claimed after the VT massacre that more guns was the answer, because if the students were armed they could have shot back.
Oh boy, I've missed that one. They've thought of that? I guess you are headed to a George Lukas-society. *the music-teacher pulls out laser gun and blasts one of the attackers all-over the class-walls. meanwhile, a small, skinny girl by the name of Leila-Jane reaches into her small purse and takes out a light-sabre, severing the feet of the second attacker. she asks him before cutting his throat, her cute voice like honey: do you believe in Chewbacca? the school is safe. yay. now back to jedi-training class. :-X*
-
And about MG's, as they are bulky, heavy and a heavy recoil coupled with heavy belts of ammo, they are, if anything defencive weapons unless mounted on vehicles. That said, they still shouldn't be legal except maybe for collectors that are regularily checked-up and have a burglar-alarm that goes directly to the police. And that's a big maybe. SMG's on the other hand is purely offencive.
-
Once a portuguese special marine forces told me, you do not kill people with MG pissing 300bullets per minute (or how many bullets it was), MGs are mainly to scare, the real action is done with rifles and smgs.
-
And even there he was wrong, the main action is done with mortars and howitzers.
And yes, MG's main function today is to surpress, however, it was invented to counter infantry "going over the top" of their trenches.
-
mortars? lol he's a marine, not mobile artillery, whats the use of those weapons when assaulting a ship? to destroy it? lol
-
Ah, confusion of concepts ::)
In boarding operations at sea I guess SMG's, rifles and shotguns are the weapons of choise.
Swedish marines has very little to do with Ship-to-Ship assaults, they are used for littoral combat amongst the numerous tiny islands along our coasts. The navy and coastguard takes care of things out on open sea (not that we have very much open sea that is our own)
/OT
-
well, comparing to the portuguese, we have alot of area to cover, and we have alot of ship-to-ship assaults, against illegal trespassing (bad term, i wouldnt call it immigration, thats another issue), illegal immigration, specially smuggling..i wouldnt doubt we have record of kilos of drugs and stuff like that from smugglers, they are so many coming to Portugal, that whenever we get them it's huge piles of drug. Plus they were for special operations, normaly ship-to-ship, they dont get on fighting with mortars and anything heavier than big MGs. anyway, all firearms should be changed to the new electric guns, those SWAT use. Mortality rates by firearms will drop 98%, people still have their gun but wouldnt kill anyone, plus it wouldnt be against human rights, you might not care for human rights as someone said, but we do.
-
I do care for human rights, and It's also a part of the Swedish constitution that military units can't be used against civilians (even foreign criminals) under any circumstances, thus, the coast guard is a police unit as far as I know and they seldom use weapons at all, most things like smuggling is handled by the border customs, port authorities and police.
-
well you would have alot of european cargo thought, i doubt you have much problem with smuggling, from where? Finland? Norwegian? We have South Africa and most or all smuggling that comes to europe, we'r the golden gates,as long with Spain...thats why we dont care for terrorists, they love to be here because we dont care, i bet theres alot of them living in Portugal.
-
If they have you at gunpoint and you reach for your gun, they will shoot you. If you don't have a gun, they think they have an upperhand against you and get cocky. Also, if they want to kill you, they will.
It depends on the situation. If a robber has his gun pointed at you, you'd be a total idiot if you pulled yours. But, if some lunatic is on a shooting spree, you might be able to get to your gun while he's killing someone else, and you have nothing to lose by trying anyway (assuming you can't escape).
-
If they have you at gunpoint and you reach for your gun, they will shoot you. If you don't have a gun, they think they have an upperhand against you and get cocky. Also, if they want to kill you, they will.It depends on the situation. If a robber has his gun pointed at you, you'd be a total idiot if you pulled yours. But, if some lunatic is on a shooting spree, you might be able to get to your gun while he's killing someone else, and you have nothing to lose by trying anyway (assuming you can't escape).
That's the thing - there are different situations where a person's life is at risk. If someone already has a gun pointed at you, then whether you have a gun in the closet is a moot point. On the other hand, if someone has just broken into your house and you're in that room with that closet, you may be able to get to yours before he reaches you. Or your children.
imagine you walk in your gf's house, you see something pretty and grab it, suddendly the mother or father comes with shotgun and shoots you to death cuz she/he neva saw you in theire lives and think you'r a robber
That's a different situation from one where your life is in danger. The laws in the US are very strict on this - you or your loved one's life must be in immediate danger when you shoot, or you'll be charged with murder. You can't just shoot someone because they're robbing you or your home. You have to prove that if you hadn't shot that gun, you or your loved one would be dead. Those laws are meant to motivate people -not- to shoot indiscriminately. If that was common in the US, the right to bear arms wouldn't be so popular here.
If we'r shot dead by a criminal because we didnt had a way to defend ourselves in time, whats my concern? The law will do something...plus, im dead.
My concern is that I don't want to die if I can prevent it. And I most certainly do not want my child to die - if that happens, he might as well have killed me. If either of those happens, and the law catches the criminal and he's put in jail, or even put to death, it won't bring back the dead. I'd rather prevent us from dying if I can. If there is some other way of preventing it, then I'll do that - I'd rather not shoot anyone unless absolutely necessary, either to injure or to kill. Even if I didn't feel that way, the strict laws on the use of guns in self-defense would be enough to motivate me - I wouldn't want want to go to jail for it either.
But if killing him is the -only- way to stop it from happening, I wouldn't say to myself 'well either way someone's dead so I'm not going to shoot'. Of course I'll shoot him. I would much rather he be dead than my child. Or myself. We have as much right to live as the perpetrator does, and if killing him is the only way to stop him from killing us, you can bet I'll shoot him. Absolutely. I'm not going to put his right to live above ours.
The pro-gun people, in Taijitu as well, claimed after the VT massacre that more guns was the answer, because if the students were armed they could have shot back.
There will always be extremists in every subject. Fanatics will jump at opportunities to try to convince people that they're right. That certainly isn't the view of the average person.
The majority of people in the US do not want to see college kids carrying handguns to class. Or grownups walking around the streets with them, either. Don't forget that there is also a strong anti-gun lobby as well, along with the gun rights lobby. The average person falls somewhere in the middle - give us the right to bear arms, but within reason.
-
You can't just shoot someone because they're robbing you or your home.
Not in mood of arguing, but I'd like to add that this might be soon changed in Texas. Bill is: If someone breaks into your house and there is reasonable belief that he will kill/harm you or your loved ones (aka. pointing gun at your head, shooting the roof, etc), you get the right to shoot him yourself, and if you kill him, you won't be charged with murder as the kill was in self-defense.
-
Talmann, as far as I'm concerned, that law should have been in effect all along. If someone's threatening us with a gun, that's proof enough for me. I'm not sure what would be more absolute proof of the imminent threat of death: I should wait until he -does- shoot one of us? Or until he announces, "Alright, hold still, I'm about to shoot you..." Or maybe I should call a timeout and ask "Are you really and truly about to shoot one of us, or are you just taking that thing out of your pocket to give it some air?" I know all those things sound silly, but really, how much proof is reasonable? It's one thing to accuse me of murder if I didn't see a weapon in his hand, for example, or if he was running out the door and I shot him in the back. But holding a gun and acting in a manner that implies he intends to use it should be enough proof. I'm completely for any such incidents to be carefully and fully investigated, but the necessary proof must be reasonable too.
-
According to Swedish self-defence laws, the situation Khablan mentions is already proof enough, You are allowed to use as much force as nessessary to defend yourself or to make a citizens arest on the spot, the difference is, there is hardly noone who owns a legal handgun, hunting rifles and hunting shotguns on the other hand is very, common and home-guard personell in many cases have their personal assault rifle or sub-machinegun in their house (vital parts stored separately from the weapons) In addition to that, most people don't know their legal rights in theese cases, I know it as it was part of the military training required for guard-duty at the royal palace. (Most regiments have one of their platoons sent to do one or two weeks from each conscription class) (conscript training is 7,5-15 months depending on station)
On the other hand, the evidence requirements in swedish courts is insanely high as you don't only have to proove guilt beyond reasonable doubt but also have to proove criminal intent. Even in rape cases.
-
In addition to that, most people don't know their legal rights in theese cases
I think that's probably common everywhere. The average person doesn't know the exact wording of the laws, and wouldn't understand all of the ramifications if they did. Instead, we tend to have a general idea from what we've seen or heard in the media. And of course, sometimes that can give an exaggerated impression, but it's difficult for us to know when that's the case.
We've heard now and then here about cases where someone was charged after what sounded like a crystal-clear case of self-defense, or even sued for damages by the perpetrator because the victim fought back during the attack and injured their attacker.
The truth is that the media only focuses on what it feels will best draw our interest, and so they go for the sensational. The average person isn't in any field of law, and therefore doesn't really know whether that's the norm, or whether it's an extreme that seldom happens. So we assume that if we ever do have to defend ourselves, we run a high risk of either having to pay damages or go to jail for it.
In reality, the risk may be as high as we think, or maybe it's a bit lower, but we can only go on what we've seen and heard. On the bright side, that certainly makes people less likely to shoot unless the situation absolutely warrants it.
-
Yes, but I still advocate that the fewer guns there are in a society, the better, especially when it comes to handguns or even small arms in general (everything from revolvers to LMGs)
Also, reduce the number of total guns in the US by taking away the now legal ones the price on illegal guns will soar as there are fewer around. Also, eventually there will be fewer illegal guns too as guns seized by the police during arrests can be taken off the market and destroyed, something wich will increase the black market price even higher. That will lead to fewer guns used in crimes as it will be harder for criminals to afford guns and as a result, hospitals won't have to deal with as many bullet wounds, both accidental and intentional.
-
Empire, if the government was to try to take away the 240 million firearms of America, I guarantee you they firearms meant to be taken away will be used as the Founding Fathers had intended. The 2nd Amendment was not put in to place for us to used against criminals, it was put in as a safeguard against the government. A US government that oppresses its people too much would suffer the consequences, but in an unarmed country, the citizens can do nothing.
-
Then frankly, I am confounded why you aren't using them in that way right now...
-
Then frankly, I am confounded why you aren't using them in that way right now...
Because the vast majority of Americans aren't being oppressed. Most of us just go to work everyday, work at our jobs, then go home to watch "American Idol". *barf* Maybe they hear on the news about Gitmo or the Patriot Act, but they just yawn and think it won't happen to American citizens.
-
Empire, you and I both know the above statement is horseshit. Sure, we may be a bit less liberal with civil rights than some countries, but that's ok with most Americans because we are, for the most part, morally conservative. But other than a few things, we are as free to do as we please as we would be in any other country. The government does not require me to do anything but pay a few taxes. It does not regulate my every move. I am free to criticize the government, as I have many times before, and still be able to do it time and time again. If you think we are truly oppressed (unless you mean that we're a corporate dictatorship, which would be an argument for another day) then I suggest you remain silent on the matter.
-
So as long as the government only opresses the rest of the world and thus in effect you as non-protesting citizens opress or bully the rest of the world it's not a problem?
And you know I have stated that more than once but you are right that my latest post and the first part of this one is off topic, the second last however isn't and your reply is actually more sad than anything else.
That you can't see the greater good beyond your own petty sand box and thus hold on to your "right" to own a gun no matter the cost in lives or your own humanity.
-
I am sorry, but you failed to contest any of the contentions I put forth. I am merely stating that the reason we have the 2nd Amendment is that it is a safeguard against tyranny. You say we are oppressed here in America and you wonder why we do not use our Constitutional right to revolt against the government. I state that we in America are not oppressed, as evident by many things. You respond with something completely irrelevant to the matter by bitching about America's 'oppression' (I do admit that my government intervenes too much, that's why I support Ron Paul) of the world, which has little to nothing to do with my previous statement.
-
It might be true that the second amendment is there to safeguard against an oppressive government but it was written in a whole different era than the world of today. That alone should warrant a thorugh re-evaluation of it's advantages vs. the flaws in it's wording and the results of those flaws.
For example, would a ban on pistols along with a regulation of how other weapons are to be stored be a breach of the second amendment? Because that alone would probably decrease gun-related deaths in a second or even first step without limiting the individual's possibilities to own weapons to defend against an opressive government.
-
Actually, after thinking about it, I know what will bring gun-related deaths and overall homicide rates down.
The legalization of drugs.
-
Don't fool yourself there Ryaz, that will only move the death-tolls from guns to OD's and increase other costs on your society more than tenfold as drugs ALWAYS affect more people than the users themselves. But on the other hand, that will bring on the internal collapse of the American empire faster than I can say uncle and free the rest of the world so go ahead O:-)
-
But you won't bitch when we are having non-violent deaths, will you? :trout:
Anyway, people who want drugs can get them now if they want to. Hardly any of the user base would change just because of the legality of something. Plus, the government will likely tax it. Why wouldn't they, marijuana is the biggest cash crop in America.
-
Actually, I'll probably stop bitching when the only ones dying by American hands are other Americans regardless of how they die ::)
I still think the user base would change once it was more accepted officially. Also, could you explain the American double standards when it comes to sex? (One can do whatever one wish as long as one pretends it's not happening including censoring "bad" words in lyrics and media) Preferably in a PM or a new topic as to not clutter this one.
-
Yes, but I still advocate that the fewer guns there are in a society, the better
I can understand your reasoning. But of course that could only have a positive effect if guns were reduced evenly; if the law-abiding citizens had fewer or no guns, but the criminals still had as many, then it only puts the innocent at more of a disadvantage.
It's easy to get the guns away from average people by passing a law, since most would obey it, even if unhappy about it. The problem is that criminals already prefer to buy arms through illegal means, because it's harder to trace them back to the shooter. In order to buy them legally, we have to register them. So in order for that to work in any beneficial way, they'd have to come up with a successful way of removing the illegal ones first. If there was a simple solution to that, it wouldn't be a problem now.
Also, reduce the number of total guns in the US by taking away the now legal ones the price on illegal guns will soar as there are fewer around. Also, eventually there will be fewer illegal guns too as guns seized by the police during arrests can be taken off the market and destroyed, something wich will increase the black market price even higher. That will lead to fewer guns used in crimes as it will be harder for criminals to afford guns and as a result, hospitals won't have to deal with as many bullet wounds, both accidental and intentional.
Again, I can understand where you're coming from on this. But the past has shown us that while that makes sense in theory, it doesn't necessarily work that way in practice. It was the same line of reasoning that brought about Prohibition, and that's not the result we saw when we tried it. Instead, the black market increased beyond expectations. The suppliers became more powerful, branched out into other areas, and violent crimes multiplied, like ripples in a pond.
In this case, since criminals generally use guns purchased by illegal means rather than those purchased on the legal market, it would, in effect, simply make it more lucrative for the illegal suppliers. In addition to the old criminal customer base, they'd now have a percentage of those who used to buy them legally for self-defense, etc. So there again, it isn't the legal supply that's the problem - it's the illegal market, which would only become more powerful if the legal was removed. Suppliers are in it to make money. They aren't going to price guns so high that no one buys them anymore. That would be shooting themselves in the foot (bad pun intended).
A US government that oppresses its people too much would suffer the consequences, but in an unarmed country, the citizens can do nothing.I am confounded why you aren't using them in that way right now
If you're being serious, then on the one hand, you're saying that Americans are wrong to have guns, but on the other hand, we're wrong because we're not using our to overthrow the government. Either guns are alright or they're not - saying that it's not okay to have guns, BUT it's okay to have them if we're going to go kill people with them makes no sense to me. I can't imagine that you're saying politicians and those whose job it is to defend them don't count as people, so it's okay to shoot them. So I have to assume that you posted before thinking things through.
Americans aren't gun-happy. If we disapprove of something our government is doing, we're not likely to start shooting people in order to change it. Personally, I consider non-violence a good thing. If you think we approve of what our current government has done internationally lately, then you've been mislead. People here -are- trying to do something about it. Even many in politicians are trying as well. We just aren't using violence as the means. But it's wrong because we're not killing people to achieve that goal?
If the entire point was to bring up your disapproval of what the US government is doing, and you just wrote it badly, then that's a subject for an entirely different thread.
Actually, after thinking about it, I know what will bring gun-related deaths and overall homicide rates down.
The legalization of drugs.
That's certainly been suggested many times, and although I'm not a proponent of it, there is some basis to think it could work if done correctly. Much of the violent crime in the US is drug-related, which is similar to what happened during the Prohibition years when alcohol was illegal. So it isn't completely irrational to theorize that by legalizing drugs, we shift it into non-criminal hands, and thus the crime rate should fall.
What I've been saying all along is that we'll be much more successful if we address what motivates people to commit violent crimes, rather than take away one means of doing them.
Just for a recent example, look what they've done about cigarette smoking. Rather than make it illegal and spend money on the increased law enforcement needed to limit the black market that would inevitably develop, they attacked the motivation to smoke in the first place instead.
They directed money and effort into programs engineered to reduce people's desire to smoke, instead. Cigarettes were still freely available, although more expensive. Laws were enacted to prohibit smoking in public places. People are free to smoke if they want, but it's now much less convenient.
They gave people more -motivation- not to smoke, rather than try to force them to stop, and achieved remarkable success. Reduce the desire and reduce the market. The black market has nowhere to take hold, because there's less customer base. Therefore, no increased criminal activity.
-
weird thing happening to this forum, i mainly get errors when trying to see this topic, either says im not moderator either says im not allowed..any mod messing with this?
-
I know I'm jumping in mid-debate here, so I apologize if I repeat something. It's likely to happen :)
Making something illegal doesn't stop it; here in lies the problem. Murder still happens, theft still happens; a law doesn't guarantee a utopia, so to speak. All right, so these are sort of outrageous examples, perhaps, yet they are still examples that gun control doesn't necessarily equal gun control. I'm not sure how it works in the United States, yet here in Canada, even if most provinces have opted out of it. Is it working? Sketchy to say that it is.
I think the gun problem goes far beyond gun control laws. I saw a "legalize drugs" suggestion earlier. :P Guns happen here. Guns happen in gangs. Guns happen in a country, such as the United States, where they're allowed. Gun control laws will not fix the problem, I don't think, and gun registry hasn't shown to be too effective, either. What is the solution? I think it's too multi-faceted to boil down to one statement. I am saying this without any evidence to back it up whatsoever, yet most gun violence isn't a random 18 year old upper middle-class Caucasian girl holding up a La Senza store for a bra: it comes from troubled groups in society that try to solve problems the only way they know how. A solution goes far beyond a simple gun law!
-
Just so everyone knows what we're talking about when we say 2nd Amendment:
Amendment II-Right to bear arms
A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Oh, and I had an idea to stop gun violence thats also impossible: Go back in time and prevent gunpowder from invention! Then we wouldn't have to worry about oppression or unfair fights, now would we? [/sarcasm]
-
if gunpowder wasnt invented, what would americans bear if not pistols?
-
With all those commas in that quote, you can interpret that in many ways. Also, your Founding Fathers didn't really have a knack for grammar, did they?
-
what do you mean
-
http://www.madogre.com/Interviews/BELIEVEGUNCONTROL.htm
hahaha! What a brain wash! now i know where you guys get those crasy ideas! It's worse than a Communist Youth seminar, B R A I N W A S H
-
if gunpowder wasnt invented, what would americans bear if not pistols?
My vote would be rolling pins. Don't tell me you've never been to a rolling pin throwing contest? It's a favorite at some of the county fairs. lol
With all those commas in that quote, you can interpret that in many ways. Also, your Founding Fathers didn't really have a knack for grammar, did they?
Back then, a lot of the writing was lousy. Thus the loophole that everyone argues over. Some believe that the last half means that the government cannot place -any- limits on it at all. The vast majority do believe some limits are necessary - they just don't agree on where that line should be drawn.
-
Not to mention if private gun ownership was illegal, there'd be no way to revolt against a coup. That's the reason the Founding Fathers put that in there, to allow the populace to fight a takeover.
-
So, Garth, how would you feel if Handguns eg: pistols & revolvers were outlawed but rifles was still allowed as before, do you see that as a limitation on your defencive capability vs. a corrupt state?
-
I most certainly would. Close-range combat is common in revolts, and I would rather have a pistol than an 30.06 in that situation.
-
Agreed. Soldiers don't have only rifles, so why should civilians in the same wartime situation?
-
Ok, so even if it would save thousands of innocent lives anually if handguns are removed from society and you would still be able to have rifles for defence you would rather have them die just IN CASE the government YOU elect gets out of control DESPITE of the three-split power structure designed to prevent it?
-
Prove to me, with evidence and research, that illegalize handguns will decrease deaths. Oh, wait, I already provided sources that point to the contrary.
Criminals who want to kill, and want to use a gun to do it, will get one whether or not it is legal. Banning something does not remove it from society.
-
Not to mention rifles can still be concealed, albeit not as easily, to kill innocents. Moreover, rifles have more power making one shot, one kill easier. And since people want to own guns, and you outlaw handguns, you're basically saying you want the average person to own more powerful weapons. How nice of you, hypocrit. :trout:
-
You do realise that gun-control is a long-tem solution?
-
But neoliberals don't realise that, Ryazania. They think they are fighting for the rights of people, but they want just as many things illegal as conservatives.
Neoliberals also believe that banning something = problem fixed. Just look at Prohibition: alcohol-related crimes skyrocketed, instead of going down. That's a surprise. Now, let's take the lessons learned from Prohibition and apply it to gun control: Make guns illegal, and every angst-filled teenager and their friends will want to challenge "the Man". If you tell someone not to do something, they want to do it. Its human nature. And to Soly's post: Again, look at Prohibition. In the long term it got worse rather than better.
-
Prove to me, with evidence and research, that illegalize handguns will decrease deaths. Oh, wait, I already provided sources that point to the contrary.
right, Prove to me, with evidence and research, that legalise handguns will decrease deaths. Oh, wait, you can't. Dont take the point elsewhere, europe doesnt allow civilians to have handguns, it comes on the news rarely when shots are fired: Gangs against Police in big cities, no deaths; guy is murdered in gas station(oh wait..that was with a knife...); National Guard shoots escaping outlaws, murders 1 by 'accident'...huge fight because the police shouldnt be able to kill people, so they should not use firearms. A month later the National Guard receives electric firearms. Thing is, the guy that got killed was in a vehicle almost ramming the National Guard, Electric guns wouldnt solve that, but at least the guy wouldnt be killed. 'Oh so he could ram into a National Guard, probably kill him, but the NGuard cant shoot at him, because he shouldnt be killed?' In fact he wasnt going to ram him, but anyway, he was almost going to. The point is, yes, when you enlist the army or the police or the national guard, you expect danger, you will fight for the law, not for yourself, if he dies in 'combat', he was and is performing his duty. Law and Order are imperatives in a civilized society, not giving guns to everyone.
Besides, Myroria even said why the 2nd am exists. Nothing to do with shooting criminals, if you could just keep your guns safe in the basement until anyone performed a revolution or whatever against the people, the world would be a better place. You cannot renegade the power USA has in controling this things, USA is one of the 2 only countries that didnt signed kyoto, and is the most polluent nation of them, this power goes for gun control or human rights raping. None of those huge problems have been even thought of being solved in US.
If you can keep your machineguns in your home without killing anybody, excellent, the problem is that with USA that doesnt happen.
-
If you would actually research the information I provided in my first post, you would have already seen I provided proof.
And Myroria reiterated my point about the 2nd Amendment, and I'm not talking about it at the moment. I am talking about the effectiveness of illegalizing handguns in the UNITED STATES, not Europe mind you.
-
If handguns were illegalized in the US, the gun-related deaths would probably stay on the same level for a series of years before the number of seized and destroyed illegal/unregistered handguns has reached a high enough total to be noticed on the black market, then gun-related deaths will start to decrease.
An option would also be to place extreme taxes on handgun-calibre ammunition to reduce the ammount of ammo in circulation. A plus on that is that criminals will be forced to reload used ammo, increasing the risks of critical malfunctions in their weapons and decreasing the effectiveness of their ammo considderably at the same time.
-
As I pointed out in my post, your first post Ryaz is nothing more than lies, damn lies and statistics. You obviously do need an argument to fall back on, I would suggest it isn't the one proposed in your first post.
-
hey, glad americans have Michael Moore
-
That fat sack of shit? He doesn't deserve to be called an American. I am all for questioning the government and its policies, but I'll be damned before I let someone insult my country.
-
So much for pluralism, eh Ryaz?
-
Edit: Lol, my mistake. I'm not functioning today.
-
Get a dictionary. Pluralism=a democracy in which everyone has their own right to their own opinion. OED: "toleration or acceptance of the coexistence of differing views, values, cultures, etc. "
I'm sure I've seen you write "I detest what you say but..." before, how about living up to it?
-
I'm not saying he doesn't have a right to say it, I'm just saying he shouldn't qualify as an American :P
I really can't live up to it because there is no situation in which to employ it. My government doesn't restrict any type of (peaceful) protest or speech.
-
Michael Moore's movies are mostly documentaries, if you notice, it's rare he does a remark of his own. Most of the affirmations are brought from studies, although he questions himself alot during the movies. It's his way, or are you saying "Inconvenient Truth" is a fiction?
-
If handguns were illegalized in the US, the gun-related deaths would probably stay on the same level for a series of years before the number of seized and destroyed illegal/unregistered handguns has reached a high enough total to be noticed on the black market, then gun-related deaths will start to decrease.
An option would also be to place extreme taxes on handgun-calibre ammunition to reduce the ammount of ammo in circulation. A plus on that is that criminals will be forced to reload used ammo, increasing the risks of critical malfunctions in their weapons and decreasing the effectiveness of their ammo considderably at the same time.
Empire, I'm glad you put the time and thought into compiling this scenario, but I'm afraid it's highly flawed. In reality, when handguns become illegal in the US, they become only available on the black market. Well, duh, right? But tell me, who is involved in the black market? Gangsters, drug-dealers, people who don't obey laws... the same people we don't want with guns in their hands. By you admitting that we will never be able to completely destroy the black market, you're accepting that your theory is useless. And of course, history shows that in every country, in every age, there was a black market. That's reality. No one's perfect. And certainly no entire society is perfect. We can also see through history that no commodity, no matter how illegal, could be kept off the black market. Look at the drug market of today: if authorities can't keep drugs off the street, how are they going to do any better with handguns, especially considering that handguns aren't consumable (in the economic sense of the word)?
So, we do know that there will always be a black market. We also know that as soon as handguns become illegal, they will become a prime comodity in this market. This equals "bad guys" having handguns, and law-abiding citizens going without. And what is the harm in this? There is no better example than the Laws of Nature: a predator will only exert enough effort in securing its prey as it thinks will reward it in the end. This is self-explainable: the predator will always go after the prey who offers the least resistance, and thus requires the least effort. Our society contains similar "predators," those who will ignore the law and hurt and deprive the innocent for their own selfish motives. Just as water will seek its lowest level, these 'predators' will sadly always go after those those who offer the least resistance.
Taking all this into account, do you think a burglar will attempt to break into houses in a neighborhood that is known to have armed home-owners? I highly doubt it. Home invaders will "case" their targets thoroughly in most cases, and they will definitely want to know whether they could be dealing with an armed home-owner in a worst-case scenario.
Facts, statistics, and common sense proove that taking guns away from one side and giving them to the other won't prevent bloodshed. Because there will always be the law-abiders and the lawless, and government in reality can only control the actions of the former, gun-control proponents are technically fighting for the benefit of the drug dealers, murderers, home invaders, etc., by rendering the law-abiding citizens defenseless.
Furthermore, this right we are discussing, the right of the people to bear arms, is just that: a RIGHT. If only for this reason, I am not willing to surrender it to the outstretched arms of nanny government. I feel extreme pity for those of you who live in Europe, or elsewhere around the globe, who cannot understand how we Americans can hold a Constitutional right in such high regard and esteem. But it is exactly that difference that makes the USA the greatest nation on earth. We live by principles, fight for principles, and die for principles. If any of you feel that holding high regard for words on a page is senseless, then you obviously have never felt the true exhiliration of freedom. I take my rights seriously, and if you don't, well, that's your decision.
Please note, by being pro-gun, I am not trying to force everyone to go buy a gun and sleep with it at night. I am only saying that I think this is something that government should not concern itself with any more than it already has, especially if it means limiting the rights of the non-problematic portion of society, the sect that will actually live by the law.
-
No, my scenario is far from useless. Home owners could still be armed (but not with pistols) and thus the point you try to make saying they are defenceless is completly void. Also, you don't adress the fact that my scenario stretches over a vast ammount of time, it will probably be at least a decade before there are so few guns left in the black market that it gives noticable results.
And though a gun isn't "consumable" it's far easier to cut off the supply to the black market as you need a hell of a lot more resources to manufacture a pistol with up to a hundred moving metal parts than to grow weed, thus, you need a professional automated factory to build most guns and to stop that source wouldn't be hard. That would lead to a significant quality decrease in the guns availiable to criminals in the long run and leading to more critical malfunctions, especially when coupled with re-loaded ammo that's going to put a big dent in the lethality for people on the wrong end while increasing the risks for the shooter of blowing his hand off or being seriously injured by his own firearm.
House burglaries are mostly conducted by day when everyone is at work.
And when it comes to the greatest nation on earth, the US is far from it. In my eyes, the US is nothing more than an uncivilized, greedy nation with barbarian practices and a high tech level being used to hold more or less the rest of the world hostage while robbing the planet of a vastly larger part of it's resources than what they are entitled to.
Hell, you havn't even had a semblance of democracy since the presidential candates could fund their own election campaigns in entirety. Since then, you have had nothing more than a corporate oligarchy, just like Russia today. Differences are mainly population and Russia not pretending to be acting for any "greater good" thus being more honest.
-
what is in the black market is sold by those people. the problem is that, since buying weapons is legal in USA, they go create blackmarket elsewhere. If guns were illegal, is far more difficult, even for drug dealers and gangsters and all that, to get a gun. In matter of a decade the guns would decrease alot, also the gun related mortality. I would take time, but it's the only logical way, you must illegalise 1st guns that go above the required for protections, only small handguns could be purchased, everything else would be illegal, is that against your 2nd whatever law? is that against the 'protection' or 'self-defense' theory? no. After that you just get them illegal and confiscate the weapons. Anyone with small guns cant make such wreck when if becomes illegal, only form of getting other weapons is to go to blackmarket. Ofc what we see as blackmarket is open day market in US, do you know how difficult is to buy weapons on an european blackmarket? you put your life at risk, enough at risk that people dont even think about. It's easier to steal a gun.
-
Delfos, you are missing the point, it's small guns that are the problem because they are easy to conceal and can be used without warning, something which is almost impossible with a rifle.
Second, I'm not advocating guns, I'm advocating a compromise and I've never been to the US.
-
You know, giving everyone guns and the incentive to use them on one another could really help cut the population growth. So get to work, Yanks.
-
Ah the classic generalisations. On the one hand you have Emp stating that the US is an evil empire and confusing his apparent hatred of the current administration with a hatred of the entire American people, which considering there are over 300million Americans is something of a stretched extrapolation, to say the least.
Then there is Barceleroth, on the one hand conceding that a vast criminal element resides in the country and that as a result you will never check the black market (obvious enough about any country) and on the other that he can a) speak for the entire American people and b) that they all (by use of we) adhere to principles. So you have Barceleroth, self appointed spokesmen for the 300million Americans on this planet, telling us that American "gansters, drug-dealers... 'bad guys'" etc live and die by the principles of life, liberty and property, just like the rest of the population, which he himself has personally spoken to, who all have homogenous views and so can be boiled down in to one trite paragraph.
Rather than resorting to ridiculous generalisations on the two well worn and boring paths of anti-Americanism and its resultant anti-Europeanism, why not have a dispassionate debate? Suggesting that all Americans blindly accept the Constitution without question is frankly an insult to any educated person living in that country, while suggesting that the United States has "no semblence of democracy" is also an assertion which deserves nothing more than to be laughed out of town.
-
point of concern: bush gets elected twice.
if we dont like them, you dont like them, wtf is he doing up there? 'oh peaceful and no revolutions' just take the man off the charge ffs.
anyway, its weird having pro-americans saying they dont like bush, althought they love america, so they allways come with the generalization issue. matters or not, you (doesnt matter who) chosen Bush to represent USA.
You(doesnt matter who in person, matters the collective), have a problem with guns, gun control or not, i dont care, im just stating what i think. If you come to defense your pro-americanism on 'us' about generalization, saying 'us'(generally speaking) are...'anti-americans', is quite the same thing..isnt it? Dont generalise if you'r against generalization, my bottom line was made. You put men in charge of your country, get your own blame on it. Just take him off if he's that bad.
and about constitution, just change it if you'r so against it. 'oh i'v no powers' bullshit, the french imigrants have no powers, you have all the powers of the world to make changes.
-
Emp. - in order to destroy the black market, you have to destroy it EVERYWHERE. So unless you have a way to rid Earth of guns entirely, I suggest you take into account the black market in your perfect world predictions. And it is hard to stop smuggling, just look at US/Mexico border.
And burglaries CAN happen at any time, thus Barc's statement.
Delf. - Just because Bush is elected twice, doesn't mean the majority like him. Just the majority (a SLIM majority, may I remind you) of the people who voted, which was at an all time low.
-
Actually, he lost the popular vote the 2nd time through..........
-
It was 51 to 49. That's not close, Delfos. Maybe if you studied America before criticizing it, you'd know that.
-
rofl you misunderstood, the post was about generalizations, and i dont have to study USA, it comes on the news. As i said way before, I KNOW THAT NOT ALL AMERICANS LIKE HIM OR VOTED FOR HIM OR WHATEVER! and stop saying i cant criticize USA without being there, pro-gunners here criticise non-americans saying they are too utopic, wake up, non-americans live in utopia then, but theres USA to ruin it.
-
a) don't EVER listen to the news, because they exaggerate everything to get people to watch them. b) Myro- I said it was close, not Delfos. Please read who says something before getting angry. And c) let's get back on topic here, hm?
-
thats why i see different news, the facts that are equal to all are mainly true..or is it a conspiracy against..whoever?
RTP1 Notícias (portuguese)
euronews (european)
skynews (english)
cnn (american,yes not only american, but what matters is the american point of view)
sad we dont have Al-Jazira in cable or else i would see it.
the ones i see practically every day is the portuguese and the european, when there's something not very well explained about USA that come son the news i turn CNN on. euronews is ellitist, they present FACTS only, even against EU, so i trust most of the info on them. They show alot of studies done by private companies or EU comissions, very interesting: i got an update for Ryaz who was asking about AIDS in Portugal. We'r one of the most problematic in europe along with Russia and most of the eastern countries. the rest are mild and low on AIDS problem. Germany government says the battle must be fought in foreign also, you cannot exclusivly turn your prevention to 1 country only when you have a bunch of foreigns with the same problem. To show how lovely the spannish are for the portuguese, we'r at red status in that study, there's no neighbor or close country with red nearby until the balkans. Anyway, Spain havent presented any data for the study, so there's no way i can say if they have more or less AIDS problem than the portuguese.
old map
http://www.eurosurveillance.org/em/v02n05/0205-222.asp
(http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40082000/gif/_40082646_euro_aids3_map416.gif)
couldnt say when this was done, but anyway...
back to topic: guns are evil, redeem yourselves from the demon!
-
Not all news channels are like FOX "news", especially not european public service channels (though they are hardly unbiased either but there are nuances)
-
People are people wherever you go. In every country in the world, you'll find good and bad, stupid and smart, greedy and generous. To think otherwise is foolishness, because we all know that in any group of people, you'll see a wide variety of personalities. To assume that everyone in a given place are all alike is ridiculous - we all know better.
News is a business like anything else. Because of that, more coverage is given to those things that will attract viewers/readers/listeners. More viewers = wider viewership due to spreading popularity = more profit and more power over others in the same field.
Let's go over what's been happening in the US, and see whether it's been fully reflected in the news coverage in other countries:
9-11 scared the bejeezus out of everyone - it was a shock to us that such a thing could even stand a chance of happening in our country at all. Up until then, terrorism was something that happened in other parts of the world, not here.
A barrage of announcements told us that more such attempts could be expected at any large city at any moment, which resulted in a sense of paranoia. ANY of us or our loved ones could be caught up in it at any moment. People were suddenly afraid to go to any large city for any reason, and many people commuted to work there.
Bush fed that paranoia - let's not forget that he was going to be up for re-election, and if he played his cards right, the actions he took could help to ensure another term. Other politicians who would be up for re-election stood to gain as well, and followed suit.
On the one hand, Bush acted immediately to reassure the public that things could be done to increase our safety, and that he was doing them. On the other hand, the government also barraged us with constant press releases giving the impression that the threat of such incidents was still hanging over our heads.
When election time came close, they played the danger card as heavily as they could. Bush had a proven track record by now as a "war-time president". We weren't all that sure what the other guy would do. Many people voted for Bush out of fear. So Bush was re-elected.
As we gradually began to lose confidence in why our troops were still over in Iraq, as well as why we'd already been over there for so long, the government fed us info through the media geared toward making us believe that it was necessary, and that they were also working for the good of Iraq as well.
And of course, as has been shown here in this very thread, people tend to believe the picture painted by the media. We're not aware of any other factors that we aren't being told. Fear of imminent threat glued us all to our TVs and newspapers, including those who normally paid little attention to it. Newspaper sales soared. Coverage of the threat and the war paid big bucks because that's what we feared and craved reassurance on.
Early on, little to no media time was given to anyone saying that our government was doing might not be a good thing. It didn't draw the big bucks. And the government was still doing all it could to focus our attention where it wanted it. That's politics for you, no matter where you are. People in power manipulate in order to keep that power.
As protests increased, some of it happened in our local areas. People became aware of it, and expected to see coverage in the news, and so the media gave us what we wanted. The more people heard about opposing viewpoints, the less confident they became in the way the current administration was handling things. We began questioning, and the answers we received didn't always work to satisfy us.
Today - and this is the important part - there are protests EVERYWHERE in the US. Pressure is being put on the politicians - get us out of Iraq or risk being replaced come election time. The majority of the citizenry are NOT happy with the situation. People ARE actively trying to do something about it.
Bush can't be re-elected because a US president is limited to two terms, so if he's unpopular, it isn't as crucial to him personally now. It IS just as crucial to those who so still have a chance for another term, so most politicians are now fighting Bush on this.
It is not a simple thing to remove a president. He hasn't done anything actually illegal that we could use against him. So we're basically stuck with him until his term runs out, like it or not.
So what should we do? Go kill the guy? Think it would be easy to just walk up and shoot a president? Would YOU really want to try it? Violence is wrong, right? And don't forget that if someone did, then his vice-president would assume office by default, and he's likely to want to carry out the same plans as his predecessor, because they've been on the same team all along. So then we're no farther ahead at all. We'd still be stuck with the same agenda until the end of the term, when we can elect a new guy.
So. Can we all stop believing the media is giving everyone a true, clear picture of where everyone stands on things?
Now... what we were talking about? Ah yes. Whether removing legal guns from the market would reduce violent crime. Completely different subject, yes?
-
Nope, not removing legal guns, removing easily-concealed and versatile guns, period. That's what I as an outside observer see as a first step to a safer US, not only for US citizens but for us outsied the US as well as the fear-based reactions of US citizens and US politicians playing on that fear is affecting the whole world in a negative way.
-
point of view towards that subject, i (so that I do not include in any generalization) think they are deeply moved by the media inside USA. I get very troubled to know how can he got to presidency twice with such mistakes. Are the ones that voted for him blind? Oh yes, their media controls them. someone mentioned FOX news, most of any people in the world think FOX news is controlled or influenced by the US government..Makes it a believable scenary for other places, for example in Portugal they invented a government conspiracy so that they would control some news. Amasing factor, they dont talk about it anymore, the government has much more things to do than control news. On the contrary, Us Government is huge, alot of people depend from the money generated by it. "their inability to understand is driven by the fact they are payed to not understand." heard this somewhere. It's actually true. Want me to pull the WMD card? There's other cards...since Hiroshima and Nagazaki that US government has been distributing cards like the WMD.
The fact NRA is so dominante in USA society is that they are supported by political figures, which also imply 'the law'. "We have the right to have machineguns", no you dont when you sell them in black market, who's selling the guns in Brazil? Russian Mafia? Al Qaeda? Ayatollah? Saddam Hussein? What a brain wash. Anyway, 1st thing that should be done, stricter hunting laws:goes for preserved species and what kind of guns you can hunt with. Hunting wolves with an MG36 is unhuman, un whatever. It's not that you have to have respect for animals, it's that what a waste of resources, wasting on a machinegun, wasting on bullets, wasting life, wasting wolves, destroying the normal/natural cicle of life. What for? fun? stricter laws on hunting i say. After that, only hunters can have firearms. Thats it, problem solved. Either the criminals would become all hunters to have guns, either they would have to go for the blackmarket, but as i said, most of the black market exists because people start the buying legally, they just go sell in other countries, then they trade, 500pistols for 300 machineguns, then they return, 300 machineguns for 700 pistols, etc etc. Happens that allowing people to have guns in USA, makes them sell where it is illegal, they go for overprices, since it's illegal. Or either distribute, because it's so cheap in their country to have a gun. Thats how gangs started in Brasil, and i blame mostly the USA. The Balkans had the same problem, glad EU solves it, why cant USA solve problems in the rest of america?
-
Err, for one thing, Brasil is a lot more populous than S America. For another, the Balkans interventions were led by the UK and the US. Look at the history of Bosnia and Kosovo, and you will see that Europe was willing to let another Rwanda happen there until les anglo-saxons led the way.
-
Why are we even arguing about this? It's quite obvious that we're not going to convince each other or agree on it, so there's really no point in doing this as it's not some sort of judge-scoring debate.
-
thats a good point. this problem wouldn't happen if there were extreme points of view, ones say "yes guns", others say "no guns". When you dont say anything and argue for arguing, you dont have anything expected in your mind, you'r open. I thought we were arguing how, why, what, which, whatever we could do with USA gun control. "stricter rules in gun ownership so that fools wont get to carry guns" sure, so many fools around :p
-
Nope, not removing legal guns, removing easily-concealed and versatile guns, period.
Now THAT sounds more reasonable to me. US citizens aren't allowed to carry concealed weapons without a permit, and to get that permit, we have to prove a valid need, have a good track record, etc. But of course having a law against it does not make it impossible to do so. The criminal element is just as likely to disregard it.
If handguns were made illegal, then we could still have our shotguns, hunting rifles, and such. We couldn't conceal those, but then we're not allowed to anyway. Someone made a valid point that longer guns are useless at close range, which is of course a drawback.
And of course criminals who pay no attention to laws anyway could still get the handguns on the black market. And then there are ways of cutting down guns in order to make them more easily concealed anyway, such as sawed-off shotguns. So I can't see how it could actually reduce violent crime. But it's at least something I'd be willing to consider as a compromise, versus banning all guns entirely. Still, I'd have to be convinced that my giving up one of my rights really would benefit society. I can't think of anything we'd actually gain by giving that up.
That's what I as an outside observer see as a first step to a safer US, not only for US citizens but for us outsied the US as well as the fear-based reactions of US citizens and US politicians playing on that fear is affecting the whole world in a negative way.
You make a good point there. People are swayed by the media and by what everyone around them are saying. It affects our opinions and the decisions we make based on those opinions.
It is a sad thing that people so often don't think for themselves. But then, often we have very little to go on other than what we hear, because we've never actually been there, done that, or known any of those people. We only truly know the real facts if we've experienced it. Otherwise, we're going on what we've been told, one way or another.
That's how prejudice spreads. A person grows up in a place where everyone around them holds a certain opinion about a certain group of people. If everyone says so, then it must be right, because surely everyone can't be wrong. If they've never met any of those people or lived among them, never gotten to know them well enough to judge for themselves, then how are they to suspect that everyone could be wrong about them?
i (so that I do not include in any generalization) think they are deeply moved by the media inside USA.
I wouldn't say that. I don't believe people in the US are any smarter or stupider than anywhere else. I do believe that most people never realize when they've been manipulated. Personally, I'm a bit jaded. Having been born in the sixties, I have a natural tendency to keep my eyes open for manipulation by government, media, etc. I know there's usually more to it that we're just not hearing about.
I had a friend who lived in the mideast. He spend large blocks of time in both the country where he was a citizen, and in the one nearby, where he had spent his childhood. He told me that what was shown in each country's media about the other one painted a hugely different picture of things. Each country's media was slanted toward making their own country look good, and the other look bad. He told me that the truth was somewhere in the middle for both. In many cases, the things that were portrayed as proof against one country were practiced in both, but most people didn't know that. The citizens had no way of knowing that what they were hearing was not the full, true picture.
They did not know they were being manipulated, and the main reason the info they were given was slanted was because the two governments did not get along with each other. When the citizens in the country support the government's stance against another country, it's easier for the politicians to do what they want against it.
"We have the right to have machineguns", no you dont when you sell them in black market, who's selling the guns in Brazil? Russian Mafia? Al Qaeda? Ayatollah? Saddam Hussein?
Machine guns are not legal in the US. Those who want to make them legal are in a small minority, and it's not at all likely to happen.
Anyway, 1st thing that should be done, stricter hunting laws:goes for preserved species and what kind of guns you can hunt with. Hunting wolves with an MG36 is unhuman, un whatever. It's not that you have to have respect for animals, it's that what a waste of resources, wasting on a machinegun, wasting on bullets, wasting life, wasting wolves, destroying the normal/natural cicle of life.
There are strict laws on when we can hunt, where we can hunt, which animals we can hunt, how many animals we can kill in a hunting season, and what weapons it's legal to hunt with. These laws vary somewhat from one county to the next in each state, but they're pretty similar. And again, machine guns are NOT legal in the US.
After that, only hunters can have firearms.
How would that be achieved? We buy yearly hunting licenses. If people had to get one of those in order to own a firearm, a lot of people would do so even if they never intended to set foot in the woods. Personally, I don't see that as being fair anyway. The fact that someone hunts would not indicate they're somehow smarter, or safer with weapons, than any other citizen. If you're going to allow it for some, then you have to allow it for all.
Either the criminals would become all hunters to have guns, either they would have to go for the blackmarket, but as i said, most of the black market exists because people start the buying legally, they just go sell in other countries, then they trade, 500pistols for 300 machineguns, then they return, 300 machineguns for 700 pistols, etc etc. Happens that allowing people to have guns in USA, makes them sell where it is illegal, they go for overprices, since it's illegal.
That's quite a stretch. I own guns. I have never and will never sell them on the black market. I know a great many people who own them and pass them down to their own children - none of them have ever sold them in the black market. Owning a gun does not make a person dishonest. By what you're saying, if we made guns illegal in this country, then the black market would increase because other countries would sell their guns here. How are we further ahead that way? Until ALL guns are illegal EVERYWHERE and all criminals are somehow stamped out, there will always be a black market.
"stricter rules in gun ownership so that fools wont get to carry guns" sure, so many fools around
I'd love to see that happen! But until there's a test that can accurately determine who's a fool and who isn't, you're going to have fools who are dangerous with cars, weapons, and heavy machinery. ;)
-
the machineguns are alegory. Plus, here to become a hunter, you actually have to be hunter, you have to go hunt. If people need hunting licenses to have firearms there, do they hunt? or shoot at criminals? is that hunting?
and about the media, note i said people are moved BY the media, people smarter or dumber everywhere, but the media manipulates alot in USA. Doesnt happen much in other countries, not that deeply. The 9/11 is one of those sceneries.
-
Might I ask HOW the government will know you hunted when you have the license? Because that seems to be your point, that you HAVE to hunt if you have a license. And if you ban guns except to those who "hunt", people will abuse the system.
-
The problem with giving guns to any one with a good record is what happens when the guy shows up with no record? Is no record > good record?
IMO guns should be banned for all those who have not served with the military, and any military veteran deemed mentally unfit to bear a weapon (such as Post-Traumatic whatever etc. etc.) should not be allowed to do so. Not only this, the Police force should be given automatic weapons. When you go to Europe, it doesn't matter if you own a gun or not, it's the sheer fear factor you have when a police officer with an automatic gun and 15 grenades walks past you, you don't want to commit a crime. We have a problem with deterrence in America, crime is up because people aren't afraid of the police. They should be afraid of the police. They should be worried that cop will put a 30 round magazine through their chest, not shoot some pistol which has to be holstered when there is no perceived threat.
-
~dont go for the military, look at that sniper that killed alot of people in USA long time ago. All civillians no weapons, like we do in europe, a guy tries to be smart with a knife at you, most of them that use knifes are scared to hell. Ofc you get a bit scared if you'r alot, if you'r not, what do you have to loose? just punch the guy, no weapons, no shots, no kills. You dont even have to report to 'the law', because they wont do anything.
-
Plus, here to become a hunter, you actually have to be hunter, you have to go hunt.
How would they know whether a person is a hunter or not? A person could say they are, even get others to back him up, but the government can't possibly know whether someone's actually going out hunting. Even if they could find a way to do that, how does one buy a weapon to hunt in the first place, if they have to somehow prove they're a hunter in order to purchase one. How do they determine that in your country?
If people need hunting licenses to have firearms there, do they hunt? or shoot at criminals? is that hunting?
No, they only need a hunting license in order to hunt. In order to purchase a gun, they have to undergo a background check and register it, which is meant to help pin down the owner of any gun used in a crime. We don't actually get a -license- to own a gun. The permit is needed in order to carry a concealed weapon, which I mentioned earlier - the person has to prove they actually need to.
And no, people who own guns here don't go out looking for bad guys to shoot. That would also be illegal even if they wanted to. We discussed earlier in this thread how strict the laws are on whether a person is allowed to shoot someone. We have to leave that to the police. If you mean whether we shoot a criminal in self-defense, then yes, some have done that. But that's not a common occurence. I've never in my life known anyone who's ever shot a person except for those in the police or who served in wars. And I've been around awhile.
You have to remember that law-abiding people here don't buy guns so they can shoot people. They buy them for the purpose of hunting, or to have them in case they need it for self-defense, or because they like to collect them. We're not cowboys in the movies, ya know. We're regular people just like you.
IMO guns should be banned for all those who have not served with the military, and any military veteran deemed mentally unfit to bear a weapon (such as Post-Traumatic whatever etc. etc.) should not be allowed to do so.
I can't see any reason for penalizing people for not making a certain career choice. If someone who's been in the military deserves to have one, does he somehow have more reason to need one than anyone else, once he's out? Are you saying that because they've been trained with weapons? A person doesn't have to be in the military in order to get training. I'd be all for requiring training in gun use and safety before purchasing their first one, if that's the concern. But to say only ex-military people can own them would never fly. It just isn't reasonable.
-
no people with guns. This would prevent killing innocents...hey, if USA was invaded, why couldn't they kill civillians? they are armed, they are threats, they shouldnt be considered civilians. THATS A BIG DISTINGUISH FROM MILITARY TO CIVILIAN IN THE REST OF THE WORLD: to carry guns. Not like what Nato is doing in Afghanistan, kills more civilians than taliban fighters, yesterday they bombed a popullation again, alot of dead, you should be ashamed!
-
In Sweden, and I belive most europeean nations have similiar regulations, ALL individuals with hunting licenses has to be registered as members of a hunting society. To get that license and to keep it they have to undergo yearly proficciency tests on shooting and game-anatomy. They also has to undergo regular inspections on how many weapons they have, how they store the weapons and the weapons's critical parts and ammunition (all three have to be stored separately and locked-away). They also have to undergo regular evaluations on mental health and have to have their licences with them whenever they transport their weapons to and from the hunting grounds.
Thus, to own a weapon in Europe, you have to open up for close and invasive scrutiny of your personal life so the government can assure the safety of unarmed citizens to a greater extent.
-
i know it's not easy to get hunting license in Portugal, i think they actually need to hunt (as they are supposed to), they probably have to justify where, when, what they will hunt, and actually proove it.
-
no people with guns. This would prevent killing innocents...
If you could actually come up with a way to remove ALL guns, both legal and illegal, then I'd be all for it. The problem is that no one's ever been able to do that. Not in the US, not in any other country. You can remove all legal guns, but that's not the same.
hey, if USA was invaded, why couldn't they kill civillians?
Civilians ARE killed during war. That's nothing new. It isn't supposed to happen, but we all know it does.
Thus, to own a weapon in Europe, you have to open up for close and invasive scrutiny of your personal life so the government can assure the safety of unarmed citizens to a greater extent.
Sweden's way of going about it sounds very good. Much better than what we have right now in the US.
-
Civilians ARE killed during war. That's nothing new. It isn't supposed to happen, but we all know it does.
Genebra and human rights says otherwise...see my point? we love human rights, anything that stands in USA (gun ownership, invasion of countries, killing innocent people) just breaks through. civilians arent suposed to die, it's actually against what you stand for, i dont know UN laws on this, but if it's the same as human right and all that, it's against the law. So bombarding a supposed taliban village when you find out they were all civilians? isnt that stupid? 'oh yeah we killed 2 taliban on that bombarding' and you killed 100 times more civilians.
my point stands, civilians are different from the military, military carry guns, civilians dont. Ofc in USA that doesnt happen, if USA was invaded, why couldn't the invadors kill civilians when they are armed? civilian and innocent people isnt the same thing, if you carry a gun, you'r a threat to the ennemy, you'r not an innocent person. Just ride my point and see where it goes.
-
Delfos, you're taking what I said completely out of context. Civilians get killed in wars, no matter where they happen or who's fighting them. That's one of the terrible things about wars. Do you actually believe that only happens when America is fighting in one? That's absolutely preposterous.
This Genebra you're refering to - do you mean the Geneva Convention? I did not imply that civilians are -supposed- to get killed during wars, or that I approve of it. I said that it happens. Nothing in the Geneva Convention ever said civilians do not get killed in wars.
my point stands, civilians are different from the military, military carry guns, civilians dont. Ofc in USA that doesnt happen, if USA was invaded, why couldn't the invadors kill civilians when they are armed? civilian and innocent people isnt the same thing, if you carry a gun, you'r a threat to the ennemy, you'r not an innocent person. Just ride my point and see where it goes.
I'm not sure what your point is. Yes, civilians are different from the military, but I don't see how the only difference is whether they have guns or not. A military person is trained to kill people and obey orders. A hunter, on the other hand, is not.
As to your question, what makes you think that if America was invaded, civilians would NOT be killed? It happens all over the world. Or are you really asking whether I think it would be right for an invading army to start shooting civilians freely on the basis that they may or may not have guns sitting at home in their closet? My answer is of course not.
Apparently, your opinion is different. Let me ask you this, then - if America invaded some other country, and they started shooting everyone they saw on the basis that they might be carrying a weapon or a bomb, would THAT be okay? Or is it only okay to kill Americans, in your opinion?
This is utterly ridiculous. What happened to having an intelligent exchange of ideas and opinions on gun control? It seems as though it's now being used to vent prejudice instead.
-
taking your example, if the allies would invade kosovo, would they kill civilians? they arent armed, they are not a military target. Yes civilians are killed, they there are collateral damage and massacre. As bombing a village to kill 2 taliban and 200 civillians, you call that a collateral damage, or a massacre? Massacres are outlawed, collateral damage isnt. Happened in Afghanistan if im not mistaken: they ordered an air strike to a building, right next to it is a red cross hospital filled with children. Booom, both buildings are hit. Isn't that a massacre? you cant call it collateral damage, more civillians died than terrorists. It was a stupid action, and there's alot of them when you invade a country. My problem with USA is that it keeps invading countries, making massacres.
But my point wasnt going there, my point was that there's innocent people killed in wars, that make the difference between collateral damage and massacre. Armed civilians arent innocent people, they are militias, as Myroria often say. So even in 9/11, was there innocent people, or armed civilians? (taking the point to an extreme to be better seen).
If a nation invaded an european country, they couldnt kill the civillians, even if they do die, they are unarmed, they are innocent people. They are NOT a military target, they are no threat to the enemy. Ever thought of that? thats what i want you to see and argument, plus you'r a smart man, i want to know what you think and say about this issue.
-
Delfos, you're exaggerating. We wouldn't bomb a city if we know it has two Taliban members in it, because, strangely enough, officers are officers for a reason, and that reason is that they're intelligent. Now you're thinking that because they might have gotten faulty intelligence, that must mean they're evil and want to kill children. Stop making every incident into an atrocity, and stop making every American out to be a devil incarnate.
And your statement about an invasion of a European country makes me laugh. First of all, no one would invade a European country because we'd save you. Again. I think you're forgetting that without us evil Americans, you'd all be heiling Hitler or praising Stalin right now. It strikes me as funny that certain liberal Europeans (See, I'm not saying all, I'm not being like you) hate America, but see us as saviors when we go in to help them.
And second of all, I don't think a country that invades Europe will care about the Geneva Convention.
-
lol man you just fell on a trap. see what i say when it's a very huge insult saying we would be all nazis if 'they' didnt help us?
you missed ALL the damn questions.
plus, faulty intelligence, i say negligence. If they want to bomb some place they must know there's a military target there. not an hospital. "oh i saw 2 taliban run into a village, there must be 100 talibans in it" BOOM! air strike, those 100 were all civilians. Great job, thats negligence. So yes, they are all devils and eat children as breakfast. and stop with the generalizations, i already told that it's a collective, I KNOW NOT ALL AMERICANS ARE INCARNATION OF SATAN! but Bush is satan himself, dont make me quote Hugo Chavez. hahaha
-
The only reason we bomb certain towns is when we know a certain terrorist leader is there. The reasoning behind this is that he leads other terrorists. Thus such collateral damage to civilians is negligible in the army's eyes. Now before you go saying "See, you don't care about civilians rights" and "you only care about America" and blah, blah, blah, let me say something. If (and I say if because nobody that I know is, and I'll get back to this point) some terrorist nation was targeting your population, wanting to stop whatever your country was doing (and don't start about it's only because America's imperialist, y'all were too at some point and the people liked you then), what would your nation do? Leave it alone and pretend it didn't happen? Try to negotiate with a group that's going to kill your people on sight just because they're from that country? Or go to war and cause a few civilian casualties? If you are actually getting somewhere, then many losses can be somewhat compensated.
Now, to my point earlier on. Nobody is attacking Europe because there is a bigger player out there. And to get the most recognition, you gotta go after the biggest player. Just look at the Taliban. Most people didn't know what the heck it was until 9/11. Now every terrorist attack is firstly blamed on them. They say the only bad publicity is no publicity, and they're getting their publicity all right. So now everybody's got a problem with the US. Everybody wants attention from Uncle Sam, because they are ignored by their local governments.
Oh, and Bush isn't Satan, he's just one of the head demons :P :D
-
taking your example, if the allies would invade kosovo, would they kill civilians?
Civilians get killed in every war by accident, so yes, I believe if that happened, then civilians would be killed. Call it stupidity, call it negligent, call it heinous, but that is still not the same as intentionally going in to kill civilians. I will not argue whether it's always wrong for the military to intentionally kill civilians in the interest of hitting their target. I do not presume to believe that there is NEVER a situation where it truly is necessary. But I do believe that it should be avoided at all costs, and that it is wrong either way.
Isn't that a massacre? you cant call it collateral damage
Of course it's a massacre. Terms like 'collateral damage' and 'military action' are coined by politicians in the hopes of putting a better light on something and avoiding a public outrcry against it. It's just semantics, and I don't buy into it. A rose by any other name is still a rose.
Here again, you seem to be assuming that because politicians do something, everyone in the country must think the same way. Not so, not in any country. People can and do have their own opinions. That's human nature - nowhere do all people agree on everything. Politicians do not possess any magic that forces citizens to automatically agree with and support them.
But my point wasnt going there, my point was that there's innocent people killed in wars, that make the difference between collateral damage and massacre.
Personally, any time a large group of people is killed, I would say that's a massacre, whether they're military personnel, businessmen, children, or anyone else. A death is a death, no matter who died.
Armed civilians arent innocent people, they are militias, as Myroria often say. So even in 9/11, was there innocent people, or armed civilians? (taking the point to an extreme to be better seen).
Hm, there's a number of points in that one statement that I'd like to address.
First off, I do not agree that an armed citizen is not an innocent person. If someone's going out hunting, the fact that he's carrying a gun does not make him evil. The fact that I have a shotgun in my closet does not make me me evil - I'm just a mom, like any other mom, and I don't go around shooting anyone with it.
Secondly, one armed citizen does not actually make a militia. An organized group of armed citizens is a militia.
As for 9/11, Americans do not carry guns around with them all over the place, and certainly not to work, unless they're police or perhaps guards or what have you. When I owned a handgun, the only time I ever took it off my home property was when I was going to a shooting range, and even then, it was not loaded until I was ready to practice. THAT is the norm here. So if you thought that the people in those buildings were armed, you were misled.
If you think about it, even if your mental image of America was right, and we really were all a bunch of gun-toting cowboys, it would still not be any defense against planes exploding into the side of the building you're standing in. Real life is not a Schwartzenegger movie, or the good guys would always win. Trying to shoot a plane through a window will not make it suddenly unable to crash, so that would still not have made them a threat.
My third point - if troops invaded a country and saw a civilian holding a gun, they're probably going to shoot that civilian on the basis that he poses a threat. That's just common sense. Any civilian intending to do such a thing realizes that. That's why I wasn't sure what your point was. Why would I argue with that?
If you're asking whether it would be okay for invading troops to just start shooting random civilians who are not visibly armed or acting in a threatening manner, just because we may or may not own a gun that is sitting at home in the closet (remember, the average American does not take weapons with them when they go somewhere), then no. I do not agree.
If a nation invaded an european country, they couldnt kill the civillians, even if they do die, they are unarmed, they are innocent people. They are NOT a military target, they are no threat to the enemy. Ever thought of that?
Of course they're innocent people. No, they are not a military target or a threat to the enemy, you are right. Why in the world would I think otherwise? Here again, you seem to have a mental image in your head of what American citizens are like. It is false. We are the same as you and everyone else in the world.
plus you'r a smart man
Actually, I'm a female. :D
The thing is, Delfos, that because of this mental image you have of us in your head, you seem to be having difficulty accepting that Americans may not be as you've always assumed. What I've been trying to communicate to you is that we're not the unreasonable, violence-prone, gun-toting cowboys that you seem to think we are.
But you seem so determined not to believe that we might not be. That's obvious simply by the fact that you seemed so sure that I would answer your questions differently than I did. You expected me to, because you had preconceived ideas of what all Americans are like. I understand it, because that's the popular belief these days - that's what people have been told. But it saddens me.
In my country, as in all others, there are some bad people, but most are not. We do not like wars, we do not like violence, we do not like killing. The majority is against staying in Iraq. Why do you think our politicians use softer-sounding terms like 'military action'? Because they have to try to mislead us, because they know we may rise up and protest once we realize what's really going on, and that's going to complicate things for them. THAT should an obvious indication that we may not be what you've been led to believe.
-
yes, my image of an american would be a cowboy holding 2 shiny colt pistols, with cow skin jacket. Oh was that Bush? anyway, very often now, people take their arguments to extreme. I do take mine most of the time, i do know we aint so different.
My point, an Iranian soldier in the middle of Texas finds an american, most likely armed. What does he do?
An Iranian soldier in the middle of yorkshire finds an english, most likely unarmed, What does he do? anyway both would be killed in sight, they really hate you :p be careful of those Fajr missiles, i would be sacred.
Nobody is attacking Europe because there is a bigger player out there. And to get the most recognition, you gotta go after the biggest player. Just look at the Taliban. Most people didn't know what the heck it was until 9/11. Now every terrorist attack is firstly blamed on them.
It's not about bigger players. You have to realise they are not stupid, they dont attack USA because they have the largest army. Watching the History Channel about Iran and other middleeastern countries will help. beyond USA is a bigger player, americans just screwed middleast alot, they have RAGE against USA because of the past, mostly. (yeah USA, not all americans, blah blah blah, im quite annoyed with the generalization factor, in this case was USA government and CIA, doesnt matter, it's representative of USA)
Maybe it is blamed to Al Qaeda in some places, not all. There's terrorists everywhere and there's more than 1 factor. Dont blame the poor Taliban for this, they are tribes, descendents from nomad people, most is still nomad, poor Taliban, they wouldnt hurt a fly. p'oh but they created and fund and whatever the al qaeda' wow! generalization factor? Taliban leaders are warlords yes, but as you say about americans, they are not evil.
I think everything has been said about gun ownership, i explained my last point 3 times, i hope you all got it, thats my stand. If you have a gun, you'r not a regular civilian, as we see things in here: civilians do not carry weapons, so they cannot shoot anybody, not even kill them. Wehn you kill someone, it's a crime. We know for sure he's a criminal, the fact is that only the law can say he's guilty or not. (sure americans dont go out with them, but the fact they can, a large percentage of them do, ignites the generalization factor)
-
yes, my image of an american would be a cowboy holding 2 shiny colt pistols, with cow skin jacket. Oh was that Bush?
Ah yes, that would be Bush. Or Hopalong Cassidy, one of the two. (http://www.fancysplace.com/smileys/cowb.gif) The whole Urban Cowboy look pretty much kicked the bucket sometime late in the 70's. No more western shirts with the fringe, no more cowboy hats. Well, unless you live in Texas or someplace like that. Or if you go see a rodeo. (http://www.fancysplace.com/smileys/icon_lol.gif) Wish I could say that for mullets. But that's another subject entirely.
-
americans just screwed middleast alot, they have RAGE against USA because of the past, mostly.
Oh, and Britain and France didn't do the same after WWI? Please.
yeah USA, not all americans, blah blah blah, im quite annoyed with the generalization factor, in this case was USA government and CIA, doesnt matter, it's representative of USA
See, you don't like the generalization, and neither do I. That much we can agree upon. But you call the Taliban/al-Qaeda "not stupid", then why are THEY generalizing, hm?
And funding, even in some small part, still makes those that fund against us. Again, not saying we should kill civilians, but those who are helping terrorists.
And I agree, let's move further discussion on imperialism, etc to the other political discussion thread.
-
Oh, and Britain and France didn't do the same after WWI? Please.
Yes, but it's more fun to jump on the anti-American bandwagon because it's the popular thing, so you'll have a lot more company. Complaining about Britain and France isn't any fun - it won't get all that much notice. Complain about the US, though, and everybody joins in for the party and cheers each other on. It's the whole group mindset thing. You have to belong. Everything the mob says must be right. The other guys must always be wrong, because we're against them. Goes back to the caveman days.
-
Tell me about it. ::)
-
lol, very funny, but it's actually different. As far as i know CIA and US government were the only ones financing the king of Iran to fight against the people. Actually financed Iraqi army against Iran people as well, also invaded Afghanistan when CIA never wanted Bin Laden dead for some reason. Even last week there were Afghan killed in a bombardment..maybe you killed Taliban that supported al qaeda, who knows. Who cares for that in USA? (yes not everyone, but the majority doesnt, the fact Bush is still there makes it true in all possible ways), same goes for the environment...'oh but USA spends alot of money researching for alternate fuels', can be, but why dont you start now? Just wait until you have a cheap and reasonable environmental answer for petrol? Same goes for gun ownership.
-
Move this to Other thread.
-
I have to agree. This has all become way off topic.