First off the Bill of Rights isn’t full of rights just because they seem like good ideas. You don’t see a “right” to food or anything. I mean you read threw all 10 and don’t you get a sort of a feeling that they are meant to protect us from the federal government itself? They are external controls on government. So if the United States has the world’s largest army that’s only a bigger reason for the citizens to have more guns.
2nd Guns are not the reason why the United States has a relatively high crime rate. It’s because around the 60s judicial activist decided locking up criminals got old and decided to start sympathizing with them. Blaming society on causing criminals to commit crimes despite that this goes against everything our system stands for. What happened? Well before this on average crime had been dropping. After this the crime shot up the murder rate was more then twice as it was in 1974 then it was in 1961. Between 1960 and 1976, a citizen’s chance of being a victim of a major crime tripled. The number of policemen killed also tripled during the 60s. Among the juveniles crime rose even more because the “compassionate” judges favored them more. With population taken in to comparison the arrests of juveniles for murder more than tripled between 1965 to 1990. “Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent.” --Adam Smith
So I guess the [b]real[b] difference between the U.S. and Australia is you guys have prisons and haven’t taken a break from using them this century.
3rd Guns deter crime. Like why do you only compare the United States why not Israel? You know the terrorist there use to try and use automatic weapons to mow down Israelis but they were armed and then killed only 1 or 2 before they got shot. The terrorist planed to move to different locations mowing down a bunch of Israelis and changing locations before the IDF could catch up. Why not Switzerland and Germany? Why not different regions in the United States such as DC/NY/LA all with the strictest gun control and yet all have some of the highest crime rates. Criminals aren’t totally irrational as you may think they know if the cost of mugging somebody can end with there life they probably won’t try it all that much. That’s why hot burglaries are less common in counties and states with more gun ownership then with counties with stricter gun control laws. Also in a survey more criminals feared homeowners then they did the police.
4th According to the Justice department a woman is more likely to result in a serious injury if she does not resist with a gun and is 4 times more likely to be sersioulsy injured if she resist without a gun. Which comes to a rule if you are armed with a gun resist, if you aren’t just do what they say. For men it also applies but the statistics don’t have as big of a difference because men are on average better at defending themselves without a gun then a woman without one anyways. I think showdowns with a potential victims and a perpetrator is highly under recorded because a lot of times there is no need or the person feels he will go to jail like what happened to a woman in New York.
Also for the black market argument you can make your own atomatic 9mm handgun here. <a href='http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0873648404/qid=1055120230/br=1-5/ref=br_lf_b_5//104-0266131-7063121?v=glance&s=books&n=14450' target='_blank'>Clickeh</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This strange duality of real overwhelming power and felt impotence is in my opinion the main reason for the American way of weaponry. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Or its because if war is to costly nobody will want to go to war. Again an adam smith quote that think goes like "In general nations go to war when they feel that they can get something out of it." If the cost of war with the United States is to high then anything worth going to war for nobody will want war with the United States. If you know economics you can apply that to international scales.
As for the thing about libertarians not trusting goverment to do anything right. If somebody pulled a knife on me outside what good would cops do for me? What about small rural communites that can't even have a police officer on duty 24 hrs a day. If I saw a burglar break into my house wouldn't it be bad if I saw his face? Wouldn't there be a incentive to kill me? If I am dead I can't report him to the police can I? Also what about rape? Republican women are the highest growing group to own guns.
About racism I think gun ownership would help stop things such as lynchings. If a person has a gun and knows the police aren't all that friendly to minorities wouldn't it be a better idea for him to keep a gun? In Rwanda they confiscated all the guns what happened latter was genocide fueled by tribal tensions by machettes and goverment issued firearms.
The U.S. doesn't have the world's largest army (in terms of troop strength at least).
And kind of off-topic, but I get really mad at people who advocate for criminal's rights. How can we let inmates watch cable TV and have decent meals when many of their victims have neither?
<!--QuoteBegin--Wheeee+Aug 27 2003, 11:34 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Aug 27 2003, 11:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The U.S. doesn't have the world's largest army (in terms of troop strength at least).
And kind of off-topic, but I get really mad at people who advocate for criminal's rights. How can we let inmates watch cable TV and have decent meals when many of their victims have neither? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Not all criminals are murderers, and the whole criminal justice system is now geared more towards rehibilitation other then punishment.
1: I would NEVER trust Bowling for Columbine... All of Michael Moore's previous movies follow the same theme of it (just look at Canadian Bacon...) his speech at the awards was totally out of line, and, above all, his facts are obviously flawed in many ways. I won't go into it here, but I discredit the movie as a whole because of the way it manipulated smaller irrelevent facts and bits into a bigger falseified picture.
2: Taking guns away from Americans would be in violation of a constitutional right. While it's nice to say "lets get rid of guns" the legistics in doing so would be far greater, and the removal of one area of the Bill of Rights would make it much easier to take away... oh I dunno... freedom of speech?
3: Britan's crime rates are subject to confusion. I've seen various sources that cite violent crime going down AND up after guns were taken away, depending on the source used.
4: OTHER weapons of death are used in place of guns... In Japan guns are also outlawed, accounting for only a few deaths a year, while knives alone account for somewhere around 17,000 deaths.
5: Australia is just less dense in population... Population density is a caues of violence, and i'm sure the US has more major cities than Australia.
6: "Personal Defence" can be taken many ways. If someone breaks into my house, as much as British would have you believe theifs in the UK are nice and don't carry any weapons, I'd be damn happy to have a gun, even a shotgun to rack or fire into the air would no doubt drive that guy outta my home no ifs, ands, or buts. If by personal defence you mean concealed carry permits, which are avalable to people over 21 with CLEAN records in like 30+ states, then I'd say these are also very useful. In major cities in the US theifs will shoot you over 50 bucks just so they can't be identified, and even the prospect of that person you're about to mug having a gun in their purse or on their belt would be enough to make any mugger think twice about doing so (and many mug an obvious liberal... like someone with a "bush sucks" shirt)
<!--QuoteBegin--Ulatoh+Aug 23 2003, 12:47 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Ulatoh @ Aug 23 2003, 12:47 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->........ France is about as big as Texas, one of the larger states here, .........<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
in that case, if i'm remembering correctly, we here in australia have a couple of farms the size of france <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> makes you think <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
But you have to ask yourself how many people are actually getting mugged/burgled? I mean, I live in a city of 1.5 million people and I've never heard of anyone being mugged. Yet the criminals that exist must surely know that most of us on the street don't have guns. Secondly, a lot of American people are mugged every day, and heaps of American homes burgled. Yet according to statistics everyone in America owns a gun! Guns don't seem to be much of a detterant.
Thirdly, a burgler who breaks in the vast majority of cases is not hell bent on murder. He/she is there to steal valuables. Now say they see your face. You're arguement is that they will want to kill you. But consider that firstly, a burgler does not come equipped with a gun/baseball bat/chainsaw etc: such things attract attention. Secondly, even if you did report him and he got caught, he's not looking at a big sentance. Thirdly, if by some chance he does kill you, he's now a murderer, and cops take dim views to such things. In most cases a burglar will simply flee: he has no further reason to stay in the house and he does not want to try and kill someone. He's also unlikely to return because you now have your guard up, and will likely have some form of burgler defense installed (flood lights, screen windows, bars, security grills)
Finally, the 2nd amendment to the constitution is open to interpretation. The meaning that a lot of Americans take from it "we need guns to protect ourselves against the government" is not only strange but basically flawed. For a government to become despotic, it must have a means of exerting it's authority on an unwilling populace. In most cases, this is a paramilitary police force. Not only does no such force exist in the US, but the other tool which could be used against the people, the military, would never turn on the American people. No US soldier is ever going to lower his rifle and fire into a protesting crowd. But let's take a break from reality and assume that they did. That the entire military of the US was replaced by robots. It's going to be a highly trained (or highly programmed <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> ) and extreamly professional force armed with the very latest in high tech weaponry vs and a civilian population. Now I don't think many US houses have missile launchers as home defense. An armed civilian population cannot stop a professional military force of the size and level of tech that the US maintains. What stops the US government from becomeing tyranical is that the people in it for a start do not want a tyrannical government, and also that there is no legal way according to the Constitution that the US government can become a dictatorship.
Why do you Yanks distrust your government so much? You fought a war to gain the right to make your own government, you fought another one to keep the country together, and yet you don't trust the very people <b>you voted into office</b>. Remember that every time you stroke your shotgun and mutter "damned politicians" that this is the government that your forefathers created, and that you, the American citizen, voted into office. If you didn't vote then you have no right to complain. Thats another bizzare thing: your ancestors fought and died for the right to vote and millions upon millions of you just can't be bothered voting.
<!--QuoteBegin--Ryo-Ohki+Aug 28 2003, 01:31 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Ryo-Ohki @ Aug 28 2003, 01:31 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Why do you Yanks distrust your government so much? You fought a war to gain the right to make your own government, you fought another one to keep the country together, and yet you don't trust the very people <b>you voted into office</b>. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Bush lost the popular election, election fraud was proven, democratic blacks were stopped at roadblocks... We did NOT elect bush...
but thats anotehr can of worms.
What can I say, we have our problems, you have yours
Ireland for the brits, and Aboriginee's for the aussies...
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--QuoteBegin--Ryo-Ohki+Aug 28 2003, 01:31 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Ryo-Ohki @ Aug 28 2003, 01:31 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> No US soldier is ever going to lower his rifle and fire into a protesting crowd. But let's take a break from reality and assume that they did. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually, that happened during the vietnam war protests. Look up the Kent State shootings.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
I will never take that for granted considering how many times the opposite has happened in history. Victorious generals are immensely popular, more popular often than any politician.
Ah, correct, but those occurances were in societies with low levels of political awareness. The American public is vividly aware of their own politics, and thus whilst a general may be popular, the very men who fight under him are politically aware US citizens who will not condone a dictatorship. I find it impossible to imagine any US general "Crossing the Potomac" as it were <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> Look at Washington: he was easily the single most charismatic and popular general in American history (although Lee gave him a run for his money) and yet he would not use his own power over his men to achieve goals contrary to those of his government. Neither did Lee, or Grant, or Sherman, or Patton, or any other US general. Although they may have disagreed with the administration on occasion, none would dream of commiting treason against the US government. These fears are simply groundless.
Comments
2nd Guns are not the reason why the United States has a relatively high crime rate. It’s because around the 60s judicial activist decided locking up criminals got old and decided to start sympathizing with them. Blaming society on causing criminals to commit crimes despite that this goes against everything our system stands for. What happened? Well before this on average crime had been dropping. After this the crime shot up the murder rate was more then twice as it was in 1974 then it was in 1961. Between 1960 and 1976, a citizen’s chance of being a victim of a major crime tripled. The number of policemen killed also tripled during the 60s. Among the juveniles crime rose even more because the “compassionate” judges favored them more. With population taken in to comparison the arrests of juveniles for murder more than tripled between 1965 to 1990. “Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent.”
--Adam Smith
So I guess the [b]real[b] difference between the U.S. and Australia is you guys have prisons and haven’t taken a break from using them this century.
3rd Guns deter crime. Like why do you only compare the United States why not Israel? You know the terrorist there use to try and use automatic weapons to mow down Israelis but they were armed and then killed only 1 or 2 before they got shot. The terrorist planed to move to different locations mowing down a bunch of Israelis and changing locations before the IDF could catch up. Why not Switzerland and Germany? Why not different regions in the United States such as DC/NY/LA all with the strictest gun control and yet all have some of the highest crime rates. Criminals aren’t totally irrational as you may think they know if the cost of mugging somebody can end with there life they probably won’t try it all that much. That’s why hot burglaries are less common in counties and states with more gun ownership then with counties with stricter gun control laws. Also in a survey more criminals feared homeowners then they did the police.
4th According to the Justice department a woman is more likely to result in a serious injury if she does not resist with a gun and is 4 times more likely to be sersioulsy injured if she resist without a gun. Which comes to a rule if you are armed with a gun resist, if you aren’t just do what they say. For men it also applies but the statistics don’t have as big of a difference because men are on average better at defending themselves without a gun then a woman without one anyways. I think showdowns with a potential victims and a perpetrator is highly under recorded because a lot of times there is no need or the person feels he will go to jail like what happened to a woman in New York.
Also for the black market argument you can make your own atomatic 9mm handgun here. <a href='http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0873648404/qid=1055120230/br=1-5/ref=br_lf_b_5//104-0266131-7063121?v=glance&s=books&n=14450' target='_blank'>Clickeh</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This strange duality of real overwhelming power and felt impotence is in my opinion the main reason for the American way of weaponry.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Or its because if war is to costly nobody will want to go to war. Again an adam smith quote that think goes like "In general nations go to war when they feel that they can get something out of it." If the cost of war with the United States is to high then anything worth going to war for nobody will want war with the United States. If you know economics you can apply that to international scales.
As for the thing about libertarians not trusting goverment to do anything right. If somebody pulled a knife on me outside what good would cops do for me? What about small rural communites that can't even have a police officer on duty 24 hrs a day. If I saw a burglar break into my house wouldn't it be bad if I saw his face? Wouldn't there be a incentive to kill me? If I am dead I can't report him to the police can I? Also what about rape? Republican women are the highest growing group to own guns.
About racism I think gun ownership would help stop things such as lynchings. If a person has a gun and knows the police aren't all that friendly to minorities wouldn't it be a better idea for him to keep a gun? In Rwanda they confiscated all the guns what happened latter was genocide fueled by tribal tensions by machettes and goverment issued firearms.
And kind of off-topic, but I get really mad at people who advocate for criminal's rights. How can we let inmates watch cable TV and have decent meals when many of their victims have neither?
And kind of off-topic, but I get really mad at people who advocate for criminal's rights. How can we let inmates watch cable TV and have decent meals when many of their victims have neither? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not all criminals are murderers, and the whole criminal justice system is now geared more towards rehibilitation other then punishment.
1: I would NEVER trust Bowling for Columbine... All of Michael Moore's previous movies follow the same theme of it (just look at Canadian Bacon...) his speech at the awards was totally out of line, and, above all, his facts are obviously flawed in many ways. I won't go into it here, but I discredit the movie as a whole because of the way it manipulated smaller irrelevent facts and bits into a bigger falseified picture.
2: Taking guns away from Americans would be in violation of a constitutional right. While it's nice to say "lets get rid of guns" the legistics in doing so would be far greater, and the removal of one area of the Bill of Rights would make it much easier to take away... oh I dunno... freedom of speech?
3: Britan's crime rates are subject to confusion. I've seen various sources that cite violent crime going down AND up after guns were taken away, depending on the source used.
4: OTHER weapons of death are used in place of guns... In Japan guns are also outlawed, accounting for only a few deaths a year, while knives alone account for somewhere around 17,000 deaths.
5: Australia is just less dense in population... Population density is a caues of violence, and i'm sure the US has more major cities than Australia.
6: "Personal Defence" can be taken many ways. If someone breaks into my house, as much as British would have you believe theifs in the UK are nice and don't carry any weapons, I'd be damn happy to have a gun, even a shotgun to rack or fire into the air would no doubt drive that guy outta my home no ifs, ands, or buts. If by personal defence you mean concealed carry permits, which are avalable to people over 21 with CLEAN records in like 30+ states, then I'd say these are also very useful. In major cities in the US theifs will shoot you over 50 bucks just so they can't be identified, and even the prospect of that person you're about to mug having a gun in their purse or on their belt would be enough to make any mugger think twice about doing so (and many mug an obvious liberal... like someone with a "bush sucks" shirt)
in that case, if i'm remembering correctly, we here in australia have a couple of farms the size of france <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> makes you think <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Thirdly, a burgler who breaks in the vast majority of cases is not hell bent on murder. He/she is there to steal valuables. Now say they see your face. You're arguement is that they will want to kill you. But consider that firstly, a burgler does not come equipped with a gun/baseball bat/chainsaw etc: such things attract attention. Secondly, even if you did report him and he got caught, he's not looking at a big sentance. Thirdly, if by some chance he does kill you, he's now a murderer, and cops take dim views to such things. In most cases a burglar will simply flee: he has no further reason to stay in the house and he does not want to try and kill someone. He's also unlikely to return because you now have your guard up, and will likely have some form of burgler defense installed (flood lights, screen windows, bars, security grills)
Finally, the 2nd amendment to the constitution is open to interpretation. The meaning that a lot of Americans take from it "we need guns to protect ourselves against the government" is not only strange but basically flawed. For a government to become despotic, it must have a means of exerting it's authority on an unwilling populace. In most cases, this is a paramilitary police force. Not only does no such force exist in the US, but the other tool which could be used against the people, the military, would never turn on the American people. No US soldier is ever going to lower his rifle and fire into a protesting crowd. But let's take a break from reality and assume that they did. That the entire military of the US was replaced by robots. It's going to be a highly trained (or highly programmed <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> ) and extreamly professional force armed with the very latest in high tech weaponry vs and a civilian population. Now I don't think many US houses have missile launchers as home defense. An armed civilian population cannot stop a professional military force of the size and level of tech that the US maintains. What stops the US government from becomeing tyranical is that the people in it for a start do not want a tyrannical government, and also that there is no legal way according to the Constitution that the US government can become a dictatorship.
Why do you Yanks distrust your government so much? You fought a war to gain the right to make your own government, you fought another one to keep the country together, and yet you don't trust the very people <b>you voted into office</b>. Remember that every time you stroke your shotgun and mutter "damned politicians" that this is the government that your forefathers created, and that you, the American citizen, voted into office. If you didn't vote then you have no right to complain. Thats another bizzare thing: your ancestors fought and died for the right to vote and millions upon millions of you just can't be bothered voting.
Bush lost the popular election, election fraud was proven, democratic blacks were stopped at roadblocks... We did NOT elect bush...
but thats anotehr can of worms.
What can I say, we have our problems, you have yours
Ireland for the brits, and Aboriginee's for the aussies...
Actually, that happened during the vietnam war protests. Look up the Kent State shootings.