So this is what we are expected to learn
-
@dtech said:
I find this a nice sum-up of the previous post: a needless sneer (troll/fallacy) on something thats obviously a exaggeration with a core of truth. PJH digged up the evidence already, so I'll evade my responsibility for evidence this time.@dtech said:
don't get a gun with it if you buy 3 packs of milk at the local supermarket
Wow you got me there! Seriously, are you this stupid? Do you really believe it is easy to buy a gun here?
No you don't.Fuck off right now.
My links made no mention of buying guns at supermarkets or some equally frivoulous method of purchase.
Try again. This time without using previous posts as 'source' for your outragous claims.
-
I'm only going to toss one more log on the fire.
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
Why would you trust a police officer to carry a weapon any more or less than a CCW permit holder? Explain that one.
In the UK, most police aren't allowed to carry a firearm. (In most parts of the country at least; London is moving worryingly towards a mostly-armed force). Those who do have to undergo substantial extra training beyond the normal police training. I think the idea is that if police generally don't have guns, criminals are less likely to. Problem these days seems to be criminal gangs fighting each other, not just the police. Still, our forces are reasonably effective (there's lots of room for improvement, but in aspects unrelated to their weaponry).
-
@PJH said:
You asked for research. I did it. What's /your/ point?
Wait, you were serious with that sensationalist propaganda? Holy crap.
First article: Virginia gun laws are lax.
Ok, so let's work on improving the laws. Banning guns is not the answer here. I would hope you could at least understand that.
The problem in this whole case was the mental health link. There were plenty of signs to tell people this person was not a responsible/stable member of society. Thank our privacy advocates for this abomination. We are not allowed to simply flag an individual nationwide as being mentally ill. This seems to be the injustice here. Not sure how any gun laws would have helped here. Even if there were NO guns in the kid's reach, I am pretty confident he would have pulled something horrendous off anyway. Remember, guns are not the only thing that can kill people. People seem to forget this lately.
He should have been flagged as mentally ill, and the state should have investigated what threat he posed.
Second article: Virginia gun laws are lax.
Yay! Let's just post about one topic and post several articles to the same effect!
See answer above.
Third article: Jihad with lax gun laws.
What is your point with this article? We armed and trained most of the middle east terrorist units including Osama bin Laden and Iraq. Individual terrorists buying weapons and then forming their own militias against us is like a drop in the ocean. You don't think they could obtain the weapons elsewhere? Should we ban guns everywhere so that if they do attack us we can just wait for our military? How would you suggest we detect terrorists before they buy the weapons? Should gun shops racially profile people?
Just more scare tactics from our own government to be used by anti gun people.
Fourth article: Colorado gun laws.
There is a permit required to carry a handgun. What more are you expecting of the law?Are you saying Colorado has more gun crimes or homicide than say, New York city? Washington D.C? Those places are consistently the highest crime areas, and guns are banned in both places. Want to explain that?
Maybe you want it like England where guns are banned, sure looks like it worked for them:
Keep up the good work England!
Fifth article: Blind marksmen
The man passed the test. He was a marksman in the military. Maybe you need to read the article? Legally blind and completely blind are not the same thing. And obviously this guy is pretty impressive.
I certainly don't think anyone here is qualified to judge what this man is capable of. Also, let me ask you this: If you have a driver's license, and you suddenly become blind (accident at home or on the job or something) what person comes around to take your license away? No one. They won't even notice it until you renew your license. Maybe we should ban all vehicles?
None of your articles here make any real sense or validate your argument. In fact one of them even goes so far as to argue AGAINST your point.
"Though Ross aired a condemnatory soundbite from NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly, he failed to note that Virginia has a lot fewer gun crimes per capita than does New York City."
Ok, if the lax gun laws are the problem, then shouldn't Virgina be a hot spot for crime and violence?
-
@m0ffx said:
Still, our forces are reasonably effective
Not according to anything I have read.
Gun Control's Twisted Outcome
Restricting firearms has helped make England more crime-ridden than the U.S.
http://www.sfu.ca/~mauser/papers/LondonTower2003/Fig1Hom-EW.xls.pdf
Collective hallucinations maybe?
Once again, keep up the good work England!
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
Keep up the good work England!
What the fuck kind of scale is that? Homicides per 1,000,000 Brits vs homicides per 100,000 Americans? Good job, England, having one tenth of the homicide rate as the US.
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
Once again, keep up the good work England!
Hey, if preventing people from protecting themselves is the way to stop crime, maybe the US should start sending our criminals to England to be reformed. Seriously, everything that was predicted by pro-gun activists has come true in England. Violent crime is surging, gun crime is surging, people are afraid to protect themselves and if they do the courts will likely make a bigger deal out of it than the original assault. The fact that the US has become safer than England while expanding the right to self-defense as England has tried to crush it out should tell these people something, but they will probably continue to argue ignorantly.
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
s/DodgyAmericanGraph/Better Graph/Keep up the good work England!
I hesitate to start a big culture-bash, but here on the whole, unlike (it seems) the US, people don't really like guns - they're machines purely designed to kill at a distance with as little emotional involvement as possible. Very uncivilised, and not really the 'done thing'. Professionals such as gamekeepers, pest control and the police use then when they have to, and of course there are many that get a kick out of it, but certainly nobody flaunts it. As a result, very few people get killed by guns - simple as that.
Of course, people get killed in other ways with other weapons - but even a big sharp knife takes a hell of a lot more commitment to inflict comparable damage. I dread to think of the number of heat-of-the-moment-murders in the USA that in the UK would have simply resulted in a bloodied nose.
-
@Benn said:
I hesitate to start a big culture-bash, but here on the whole, unlike (it seems) the US, people don't really like guns - they're machines purely designed to kill at a distance with as little emotional involvement as possible.
I don't know about you, but a machine that is capable of saving my life in a desperate moment is quite deserving of love.
@Benn said:
Very uncivilised, and not really the 'done thing'.
So now self-defense is uncivilized? Not to mention protection from an overzealous government.
@Benn said:
I dread to think of the number of heat-of-the-moment-murders in the USA that in the UK would have simply resulted in a bloodied nose.
The USA has always had a higher murder rate than the UK, even 200 years ago when guns were as common in both countries. It has nothing to do with the guns.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@Benn said:
I dread to think of the number of heat-of-the-moment-murders in the USA that in the UK would have simply resulted in a bloodied nose.
The USA has always had a higher murder rate than the UK, even 200 years ago when guns were as common in both countries. It has nothing to do with the guns.
Indeed, the point of the graph that multiple people have not been able to comprehend yet is that the US is on a decline, while England is on the rise. Both in dramatic fashion.
When you compare the population of the US and England, the scales make perfect sense... but I wouldn't expect these people to understand that.
-
@Benn said:
very few people get killed by guns
So what? Getting killed in general is a bad sign.
Looks like plenty of homicides to me, with or without guns.
How many of those could have been prevented had the citizens been able to properly defend themselves?
-
Let me summarize this thread about the 2nd Amendment:
Americans prefer to defend themselves with firearms. Europeans prefer that the police protect them with firearms. Americans want to defend themselves from the government. Europeans want the government to help them. So what?
Just for comparison: My cat prefers scratching the legs of the table, while my dog prefers chewing on it.
-
@DrJokepu said:
Americans prefer to defend themselves with firearms. Europeans prefer that the police protect them with firearms.
When you are dependent on your government for something as fundamental as security of your person, you are in a precarious position. You life becomes somebody else's responsiblity and you are little more than a number in some beauacrat's ledger. Just as the failures of Communism have highlighted the flaws of relying on the government for economic production, so it is with personal safety.
Also, what do you suggest be done when the police aren't there? Obviously they can't be everywhere all the time. When men break into your home, do you simply tell your wife and daughter to "let them do what they want with you"? I suppose the answer is to just curl up in a ball and let the bad people do what they are going to and then call the police when they are gone. Surely not being able to stop your daughter from being raped is a small sacrifice to avoid the evils of gun ownership.
@DrJokepu said:
Americans want to defend themselves from the government. Europeans want the government to help them. So what?
So this represents a very unhealthy relationship with government. I understand that Europe has a long history of citizen-serfs being treated as cattle for the upper class, but one would think history has illustrated the dangers of this. If government represents a social contract between rational men for the common welfare, then that contract must be checked in some way. Blind faith in the goodness of government or expectations of the government to help you are not only naive, but are the fundamental component of every abusive government from Communism to Monarchy to Facism.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
Not to mention protection from an overzealous government.
So that little popgun you own is going to protect you against a nuclear-armed government? Perhaps the solution is to let everyone have a backyard full of Minutemen silos. That way, the neighbors kids who won't stay the hell off your lawn will learn a glow-in-the-dark lesson about tresspassing.
The ultimate weapon any citizen has in a democracy is the pencil they make the X with on the ballot. Oh, wait, Americans don't even have that right anymore. Their sovereign franchise has been sold off to Diebold and all the other "election" machinery makers.
Face it, no matter what you'll ever be allowed to own in the way of self-defense weaponry, there'll ALWAYS be someone who can come at you with twice that amount. It's just another moronic arms race, reduced in scale. If everyone has a pistol in their house, the people breaking in will start coming with M4s and MP5. Everyone gets themselves an MP5, they'll come at you with a brick of C4 and pick whatever they want out of the rubble.
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
... who are anti-gun wouldn't allow QUALIFIED, RESPONSIBLE, and LAW ABIDING people to carry their LEGAL handguns in colleges, schools, and government buildings.
It's the same reason we don't let those qualified/responsible/law abiding people carry their guns onto planes: the line between "responsible" and "homicidal maniac" is invisible. A couple neurochemical levels in the brain out of whack, and you've gone from Mr. Rogers to Dylan Klebold.
Ok, fine, so Dylan and Eric weren't psychotic, but it just goes to show that seemingly harmless people aren't.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
Also, what do you suggest be done when the police aren't there? Obviously they can't be everywhere all the time. When men break into your home, do you simply tell your wife and daughter to "let them do what they want with you"? I suppose the answer is to just curl up in a ball and let the bad people do what they are going to and then call the police when they are gone. Surely not being able to stop your daughter from being raped is a small sacrifice to avoid the evils of gun ownership.
...
So this represents a very unhealthy relationship with government. I understand that Europe has a long history of citizen-serfs being treated as cattle for the upper class, but one would think history has illustrated the dangers of this. If government represents a social contract between rational men for the common welfare, then that contract must be checked in some way. Blind faith in the goodness of government or expectations of the government to help you are not only naive, but are the fundamental component of every abusive government from Communism to Monarchy to Facism.
Please note that I didn't intend to suggest anything here, except that I didn't know which approach is the better. Otherwise, I just tried to summarize the thread in a generalized way
Btw I think you're generally right, but, just for the sake of completeness, I would like the mention that the Scandinavian (Northern Europe for the less geography-savvy people) countries have typically quite well running strong-government type states, with very high taxes, a rich population, very low crime, general happiness, etc., especially before people from muslim countries started to migrate there. But the weather over there still sucks.
-
@MarcB said:
So that little popgun you own is going to protect you against a nuclear-armed government?
Well they sure aren't coming to drag me out in the middle of the night. Can you speak with any confidence about that on your end?
@MarcB said:
The ultimate weapon any citizen has in a democracy is the pencil they make the X with on the ballot.
Tell that to every country who has been oppressed by tyrants. Tell that to us Americans who never voted for the war in Iraq.
@MarcB said:
If everyone has a pistol in their house, the people breaking in will start coming with M4s and MP5.
Really? If I have an AR-10, a 3.5 inch shell throwing automatic shotgun and a .40 glock available to me, what do you recommend you are going to come in with?
You really better hope for the element of surprise...
When you have no arms for defense of your home (like I must assume you dont) even a man who is stronger than you could capture your house in short order. How does that make you feel at night?
@MarcB said:
the line between "responsible" and "homicidal maniac" is invisible.
That makes absolutely no sense. Please find me a significant number of cases of CCW permit holders who have turned into 'homicidal maniac's to support this wild claim, or just withdraw it. You are just throwing propaganda around now.
-
@DrJokepu said:
I would like the mention that the Scandinavian (Northern Europe for the less geography-savvy people) countries have typically quite well running strong-government type states, with very high taxes, a rich population, very low crime, general happiness, etc., especially before people from muslim countries started to migrate there. But the weather over there still sucks.
Well, I don't see how this supports getting rid of guns. It sounds to me like the answer is to get rid of the poor. Therefore let's arm us upper class people and start exterminating the poor.
After all, I rarely hear of a upper class, middle aged man running into a gas station and shooting/stabbing/beating the clerk and taking the money.
Maybe that is what these antigun people should be going after...
2nd ammendment rights for everyone! (except the poor!)
-
@MarcB said:
So that little popgun you own is going to protect you against a nuclear-armed government?
Wow.. this is really the stupidest thing I've read in awhile. The government is not going to launch nuclear attacks against civilians in an attempt to consolidate power. And if such a thing were to occur, you better be sure any survivors are going to crucify those responsible. An armed citizenry is a clear safeguard against tyranny. Do you really think the 200+ million privately-owned guns in the US don't make it a bit harder for the mass seizure of power?
@MarcB said:
The ultimate weapon any citizen has in a democracy is the pencil they make the X with on the ballot.
Sure, voting is an important part of ensuring liberty which is why it was given equal importance in the US Constitution. However, voting is actually a pretty weak safeguard when it comes down to it. What's stopping an elected official from committing mass murder? Do you think the Holocaust or the atrocities committed by the Soviet Union wouldn't have been a bit hindered if the victims had been armed? Tell you what, we'll wait for the next Hitler or Stalin to come to power and then see how effective of a weapon your fucking pencil makes.
@MarcB said:
Oh, wait, Americans don't even have that right anymore. Their sovereign franchise has been sold off to Diebold and all the other "election" machinery makers.
Do you have any proof of this at all or are you just talking conspiracy-theory bullshit?
@MarcB said:
Face it, no matter what you'll ever be allowed to own in the way of self-defense weaponry, there'll ALWAYS be someone who can come at you with twice that amount. It's just another moronic arms race, reduced in scale. If everyone has a pistol in their house, the people breaking in will start coming with M4s and MP5. Everyone gets themselves an MP5, they'll come at you with a brick of C4 and pick whatever they want out of the rubble.
Sorry, I must have missed the rise in C4 bombings against US households that possessed assault rifles. Is there some kind of web site that randomly generates this garbage or are you actually "thinking" it up as you go?
@MarcB said:
It's the same reason we don't let those qualified/responsible/law abiding people carry their guns onto planes: the line between "responsible" and "homicidal maniac" is invisible.
Or perhaps it's because US gun laws are often moronically restrictive? I think if US citizens were allowed to carry guns on planes then 9/11 would be little more than a cheesy movie plot. And as 9/11 proved, you don't even need guns, just a few assholes with box-cutters and a citizenry that has been disarmed by its own government and handed over to murders like lambs to the slaughter. What am I talking about, though, you don't need the ability to defend yourself -- the right to vote will magically protect you from evil! So remember folks, if your house is ever broken in to and your wife and daughter are raped and murdered while you are forced to watch, you can always write a really scathing letter to the editor because your 1st amendment rights are intact! And then you can go down to your local polling place and vote "Yes" on that referendum to take delusional pussies like MarcB and set them afloat in the Atlantic Ocean.
-
@DrJokepu said:
Btw I think you're generally right, but, just for the sake of completeness, I would like the mention that the Scandinavian (Northern Europe for the less geography-savvy people) countries have typically quite well running strong-government type states, with very high taxes, a rich population, very low crime, general happiness, etc., especially before people from muslim countries started to migrate there.
The Scandinavian countries represent basically the best possible outcome for socialism. However, it should be noted that there are several reasons for this. For one, their culture is an extremely work-oriented one. This mostly comes from history as the harsh climate essentially ensured the weak and lazy died off quickly. In fact, for many centuries it was common for the weak or lazy to be cast out from society as they were seen as burdens. Today, most people would agree that this is immoral but one result for the Scandinavians has been the strengthening of their genetic and social constitution. Of course, over time this will change as the weak and lazy are allowed to draw off of society and begin to bring it down. If you look at the history of economic productivity from these countries, they have essentially been pouring all of their financial gains down the toilet of big government. They are still doing quite well, but the growth rates are not promising and recently there seems to be a move towards more conservative (by Scandanavian standards) spending policies.
It should also be noted that many of the Scandanavian countries have more gun per-capita than the United States. This is because adult males are all supposed to be ready to fight in the case of invasion and guns are not treated as fearsome but instead as useful tools. The low crime rates of these countries are admirable, but it's quite common for the socities that are further from the equator to have less crime, most likely as a result of the harsh climate.
-
@stratos said:
I can sum up the rest of the discussion though. "yes", "no", "yes", "no", "yes", "no", "yes", "no", "yes, and what about hitler", "no and i say something about godwins law".
@morbiuswilters said:
Hitler
Now someone needs to mention godwins law and i win :)
Also on the side i find it pretty weird that a discussion that sort of started about ther netherlands ended up being about guns.
Also morbius, you should note that at least here in the netherlands the official advice from the police is indeed to curl up into a ball if someone is robbing your house. Although the law will permit trying to hold the person to the ground withouth injuring him, in a attempt to make a citizans arrest. The logic is that you will rather loose your tv then your life, insurence can buy you a new tv, but not a new life.
and to refer to the graph comparing murder in the UK and USA. i've looked it up for the netherlands and in 1992 it was 1.73 per 100.000 and in 2001 it has dropped to 1.59 per 100.000. And about1/3 of those where with firearms (including explosives).
-
@stratos said:
Also morbius, you should note that at least here in the netherlands the official advice from the police is indeed to curl up into a ball if someone is robbing your house.
Wonderful. And I suppose when it comes to rape women are supposed to just lie there and take it? Or do you guys still believe a woman should try to commit suicide if she is going to be raped because it is "a fate worse than death"? Then again, this is a country that tried to stay neutral during WWII, so I guess I shouldn't expect a whole hell of a lot. It's really depressing to me that I am 1/4th Dutch and that my veins beat with the blood of a nation of cowards.
@stratos said:
Although the law will permit trying to hold the person to the ground withouth injuring him, in a attempt to make a citizans arrest.
Well, thank goodness the Almighty Law will allow us to aprehend someone who breaks into our home, so long as we don't harm or inconvenience the criminal.@stratos said:The logic is that you will rather loose your tv then your life, insurence can buy you a new tv, but not a new life.
They aren't always coming for your TV, but continue to believe that lie if it makes your cowardice more palatable. In the US the logic is that not standing up to criminals will only embolden them. Additionally, if you are armed and trained in using a gun, you should be able to take on any criminal who comes into your house, whether they are coming for your TV or something else.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
delusional pussies like MarcB
Ah, personal insults. Interesting how you always seem to use them the moment someone tries to engage you in a civilized dialog. I don't recall making any comments about your genitalia or mental status in my reply. Why do you have to sink to such levels? Is this the only way you get your "point" across? Or is this how you 'win' an argument? I've got a thick skin, so no biggie, I don't care what you try and call me. But these tactics seem to imply you feel your arguments and positions are so weak that you have to resort the next-thing-to-nuclear forum argument to try and win (Nuclear being Godwin's Law).
@morbiuswilters said:
The government is not going to launch nuclear attacks against civilians in an attempt to consolidate power
The second amendment was enacted as a counter to the real threat that the British Empire might try to subvert the American government, bring in a pro-Empire administration and eventually put the colonies "back into the fold". There was no national military to protect the nation, only whatever militias the states had. Therefore the right to bear arms was granted, so that if there ever was a subversional government, the people would have the firepower to depose that government and restore a proper democracy. This would be the "well-regulated militia" spoken of in the text of the amendment.
It was never intended that you personally would own weapons to protect yourself against your neighbors, or the thief breaking into the house. You had a weapon because that's how you protected your farm against wild animals, or getting yourself a bit of dinner. Anything above such a basic "tool" weapon was to have been in the context of militia membership to protect your neighbors, your state, and/or your country.
But what would happen if, say, come Monday morning, a gun-happy state (ie: a red state) stood up and decided go an teach Washington a lesson? How far would the Feds go in supressing such a rebellion? It won't come to nukes, I was just exaggerating for effect (pity you couldn't figure that out), but just ask yourself what would happen if there was even a mild threat to Washington's power of this sort? Look at the scale of the response at Waco for an idea.
@morbiuswilters said:
Sorry, I must have missed the rise in C4 bombings against US households that possessed assault rifles.
I was just making a list with was to have had an obvious logical progression to it. Perhaps, in deference, to your limited extrapolationary abilities, I should have added a few steps between MP5s and C4, but no matter how you look at it, it's an arms race. Why are home invasions becoming more violent and deadly? Perhaps it's the color schemes on the houses, or the type of siding outside. Maybe it's because the invaders *really* hate vinyl and are there to teach people a lesson in how much better aluminum is. Or maybe it's the fortresses that American houses are becoming.
And of course, just how many home invasions are there, really? You only see them on the 6 o'clock news because they make for good ratings. There might be one every night, but what does that really say about the real state of affairs? 300 residences out of 100 million got invaded last year? Wow. 0.0003%. OMG. Better go get that personal nuke delivery system at Billy-Jo-Bobs Personal Defense Emporium and Lingerie Shop, we could be next!
If you want an example between a heavily regulated "gun-free society" (Canada) and the comparatively free-for-all that exists in the U.S: I just returned from the hardware store where I was looking for some hooks to secure my front and back doors with, so my son (who's just figured out door knobs) can't get out out of the house. As I'm walking in, I spot the former Premier (and now Leader of the Opposition, think of it as former Governor) of this Province in line at the till.
You know what struck me about that? He was just standing there like a regular Joe, looking to pay for whatever it was he was getting. No massive police escort, no security guards, no police.
When was the last time someone of that political rank, anywhere in the U.S. went anywhere without a Secret Service or state trooper escort in tow? To be sure, the Canadian Prime Minister, the Governor General, and various other bigwigs do get escorts, but they're nothing compared to what you'll see covering the President, or even the various Secretaries.
I'm Canadian-born, but I also have dual-citizenship with Switzerland. Now there's a country that takes self-defence very very seriously. You can basically assume that any house you walk into there will have at least one assault rifle, with a relative metric buttload of ammo for it, because essentially every able-bodied male in the country is, or has been, a member of the military. They take their rifles home with them, and they're store, ready for immediate use (minus a minute or two to unlock them from storage). Every house or building has a bomb shelter in it, and they're stocked with emergency rations. The closer to the borders you get, the thicker the bunker walls. My uncle's house, who's about 5 minutes from Austria, has a 2 foot concrete door that'd make any American bank vault jealous. My grandma's house, which is about 4 hours away from Italy, has a 2" thick oak door.
Every bridge is built with demolitions charges as part of the structure, or able to be blown easily with a few minutes' notice. There's hidden mortar emplacements that are pre-sighted on any strategic or critical target within their range, and there's tables and tables of pre-calculated coordinates for other targets. It's almost literally to the point you just dial in a code number into the gun and it sights itself. These emplacements are everywhere. It's amazing how well they're hidden. You'd never know where they are, unless you were part of the teams that service the gear in them.
And you know what? Acts of gun violence there are almost unheard of. To my knowledge, there's been ONE incident of someone going postal with their military issue rifle, and this guy apparently was certifiable (though only diagnosed after the fact, unfortunately).
Just so we're clear on where I'm coming from. I'm not anti-gun. I've held a Firearms Acquisition Certificate (gun-buying license, if that makes it easier for you to understand). I've gone hunting many times, I've put in my time on a gun range doing target practice. I have nothing against people owning guns. What I am against is the essentially totally unrestricted and unlimited availability of high-end high-power as seen in the U.S. Tell me where in the bits about a "well regulated militia" and "right to bear arms" does it imply you must be allowed to own M1 Abrams tanks, or mini-guns with 50,000 round magazines? Go ahead, own a Glock if you feel the need to feel "safe" in your house. Go get a .22 for target practice if that's what floats your boat. Get that .306 or 12-gauge if you want wabbit for dinner. More power to you, do so with my full approval.
However you should only be allowed to do so only after you've put in the time and effort to pass gun safety courses and background checks to prove that you're not Joe Psycho. Only after you've proven you know how to store the weapons properly so your 12 month old kid won't pull it out of the night table and blow you or a sibling away because "it's just a toy". Only after the guns are registered with the authorities so they can track you down after you "lose" them or sell them to that pimply faced goth kid who was mumbling something about taking out his school. Or track you down after they're stolen so they can be returned...
And under absolutely no circumstances should anyone who's not military or SWAT ever be allowed to own an assault rifle, rocket-powered weaponry (i.e. bazookas, RPGs, missiles, yada yada), or any kind of explosive ordinance (grenades, claymores, C4, dynamite, blah blah blah). That's not self defence, that's just outright stupidity. Do you really need that 200 round clip to take out the neighbor's kid when he comes to steal a 6pack?
@morbiuswilters said:
Do you have any proof of this at all or are you just talking conspiracy-theory bullshit?
Why not ask yourself why the electoral system in the U.S. is such a mess that the Florida fiasco was allowed to occur? Supposedly the ultimate idealization and representation of the concept of Democracy on this planet, and you guys can't even get the basic mechanism of democracy to work for yourselves.
We have a quite functional system here in Canada. It's simple, virtually tamper proof, and uses proven technology that would not appear unusual to anyone even if you plucked them from a time 3 or 400 years in the past. It's called "pencil and paper". Our ballots are simple: All-black paper with the candidates' names and party affiliations, and next to that, a white oval you place your mark in. There's no levers, there's no punch cards, there's no touch screens. Just you, your ballot, and a pencil (or pen, whatever).
Of course, I know you'll scream about how insecure the system is. Anyone could scribble all over the ballots after the fact, change votes, etc.. But that's where our system truly comes into play. The polling places can be observed by anyone who wishes to do so. Generally only members of the political parties do so, but any citizen who wants to, can. Ballots are counted before the polls open, an inventory is kept of how many are handed out, and an inventory is done after the fact. Ballot boxes are opened only in the presence of independent witnesses of all parties. They are counted in full view of those witnesses. After the counts, the ballots are stored for a prescribed period, in case a recount is required. If the margin between the winner and loser(s) is below a certain percentage, there are automatic re-counts.
I won't go into anymore detail than that, except the following: It doesn't matter where you vote in this country. Vancouver (West), St. Johns (East), or Tuktoyaktuk (North). You walk into a poll and get your ballot, it will be identical in design to every other ballot in the country. A hideous monstrosity such as your "butterfly" ballot would never ever be permitted here. There is one national body in charge of elections. This ensures consistence and fairness across the country. Since the paper's black, if you write "outside" the oval, it doesn't matter. Black pencil/pen on black paper. It's invisible. You make marks in two or more ovals, sorry, the ballot's spoiled. Try again next election. Don't mark anything? Also "spoiled".
Now let's look at the American system: Every state and county does it their own way. I ain't going to go digging for exact details, so let's just make up some examples: You vote in Oregon, you get a touch screen; vote in Texas, you get a punch card; New York, opscan; Florida, you get something else. The layouts of the ballots are different, the typography differs, the actual voting mechanics differ. Consistency is literally a foreign concept.
Given this is a Tech WTF forum, and you're a high-count poster here (so undoubtedly you're a techie of some sort), what do you think those touch screen machines are worth in terms of election security? How could you possibly trust a machine when you can see absolutely nothing of its internal workings? You know how utterly simple it is to make a screen say one thing while happily recording the opposite on the flash card.
What? There's a close race? A recount is needed? Sure, let's just run the "SELECT candidate, count(*) FROM votes GROUP BY candidate" report again. Maybe it'll come out different this time.
At least with opscan/punch systems, at some point there is a piece of paper that (if you're lucky to get a machine that punches/marks properly) has your vote on it. With the electronic systems, generally there's nothing. Ever wonder why the various electoral agencies fought so hard against adding printers to the machines?
I'm not saying the American electoral system is so broken that you might as well stay home on election day because the results were pre-determined. I am saying that your system has enough cracks and barn doors in it that you can't possibly trust the whole system, or even most of the system, to be free of fraud. Given how close the tallies were on the Bush/Gore decision, it wouldn't take much at all to tip the election one way or another. Add a few votes here, subtract a few votes there, and suddenly you've got 20 more college votes than the other guy. And given your disparate systems, particularly what happened in Florida, there's absolutely no way to tell if someone screwed the system or not.
There's no system that can't be gamed or subverted, but they can be made more resistant. The American system seems to be made of Teflon - as slippery as possible to prevent nailling it down and see if anything hinky did happen.
So, after all that, I wouldn't call it "conspiracy-theory bullshit". I'd call it prudence and some healthy doubt. You want guns so you can pretend you're safe in your house or car. I want a transparent electoral system to make sure that we can be safe in our country.
@morbiuswilters said:
if your house is ever broken in to and your wife and daughter are raped and murdered while you are forced to watch
If someone breaks into my house, then I will feel free to smear them across the carpet and hit them hard enough that their ancestors double over, then sue their relatives for the carpet cleaning costs.
"Oh, but MarcB, you don't have a gun, what if they point one at you?" Then they can do whatever they want. They're the ones with the gun. If I had a gun, I wouldn't be sleeping with it under my pillow. It'd be locked in a gun case in a closet safely out of reach.
And that's where the whole "self defense" argument falls down. Unless the gun's right on your person, it's useless. If you don't get enough warning to be able to get a gun from wherever it's kept, then it's useless. Even if you sleep with your finger on the trigger, you might still wake up with someone sticking a knife or gun barrel up your nose. You move, you're dead. And with your gun right there too.. tisk tisk.
Are you going to walk around everywhere with your gun loaded and cocked, with the safety off and your finger on the trigger? That's the best chance you'll have of protecting yourself against something bad. Anything else is just masturbation - feels good, but doesn't accomplish much of anything.
I've woken up and run into a door, because a delivery man was banging on my front door while I was having a nap. Don't even remember getting up until I was reeling back after the THUMP of hitting the door (chipped a tooth, too). That's be an EXCELLENT time to be holding a gun, you know. The bang would definitely have woken me up.
and that last bit, for the less literate members of this forum, is a JOKE.
-
@MarcB said:
--the voting stuff--
The've been introducing votingcomputers in the netherlands for the past 10 years. happily a group of techies set up a protest group and kept proving that electronic voting is fundementilly unsafer then paper and pencil. A few weeks ago the government announced that the electronic voting is going to be postponed until further notice. Their legally strongest argument was that voting couldn't be guaranteed to be anonymous anymore, which is required in the voting process. It perhaps wasn't their strongest argument, but it was the only one the government couldn't label as a opinion and ignore.
Most other arguments where indeed about the security of the system. In a normal procedure if you want to fraud the voting process you will have to convince or bribe thousands of people who work for the voting offices. When its a votingcomputer you just need to get the software altered which would involve perhaps a dozen people.
-
@MarcB said:
I don't recall making any comments about your genitalia or mental status in my reply.
"Pussy" means you are a weak, frightened individual, not that you literally have a vagina. Women can actually be quite strong and there are many in the US who carry arms, which makes them a lot less cowardly than you.
@MarcB said:
The second amendment was enacted as a counter to the real threat that the British Empire might try to subvert the American government, bring in a pro-Empire administration and eventually put the colonies "back into the fold". There was no national military to protect the nation, only whatever militias the states had. Therefore the right to bear arms was granted, so that if there ever was a subversional government, the people would have the firepower to depose that government and restore a proper democracy. This would be the "well-regulated militia" spoken of in the text of the amendment.
It was never intended that you personally would own weapons to protect yourself against your neighbors, or the thief breaking into the house. You had a weapon because that's how you protected your farm against wild animals, or getting yourself a bit of dinner. Anything above such a basic "tool" weapon was to have been in the context of militia membership to protect your neighbors, your state, and/or your country.
Wow, thank you Professor Canada for educating me on the legal history of my own country. Then again, you are completely full of shit. The right to bear arms for hunting and self-defense was so essential it would have been silly to actually mention it in the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment mentions militias because the founding fathers were concerned that the federal government might try to enact laws to strip citizens of their arms in an attempt to override the authority of the states. Most of the Bill of Rights is actually based directly on tactics used by the crown to try to repress the Patriots. If you knew a goddamn thing about my country or its history you would know that a right to self-defense has been there from the founding and has only been reaffirmed time and again by the legislature and judicial branches.
@MarcB said:
But what would happen if, say, come Monday morning, a gun-happy state (ie: a red state) stood up and decided go an teach Washington a lesson? How far would the Feds go in supressing such a rebellion? It won't come to nukes, I was just exaggerating for effect (pity you couldn't figure that out), but just ask yourself what would happen if there was even a mild threat to Washington's power of this sort? Look at the scale of the response at Waco for an idea.
There was no effect of your exaggeration than to make you look like an ass. Also, the quoted segment makes absolutely no sense -- we aren't talking about a state rebelling against the US government, we're talking about the government trying to restrict freedom and having to face millions of pissed-off gun owners. And if you think that those gun owners don't scare the shit out of our leaders and keep them in line, you're stupider than I thought.
@MarcB said:
And of course, just how many home invasions are there, really? You only see them on the 6 o'clock news because they make for good ratings. There might be one every night, but what does that really say about the real state of affairs? 300 residences out of 100 million got invaded last year? Wow. 0.0003%. OMG. Better go get that personal nuke delivery system at Billy-Jo-Bobs Personal Defense Emporium and Lingerie Shop, we could be next!
Actually, home invasions have seen quite the spike in the UK since it became illegal to defend yourself. The reason home invasions are so rare in the US is because most burglars know they will get splattered on the floor if they tried to break into a gun-owner's home.
@MarcB said:
When was the last time someone of that political rank, anywhere in the U.S. went anywhere without a Secret Service or state trooper escort in tow? To be sure, the Canadian Prime Minister, the Governor General, and various other bigwigs do get escorts, but they're nothing compared to what you'll see covering the President, or even the various Secretaries.
Your country is also absolutely worthless and there's isn't a suicide bomber alive who would waste his time on it. You seem to forget that the US is actually a target of attacks. You also forget that if it weren't for the presence of the US military your pathetic little country would have become Russia East a long time ago.
@MarcB said:
And you know what? Acts of gun violence there are almost unheard of. To my knowledge, there's been ONE incident of someone going postal with their military issue rifle, and this guy apparently was certifiable (though only diagnosed after the fact, unfortunately).
So after all of that, you just proved my point? That guns aren't the source of the problem, they are only a tool that in the wrong hands can cause violence? Additionally, we already know criminals will get guns so the question then becomes why the fuck you are arguing against the right of good citizens to defend themselves? Are you that brainwashed? It must be wonderful to live a life where you don't have to question a thing and instead wander around in a cloud of self-delusion. Hey, nobody's gonna attack your country while the US is here so you've got very little to worry about. In fact, you're almost like a pet: oblivious to your surroundings, unable to comprehend how any of it came to be but quick to speak up with something confuses you or when someone decides to have some fun with the laser pointer.
@MarcB said:
Just so we're clear on where I'm coming from. I'm not anti-gun. I've held a Firearms Acquisition Certificate (gun-buying license, if that makes it easier for you to understand). I've gone hunting many times, I've put in my time on a gun range doing target practice. I have nothing against people owning guns. What I am against is the essentially totally unrestricted and unlimited availability of high-end high-power as seen in the U.S. Tell me where in the bits about a "well regulated militia" and "right to bear arms" does it imply you must be allowed to own M1 Abrams tanks, or mini-guns with 50,000 round magazines? Go ahead, own a Glock if you feel the need to feel "safe" in your house. Go get a .22 for target practice if that's what floats your boat. Get that .306 or 12-gauge if you want wabbit for dinner. More power to you, do so with my full approval.
However you should only be allowed to do so only after you've put in the time and effort to pass gun safety courses and background checks to prove that you're not Joe Psycho. Only after you've proven you know how to store the weapons properly so your 12 month old kid won't pull it out of the night table and blow you or a sibling away because "it's just a toy". Only after the guns are registered with the authorities so they can track you down after you "lose" them or sell them to that pimply faced goth kid who was mumbling something about taking out his school. Or track you down after they're stolen so they can be returned...
And under absolutely no circumstances should anyone who's not military or SWAT ever be allowed to own an assault rifle, rocket-powered weaponry (i.e. bazookas, RPGs, missiles, yada yada), or any kind of explosive ordinance (grenades, claymores, C4, dynamite, blah blah blah). That's not self defence, that's just outright stupidity. Do you really need that 200 round clip to take out the neighbor's kid when he comes to steal a 6pack?
So is this more hyperbole or are you actually that ignorant of US gun laws? I would respond by telling what an unbelievable fucking moron you are, but then you'd say something like "I was only joking about the claymores, lol".
@MarcB said:
Why not ask yourself why the electoral system in the U.S. is such a mess that the Florida fiasco was allowed to occur? Supposedly the ultimate idealization and representation of the concept of Democracy on this planet, and you guys can't even get the basic mechanism of democracy to work for yourselves.
I think the problem here is that you seem to think votes are always pure and perfect or that they should be. See, the dead guys who founded my country 250 years ago realized most of that was bullshit which is why they provided several checks against the power of government. Additionally, the "Florida Fiasco" is the kind of situation any democracy will have to deal with at some point. We handled it well and moved on, end of story.
@MarcB said:
Of course, I know you'll scream about how insecure the system is. Anyone could scribble all over the ballots after the fact, change votes, etc.. But that's where our system truly comes into play. The polling places can be observed by anyone who wishes to do so. Generally only members of the political parties do so, but any citizen who wants to, can. Ballots are counted before the polls open, an inventory is kept of how many are handed out, and an inventory is done after the fact. Ballot boxes are opened only in the presence of independent witnesses of all parties. They are counted in full view of those witnesses. After the counts, the ballots are stored for a prescribed period, in case a recount is required. If the margin between the winner and loser(s) is below a certain percentage, there are automatic re-counts.
I won't go into anymore detail than that, except the following: It doesn't matter where you vote in this country. Vancouver (West), St. Johns (East), or Tuktoyaktuk (North). You walk into a poll and get your ballot, it will be identical in design to every other ballot in the country. A hideous monstrosity such as your "butterfly" ballot would never ever be permitted here. There is one national body in charge of elections. This ensures consistence and fairness across the country. Since the paper's black, if you write "outside" the oval, it doesn't matter. Black pencil/pen on black paper. It's invisible. You make marks in two or more ovals, sorry, the ballot's spoiled. Try again next election. Don't mark anything? Also "spoiled".
Now let's look at the American system: Every state and county does it their own way. I ain't going to go digging for exact details, so let's just make up some examples: You vote in Oregon, you get a touch screen; vote in Texas, you get a punch card; New York, opscan; Florida, you get something else. The layouts of the ballots are different, the typography differs, the actual voting mechanics differ. Consistency is literally a foreign concept.
Wow, once again you fail to realize that most of the safeguards you mention are common place in the US. Do you really have any idea what you are talking about or do you get all of your knowledge 3rd-hand from Internet messageboards and alcoholic Canucks down at the local bar? Additonally, why does consistency in ballots matter? I'm not voting in 10 different states (hopefully), I'm voting in one. Seriously, if someone is so stupid they couldn't figure out the "butterfly" ballot, then they shouldn't be allowed to vote in the first place. I don't even like Bush and I never have but I think the guy won fair-and-square not only once, but twice. Thank you for expanding this into a full-blown anti-America rant, though. It must be awful living in a country that is so insignificant that your only source of entertainment is watching moose fuck and insulting a country that has been the standard for personal liberty for the last 250 years.
@MarcB said:
Given this is a Tech WTF forum, and you're a high-count poster here (so undoubtedly you're a techie of some sort), what do you think those touch screen machines are worth in terms of election security? How could you possibly trust a machine when you can see absolutely nothing of its internal workings? You know how utterly simple it is to make a screen say one thing while happily recording the opposite on the flash card.
I actually agree that electronic voting as currently implemented is sub-optimal. Still, paper ballots can be faked pretty damn easily, too. I think an electronic voting system would be the best for security but it needs some more work and, yes, transparency. Apparently most of the US states agree with us on this one as touch-screen voting has been eliminated in many precincts due to concerns over the reliability of the system. I think that's a good thing, until a better system can be built, but I also realize that elections have been stolen as long as humans have been having them and that an electronic system isn't much worse than the a paper-based system.
@MarcB said:
And that's where the whole "self defense" argument falls down. Unless the gun's right on your person, it's useless. If you don't get enough warning to be able to get a gun from wherever it's kept, then it's useless. Even if you sleep with your finger on the trigger, you might still wake up with someone sticking a knife or gun barrel up your nose. You move, you're dead. And with your gun right there too.. tisk tisk.
Once again, ignorance and just plain retardation. In most situations, homeowners have plenty of time to retrieve a gun while someone is breaking in. They also have the upper-hand as they are intimately familiar with the layout of their house and they know should be in it. Of course, sometimes they may not be able to retrieve the gun in time. In that case, they're about as fucked as you are all the time. In the case that they go for their gun just as the intruder comes upon them, then they will probably end up shot, but that's most likely a rare occurrence. Meanwhile, at least they had a chance to protect themselves to begin with, unlike someone who wasn't armed at all. You also ignore the deterrent effect of guns in the home -- it's a plain and simple fact that most criminals in the US are not going to risk breaking into a home for fear of being shot. This is a benefit that extends even to people who do not posses guns in their home, which is pretty amazing when you think of it. You don't even have to own a gun or even touch on in your entire life to obtain some benefit from lawful gun ownership.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
Wow.. this is really the stupidest thing I've read in awhile. The government is not going to launch nuclear attacks against civilians in an attempt to consolidate power. And if such a thing were to occur, you better be sure any survivors are going to crucify those responsible. An armed citizenry is a clear safeguard against tyranny. Do you really think the 200+ million privately-owned guns in the US don't make it a bit harder for the mass seizure of power?
As much as I hate to get involved in this (Masterplansoftware! Morbiuswilters! Get back to your IRC channel this INSTANT!) I have to say that whatever my position on gun control is (I haven't thought about the issue enough to get into it seriously) I really, really don't think that 200+ million guns in the US would make it harder to take the country over. Having a gun doesn't make you a soldier any more than having a knife makes you a chef. You could theoretically do it - but you probably won't.
And as far as, "Voting didn't protect us from a war in Iraq we didn't vote for" goes... well, guns didn't do a whole hell of a lot, either. I don't think any of us are willing to turn our weapons on our own soldiers right now. And if it comes to that, I know for damned sure I don't want to be facing down a group of marines with my sawed off shotgun.
I'm fine with the argument that gun ownership is a right, and that if we prevent ourselves from owning guns - well, what do we prevent ourselves from doing next? But the days of an armed citizenry having a significant say when voting fails are over.
-
@PeriSoft said:
I really, really don't think that 200+ million guns in the US would make it harder to take the country over. Having a gun doesn't make you a soldier any more than having a knife makes you a chef. You could theoretically do it - but you probably won't.
It has nothing to with being a soldier. An armed citizenry is much harder to control through force than an unarmed one, you cannot deny that.
@PeriSoft said:
I don't think any of us are willing to turn our weapons on our own soldiers right now. And if it comes to that, I know for damned sure I don't want to be facing down a group of marines with my sawed off shotgun.
No, but I think it's even less likely soldiers would turn their weapons on their own countrymen. The members of our military come from all over and they have families too. It is unlikely they would shoot someone's mother, father, wife or children because they would not want the same done to theirs. The main point is that it is a deterrent and that it becomes virtually impossible for a small faction of well-armed political opportunists to overthrow the government and establish a dictatorship.
-
@MarcB said:
does it imply you must be allowed to own M1 Abrams tanks, or mini-guns with 50,000 round magazines?
@MarcB said:
And under absolutely no circumstances should anyone who's not military or SWAT ever be allowed to own an assault rifle, rocket-powered weaponry (i.e. bazookas, RPGs, missiles, yada yada), or any kind of explosive ordinance (grenades, claymores, C4, dynamite, blah blah blah). That's not self defence, that's just outright stupidity. Do you really need that 200 round clip to take out the neighbor's kid when he comes to steal a 6pack?
Who the hell are you even arguing with? None of this is legal in the US, and none of it is being argued here.
You really need to lighten up on this shit, I just read this huge post, and it is a few minutes of my life I will never get back.
Are you just throwing random made up crap out here to fan the flamewar, or are you actually delusional to believe this crap?
@MarcB said:
Are you going to walk around everywhere with your gun loaded and cocked
Absolutely, yes I am and yes I do. Why wouldn't I? I carry a pistol the same way as a cop does (albeit concealed), and for the same reason a cop does. To protect myself and/or loved ones.
@MarcB said:
with the safety off and your finger on the trigger? That's the best chance you'll have of protecting yourself against something bad.Anything else is just masturbation - feels good, but doesn't accomplish much of anything.
Then you really don't understand even the gist of what you are arguing do you?
@MarcB said:
And that's where the whole "self defense" argument falls down. Unless the gun's right on your person, it's useless.
That might be your logic, but not any sane or rational person's. If I get killed before I am alerted, then I could hardly care. But I am not going to be some little pussy held up in my closet while someone is rummaging through my house, possibly hurting/raping/killing my loved ones.
Sorry, maybe that is the theory of protection in Canada, but good luck when the enemy comes knocking. Maybe you can just curl up in the fetal position and hope for the best. I would rather have the option of fighting for myself and my loved ones, and I intend to be every bit equipped for it.
-
@PeriSoft said:
I really, really don't think that 200+ million guns in the US would make it harder to take the country over
Tell that to our 4000+ dead soldiers in Iraq that know what any country in this age should know by now. You can take over a country, and win against their military, but the PEOPLE pose the biggest threat. Sure a lot of outside funding/training/etc is going on there, but the fact is, it is very hard to invade and hold a country full of dedicated, armed citizens.
-
I generally won't bother getting caught up in a discussion where either party is egocentrical enough to completely ignore any and all arguments coming from the other side, but for those who feel the need to personally insult my country and thus, to a degree, myself, I'll glady make an exception.
First of all, I couldn't care less about which side may be right in this argument. I don't live in the United States, and never will I be personally involved with any Americans, so if you want to keep your firearms within an arm' s reach, by all means, go ahead.
What I can't stomach, however, is the fact that you, MPS, feel the need to challenge our beliefs, to even go as far as not only question our sense of courage, but downright deny its existence. And why? Because we, being Dutch, do not feel the need to carry (small) firearms with us wherever we go?
If only you weren't so ignorant, you'd be laughing at yourself like there was no tomorrow. Carrying a gun is by no means an expression of courage, willpower, or spirit. It in itself is the clearest sign of raw, savage fear. You feel the need to carry arms because you feel the need to protect yourself at all costs. In America, people are afraid to go out into the streets without any means of physical protection, and your government thrives on keeping these emotions intact. You have a hard time trusting anyone but yourself, and as a result, tend to look at others with a suspicious eye. After hearing you speak about the great security a firearm provides, and the grave dangers an American family has to endure, I'm convinced America is, without any shred of doubt, the single most narcissistic, egocentrical, self-conceited country imaginable. You act out of fear and distrust, and yet dare to lash out towards others, accusing them of being cowards, for not feeling the need to take over your false means of security.
If I were you, I'd personally reconsider the way you try to win this discussion. I've heard numerous good arguments being taken up here, none of them coming from your direction. So you resort to calling us cowards. MasterPlanSoftware, you have already lost this discussion. I suggest salvaging what's left of your personal and national pride, and stick it somewhere people are likely to react to petty insults they way you want them to. In here, they won't win you an argument.
Oh, and please. Don't shoot me with that scary big ole' gun of yours.
(And yes, I registered here just for the sake of taking part in this ongoing non-discussion)
-
@morbiuswilters said:
The USA has always had a higher murder rate than the UK, even 200 years ago when guns were as common in both countries. It has nothing to do with the guns.
How many historical wtf's in that one sentence? Personally, I haven't yet been able to find the statistics for gun ownership in 1808, but I'd be surprised if America, with its low population density, had a higher murder rate than the UK, commercial, economic and crime capital of the world at the time. (Of course, I'm not counting the "Injuns"...)
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
When you compare the population of the US and England, the scales make perfect sense... but I wouldn't expect these people to understand that.
These people? Oh dear :) What bit of "per 100,000" and "per 1,000,000" don't you get? Indeed though - as of 2001, it looks like the US is dropped to being only 4 times as violent a nation as the UK, rather than 10 times as violent. Well done chaps - keep up the good work.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
a right to self-defense has been there from the founding and has only been reaffirmed time and again by the legislature and judicial branches.
Just like habeas corpus? Oh wait...
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
@PeriSoft said:
I really, really don't think that 200+ million guns in the US would make it harder to take the country over
Tell that to our 4000+ dead soldiers in Iraq that know what any country in this age should know by now. You can take over a country, and win against their military, but the PEOPLE pose the biggest threat. Sure a lot of outside funding/training/etc is going on there, but the fact is, it is very hard to invade and hold a country full of dedicated, armed citizens.
One has to wonder how Saddam Hussein managed to rule this country as a dictator, against masses of dedicated, armed citizens. Granted, some people probably got their weapons in the chaos immediately after the invasion, but that's hardly enough of an explanation.
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
Maybe you want it like England where guns are banned, sure looks like it worked for them:
Keep up the good work England!
I don't think I've ever seen a piece of evidence so badly backfire. You seem to have completely missed the point of a concept known as a 'scale'. So England went from about 10.5 deaths per 100k to about 15.5 deaths per 100k in 25 years. Meanwhile the US has gone from 100 per 100k to 60 per 100k. Congratulations, the US is now only 4 times more deadly than the UK. Another explanation about the decline in the US could be improve first aid and medical care?
The main problem in your argument is that you provide a trend (i.e. increased gun crime in the UK) and assume that your reason is the only explanation. Now, I'm pretty sure you've never been to the UK, let alone experienced it for 25 years like I have. Let me tell you that removing guns from the street has in NO WAY increased my fear of a criminal having 'one up' over me. Almost all British people will tell you that the reason that crime generally has increased in this time period is a general decay in societies moral values and the knock on effect this has had on the younger generations.
I guess one strong argument for tighter gun control would be that no-one I know in the UK (NO-ONE) would want gun laws relaxed, and yet a large percentage of the US population do want them relaxed.
Also, I have just looked at the most recent murder rate stats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_homicide_rate) and the results are that in 2007, the US had 57 per 100k, while the UK had 2. TWO. Yes, we are obviously being massacred in our beds while you sleep soundly as soundly as lambs, safe with your finger on the trigger. I'm guessing that when automatically targetted, multi-fire, fully automatic laser guns are invented, they must be made available to everyone in order to defend themselves.
-
@ammoQ said:
One has to wonder how Saddam Hussein managed to rule this country as a dictator, against masses of dedicated, armed citizens.
No wondering required. He ruled with an iron fist. He did not hesitate to use excessive force.
-
@ammoQ said:
Granted, some people probably got their weapons in the chaos immediately after the invasion, but that's hardly enough of an explanation.
Countries like Iran and Syria have been providing Iraqi insurgents with weaponry for years now. Additionally, Saddam maintained tight control of politics, not allowing religous extremists to gain a foothold as they have in virtually every other Muslim country. You also seem to disregard the large amount of violence that Saddam had to inflict to maintain that control. He gassed Kurds and massacred entire villages to prevent his enemies from ever organizing.
-
@Duroth said:
So you resort to calling us cowards. MasterPlanSoftware,
I think you have me and morbiuswilters confused.
Nice try though.
-
@Benn said:
How many historical wtf's in that one sentence? Personally, I haven't yet been able to find the statistics for gun ownership in 1808, but I'd be surprised if America, with its low population density, had a higher murder rate than the UK, commercial, economic and crime capital of the world at the time. (Of course, I'm not counting the "Injuns"...)
From the Reason article linked by MPS above:
@article said:
Historically, America has had a high homicide rate and England a low one. In a comparison of New York and London over a 200-year period, during most of which both populations had unrestricted access to firearms, historian Eric Monkkonen found New York's homicide rate consistently about five times London's. Monkkonen pointed out that even without guns, "the United States would still be out of step, just as it has been for two hundred years."
Legal historian Richard Maxwell Brown has argued that Americans have more homicides because English law insists an individual should retreat when attacked, whereas Americans believe they have the right to stand their ground and kill in self-defense. Americans do have more latitude to protect themselves, in keeping with traditional common law standards, but that would have had less significance before England's more restrictive policy was established in 1967.
The murder rates of the U.S. and U.K. are also affected by differences in the way each counts homicides. The FBI asks police to list every homicide as murder, even if the case isn't subsequently prosecuted or proceeds on a lesser charge, making the U.S. numbers as high as possible. By contrast, the English police "massage down" the homicide statistics, tracking each case through the courts and removing it if it is reduced to a lesser charge or determined to be an accident or self-defense, making the English numbers as low as possible.
It must be great believing whatever you want without ever having to question it or provide proof.
@Benn said:
These people? Oh dear :)
I think he meant ignorant people who open their mouths without actually having any clue what they are talking about.
-
@ammoQ said:
One has to wonder how Saddam Hussein managed to rule this country as a dictator, against masses of dedicated, armed citizens. Granted, some people probably got their weapons in the chaos immediately after the invasion, but that's hardly enough of an explanation.
My guess would the fear of chemical weapon attacks from their own government would be one thing. The citizens did try and rise up at various times. Not many survived.
-
@slyadams said:
the US had 57 per 100k, while the UK had 2.
57? I see 5.7.
The UK entry is missing data for all the years in the 2000's except for two.
I also see that the UK/England/Wales is on the rise, while the US is on the decline.
Sorry, but your 'evidence' supports my claims.
-
@Duroth said:
What I can't stomach, however, is the fact that you, MPS, feel the need to challenge our beliefs, to even go as far as not only question our sense of courage, but downright deny its existence.
That was me, dumbass. I guess reading comprehension is as much a Dutch value as not defending yourself or your loved ones.
@Duroth said:
And why?
Because your country is full of people who would rather be victims and rely on the police for protection than stand up for themselves. This is the definition of cowardice.
@Duroth said:
In America, people are afraid to go out into the streets without any means of physical protection, and your government thrives on keeping these emotions intact.
Bullshit. I'm not at all afraid to go out unarmed because things are really quite safe around me. In fact, unarmed is the only way I go out because I do not (yet) have the necessary license to carry a concealed firearm. It's actually quite an involved process meant to weed out the criminal or mentally unstable, but continue to believe your delusions that anyone can just walk into the supermarket and purchase a gun. However, even though I do not feel personally in danger, I'm not delusional enough to believe that there are not bad people in the world nor am I pathetic enough to assume my government should protect me at all times. If something were to happen, I would have trouble living with myself knowing that I could have done something but was simply too afraid to. There are plenty of cases of civilians being gunned down like animals by psychos who knew none of them would be armed due to restrictions on possession, like those that apply to public schools and universities. Personally, I don't want to become one of those victims but even more I don't want to sit cowering under a table while a madman with a gun executes my fellow citizens.
Police are usually armed as well. If they aren't, they aren't very much good when something awful does happen, are they? Most police officers are decent people who are simply doing their job, but they are still human: it's not like they are of some magical race that can posses firearms safely while the rest of us cannot. When private citizens carry concealed firearms they are simply providing backup for those cases when the police cannot be there. Additionally, most criminals aren't going to commit criminal acts right in front of the police, but they most likely will have no such problem in front of private citizens. However, if they know that any of those citizens could be armed, then they may think twice about their choice of career. And if they still go ahead with the crime and a citizen who is carrying a concealed firearm is nearby, then hopefully we will have one less living criminal.
-
@PJH said:
@morbiuswilters said:
a right to self-defense has been there from the founding and has only been reaffirmed time and again by the legislature and judicial branches.
Just like habeas corpus? Oh wait...More off-topic anti-American trolling in my TDWTF? It's more likely than you think!
Yes, habeas corpus was a fundamental right established in the Constitution and enshrined by centuries of legal precedent. And it is still quite active for US citizens. The whole "enemy combatants" thing was pretty bullshit and most Americans didn't agree with it and neither did the US Supreme Court. Still, it only affects a minor number of people who are not US citizens and who have been suspected of aiding terrorist activities. Personally I don't agree with the way this is being handled, but it's hardly a major power-grab by the government. And if anything, it only reaffirms my point about government: you should never just blindly assume it has your best interests at heart. That's why there are many, many checks on government power in this country from the right to free speech to the right to possess firearms.
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
57? I see 5.7.
The US murder rate isn't even twice that of Switzerland?? And the FBI even insists we pad our numbers so it appears we have as many murders as possible! But.. but... the Swiss are European and they did everything right and they aren't insane cowboys gunning each other down in the streets like Americans are.. This just cannot be!
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@PJH said:
@morbiuswilters said:
a right to self-defense has been there from the founding and has only been reaffirmed time and again by the legislature and judicial branches.
Just like habeas corpus? Oh wait...More off-topic anti-American trolling in my TDWTF? It's more likely than you think!
Would you expect any less of PJH though?
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
57? I see 5.7.
The US murder rate isn't even twice that of Switzerland?? And the FBI even insists we pad our numbers so it appears we have as many murders as possible! But.. but... the Swiss are European and they did everything right and they aren't insane cowboys gunning each other down in the streets like Americans are.. This just cannot be!
What I really like about this argument is all the antigun morons arguing that it is much harder and less frequent to commit homicide without a gun, and yet when you look at their country's homicide rates they are on par with gun toting countries.
Sure are a lot of people being hacked up and strangled in the UK I guess!
-
@Duroth said:
So you resort to calling us cowards.
I forgot to thank you guys for your stunning courage shown against the Nazis. If it weren't for the Dutch, we'd all be speaking German today! Oh, they tried to remain neutral but were invaded by the Germans? Then they surrendered faster than the French and assisted the occupying forces in rounding up Jews for slaughter? No way!
There's a reason alcohol is referred to as "Dutch Courage".
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
What I really like about this argument is all the antigun morons arguing that it is much harder and less frequent to commit homicide without a gun, and yet when you look at their country's homicide rates they are on par with gun toting countries.
Also, I should mention that the Swiss actually have a higher rate of gun ownership than the US. Once again proving abso-fucking-lutely no correlation between gun ownership and murder rates. Murder rates seem to be more based on historical and cultural factors than anything else.
Meanwhile, outside of murder the US has a lower rate of crime than the UK. Additionally, the UK's crime rate is on the rise whereas the US's is falling.
Yes, I know you posted this but every single anti-gun nut has ignored it thus far. I figured bolding it might help them notice it, but that's probably being too hopeful. After all, if the Europeans were capable of learning from history then they'd be Americans.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
I forgot to thank you guys for your stunning courage shown against the Nazis. If it weren't for the Dutch, we'd all be speaking German today! Oh, they tried to remain neutral but were invaded by the Germans? Then they surrendered faster than the French and assisted the occupying forces in rounding up Jews for slaughter? No way!
Woo, the ole you'd-be-speaking-german-if-it-weren't-for-us. I agree with morbiuswilters. There was Holland, a country close to Germany outgunned, outnumbered under assault when blietzkrieg was still under way and noone had yet found a way to counter it and those wussies lost.In the meantime the US, a superpower on the other side of the globe, surrounded by oceans and nations that posed no threat to it, far from the reach of any significant type of german attack, valiantly resisted the onslaught. Not only that but it came to our rescue. Sure it was years after the war started, millions had died and Nazi germany had accumulated so may resources that it would inevitably target the US next anyway, but that doesn't matter because they saved us. Incidentally the side fighting the Nazis in the war was known as the Allies, but as we all know it was just the Americans. A hundred Hollywood movies can't be wrong.
Thank God for America. Especially the later generations which had absolutely nothing to do with WWII but they still think they should get credit. Why I saw morbiuswilters himself take out a whole platoon of Nazis and destroy a tank with nothing but a toothpick. Then he had to turn the Playstation off cause it was dinner time.
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
@morbiuswilters said:
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
57? I see 5.7.
The US murder rate isn't even twice that of Switzerland?? And the FBI even insists we pad our numbers so it appears we have as many murders as possible! But.. but... the Swiss are European and they did everything right and they aren't insane cowboys gunning each other down in the streets like Americans are.. This just cannot be!
What I really like about this argument is all the antigun morons arguing that it is much harder and less frequent to commit homicide without a gun, and yet when you look at their country's homicide rates they are on par with gun toting countries.
Sure are a lot of people being hacked up and strangled in the UK I guess!
OK, so in the US you are over twice as likely to be shot dead than in Canada, almost 3 times than in the UK and over 4 times more than in Australia and New Zealand.
If you think you guys are safer and freer than those counties, then fill your boots. In fact, you are so free that you can't even read a poker fourm. Good luck with that freedom!
-
@morbiuswilters said:
From the Reason article linked by MPS above:
Oh, the article. Right. The actual paper that they're quoting says that at a rough guess, the murder rate between 1800 and 1850 in New York City was just under twice that of the whole of Europe. I should think so - big nasty city like that.
But surely all this rather makes the point more clear. As you yourself so eloquently argue, the US is a more violent nation than most of the rest of the world. Is that a good reason for making the dangerous toys more freely available? This is exactly the same argument as 'the school run' - the more cars, the more dangerous, the less safe, the more cars. In places where they discourage cars, the more children walk / cycle, the fitter everybody gets and the lower the accident rate. Simple, no?
-
@DOA said:
There was Holland, a country close to Germany outgunned, outnumbered under assault when blietzkrieg was still under way and noone had yet found a way to counter it and those wussies lost.
Yes, remaining neutral, surrendering after 7 days and then assisting occupying forces in genocide sure sounds valiant to me!
@DOA said:
In the meantime the US, a superpower on the other side of the globe...
The US wasn't a superpower until after WWII. Learn your history.
@DOA said:
...surrounded by oceans and nations that posed no threat to it...
Hey, Canada had moose and awful tasting beer, we had to defend our borders first.
@DOA said:
Sure it was years after the war started, millions had died...
I suppose it would have made more sense for the US to get involved when it lacked the arms to take on the Germans. I will be sure to use the TimePhone to inform President Roosevelt of this cunning Dutch military advice.
@DOA said:
Incidentally the side fighting the Nazis in the war was known as the Allies, but as we all know it was just the Americans.
Sure, I never meant to downplay the efforts made by the British and Russians as they were key to success. The US did play an integral role in liberating Europe so I'm not sure what you are bitching about, though. I guess the Dutch are still pissed off that they had to lay curled up in a fetal position for few years while a force to counter the Germans was amassed. Hey, you can get some nasty cramps from laying curled up that long!
@DOA said:
Thank God for America.
Damn straight.
@DOA said:
Especially the later generations which had absolutely nothing to do with WWII but they still think they should get credit.
I never meant to imply that I personally had anything to do with the war effort. I mean, that should be obvious, anyway. My point was you should show a little fucking respect to the values represented by America and to those who gave their lives so you can sit on your ass today and complain about having to wait so long to be rescued.
-
@slyadams said:
OK, so in the US you are over twice as likely to be shot dead than in Canada, almost 3 times than in the UK and over 4 times more than in Australia and New Zealand.
If you think you guys are safer and freer than those counties, then fill your boots. In fact, you are so free that you can't even read a poker fourm. Good luck with that freedom!
Remind me again how this is related to gun ownership??
You are reverting back to this point depsite all the evidence staring you right in the face.
Look at our number of large cities with population density in the US and England. That would explain a lot more than anything you have said so far.
Time to face facts: You are wrong. There is no correlation (in violence) between gun ownership and violent crimes. Also, you and most of the others arguing here are full of propaganda and fantasies about grocery store gun buying and a 'cowboy culture'.
