Guns in the US (again)

[Falcoknight]

!@#$%^&* it.

 

SHorter version of the page I just wrote:

 

If you think America will have any sort of ban on owning firearms any time soon, you're re!@#$%^&*ed.

It's about as likely as us trying prohibition again.

Edited December 8, 2007 by Falcoknight

[ESCANDAL0SA]

and with that at!@#$%^&*ude, that's the reason why you have random shooting sprees every month, and why you're 7 times more likely to be shot in the streets of America compared to Canada.

[ThunderJam]

Losa he never said he supports us not getting rid of it. He simply says that he thinks the reality is that It wont happen.

[Falcoknight]

That's basically it.

 

I believe that there need to be massively tighter restrictions on firearms in this country, but I've held that opinion for a long time and I no longer even bother arguing it because living in this country, as I have, and I know Losa did, it's too apparent that there are too many people who hold their right to bear arms higher than they hold the ideal of being safe walking the streets.

[ESCANDAL0SA]

ThunderJam, that's what i mean. no one's standing up to fight against it, because everyone has the mentality that "it will never happen". Canada should demand more strict policies on guns because most of the gun crimes happening there directly involve guns from America. and Americans should demand it too.

[AstroProdigy]

It's the same situation as the teacher's unions. The NRA looks for bipartisan support and have a large base of followers willing to follow their word of who to vote for solely on that candidates stance on gun laws. Teachers do the same thing and that's why it's been impossible to p!@#$%^&* legislation fixing our education system because those measures would weaken the power and security of teachers.

 

You're never going to get enough people to vote against candidates solely on whether they support guns because there simply is not nor will ever be enough shootings. Most people are just willing to accept a shooting per month as less important than other issues. You'd have to fundamentally change the nature of our democracy if you want anything to ever be done on this issue (or hope the supreme court does so undemocratically).

 

Parliamentary systems have stronger built in controls against these problems since you vote for a party and not an individual and thus you avoid individual people willing to do anything for a victory, but don't expect that to ever happen here. If you can think of another way I'm all ears (or eyes since this is a forum).

[NBVegita]

Actually LOSA,

 

What I find amusing is that you criticize us for our use of force but they just passed policy in england making it legal to taser minors.

 

Oh and for your canada crime...

 

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/is...75-81061c3cee14

 

"More broadly: Canada's overall crime rate is now 50% higher than the crime rate in the United States. Read that again slowly -- it seems incredible, but it's true. It's true too that you are now more likely to be mugged in Toronto than in New York City."

 

Maybe you need to use the nightstick more...or invest in some tasers.

 

That is not the only source I could cite that has used the same statistics. I just figured you'd be more likely to believe an article written by canadians...on a webpage called canada.com.

 

The plain and simple fact is you made an errant claim that you have little to no crime problem, and that the Americans have such a problem with it, when in actuality all of our numbers have been decreasing over the past decade while yours have been skyrocketing.

 

I just love erroneous stereotyping.

 

Two posts of mine from another topic.

 

"Since the early 1990s, crime rates have dropped in 48 of the 50 states and % of American cities. Over that same period, crime rates have risen in six of the 10 Canadian provinces and in seven of Canada's 10 biggest cities."

 

"Enforcing laws against vagrancy, pros!@#$%^&*ution and drug dealing works. Yet Canada is either decriminalizing or tolerating all three. The right kinds of gun laws work too: for example, extending the sentence of any criminal who commits any crime -- down to jaywalking -- while in possession of a gun."

 

"It is not guns from across the border that threaten Canadians. It is the weak and cynical policies of home-grown politicians, and especially the Chretien/Martin Liberals. The $2-billion wasted on the gun registry could have paid for more cops, more prisons, more of everything that would protect the lives and security of Canadians. It is the federal Liberal government that releases young offenders back into the community, the federal Liberals who appoint the judges who refuse to punish, the federal Liberals who run the prison system as if it were a summer camp, the federal Liberals who refuse to deport immigrants who break the law, the federal Liberals who have subordinated public safety to ethnic politics."

 

Excerpts from that article.

[Bak]

can you repost the link to the article? the one in the quote got messed up.

[NBVegita]

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/is...75-81061c3cee14

 

That one is working for me

 

If not, its in this topic:

 

http://www.ssforum.net/index.php?showtopic...50&start=50

[Tiq]

in Canada, where guns are banned

 

Guns are not banned in Canada. You simply have to have a license and register for your gun.

[Bak]

that source clearly says that there are more murders in the cities of the United States than Toronto. The gap's gotten narrower in the past 10 years, but it's still quite sizable.

 

Anyways it says crime is 50% higher in canada but it doesn't specify what type of crime (murder, muggings, jaywalking). Here's another source that makes the distinction: http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/011218/d011218b.htm

The homicide rate was three times higher in the United States than it was in Canada, while the American rate for aggravated assault was double the Canadian rate. For robbery, the rate was 65% higher in the United States.

 

On the other hand, since 1990, Canada has recorded slightly higher rates of property crime, although the rates have gradually been converging during the late 1990s. Canada has higher reported rates than the United States for breaking and entering, motor vehicle theft and arson.

[ESCANDAL0SA]

actually... Canadian murders haven't really "increased", not that i've seen. they're always comparing the numbers on the news, and they're still approximately the same, with some cities' murders increasing and some decreasing. what they're saying is that the murders in Canada relative to the murders in America have increased, making the gap smaller. but we're not talking about overall murders. we're talking about gun crimes. and gun crimes have steadily decreased in the past decade. this was the information i got from recently watching a news research piece, kinda like a do!@#$%^&*entary. and are you serious? you honestly think that you have more chances of getting mugged in Canada? lmao. that's a joke. it's common sense. take 360+ murders in Philadelphia and the murders in Toronto. the murders in Toronto have been steady over the last couple years, in the range of 70-. last year it was , this year it's gonna be a bit more. and property crimes doesn't count, seeing as how we're talking about murders and specifically gun murders. Edited December 9, 2007 by L0SA

[ESCANDAL0SA]

in Canada, where guns are banned

 

Guns are not banned in Canada. You simply have to have a license and register for your gun.

 

 

i'm using banned to define the laws in Canada and the states. you rarely see people in Canada desperately seeking licenses for guns. for the main part, guns are kept out of Canadians' hands due to the strict gun laws. and it has helped. Canada is a pretty safe place to live.

[Tiq]

No doubt about that. However, from what I understand, there are many Canadian gun owners. I think it is more the Canadian state of mind that allows it to be a far safer place than the United States.

[L.C.]

...and goes nuts, how the !@#$%^&* are you supposed to prevent that?

Give everyone the full right to bear arms like they were originally en!@#$%^&*led to by the amendment. This is without license.

 

I really doubt anyone would want to walk into a mall where everyone is potentially carrying a firearm and attempt to take them all on.

 

but one theory behind not banning guns is that if only the government is allowed to have guns, then if we attempt a revolution, we will never be able to overthrow our government.

Wouldn't call it a conspiracy theory. From the words of an officer/soldier who came to our school to tell us how it works to get into the marines and army, he said that at the academy/base or whatever (where they train you), they break you and transform you to obey them.

 

Now psychologically, how easy do you think it would be to break apart from that after several years of this kind of treatment? (Not easy at all; your mentality would be different too!)

 

If the PEOPLE have no guns and no way of getting ahold of guns, they are totally enslaved by their government at this point.

 

Back generations or decades ago, the term "militia" meant the PEOPLE -- not the military, army, marines, etc as we know today.

 

Not only does taking guns away from the PEOPLE entirely disable them from revolution and self defense, but it also fuels and encourages the already present criminals to do more. You think the government and police will protect you? Hah.

 

Also how do you think you would protect yourselves to the death from terrorists for the cause and sake of freedom?

 

If you ask me, the United Nations wants to take the guns away from the PEOPLE completely.

 

If you think America will have any sort of ban on owning firearms any time soon

Oh they will...atleast they are working on it and have been working on it for several decades.

 

http://www.guncite.com/

 

 

For those who are for gun control / banning firearms altogether:

Now if you are open minded person, you will not disregard or just skim through the following website. You will treat it with respect and take it to heart and evaluate both sides. If you don't want to because you think it'll convert or change you, that alone is ignorance (no matter what the topic is). I am not asking anyone to "convert" over, but asking to carefully, personally, and critically think and read through the information presented...research and finding out for yourself with a truely honest and open manner.

http://www.gunfacts.info/

[Bak]

sorry to burst your bubble, but guns are not enough let the PEOPLE to overrun the US government. they have tanks and nukes. should the PEOPLE have the right to own tanks and nukes too?

 

if everyone was carrying a firearm I would not go into any bar.

 

 

 

also, that source is very biased... if you just jump in any random section you'll find problems. So here's the part of that source that deals with the study I posted:

 

Myth: Handguns are 43 times more likely to kill a family member than a criminal

 

Fact: Of the 43 deaths reported in this flawed study, 37 (86%) were suicides. Other deaths involved criminal activity between the family members (drug deals gone bad).

 

Fact: Of the remaining deaths, the deceased family members include felons, drug dealers, violent spouses committing assault, and other criminals.

 

So basically I think he's saying that a suicide shouldn't count as killing a family member? Also... how many "other deaths" account for criminal activity between family members? 1% 50%? why say when it might hurt your argument? same goes for fact #2. The remaining dead include criminals... o noes... how many criminals isn't said.

 

Here's another one:

Myth: Guns from the U.S. create crime in other countries

Fact: Canada, which shares the longest and most open border with the U.S., doesn’t think so, saying guns from the U.S. are a "small part" of the problem.

How can Canada (a country) "say" anything? Any logical person would track the amount of crimes committed with guns from the US inside Canada. Instead, he just quotes a Canadian attorney. A quote is not proof! Anyone who's watched doctors give testimonials on infomercials knows this.

 

These are just the first two things I looked at closely, I'm sure it's littered with such non-arguments.

[L.C.]

sorry to burst your bubble, but guns are not enough let the PEOPLE to overrun the US government. they have tanks and nukes. should the PEOPLE have the right to own tanks and nukes too?

That is your opinion that you don't think guns are enough to overrun a people. While that may be true, it holds no justification in the Cons!@#$%^&*ution.

 

The topic is about firearms, not technological weapons. There's quite a difference when you take "firearms" up to a whole new field (irrelevant to firearms).

 

in this flawed study, 37 (86%) were

Did you add in "flawed"?

The remaining dead include criminals... o noes... how many criminals isn't said.

At!@#$%^&*ude.

 

Anyhow, I respect your opinion. It is your decision and analysis to make, while it is mine also. In my case I have concluded differently, but that is just as ok as yours. :]

[Synister]

As Chris Rock said :

 

"We shouldnt have gun control but bullet control. Have 1 bullet cost 5000$. So I would be like "I would shoot if only I could afford it!" and when someone is shot, YOU KNOW they deserved it!"

Edited December 11, 2007 by Synister

[ThunderJam]

No doubt about that. However, from what I understand, there are many Canadian gun owners. I think it is more the Canadian state of mind that allows it to be a far safer place than the United States.

After the sean taylor death, a black columnist for fox sports wrote a collumn about the hip-hop culture indirectly glorifying violence, etc. Obviously very controversial, but I think to some extent its true. Even if their work doesnt promote it, people view figures in the industry as role models, even though in their lives they are gun-toting punks. Poses a little bit of a problem lol.

[Cancer+]

So now you are bringing the media into why people shoot people?

[ThunderJam]

I think it plays a role. It wouldnt be the WHY people shoot people, but I think it makes the idea of guns more appealing/acceptable to some people.

 

I mean as far as a national mindset goes, America is obsessed with shallow pop culture. If some thugs are treated like gods as part of that culture, doesn't that wear off on society? Obviously not everyone, but i don't think it can be ignored either.

[Aileron]

To understand the reasoning behind the Second Amendment, and why this right was so early on the list, one needs to examine the motivations of the Founding Fathers. Their goal was to form a democracy that would not collapse back into a monarchy. Several monarchies had existed before that time, such as the Holy Roman Empire, which involved voting each leader in, but despite the presence of the vote the winner would always be the Prince of Austria. The Bill of Rights was written for that purpose, because without these rights, all we would have is a majority dictatorship in which the majority had best support the dictator if they knew what's good for them.

 

 

Thus, if one wants to prevent collapse into fuedalism, one must examine the forces which gave rise to fuedalism in the first place. Fuedalism started as farmers would band together and give a lord a certain amount of money. The lord would in turn use that money to provide police and military services. Realise that police service is not much different than any other service, it is provided by an organization which will charge a fee to provide it, but keep in mind that police service is a "need" rather than a "want". The lord initially could not charge to much, because if he charged the farmers too much, they could drop from his service, buy weapons of their own, and protect their farms with their own two hands. His prices were governed by the laws of economics.

 

After a while, people got the idea to ban weapons, for the same reasons used today. They imagined it would be harder for bandits and theives to get ahold of them. These bans occurred in virtually every fuedalistic society in history from Europe to the Middle East to Japan. What happened in each case was that once weapons were banned, the farmers did not have that opportunity to drop from their lord's protection service. The lord, having a monopoly on security, would increase his wages until his customers became in debt to him and became serfs. The rest is history.

 

A ban on guns gives the government a monoply in security. The reason it is not blatant today is that there is enough compe!@#$%^&*ion for political offices which will stir up the mix. If a mayor gets too soft on crime or charges too many taxes, that mayor is replaced. However, the problem with that is that the only thing preventing something very much like fuedalism from occuring is the two-party system - should one of the parties collapse a path towards dictatorship would be opened. I for one would prefer something more reliable.

 

Guns should be purchasable by virtually anyone. There should also be armed security forces in the private sector, capable of being employed by schools, malls, banks, or any other business. They should be able to deal lethal force to criminals without too much legal trouble.

 

In practicality that would mean hiring street gangs to secure the streets as a secondary police force. To the liberal minded, this will seem like a terrible thing, but to me, what it would do is atleast give sinking communities an option to avoid the vicious cycle of crime and poverty which will occur when the justice system fails to do its job.

 

Essentially, the check-and-balance here is between the government police and courts which have democratic authority, and the private detectives, bounty hunters, vigilantes, and security organizations which are able to fill in where the government is lacking. We need both. If we were to accept that the private forces could not truly function under an armament gap, then the Second Amendment is essential.

 

Ofcourse, if you are a socialistic country like Canada, you are relying on your government to provide several "need" services within a monopoly, so arms freedom is moot. The system works fine now, fair enough. However, if one political party ever got a strong majority, realise that said party would control security, electricity, transportation, taxes, health care, communications, and a bunch of other things. All they would need to do then is find a cleaver way to prevent other political parties from forming, which seems doable given how many needs the major party would control, and then with their one-party domination they could then throw the essence of democracy out the window.

[ESCANDAL0SA]

media does play a role in shootings. for example, the Omaha Mall shooting. Robert Hawkings, i think is his name. he said he wanted to go out "famous". Where else did he get that idea? He wanted to commit suicide, but instead, looked at past events where criminals had the spotlight, and decided to go shoot up a mall, then turn the gun on himself. this is what i mean, though the 2nd amendment says that people have the right to bear arms, you guys are pretty much puttings guns into the hands of the wrong people. i forgot the number, but i think it was 2/3 of adults suffer from psychological problems at least once in their lifetime. anybody can go crazy and take the gun out on others. you have no way if knowing of somebody is gonna go psycho.

 

it's pretty much saying, "it's okay, you haven't gone crazy yet, since it doesn't say on your record, and you haven't been involved in criminal activity - so here, you can have the gun, i believe you're responsible."

 

i have friends who buy guns illegally, and ALL these guns are from America.

Edited December 11, 2007 by L0SA

[Cancer+]

I think it plays a role. It wouldnt be the WHY people shoot people, but I think it makes the idea of guns more appealing/acceptable to some people.

 

I mean as far as a national mindset goes, America is obsessed with shallow pop culture. If some thugs are treated like gods as part of that culture, doesn't that wear off on society? Obviously not everyone, but i don't think it can be ignored either.

 

I agree with you, but then it should be the parents job to monitor what their kids are watching. And if someone old enough thinks they are cool because they see someone on tv have a gun, so they need a gun, then that crosses the crazy line.

[ThunderJam]

Doesnt all come down to tv tho, thats the problem. Theres almost no effective way to prevent a kid from being exposed to the hip-hop, gang culture, Whether it be on tv, radio, online, music, or in rea life.

 

And half the time, parents are the problem. In low minority families, the parents often never get past their teenage mentality. I know plenty of black families (not tryin to be racist, but the people THAT I KNOW in this situation are mostly bkack) that the parents are just as stupid and shallow as the kids. When you have 30 year old single parents of ghetto families that still act like a teenager, the kids don't even have a chance to become any different lol.

Edited December 12, 2007 by ThunderJam