This really happened? And pretel... why?
I wouldn't bet on it, but I suspect he was more trying to get a shocked reaction rather than actually being racist.
"Thought it was funny" is my guess as well.
Yeah; probably an employee (possibly customer, but my bet would be employee) who gained access to the PA system and thought it would be funny in a shocking kind of way. It isn't; it's just stupid and nasty. But people are stupid and nasty, so I guess it should be no surprise.
I'd guess customer, actually. An employee would've been caught quick.
Mind you there are MANY other legit reasons to boycott Walmart but this isn't it.
And I also agree that people are really dumb for boycotting Wal*Mart because of it. There's so little security around the phones, I could go do the same thing tonight if I wanted to. But I guess people just like blaming a target they can see.
Someone check Fox to see if they're blaming it on Obama yet.
{snicker} Best quote in this thread, thus far.
Looks like they arrested the teen they think did it.
[link]
Looks like they arrested the teen they think did it.
Wow teenagers can be really really stupid. Maybe he will learn his lesson and hopefully the fact that he was arrested will prevent anyone else from getting a brilliant idea like this.
As to Fox news no nothing could legitamize them at all in any way shape or form. Not as long as they have Glen Beck anyway.
As to Fox news no nothing could legitamize them at all in any way shape or form. Not as long as they have Glen Beck anyway.
"Fox News" is a bigger oxymoron than "Microsoft Works".
In danger of getting terribly political, Obama has been giving the right-wing "chances" since he stepped into office, and been rebuked every time. The guy doesn't know how to quit them.
Bipartisanship is a laudable goal, but it is folly to keep committing so much time and effort towards this goal when the other party is intransigent to the point of being an active and willfull impediment to governance. There comes a time when a leader must say "to hell with you, then" and use the mandate they have been given to lead and to govern.
That said, the United States is in desperate need of a drastic government overhaul. From the top down, things need to be redone. There is, of course, a problem with this, too. While the need certainly is desperate, the people are not. Yet.
One problem with that. It's not democratic in the least.
Of course it's not democratic. It's a republic. And if the majority of elected officials are for something, that's enough for stuff to pass, as that's how our republic works.
Seriously, the majority party gets to rule. Thats how it works for us. And until we get a viable third party (such that no party has 50% of the senate or house) that's how it will continue to work.
Of course it's not democratic. It's a republic. And if the majority of elected officials are for something, that's enough for stuff to pass, as that's how our republic works.
Seriously, the majority party gets to rule. Thats how it works for us. And until we get a viable third party (such that no party has 50% of the senate or house) that's how it will continue to work.
Well, if there is enough of a majority, stuff does pass. Right now, that's not the case. There's a reason for that - the people are not united. Any forcing of any measure now is simply an attempt to avoid debate (not that any is actually happening, both sides are certain they're right). Plus I don't feel anything is ready. Not even close. Too many secret deals to buy votes and too many voices in opposition simply because that's what the other guy what wears the same tie is doin'. It's all crap, really. One side is trying to force it through at any cost just to show they can and the other is doin' its damndest to prevent it without actually talking about it. One side is willing to dilute the measure and sell their souls to make themselves look good and the other is willing to f-over everyone just so they can be right. Until all that goes away, we've got to be content with whatever side we're on doing their best to get something resembling what we want don - be that selling themselves for votes or acting like petulant children. So sad.
Ann Coulter fans I don't get at all. You'd have to not be living in any Reality as we know it to consider that thing as a human being, let alone as remotely sane, and you'd really have to be even more far out there to find her views Agreeable.
Ann Coulter fans I don't get at all. You'd have to not be living in any Reality as we know it to consider that thing as a human being, let alone as remotely sane, and you'd really have to be even more far out there to find her views Agreeable.
I am beginning to think that Ann Coulter is having us on, that she's actually a brilliant satirist - a sort of Don Rickles for the new millennium - who adopts the grotesquely caricatured personae of an ignorant paranoid xenophobic bigoted sociopath in order to highlight and ridicule such atrocious attitudes and behavior.
Either that or she really is bat
crazy.Ann Coulter fans I don't get at all. You'd have to not be living in any Reality as we know it to consider that thing as a human being, let alone as remotely sane, and you'd really have to be even more far out there to find her views Agreeable.
I am beginning to think that Ann Coulter is having us on, that she's actually a brilliant satirist - a sort of Don Rickles for the new millennium - who adopts the grotesquely caricatured personae of an ignorant paranoid xenophobic bigoted sociopath in order to highlight and ridicule such atrocious attitudes and behavior.
Either that or she really is bat
She just got shut down at one of her speaking engagements in Canada. About 2000 protesters gathered and managed to prevent her from speaking. It was at some university, I forget which one.
Amazing. Sad, too.
She just got shut down at one of her speaking engagements in Canada. About 2000 protesters gathered and managed to prevent her from speaking. It was at some university, I forget which one.
Not quite.
The speaking engagament was at the University of Ottawa. There was a huge crowd there, too many for the room to hold. Coultergeist claims there was "violence" in the crowd and the police forced her to cancel it. The police said there was no violence and they simply suggested moving it to a larger venue. Man Coulter then called the university "bush league", which begs the question why she bothered booking a speaking engagement there to being with.
So in actuality she shut herself down, and then lied and tried to blame it on others…kind of like she does with everything.
She just got shut down at one of her speaking engagements in Canada. About 2000 protesters gathered and managed to prevent her from speaking. It was at some university, I forget which one.
Not quite.
The speaking engagament was at the University of Ottawa. There was a huge crowd there, too many for the room to hold. Coultergeist claims there was "violence" in the crowd and the police forced her to cancel it. The police said there was no violence and they simply suggested moving it to a larger venue. Man Coulter then called the university "bush league", which begs the question why she bothered booking a speaking engagement there to being with.
So in actuality she shut herself down, and then lied and tried to blame it on others…kind of like she does with everything.
Wait people actually listen to her? I thought she was like Rush Limbaugh just a hate filled spiteful person that no one takes seriously because she is so far out there.
It's because they are either Old people. That really don't remember what the Good Old Days were like, or they are Old People that arent' active participants in Current Society.
I'm not even sure just what you're railing against here (people that watch Glenn Beck? That watch Fox News? That don't like HCR? That don't like HRC?), but I'm pretty sure you're off-base as while the older generations do have some bias towards conservatism, not all of them by a long shot, and not all the right-wing nut-jobs are senior citizens either.
Wait people actually listen to her? I thought she was like Rush Limbaugh just a hate filled spiteful person that no one takes seriously because she is so far out there.
To smart people, yes, but there are a lot of very stupid people out there who fall for the fear mongering paranoid BS spewed by nutcases like Limbaugh, Beck, Coultergeist, Hannity, O'Reilly, Bush, Cheney, Rove, Army, Bachman, Palin, Malkin, et al. So gullible are these poor, gullible fools that many of them (Teabaggers/Astroturfers being prime recent examples) are routinely convinced to fight aggresively - sometimes violently - against their own self-interest. How messed up is that?
Thing is, like many of these talking head whackos, good ol' Man Coulter is well aware she is talking a load of
. She knows she is shovelling truckloads of weapons-grade bull and so much prefers nice little soft-pitch engagements where people aren't going to question her and pick her nonsense ramblings apart with pesky facts and actual information, and she is smart enough to know that when 2000 people show up at a Canadian (read: socialist) university to hear her speak they are not a sympathetic crowd so she does what all these snivelling cowards do - she tucked her penis tail between her legs and blamed it on the Liberals.Personally, I'm sad she was too afraid to stand up and speak. As much as a loathe every angular, jutting bone in her semi-humanoid body, she pushes the limits of free speech. If we only permit those with whom we agree to speak it craps on the very notion of free speech. The test when we allow this with whom we disagree, those who we despise, to say their piece no matter how much we loathe every hateful word coming out of their face-****.
And we must always, always remember that the insanity is only coming from one side. FROM ONE SIDE!!!
Honestly I can't think of anyone currently on the other side that is as virulent or insane as beck and coulter, at least not that is currently published anyway I could always be wrong, but I see a lot of books being put out by conservatives about how the liberals are destroying america and not many from the otherside of the fence, at least not that are crazed ramblings, or the self serving propaganda Ie beck and Rove. Then again Chenney should have been charged with Treason and everyone involved with water boarding charged with human rights violations but that's another story alltogether.
And we must always, always remember that the insanity is only coming from one side. FROM ONE SIDE!!!
I never said anything of the sort, but just cos there are two sides does not mean they are equally hateful, stupid, spiteful, loathsome, or ignorant.
I could always be wrong, but I see a lot of books being put out by conservatives about how the liberals are destroying america and not many from the otherside of the fence
Oh they exist alright, but they tend to be a lot heavier on the facts (knowing that the right will tear it apart unless it is air-tight tends to make for detailed research) and a lot lighter on paranoid rambling, and histrionics. I recommend Lies and the Lying Liars who Tell Them and The Truth (with Jokes), both by now-Senator Al Franken.
I never said anything of the sort, but just cos there are two sides does not mean they are equally hateful, stupid, spiteful, loathsome, or ignorant.
I never said you did say anything of the sort. I just noticed your - coincidental, I'm sure - neglect of mentioning nutjobs from the other side o' the fence is all. And I felt like mentioning that both sides have their nutballs and both sides suck. This reminds me of something I said today in another thread: '... People that identify with a particular party, though, are quite often elitist enough to think that their party isn't doing anything wrong.'
I could always be wrong, but I see a lot of books being put out by conservatives about how the liberals are destroying america and not many from the otherside of the fence
Oh they exist alright, but they tend to be a lot heavier on the facts (knowing that the right will tear it apart unless it is air-tight tends to make for detailed research) and a lot lighter on paranoid rambling, and histrionics. I recommend Lies and the Lying Liars who Tell Them and The Truth (with Jokes), both by now-Senator Al Franken.
AH okay may have to read those wish more people on the left would tear apart the trash being written by the right, expose it for the self serving garbage it is. I tried to read through some of Rove's book and coulnd't stomach the crap in it.
Left vs Right is exactly where our politicians want us to be. Pick a side and we all lose. We, the people, need to unite. Screw these caricatures of political parties we have to deal with (and, for all sorts of craptastic reasons, allow to exist). The moment you see one side as worse than the other is the moment you lose sight of the actual state of things. And it's the moment you surrender yourself to the machine. The machine, man. Who wants that?
I never said you did say anything of the sort. I just noticed your - coincidental, I'm sure - neglect of mentioning nutjobs from the other side o' the fence is all.
That's cos it grew out of discussing a single particular nutjob, not nutjobs in general.
One of the rumors I heard this morning, that was later proven false, was that Coultergeist's talk was called off cos of death threats and I was totally pumped to rip into those responsible. Idiocy is constrained to no party, no creed, no race, and no religion - but neither is it equally spread among them.
And I felt like mentioning that both sides have their nutballs and both sides suck. This reminds me of something I said today in another thread: '... People that identify with a particular party, though, are quite often elitist enough to think that their party isn't doing anything wrong.'
Yeah, but I'm not one of them and this isn't about parties.
*sigh*
Left vs Right is exactly where our politicians want us to be. Pick a side and we all lose. We, the people, need to unite. Screw these caricatures of political parties we have to deal with (and, for all sorts of craptastic reasons, allow to exist). The moment you see one side as worse than the other is the moment you lose sight of the actual state of things. And it's the moment you surrender yourself to the machine. The machine, man. Who wants that?
Yes, but one side is better than the other. The problem lies in creating political parties strictly along those lines.
That's cos it grew out of discussing a single particular nutjob, not nutjobs in general.
That's fine. I just wanted to make it clear that there's more than one group of nutjobs.
One of the rumors I heard this morning, that was later proven false, was that Coultergeist's talk was called off cos of death threats and I was totally pumped to rip into those responsible. Idiocy is constrained to no party, no creed, no race, and no religion - but neither is it equally spread among them.
I believe it. You don't strike me as the sort that would ignore something like that simply because it was done from the 'side' of things you support.
Yeah, but I'm not one of them and this isn't about parties.
You could easily substitute 'side' or 'ideology' for party, really. Or a crapton of other stuff, too. And I do want to point out that the discussion reminded me of my statement and not the people involved in it. Another one of them things I just wanted to say is all.
Yes, but one side is better than the other. The problem lies in creating political parties strictly along those lines.
But that's the problem. The side you think is the better side may well be - for you (and, of course, myriad others). It may not better for me, however.
I believe our two party system is to blame. Instead of varied concepts, we have 'X' and 'Not X'. In order to differentiate themselves from their rivals, each group has pushed further and further toward the insanely extreme. In reality, they should be coming closer to each other in ideology. But that means that if one candidate is too much like the other, he may well lose cuz of his haircut or something. Our problem is that we've allowed ourselves to be captured (and held hostage) by political theater. It's over the top because, now, that's what they need to get voted in. And since it works for elected officials and there are only so many places available at that table, a kids' table has been formed through the media. Political theater is a thriving business and it's one we support. Hell, we expect theater now. And so, until this is somehow stopped (maybe one day we'll all finally grow up), it's only going to get worse. More extreme, more different, more vile. Because that's what works for the politicians because that's what works for us.
EDIT: Just wanted to add that there are plenty of things I support and condemn from both sides of this nonsense. And that's why we need change. I, at best, get half of what I'm looking for in a representative. That's just not enough.
Wait people actually listen to her? I thought she was like Rush Limbaugh just a hate filled spiteful person that no one takes seriously because she is so far out there.
Really? Because I'd never heard of Rush Limbaugh before, but after I came to these boards, I must have seen the word 'feminazi' a four figured number of times. In fact, I can't think of a single feminist who's had as much influence on people's attitude towards feminism and gender equality as Rush Limbaugh.
Well you could try to build up a Socialist party and a Cowboy party on the outside wings to absorb out the nutiest of nutjobs from each main party. You know a New Democratic Party and a Reform party or something like that...
Though you have to make sure the Republicans search the houses of all of their members looking for cowboy boots, cowboy hats, horses and pick-ups trucks so they know who to move into the new party.
Likewise the Democrats will have to run similar tests to cleanse their own party, perhaps a body stress test to see if who has more then a 10% variance heart rate and perspiration in reaction favoring Stalin over Hitler during a slide show.
[...]she tucked her penis tail between her legs and blamed it on the Liberals [...]
... since when is it acceptable to call someone a trans-woman as an attack?
But that's the problem. The side you think is the better side may well be - for you (and, of course, myriad others). It may not better for me, however.
Yes, well, so long as one side keeps supporting the right of employers to fire me without consequence, fight against me being able to adopt, use me as a spectre to scare people to the polls, deny me the ability to marry the man I want, and so-on ad nauseum, I'm afraid I don't have much of a choice. One party treats me like a convenient voter block they can rely on without putting out. The other treats me as an inhuman disease.
And yes, I'm very bitter about having my political choices determined for me on the basis of one stupid thing1.
I'm confused - I thought I read more than once that politics weren't supposed to be discussed here LOL
Yes, well, we aren't supposed to. But we are human, and thus fallible, and thus these conversations happen.
-------
1And no, the fact that the Log Cabin Republicans and now GoProud exist isn't enough to convince me that that party has changed any. I just think those two groups are deniers and apologists.
I'm confused - I thought I read more than once that politics weren't supposed to be discussed here LOL
It's usually the policy of the moderators that they don't interfere unless someone reports a thread. So as long as everybody is more interested in making their own views seen than making others' disappear, nothing happens.
The bad side of this, is that personal grudges, rather than actual content the threads, tend to play the largest role in what gets deleted and what doesn't. I've talked to several people who've experienced a large number of their posts, some of them months old, suddenly getting moderated, every time they've had a conflict with a particular poster
The consequence is that many posters, after having some bad experiences with moderators being used as an unwitting weapon in personal conflicts, have started to see the use of report button as a low and unfair tactic which they wont stoop to using, even against their worst enemy. There's also a tendency for the mods to go overboard (in the eyes of most posters) when they finally do appear, deleting left and right, and ending up making people regret calling them.
The final result is that many people, especially here in the OOT, try to keep moderation as far away as possible, and only use it in the most dire circumstances. So in practice, there isn't really any hard rules for what goes and what doesn't. People keep it up until someone gets angry and/or offended enough to report it, and then it stops. And a couple of days later (at the most), it starts all over again. It's a pretty decent system, everything considered.
The consequence is that many posters [...] have started to see the use of report button as a low and unfair tactic which they wont stoop to using [...]
Hey now, my philosophical choice to not use the report button pre-dates any and all of my spats. As I've put it before, I'd rather people were open with the worst they have to offer, so that I could be discerning in who I choose to deal with.
And a couple of days later (at the most), it starts all over again. It's a pretty decent system, everything considered.
Eh. I think this is the first time it's leaked out in several weeks, actually. Setting up the group to talk about "banned" topics seems to have done a lot to steer it away from here. Sadly, it also means you get less opinions shared as you have to be part of the group to see them, but eh.
*sigh*
Left vs Right is exactly where our politicians want us to be. Pick a side and we all lose. We, the people, need to unite. Screw these caricatures of political parties we have to deal with (and, for all sorts of craptastic reasons, allow to exist). The moment you see one side as worse than the other is the moment you lose sight of the actual state of things. And it's the moment you surrender yourself to the machine. The machine, man. Who wants that?
Except I do not agree with the republicans on any issue. Until they change their stance on social issues, and grow a set of ethics I will be anti republican and right wing. There is no reason not to allow gay/lesbian marriage, no reason to oppose health care and enviornmental reforms. I've researched a lot of these issues and figured out where I stand. Conservative philsophies never work its when a society becomes conservative that it fails.
That is to say, American politics swings way further to the right then anyone wants to aknowledge, and if we labeled things as they are, everyone would get confused.
To be unfair, the "conservative" party in the USA is only conservative because they say so, they have dreadfully little in common with the conservative party of thirty years ago or with the "conservative" party of other nations. Similarly, the so-called "liberals" and "left-wingers" are much closer to the centrists of other nations, and don't really endorse truely liberal notions.
That is to say, American politics swings way further to the right then anyone wants to aknowledge, and if we labeled things as they are, everyone would get confused.
Unfortunatley this is true I wish America would join the 21st century.
... since when is it acceptable to call someone a trans-woman as an attack?
It wasn't an attack, it was a joke.
I'm confused - I thought I read more than once that politics weren't supposed to be discussed here LOL
That's quite true. We're being a li'l naughty at the moment. ;) I think Erato nailed it, really. I just want to re-mention the group EE was talking about, too. It's a safe place to talk about this stuff without drawing the ire of the mods. Oh, we're also fairly comfortable with each other here. Being a regular OTTer (while very irregular) means you likely see your fellow OTTers differently than other posters on other boards. It's the same people talking about all sorts of different things and that level of comfort leads us to some ... interesting discussions. So it's just the nature of the current Tavern and something we've tried to change (so that we're more rules compliant) with the formation of the aforementioned group.
Yes, well, so long as one side keeps supporting the right of employers to fire me without consequence, fight against me being able to adopt, use me as a spectre to scare people to the polls, deny me the ability to marry the man I want, and so-on ad nauseum, I'm afraid I don't have much of a choice. One party treats me like a convenient voter block they can rely on without putting out. The other treats me as an inhuman disease.
And yes, I'm very bitter about having my political choices determined for me on the basis of one stupid thing1.
Well, that's kind of the problem. Since all we've got is two parties to deal with, this is the kind of crap we've got to put up with. There's a million opinions out there and our system tries to stuff them all into two groups. Stupid. Hell, the Reps have gone to an even more extreme ... extreme and proposed a list of 10 traits that all party members must officially embrace (and go on record about) 8 of. But the Dems play right along, too. Like I said, you have X and Not X and that's it. It's sick, sad and doesn't work. And until we get something different (more parties, new form of gov't, whatever), people like yourself and Will are gonna pick a side (and yes, I recognize that in a lot of cases it's out of need) and that, unfortunately, perpetuates the repulsive status quo. I'd never say you're wrong to do so. It's just the nature of the system - to keep itself alive. And I'm just as guilty of choosing a side and sacrificing other beliefs because that side doesn't happen to like all the same things I do. We have to for now. I guess I'm just pointing out the problems I see because, well, I'm sick of them and sick with myself for following along. I dunno. And I have no idea how to change it. I know things that would work, but the price is huge and the possibility infinitesimal.
Though it does seem we may be headed for something big. The Reps have whipped their nutjobs into enough of a frenzy to make death threats against those that supported you know what. Oh, and in some cases damage property, too (cut gas lines are good politics). The gov't, of course, has called for calm (both sides) and that, of course, could lead to some sort of crackdown depending upon how virulent the behavior becomes (and we all know that neither party very much respects our freedoms) and that, of course, could cause the kids' table to encourage more frenzy and so on and so forth until something big happens. It's not gonna go down like that, though. But hey, following what-ifs is a fair way to waste some time.
Except I do not agree with the republicans on any issue. Until they change their stance on social issues, and grow a set of ethics I will be anti republican and right wing. There is no reason not to allow gay/lesbian marriage, no reason to oppose health care and enviornmental reforms. I've researched a lot of these issues and figured out where I stand. Conservative philsophies never work its when a society becomes conservative that it fails.
Right. And there are people out there that feel differently (and I will not comment as to how I feel about those - or any other - people at this time). The problem is that we've only got two choices. How are you gonna find a good fit that way? As it is, we just take what works kinda ok for now. Let's say I wear a size 10.5 shoe. I go to the Shoe Locker and try to buy a pair of new shoes. They, however, only offer shoes in size 10 and 11. 10s are too small and cause me pain if I try to cram my feet into them. Size 11s are too big and I get blisters from them sliding around on my foot when I walk. So now I've got to choose between two different sorts of constant pain. And that's all I've got. But let's say you wear a size 14. Well, you're boned man. They only have size 10 and 11. So maybe you buy size 11s then and cut and hack and somehow come up with a shoe that sort of fits ok enough for you to wear. No matter what, unless you fit into one of those two shoes exactly, you're going to have to suffer with some sort of compromise. At least that's the way I'm seeing this stuff this morning. ;)
Except I do not agree with the republicans on any issue. Until they change their stance on social issues, and grow a set of ethics I will be anti republican and right wing. There is no reason not to allow gay/lesbian marriage, no reason to oppose health care and enviornmental reforms. I've researched a lot of these issues and figured out where I stand. Conservative philsophies never work its when a society becomes conservative that it fails.
Right. And there are people out there that feel differently (and I will not comment as to how I feel about those - or any other - people at this time). The problem is that we've only got two choices. How are you gonna find a good fit that way? As it is, we just take what works kinda ok for now. Let's say I wear a size 10.5 shoe. I go to the Shoe Locker and try to buy a pair of new shoes. They, however, only offer shoes in size 10 and 11. 10s are too small and cause me pain if I try to cram my feet into them. Size 11s are too big and I get blisters from them sliding around on my foot when I walk. So now I've got to choose between two different sorts of constant pain. And that's all I've got. But let's say you wear a size 14. Well, you're boned man. They only have size 10 and 11. So maybe you buy size 11s then and cut and hack and somehow come up with a shoe that sort of fits ok enough for you to wear. No matter what, unless you fit into one of those two shoes exactly, you're going to have to suffer with some sort of compromise. At least that's the way I'm seeing this stuff this morning. ;)
I agree that we need more parties, unfortunatley not going to happen any time soon unless the current parties fracture, they are too monolithic. But as a Crossdresser/TV who may want to go all the way I find that the republicans denounce my life style and me so I really can't see any reason to vote for them. Besides at least the Dems are currently trying to fix problems. Tax cuts for corporations that already get out of paying their fair share are not the way to go.
I can see your points ZB and even agree that we need a new/better system unfortunatley the US system was designed to make such changes difficult. Heck the electorial colledge serves no purpose whatso ever anymore (if it ever did) and yet we are still stuck with it.
I agree that we need more parties, unfortunatley not going to happen any time soon unless the current parties fracture, they are too monolithic.
It may happen sooner than you think. National political parties have vanished before. Indeed the Republican party itself was formed to replace the Whigs, which self-destructed in the 1850s.
Republican support has been declining steadily for quite some time now. Despite what they and their Faux News mouthpieces would like people to believe, America is actually a quite liberal nation and has been steadily moving further in that direction. In response the GOP has been forced to ally themselves with increasingly hardcore right-wing elements in an effort to maintin a base. The effect is a schism within the party between the lunatic fringe and the moderates and the GOP itself is becoming increasingly a regional Southern party.
If this keeps up we could very well see the death of the GOP as a national party within a decade.
I agree that we need more parties, unfortunatley not going to happen any time soon unless the current parties fracture, they are too monolithic. But as a Crossdresser/TV who may want to go all the way I find that the republicans denounce my life style and me so I really can't see any reason to vote for them. Besides at least the Dems are currently trying to fix problems. Tax cuts for corporations that already get out of paying their fair share are not the way to go.
I can see your points ZB and even agree that we need a new/better system unfortunatley the US system was designed to make such changes difficult. Heck the electorial colledge serves no purpose whatso ever anymore (if it ever did) and yet we are still stuck with it.
I can totally understand why you have the position you do. It's just a damned shame that because of who you are, you're stuck with only one option. There should be no reason a person has only one choice of political voice because of who they are. I hope we get some sort of change soon. I'm almost at the point that I don't even care what that change is. I've been feeling almost Communisty lately - even though I'm not - simply because I just want something different. What we have is blowful.
It may happen sooner than you think. National political parties have vanished before. Indeed the Republican party itself was formed to replace the Whigs, which self-destructed in the 1850s.
Republican support has been declining steadily for quite some time now. Despite what they and their Faux News mouthpieces would like people to believe, America is actually a quite liberal nation and has been steadily moving further in that direction. In response the GOP has been forced to ally themselves with increasingly hardcore right-wing elements in an effort to maintin a base. The effect is a schism within the party between the lunatic fringe and the moderates and the GOP itself is becoming increasingly a regional Southern party.
If this keeps up we could very well see the death of the GOP as a national party within a decade.
I - and many I know - have been saying something for a long, long time. If the Dems would just decide to drop the gun control crap and approach the 2nd as most of the Reps do, there'd be nearly no chance in hell they'd lose elections (except maybe in the most religious areas). I used to be proud to name myself a Republican. Now, I try not to say it out loud very often. The party is too backwards. There are things I support, but there are so many that they're against that I'm for it makes the connection slim at best. I want a third party because I, personally, need one. I may have to go Libertarian in the small hope of making them viable. I dunno. It almost feels like throwing my vote away, ya know? But that's what my Republican masters want me to think ...
I used to be such a patriot. I used to be confident in and proud of my country. I just don't know anymore. So many things make me ill. Why can't I have guns and gay marriage? Why can't I have a strong military and stay out of pointless conflicts? So many more questions without answer. Kinda makes ya wonder if we're supposed to even have government. I used to think it was the inevitable state of man (to govern and to be governed). Now I ain't so sure.
... uhh. Sorry 'bout that. I was struck by a couple thoughts and had to get them out. It's kinda rare when that happens, you know ...
I agree that we need more parties, unfortunatley not going to happen any time soon unless the current parties fracture, they are too monolithic.
It may happen sooner than you think. National political parties have vanished before. Indeed the Republican party itself was formed to replace the Whigs, which self-destructed in the 1850s.
Republican support has been declining steadily for quite some time now. Despite what they and their Faux News mouthpieces would like people to believe, America is actually a quite liberal nation and has been steadily moving further in that direction. In response the GOP has been forced to ally themselves with increasingly hardcore right-wing elements in an effort to maintin a base. The effect is a schism within the party between the lunatic fringe and the moderates and the GOP itself is becoming increasingly a regional Southern party.
If this keeps up we could very well see the death of the GOP as a national party within a decade.
You could very well be right, a lot will hinge on what happens in the 2012 election, and then 2016. If Obama gets relected and then a dem gets it in 2016 I think the republicans will be finished if they win one of those elections they could hang on for awhile longer.
People should vote of third parties more. Even if they don't win, the major parties would fight over their votes in the next election. So your voice is being heard in some way. Also, how else would other parties gain support?
(These are just based on what I think would happen and I haven't checked to see if the Ross Perot factor in the 90s actually affected the parties opinions.)
You could very well be right, a lot will hinge on what happens in the 2012 election, and then 2016. If Obama gets relected and then a dem gets it in 2016 I think the republicans will be finished if they win one of those elections they could hang on for awhile longer.
Unless the sensible members of the party manage to reclaim their party from those who have hijacked it - both from within and without - and unless they stop being so negative, so obstructionist, and so corrupt then it's probably best they don't survive. I believe that party can be saved, but the sane and level-headed among the party must be the ones to save it before it is taken from them entirely.
You could very well be right, a lot will hinge on what happens in the 2012 election, and then 2016. If Obama gets relected and then a dem gets it in 2016 I think the republicans will be finished if they win one of those elections they could hang on for awhile longer.
Unless the sensible members of the party manage to reclaim their party from those who have hijacked it - both from within and without - and unless they stop being so negative, so obstructionist, and so corrupt then it's probably best they don't survive. I believe that party can be saved, but the sane and level-headed among the party must be the ones to save it before it is taken from them entirely.
The problem is what national figures do they have that are level headed and not corrupt? I'd say GUiliani but he has no standing anymore in his party Mccain is too old and with the last election went so far right it's not funy. I can't really think of any national level figures in their party that are middle of the road and reasonable. I know a lot of people want Ron Paul to run on their ticket, but his ideas are largley impractical smaller government does not work, more power to the states does not work and I'm not sure if he would have enough of a following.
As for voting 3rd party most 3rd parties are currently jokes with very narrow agendas, or they are the fringe groups of the two main parties and are so far out in left or right field that they are laughable.
And I thought Mitt Romney would have been a pretty good candidate.
I have to throw my two cents in here. The fact is, as the people, we have more power than we are letting on. If we all shifted gear and alligned with a 3rd party (and we all know there are many of them) then we could have our way. However, what we have all been doing, and it's even so stated in many of your posts above, we've been saying we have no choice - that we have to choose one party or the other of the two elites. WRONG! Do we feel compelled to do so? YES. But do we have to? NO!
Let me remind you of a man named Ross Perot. He made a huge dent in the votes in 1992 when he got almost 18% of the votes. That is proof right there that WE can make a different choice. If we continued to do that election after election, pretty soon your vote wouldn't feel like a waste! Maybe the first several elections you would feel you wasted it. But if everyone that was sick of the two party system actually did SOMETHING about it instead of griping about it, it WOULD WORK!
I have to throw my two cents in here. The fact is, as the people, we have more power than we are letting on. If we all shifted gear and alligned with a 3rd party (and we all know there are many of them) then we could have our way. However, what we have all been doing, and it's even so stated in many of your posts above, we've been saying we have no choice - that we have to choose one party or the other of the two elites. WRONG! Do we feel compelled to do so? YES. But do we have to? NO!
Let me remind you of a man named Ross Perot. He made a huge dent in the votes in 1992 when he got almost 18% of the votes. That is proof right there that WE can make a different choice. If we continued to do that election after election, pretty soon your vote wouldn't feel like a waste! Maybe the first several elections you would feel you wasted it. But if everyone that was sick of the two party system actually did SOMETHING about it instead of griping about it, it WOULD WORK!
Again though current third parties are a joke and not worth voting for. Yes ross perot split the vote but he makes Sarah Palin almost look reasonable and that's the problem with the current crop of third parties they really are not worth voting for. Mitt Romney I'm not sure on sometimes he scares me, and sometimes he makes sense I don't like his social policies very much, and I'm afraid he might bring too much religion into politics.
I have to throw my two cents in here. The fact is, as the people, we have more power than we are letting on. If we all shifted gear and alligned with a 3rd party (and we all know there are many of them) then we could have our way. However, what we have all been doing, and it's even so stated in many of your posts above, we've been saying we have no choice - that we have to choose one party or the other of the two elites. WRONG! Do we feel compelled to do so? YES. But do we have to? NO!
Let me remind you of a man named Ross Perot. He made a huge dent in the votes in 1992 when he got almost 18% of the votes. That is proof right there that WE can make a different choice. If we continued to do that election after election, pretty soon your vote wouldn't feel like a waste! Maybe the first several elections you would feel you wasted it. But if everyone that was sick of the two party system actually did SOMETHING about it instead of griping about it, it WOULD WORK!
Again though current third parties are a joke and not worth voting for. Yes ross perot split the vote but he makes Sarah Palin almost look reasonable and that's the problem with the current crop of third parties they really are not worth voting for. Mitt Romney I'm not sure on sometimes he scares me, and sometimes he makes sense I don't like his social policies very much, and I'm afraid he might bring too much religion into politics.
Yeah I didn't post to debate the effectiveness or policies of other parties but rather to point out that it's not true that we're stuck with two parties. Personally I'm happy with my party alignment at the moment. But that doesn't mean I couldn't be happier with a 3rd choice. And if the time came for a vote for a different choice, I would easily make it. I'm not afraid of the numbers. Voting is our chance to say what we want and don't want. And if you vote based on anything else, you shouldn't be voting.
I have to throw my two cents in here. The fact is, as the people, we have more power than we are letting on. If we all shifted gear and alligned with a 3rd party (and we all know there are many of them) then we could have our way. However, what we have all been doing, and it's even so stated in many of your posts above, we've been saying we have no choice - that we have to choose one party or the other of the two elites. WRONG! Do we feel compelled to do so? YES. But do we have to? NO!
Let me remind you of a man named Ross Perot. He made a huge dent in the votes in 1992 when he got almost 18% of the votes. That is proof right there that WE can make a different choice. If we continued to do that election after election, pretty soon your vote wouldn't feel like a waste! Maybe the first several elections you would feel you wasted it. But if everyone that was sick of the two party system actually did SOMETHING about it instead of griping about it, it WOULD WORK!
Again though current third parties are a joke and not worth voting for. Yes ross perot split the vote but he makes Sarah Palin almost look reasonable and that's the problem with the current crop of third parties they really are not worth voting for. Mitt Romney I'm not sure on sometimes he scares me, and sometimes he makes sense I don't like his social policies very much, and I'm afraid he might bring too much religion into politics.
Yeah I didn't post to debate the effectiveness or policies of other parties but rather to point out that it's not true that we're stuck with two parties. Personally I'm happy with my party alignment at the moment. But that doesn't mean I couldn't be happier with a 3rd choice. And if the time came for a vote for a different choice, I would easily make it. I'm not afraid of the numbers. Voting is our chance to say what we want and don't want. And if you vote based on anything else, you shouldn't be voting.
I largley agree and in part wish there was a decent third party to vote for, but sadly there isn't. If there were you can bet I'd be voting for them, well depending on if I agreed with them more than I agree with the dems, but at the moment I'm happy with my party for the most part wish the health care bill was a bit better ie having a public option, but that's neither here nor there.
However, what we have all been doing, and it's even so stated in many of your posts above, we've been saying we have no choice - that we have to choose one party or the other of the two elites. WRONG! Do we feel compelled to do so? YES. But do we have to? NO!
Maybe I should have added 'viable' in regard to 3rd party candidates. The sad truth is that, in this day and age, more people vote against a particular candidate rather than for the one they actually cast their vote for. It's a product (likely intentional) of the extremist political environment we find ourselves in today. It's much harder to vote for a Perot if you're more concerned that Politician I Think Sucks and Will Ruin my Day gets elected. In fact, by not voting for the candidate with the real chance at taking him (or her - yay Palin!
) out, you're actually aiding him by removing your vote from his name. When things are approached so radically, it makes it very difficult for people to step outside, take a chance and vote for someone they know doesn't have a shot in the slim hope that the party that person represents will garner enough votes to get gov't recognition and cash for it. Make no mistake, the two parties don't want a third. This stuff is calculated and it's working. However, what we have all been doing, and it's even so stated in many of your posts above, we've been saying we have no choice - that we have to choose one party or the other of the two elites. WRONG! Do we feel compelled to do so? YES. But do we have to? NO!
Maybe I should have added 'viable' in regard to 3rd party candidates. The sad truth is that, in this day and age, more people vote against a particular candidate rather than for the one they actually cast their vote for. It's a product (likely intentional) of the extremist political environment we find ourselves in today. It's much harder to vote for a Perot if you're more concerned that Politician I Think Sucks and Will Ruin my Day gets elected. In fact, by not voting for the candidate with the real chance at taking him (or her - yay Palin!
Hit the nail on the head though in the last election I was voting for someone and I kinda like Obama just wish he could get more done, I really really wish he would step up and force them to try terrorist here in the states, but again thats another can of worms. Just think if Palin had been VP she probably would have quit by now.
On a slightly different topic can anyone tell me how she has any credibility left after stepping down as governor of Alaska shouldn't that have killed her political career?
Hit the nail on the head though in the last election I was voting for someone and I kinda like Obama just wish he could get more done, I really really wish he would step up and force them to try terrorist here in the states, but again thats another can of worms. Just think if Palin had been VP she probably would have quit by now.
I saw exactly what Obama was doing and it's a huge part of the problem I had with him. He ran on a campaign of dreams - not content - and now we're paying the price. Would McCain have been better? Nah. The country was so boned that, no matter who took over, they were destined for difficulty.
And I was kinda ok with Johnny Mac - until he took on that sideshow as a running mate. She supports some things I'm very passionate about, but she's also pretty dumb and totally bat**** insane.
On a slightly different topic can anyone tell me how she has any credibility left after stepping down as governor of Alaska shouldn't that have killed her political career?
Sure!
We live in The Real World now. Everything is a reality show, you're not a real person unless you're a caracature and people actually want this. Because of that, her resignation means nothing. What's a political history when compared to constant TV exposure? Where she's at now encourages her to speak as extremely as possible and requires - somehow - even less accountability than her former position did. She can get more attention. More face time. And that means more support. IMO, too many of us have succumbed to the increasingly blurred lines between reality and fantasy. No politician is who they say they are. They're a character specifically crafted to achieve a specific goal. They're all actors. In Sarah's case, if acting in the political circle is good, acting in a more visible arena and with zero expectations to possibly fail to meet is 1000% better. She made the right move. Even if she fails to be elected to anything again (or chooses not to run), she can still spit her message to the masses and, most importantly, retain a measure of fame and still bring home quite the paycheck.On a slightly different topic can anyone tell me how she has any credibility left after stepping down as governor of Alaska shouldn't that have killed her political career?
The people to whom she appeals are unconcerned with issues of credibility.
Hit the nail on the head though in the last election I was voting for someone and I kinda like Obama just wish he could get more done, I really really wish he would step up and force them to try terrorist here in the states, but again thats another can of worms. Just think if Palin had been VP she probably would have quit by now.
I saw exactly what Obama was doing and it's a huge part of the problem I had with him. He ran on a campaign of dreams - not content - and now we're paying the price. Would McCain have been better? Nah. The country was so boned that, no matter who took over, they were destined for difficulty.
And I was kinda ok with Johnny Mac - until he took on that sideshow as a running mate. She supports some things I'm very passionate about, but she's also pretty dumb and totally bat**** insane.
Eh Obama has at least tried to deliver on most of what he promised the problem is the country is in serious trouble, and the other party is not working with him at all, they don't even try. As to Palin yeah I don't like anything she stands for. The minute someone starts talking traditional values they start to scare me. America cannot rest on its laurels like the republicans want us to. We need a massive amount of reform in almost every way. Then again I also see no practical reason to still be using coal and gassoline and really hope Obama's green energy bill passes.
On a slightly different topic can anyone tell me how she has any credibility left after stepping down as governor of Alaska shouldn't that have killed her political career?
Sure!
We live in The Real World now. Everything is a reality show, you're not a real person unless you're a caracature and people actually want this. Because of that, her resignation means nothing. What's a political history when compared to constant TV exposure? Where she's at now encourages her to speak as extremely as possible and requires - somehow - even less accountability than her former position did. She can get more attention. More face time. And that means more support. IMO, too many of us have succumbed to the increasingly blurred lines between reality and fantasy. No politician is who they say they are. They're a character specifically crafted to achieve a specific goal. They're all actors. In Sarah's case, if acting in the political circle is good, acting in a more visible arena and with zero expectations to possibly fail to meet is 1000% better. She made the right move. Even if she fails to be elected to anything again (or chooses not to run), she can still spit her message to the masses and, most importantly, retain a measure of fame and still bring home quite the paycheck.Again can't argue with it but shouldn't politicians care about the country and not just their own image? I get the sense from Obama that he actually does care and is trying to do his best for the country and not just for the polls. What has to happen to get Politicians caring about the country and not their own images?
On a slightly different topic can anyone tell me how she has any credibility left after stepping down as governor of Alaska shouldn't that have killed her political career?
The people to whom she appeals are unconcerned with issues of credibility.
Don't they realize if she quit one job when it got a little difficult or not glamorous that she would fold under the pressure of being VP or president? Either that or she would be another Chenney trying to be president while being vice president.
Again can't argue with it but shouldn't politicians care about the country and not just their own image? I get the sense from Obama that he actually does care and is trying to do his best for the country and not just for the polls. What has to happen to get Politicians caring about the country and not their own images?
"Hvad udad tabes skal indad vindes". It's a Danish proverb which means something along the lines of "what is lost outwards must be won within". Originally I think it referred to lost territory, and how one should aim less at getting it back, and more at strengthening the land that's left, but today it basically means that sometimes it's worth taking losses if the remains become better because of it.
Perhaps some politicians feel that it's less relevant how the current economy is, how respected the nation is internationally, and how healthy and secure the population is, as long as the moral fibre of the population is strengthened. So it's worth weakening the country if it means getting the population to see things your way.
Again can't argue with it but shouldn't politicians care about the country and not just their own image? I get the sense from Obama that he actually does care and is trying to do his best for the country and not just for the polls. What has to happen to get Politicians caring about the country and not their own images?
"Hvad udad tabes skal indad vindes". It's a Danish proverb which means something along the lines of "what is lost outwards must be won within". Originally I think it referred to lost territory, and how one should aim less at getting it back, and more at strengthening the land that's left, but today it basically means that sometimes it's worth taking losses if the remains become better because of it.
Perhaps some politicians feel that it's less relevant how the current economy is, how respected the nation is internationally, and how healthy and secure the population is, as long as the moral fibre of the population is strengthened. So it's worth weakening the country if it means getting the population to see things your way.
Yeah that makes no sense. The moral fiber of America is as strong as its ever been. You still have people joining the military not just for the money but because they believe in America you still have lots of volunteer projects going on. Heck you have a significant segment of the population that wants to be able to serve openly in the military. America has problems I don't think its moral fiber is one of them.
Eh Obama has at least tried to deliver on most of what he promised the problem is the country is in serious trouble, and the other party is not working with him at all, they don't even try. As to Palin yeah I don't like anything she stands for. The minute someone starts talking traditional values they start to scare me. America cannot rest on its laurels like the republicans want us to. We need a massive amount of reform in almost every way. Then again I also see no practical reason to still be using coal and gassoline and really hope Obama's green energy bill passes.
Well, Obama was all about health care, too. But when it came down to it - and it almost became not only messy, but a disaster as well - he distanced himself from it. That drew the ire of some members of his own party. Now why would he do that? Well, he's a politician and he wants to get elected again. If it failed, he could say he saw it coming. If it made it, he could say his initial guidance was enough. He also was all about bipartisanship - until the Reps made it difficult. Instead of trying to work with them (which, I admit, would have been pointless), he threatened to ram his policies down their throats. While it may have been pointless, it's also 100% against what he promised. He didn't even try. But I won't argue Obama with you. He's not some terrible demon about to destroy the world as we know it. I don't hate him or what he's done. I just see him a bit differently is all - and even that isn't bad. I just think he's a politician in exactly the same way any crusty old white dood is. He just happens to represent the side that's less opposed to non crusty old white doods representing them. And that's why he does bother me in a way. He sold himself as not that. And a whole lot of people bought it. But what-evs. That's the game.
I also just want to clarify that the things Palin supports that I do as well are strictly limited to gun rights, hunting rights, fishing rights and conservation. Screw her 'traditional values' crap. That ain't the way I think. This was really the most important thing I wanted to get to as I should have been clear about it in the first place. She's all about some stuff I find sickening and I'd rather not my name - even this fake one - be associated with that intolerant crap.
Again can't argue with it but shouldn't politicians care about the country and not just their own image? I get the sense from Obama that he actually does care and is trying to do his best for the country and not just for the polls. What has to happen to get Politicians caring about the country and not their own images?
They should, but they don't. Obama is no different. He's just wrapped in a different package - and it's harder to recognize since we grew so acclimated to (in 8 years) what the other version of the product looks like. You have to understand that, while the President may be at the top of his party, he is still controlled by it. He's likely done after another term. On to an easy and lucrative life as a public speaker and consultant. These other people aspire to continue on their path or try and get to where he was. To them, the party is their support structure - the way to maintain and advance. He is not permitted to damage that party and the people that helped get him where he is. In plenty of ways, the party controls the President. If he bucks the party will, he'd likely lose their support. And then what can he get done? He can't afford to lose his own party - it's all he's got. Like I said, it's a sick system. But that's what we have to remember: it is a system and the President - no matter what party he's from - is simply another cog in the machine.
When people say morale fiber, they don't really mean moral fiber.
They want women to stay in the kitchen, gays to stay in the closet, parents to beat their kids, kids to keep quiet about any and all assaults and for teens to be respectful and chaste.
Basically a full of societal retreat to an episode of "Leave it to Beaver"
It's a secret code, just like family values, and failure to learn what it means is to your detriment.
Eh Obama has at least tried to deliver on most of what he promised the problem is the country is in serious trouble, and the other party is not working with him at all, they don't even try. As to Palin yeah I don't like anything she stands for. The minute someone starts talking traditional values they start to scare me. America cannot rest on its laurels like the republicans want us to. We need a massive amount of reform in almost every way. Then again I also see no practical reason to still be using coal and gassoline and really hope Obama's green energy bill passes.
Well, Obama was all about health care, too. But when it came down to it - and it almost became not only messy, but a disaster as well - he distanced himself from it. That drew the ire of some members of his own party. Now why would he do that? Well, he's a politician and he wants to get elected again. If it failed, he could say he saw it coming. If it made it, he could say his initial guidance was enough. He also was all about bipartisanship - until the Reps made it difficult. Instead of trying to work with them (which, I admit, would have been pointless), he threatened to ram his policies down their throats. While it may have been pointless, it's also 100% against what he promised. He didn't even try. But I won't argue Obama with you. He's not some terrible demon about to destroy the world as we know it. I don't hate him or what he's done. I just see him a bit differently is all - and even that isn't bad. I just think he's a politician in exactly the same way any crusty old white dood is. He just happens to represent the side that's less opposed to non crusty old white doods representing them. And that's why he does bother me in a way. He sold himself as not that. And a whole lot of people bought it. But what-evs. That's the game.
I also just want to clarify that the things Palin supports that I do as well are strictly limited to gun rights, hunting rights, fishing rights and conservation. Screw her 'traditional values' crap. That ain't the way I think. This was really the most important thing I wanted to get to as I should have been clear about it in the first place. She's all about some stuff I find sickening and I'd rather not my name - even this fake one - be associated with that intolerant crap.
Thats cool I'm for limited gun rights but not assault rifles or any automatic no reason for people to have those as for hunting hmmm I'm kinda for it kinda against it. If you eat what you hunt and use it as long as its not an endangered animal no problem if all your doing is putting a trophy on your wall well then I don't know what to say.
As to the Obama thing I think he tried to work with republicans up until they made it impossible. He gave them every chance a reasonable person could be expected to give them. On health care I think there were reasons other than politics to distance himself from it. He didn't want it to look like it was just his bill, and maybe he thought if he distanced himself from it it would help the bill pass I dont know.
Again can't argue with it but shouldn't politicians care about the country and not just their own image? I get the sense from Obama that he actually does care and is trying to do his best for the country and not just for the polls. What has to happen to get Politicians caring about the country and not their own images?
They should, but they don't. Obama is no different. He's just wrapped in a different package - and it's harder to recognize since we grew so acclimated (in 8 years) of what the other version of the product looks like. You have to understand that, while the President may be at the top of his party, he is still controlled by it. He's likely done after another term. On to an easy and lucrative life as a public speaker and consultant. These other people aspire to continue on their path or try and get to where he was. To them, the party is their support structure - the way to maintain and advance. He is not permitted to damage that party and the people that helped get him where he is. In plenty of ways, the party controls the President. If he bucks the party will, he'd likely lose their support. And then what can he get done? He can't afford to lose his own party - it's all he's got. Like I said, it's a sick system. But that's what we have to remember: it is a system and the President - no matter what party he's from - is simply another cog in the machine.
I can agree with this but the president has a lot of power. In fact it could well be the strongest branch currently, at least as long as the legislative branch is ineffective due to the infighting. But again I don't know how you would go about changing the system it's too ingrained at this point, and as I've said before the founding fathers made one big mistake they made the system they built too hard to change.
There ain't nothin' wrong with beatin' kids. Trust me, you'd appreciate the tolerance of that specific act a lot more if you spent any substantial time near the li'l monsters. ;)
I know this is in jest but kids who are beaten tend to not grow as well as others. Kids need room and patience lots and lots of patience. I used to have a standing offer for friends of mine when I was stationed in Maryland you provide free food my friend Eric and I provide free babysitting service kids are minature ninjas. All of them, but they can be a lot of fun too.
By the way ZB really apreciating the intelligient and reasonable discussion.
When people say morale fiber, they don't really mean moral fiber.
They want women to stay in the kitchen, gays to stay in the closet, parents to beat their kids, kids to keep quiet about any and all assaults and for teens to be respectful and chaste.
Basically a full of societal retreat to an episode of "Leave it to Beaver"
It's a secret code, just like family values, and failure to learn what it means is to your detriment.
And don't think a nation can't revert backwards - just look at Iran - it's basically what they did all those many years ago and why they are in the current situation they are in!
Thats cool I'm for limited gun rights but not assault rifles or any automatic no reason for people to have those as for hunting hmmm I'm kinda for it kinda against it. If you eat what you hunt and use it as long as its not an endangered animal no problem if all your doing is putting a trophy on your wall well then I don't know what to say.
As to the Obama thing I think he tried to work with republicans up until they made it impossible. He gave them every chance a reasonable person could be expected to give them. On health care I think there were reasons other than politics to distance himself from it. He didn't want it to look like it was just his bill, and maybe he thought if he distanced himself from it it would help the bill pass I dont know.
'Assault rifle' is a term coined by anti-gunners to instill fear in the masses to further their agendas. Ask one to define it. They can't. ;) Besides, there's a new trend in the hunting community (thanks in no small part to returning veterans) to use what some would consider 'assault weapons' for hunting. AR15s are becoming quite popular for varmint, predator and, in higher calibers, big game hunting. Believe it or not, this is kinda a big deal. For a long time, a lot of the hunting community looked down on those guns while completely forgetting that the origin of most of their sporting arms was the military. Anyhoo, it's good news for hunters because it's a symbol of a growing sport and growing unity.
Hunting, to me, means you're out doing for yourself what the rancher and butcher does for non-hunters. You kill it, you grill it. Fair chase only, too (screw high fence and crap). Oh, it's also impossible to 'hunt' an endangered species. You can poach them, of course, but that's not hunting. It's an illegal, unethical practice that real hunters despise. We have game laws for a reason - we're active conservationists. If we ignore them, we are not doing our job and do not deserve the right.
Oh, good points about Obama distancing himself from the bill. Very nice observation.
I can agree with this but the president has a lot of power. In fact it could well be the strongest branch currently, at least as long as the legislative branch is ineffective due to the infighting. But again I don't know how you would go about changing the system it's too ingrained at this point, and as I've said before the founding fathers made one big mistake they made the system they built too hard to change.
Yeah, they made it hard for the system to evolve. I just hope something changes soon. This stuff is getting ridiculous.
I know this is in jest but kids who are beaten tend to not grow as well as others. Kids need room and patience lots and lots of patience. I used to have a standing offer for friends of mine when I was stationed in Maryland you provide free food my friend Eric and I provide free babysitting service kids are minature ninjas. All of them, but they can be a lot of fun too.
I have no problems with spanking, but people who beat their kids need to be locked up. Sometimes, though, you just wanna knock one of 'em out.
By the way ZB really apreciating the intelligient and reasonable discussion.
Yeah, it's really nice. Good times.
Yeah that makes no sense. The moral fiber of America is as strong as its ever been. You still have people joining the military not just for the money but because they believe in America you still have lots of volunteer projects going on. Heck you have a significant segment of the population that wants to be able to serve openly in the military. America has problems I don't think its moral fiber is one of them.
When people say morale fiber, they don't really mean moral fiber.They want women to stay in the kitchen, gays to stay in the closet, parents to beat their kids, kids to keep quiet about any and all assaults and for teens to be respectful and chaste.
Basically a full of societal retreat to an episode of "Leave it to Beaver"
It's a secret code, just like family values, and failure to learn what it means is to your detriment.
This.
Try to think about it from her point of view. The sacred institution of marriage, which is what holds together the sacred institution of family, which is what the moral fibre of America is built on, had to be rescued at the last minute from being destroyed by disgusting sickos who wanted to marry people of the same sex. And what would be next if that happened, people marrying dogs? No amount of healthcare can cure the sickness of that.
And to make matters worse, it seems more and more people are questioning the merits of the US invading more countries, and even talking about the military leaders having made mistakes. And we have teenagers starting to talk more and more openly about sex, instead of hiding their interest and waiting until they get married (the girls anyway). And people are getting lots of divorce, which definitely wouldn't happen if they got married young and without having tired to have sex before. Not to mention the epidemic of abortions, which is obviously the result of birth-control becoming more readily available.
OK, truth be told, I don't know a whole lot about Palin is about, I just go by what I've heard. But no matter what she thinks, it would be perfectly in line with what many other people have said, if she believed these thing were a threat to American values, and believes that protecting the American spirit from liberals, or even worse, socialists, is a more important priority right now.
'Assault rifle' is a term coined by anti-gunners to instill fear in the masses to further their agendas.
Actually it is a term coined by Adolph Hitler to describe the Maschinenpistole 44, or rather the English translation of Hitler's original German term.
Actually it is a term coined by Adolph Hitler to describe the Maschinenpistole 44, or rather the English translation of Hitler's original German term.
Ok then, is that how it's used today? If so, I can't see where all the uproar about 'assault weapons' is coming from. Maschinenpistole 44s aren't all that common.
'Assault rifle' is a term coined by anti-gunners to instill fear in the masses to further their agendas. Ask one to define it. They can't. ;) Besides, there's a new trend in the hunting community (thanks in no small part to returning veterans) to use what some would consider 'assault weapons' for hunting. AR15s are becoming quite popular for varmint, predator and, in higher calibers, big game hunting. Believe it or not, this is kinda a big deal. For a long time, a lot of the hunting community looked down on those guns while completely forgetting that the origin of most of their sporting arms was the military. Anyhoo, it's good news for hunters because it's a symbol of a growing sport and growing unity.
I use it to mean anything above 40 caliber and or fully automatic there is no reason for civilians to have weapons of that caliber at all in my opinion.
Hunting, to me, means you're out doing for yourself what the rancher and butcher does for non-hunters. You kill it, you grill it. Fair chase only, too (screw high fence and crap). Oh, it's also impossible to 'hunt' an endangered species. You can poach them, of course, but that's not hunting. It's an illegal, unethical practice that real hunters despise. We have game laws for a reason - we're active conservationists. If we ignore them, we are not doing our job and do not deserve the right.
And I can agree with this though some animals should be on the endagered species list that are not most notably sword fish, but if your eating what you hunt then I have no problem with you its just I know a lot of people who hunt specifically to get trophies.
Oh, good points about Obama distancing himself from the bill. Very nice observation.
Thanks I think he thought and what was happening was that the media was focusing too much on him and not enough on the bill, they were making it about him and he did not want that. At least thats my interpretation of what happened. I also like that he kept Gates as Secretary of Defense that should have been a sign to republicans that he was willing to work with them unfortunatley they've backed themselves into a corner with their rhetoric. They've made it impossible for republicans to work with him with how they talk, which is unfortunate.
Yeah, they made it hard for the system to evolve. I just hope something changes soon. This stuff is getting ridiculous.
Doubt it within 50-60 years America will either be several smaller countries or an empire of sorts, because I doubt you would get consensus on what changes need to happen.
I have no problems with spanking, but people who beat their kids need to be locked up. Sometimes, though, you just wanna knock one of 'em out.
Yeah a light spanking with the hand is okay on kids belts and leather should be kept for a bdsm convention.
By the way ZB really apreciating the intelligient and reasonable discussion.
Yeah, it's really nice. Good times.
Yup it is. I always enjoy a healthy talk about such things.
Ok then, is that how it's used today? If so, I can't see where all the uproar about 'assault weapons' is coming from. Maschinenpistole 44s aren't all that common.
"Assault wapons" and "assualt rifles" are not the same thing. The former pertains to a large group of weapon and weapon types, the latter to a single weapon type.
I use it to mean anything above 40 caliber and or fully automatic there is no reason for civilians to have weapons of that caliber at all in my opinion.
Interesting. So even a single shot Barret .50 is an 'assault rifle'?
Just a note, civvies are allowed to own fully automatic weapons - you need a special gov't stamp and there's a crapton of rules about it, but it is, currently, legal. And it's also a major pain in the rear. Full auto weapons are also damned expensive. All this combined means that full auto ownership isn't very common.
And I can agree with this though some animals should be on the endagered species list that are not most notably sword fish, but if your eating what you hunt then I have no problem with you its just I know a lot of people who hunt specifically to get trophies.
Trophy class animals are nice, but you can eat those, too.
There are many reasons I hunt. Eating what I kill (and bringing food home for my family) is right there at the top. Ever watch that Discovery Channel show about swordfishermen? I think it's called 'Swords: Life on the Line' or something. It was interesting to see how long lining works, but I have to admit some parts made me uncomfortable.
Thanks I think he thought and what was happening was that the media was focusing too much on him and not enough on the bill, they were making it about him and he did not want that. At least thats my interpretation of what happened. I also like that he kept Gates as Secretary of Defense that should have been a sign to republicans that he was willing to work with them unfortunatley they've backed themselves into a corner with their rhetoric. They've made it impossible for republicans to work with him with how they talk, which is unfortunate.
Yeah, I didn't really think about that until you brought it up. It makes a lot of sense, really.
Doubt it within 50-60 years America will either be several smaller countries or an empire of sorts, because I doubt you would get consensus on what changes need to happen.
I actually feel somewhat similarly. Something is gonna happen sooner or later. At the very least, something needs to happen.
Yeah a light spanking with the hand is okay on kids belts and leather should be kept for a bdsm convention.
Exactly.
Yup it is. I always enjoy a healthy talk about such things.
I have no problems with spanking, but people who beat their kids need to be locked up. Sometimes, though, you just wanna knock one of 'em out.
I do have a problem with spanking – specifically that more often than not it is simply a parent venting their anger at a child's behaviour rather than trying to influence change – but the moment one picks up a weapon and strike a child it is assault. Period.
"Assault wapons" and "assualt rifles" are not the same thing. The former pertains to a large group of weapon and weapon types, the latter to a single weapon type.
Ok.
Can I add my cents again? I'm not going to argue for or against gun control. But I do want to point out some facts.
In 2003, there were 30,136 firearm-related deaths in the United States; 16,907 (56%) suicides, 11,920 (40%) homicides (including 347 deaths due to legal intervention/war), and 962 (3%) undetermined/unintentional firearm deaths.
- CDC/National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, WISQARS Injury Mortality Reports 1999-2003
- The overall firearm-related death rate among U.S. children younger than 15 years of age is nearly 12 times higher than among children in 25 other industrialized countries combined.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 1997;46:101-105.
- The rate of death from firearms in the United States is eight times higher than that in its economic counterparts in other parts of the world.
Now let me also share a story with you. I lived in North Africa in the country of Tunisia for 6 months 7 years ago. Tunisia is an arabic muslim nation. Before I left everyone kept asking, "aren't you afraid? You could get killed over there!"
Isn't it ironic that I've never felt safer in my entire life? In fact, I was over there when Bush invaded Iraq and I Still felt safer there than in the USA. You know why I felt safe? They didn't have an issue with violence there. No one had guns either. The few cops that had guns weren't going around and pointing them in people's faces.
Americans are violent. It's just the facts. These are things that MUST be considered.
If the problem is that Americans are violent, the tools used in practicing that violence become less relevant, no? If someone wants you dead badly enough, they'll make you dead. It doesn't matter what tools they have available. People have been killing people since there were people. Invention is not necessary for murder to be possible.
As I stated, it was NOT to argue for or against gun control. It was to point out that when having the discussion, those things have to be considered.
EDIT: Just realized the suicide/gun thing just doesn't work. The same could be said of just about anything: From knives to car keys, from scredrivers to Tylenol PM - if you put something someone could use to kill themselves with in the hands of someone that wants to kill themselves, well, it's not a good idea. Guns ain't got nuthin' to do with that. That's just some idiot being an idiot.
I use it to mean anything above 40 caliber and or fully automatic there is no reason for civilians to have weapons of that caliber at all in my opinion.
Interesting. So even a single shot Barret .50 is an 'assault rifle'?
50 caliber can go through comon body armour types and even vechicles there is no reason for a civilian to have something that high caliber it exists for one purpose only to kill humans.
Just a note, civvies are allowed to own fully automatic weapons - you need a special gov't stamp and there's a crapton of rules about it, but it is, currently, legal. And it's also a major pain in the rear. Full auto weapons are also damned expensive. All this combined means that full auto ownership isn't very common.
I also am somewhat uncomfortable with semi auto rifles it just does not seem to me that you need something like that for hunting, then again I could be wrong as I don't hunt and don't know much about it so it could very well be required for some kinds of hunting and if it is then my bad.
And I can agree with this though some animals should be on the endagered species list that are not most notably sword fish, but if your eating what you hunt then I have no problem with you its just I know a lot of people who hunt specifically to get trophies.
Trophy class animals are nice, but you can eat those, too.
There are many reasons I hunt. Eating what I kill (and bringing food home for my family) is right there at the top. Yeah that's true I just don't understand people who go out hunting animals simply for their pelts I just really can't understand it.
Ever watch that Discovery Channel show about swordfishermen? I think it's called 'Swords: Life on the Line' or something. It was interesting to see how long lining works, but I have to admit some parts made me uncomfortable.
I see it as poaching the species is disapearing rather quickly nother 10 years or so and it could be extinct. People need to think.
Thanks I think he thought and what was happening was that the media was focusing too much on him and not enough on the bill, they were making it about him and he did not want that. At least thats my interpretation of what happened. I also like that he kept Gates as Secretary of Defense that should have been a sign to republicans that he was willing to work with them unfortunatley they've backed themselves into a corner with their rhetoric. They've made it impossible for republicans to work with him with how they talk, which is unfortunate.
Yeah, I didn't really think about that until you brought it up. It makes a lot of sense, really.
I'm just glad it passed, makes me more confident and slighlty hopeful.
Doubt it within 50-60 years America will either be several smaller countries or an empire of sorts, because I doubt you would get consensus on what changes need to happen.
I actually feel somewhat similarly. Something is gonna happen sooner or later. At the very least, something needs to happen.
Pretty much yeah.
Yeah a light spanking with the hand is okay on kids belts and leather should be kept for a bdsm convention.
Exactly.
Glad we agree.
Yup it is. I always enjoy a healthy talk about such things.
hehe good times.
50 caliber can go through comon body armour types and even vechicles there is no reason for a civilian to have something that high caliber it exists for one purpose only to kill humans.
Most high powered (big game) rifles can defeat body armor. Body armor simply hasn't evolved enough yet to alter the balance. One day, it will. It's the nature of weapons and defenses.
There's also a crapton of people that own .50 cal weapons that, you know, don't kill people with them. Most guns kill far more paper than they do living creatures. Target shooting is fun. Most .50s are used for that or competetive shooting.
I also am somewhat uncomfortable with semi auto rifles it just does not seem to me that you need something like that for hunting, then again I could be wrong as I don't hunt and don't know much about it so it could very well be required for some kinds of hunting and if it is then my bad.
Semi-auto is just another action type. .22s, shotguns, handguns and rifles that people use for hunting purposes that most certainly are not military weapons are semi-auto. It's no more dangerous or lethal an action type than any other. It's just another way a gun operates.
Yeah that's true I just don't understand people who go out hunting animals simply for their pelts I just really can't understand it.
Yeah, not my style either.
I see it as poaching the species is disapearing rather quickly nother 10 years or so and it could be extinct. People need to think.
It's amazing how many they catch.
I'm just glad it passed, makes me more confident and slighlty hopeful.
I'm undecided about it. I'll just have to wait and see, I guess.
hehe good times.
Yar.
50 caliber can go through comon body armour types and even vechicles there is no reason for a civilian to have something that high caliber it exists for one purpose only to kill humans.
Most high powered (big game) rifles can defeat body armor. Body armor simply hasn't evolved enough yet to alter the balance. One day, it will. It's the nature of weapons and defenses.
There's also a crapton of people that own .50 cal weapons that, you know, don't kill people with them. Most guns kill far more paper than they do living creatures. Target shooting is fun. Most .50s are used for that or competetive shooting.
Yeah no I see no reason why civilians should have weapons that can pierce body armour anything that can go through body armour should be illegal for civilians to have. Guns enable people to kill other people far easier. Most countries with stricter gun laws, and enforce them also have far less crime.
I also am somewhat uncomfortable with semi auto rifles it just does not seem to me that you need something like that for hunting, then again I could be wrong as I don't hunt and don't know much about it so it could very well be required for some kinds of hunting and if it is then my bad.
Semi-auto is just another action type. .22s, shotguns, handguns and rifles that people use for hunting purposes that most certainly are not military weapons are semi-auto. It's no more dangerous or lethal an action type than any other. It's just another way a gun operates.
Fires faster and the only reason to have such a weapon is to kill other humans it's not a hunting weapon its a weapon designed to kill people.
Yeah that's true I just don't understand people who go out hunting animals simply for their pelts I just really can't understand it.
Yeah, not my style either.
Glad we agree.
I see it as poaching the species is disapearing rather quickly nother 10 years or so and it could be extinct. People need to think.
It's amazing how many they catch.
And that amount scares me it is easily possible to over fish something.
I'm just glad it passed, makes me more confident and slighlty hopeful.
I'm undecided about it. I'll just have to wait and see, I guess.
I can understand that, still it cannot possibly be worse than what we have now...
Yeah no I see no reason why civilians should have weapons that can pierce body armour anything that can go through body armour should be illegal for civilians to have. Guns enable people to kill other people far easier. Most countries with stricter gun laws, and enforce them also have far less crime.
All of those calibers existed before body armor. Every one. They were not designed to defeat it, there simply isn't any available armor that can defeat them yet.
We've seen more people buying guns over the last few years than ever. We've also seen a decline in violent crime.
Fires faster and the only reason to have such a weapon is to kill other humans it's not a hunting weapon its a weapon designed to kill people.
Funny, I, my brother, my friend and many others all use semi-auto .22s for hunting. My father, brother, friends and many others all use semi-auto shotguns for all sorts of different hunting applications. My father, brother, friend, myself and many others have used semi-auto rifles of various calibers for hunting, too.
There are very few weapons designed for the express purpose of killing people. Those that weren't are still capable of killing people and those that were are still capable of being used for things aside from killing people. It's not the tool, it's the person using it.
Glad we agree.
Yup, hunting is much more than gettin' a trophy.
And that amount scares me it is easily possible to over fish something.
You ain't kiddin'.
I can understand that, still it cannot possibly be worse than what we have now...
Things can always get worse. In this case, while a small portion of the population will be helped, the deficit is going to suffer massively and, as a result to the incresed burden on insurance companies, it's fully within the realm of the possible that insurance company employees will suffer by way of losing their jobs. Trickle down economics is a reality of business. Tax the companies and those negative dollars will trickle their way all the way down to the consumer - while going through the company's employees first. No matter what they're telling us about the 'savings' we're gonna see to the deficit, the fact is that money needs to come from somewhere. They can't just give us a number and say 'this is how much we're going to save' and make that real. In the end, the li'l guy will be the one footing the bill because the check is gonna be passed right down the line until there ain't no place else to pass it.
That said, I believe something needs to be done about healthcare. I just happen to think that this magical spending spree isn't the proper solution.
As to weapons you don't need semi auto to hunt a sinlge shot is most of the time good enough, or like I said I could be wrong, and every gun was initially designed to kill humans. The first fire arms were all designed in war it was only later they were adapted for hunting every gun has as it's principal purpose the taking of other human life. I think we at least need more mandentory training for people and their famlies who have guns so that accidents happen less frequency, and a full psych eval before getting one, and no more buying guns at gun shows. In a lot of places especially here in the southern states gun shows are a way for anyone to get any gun they want it's insane.
I could not care less about the insurance companies they have been making obscene profits by overcharging and denying care to people who need it. Personally I would rather have seen the whole thing instationalized and taken over by the government and those companies destroyed I hate and despise the insurance companies the fact that they used to be able to deny care for monetary reasons makes me sick to my stomach.
You're forgetting that the vast majority of the employees of these companies are people just like you and me. They've got nothing to do with overcharging or denial of service. And when the insurance companies need to shed some weight so that the powers that be can still make their insane salaries and insane bonuses, these regular folks will be the ones to get axed in order to make up the lost cash. It will happen. Look at the auto industry for an example of how it'll look. The guys at the top screwed the pooch and the people at the bottom paid - while those morons at the top raked in the cash. In the case of insurance companies, it'll be the guys at the top doing their best to stay at the top by steadily piling corpses of lower rung employees to stand on.
In our efforts to impact 'the companies' or even the people in control of them, we will hurt the normal, 9-5 Joes and Joeannes. They have no control over their fate. That's not something that I can conveniently forget.
As to weapons you don't need semi auto to hunt a sinlge shot is most of the time good enough, or like I said I could be wrong, and every gun was initially designed to kill humans. The first fire arms were all designed in war it was only later they were adapted for hunting every gun has as it's principal purpose the taking of other human life. I think we at least need more mandentory training for people and their famlies who have guns so that accidents happen less frequency, and a full psych eval before getting one, and no more buying guns at gun shows. In a lot of places especially here in the southern states gun shows are a way for anyone to get any gun they want it's insane.
What if you need a follow up shot? Additional shots are an asset when the first, for whatever reason, doesn't go 100% right. It happens. No matter how much practice you put in, no matter how careful you are, no matter how ethical the shot you take, it will happen and having another shot ready to go is a huge help in correcting that mistake.
Not every gun was designed to kill humans. Take a look at bench competition guns. They're huge and, quite frequently, brightly colored and stickered with sponsor logos. It's true that many guns have come to us from the military (.30-06, for example) and tfrom self-defense purposes (side by side shotgun) but that's not the only place. I own a .22 designed for bench shooting. I own a modern technology muzzle loader. It's got a weather resistant finish and a camo synthetic stock. It's not meant for people - it's only got one shot. It's meant for big game hunting during specific hunting seasons. There are myriad shotgun configurations built expressly for hunters and/or target shooters (including Olympic Skeet). From all camo, thumbhole stocked, magnum capable, extended choked turkey guns (semi-auto and pump) to rifled barrel, cantilever scope mounted slug guns for deer to over-unders (2 barrels, 2 shots) for upland game hunters to totally non-traditional over-unders for skeet and trap shooting. While guns can be used to kill people, the idea that every gun is designed and built with that in mind is, quite simply, ill-informed and completely incorrect. Some guns were designed to kill humans. Others, later, were not.
I'm all for mandatory firearms training - but I'd make it include every citizen be they gun owner or not. There's nothing wrong with knowing something and it may even make some people understand that what they're afraid of is an object that's incapable of harming them on its own. Just like a knife or a car or a bat or a ... and so on. I'm opposed to a psych eval. That's just not feasible and we don't often hear stories about diagnosed whatevers running around gunning people down. It wouldn't do much at all, really.
Gun shows aren't nearly what Hil-Dog and Co would have you believe. Background checks are still done, there is an armed police presence there that's very conspicuous and you can't get 'any gun you want'. All those pics showing what kind of weapons those cartels use that they allegedly buy over here? Yeah, they can't. You can't buy full auto stuff, you can't buy grenades and you can't buy body armor. Period. Most of what is said about the 'gun show problem' is myth. If you doubt it, go ahead and check one out. See if you can buy a silenced MP5. Try and pick up an M16A2 with a grenade launcher and a box of grenades to go with it. Oh, while you're at it, pick me up a kevlar vest, too. That stuff just doesn't happen and the anti-gunners are using fearmongering to further their agenda. Wanna know where those cartels get all those fancy toys? From the US gov't through the Mexican police agencies we arm. See, they're corrupt as hell. The cartels literally employ police - from regular guys all the way to the top, special agencies included. They even advertise on billboards telling cops that, if they come work for the cartel, they'll make more money. That's the reality, not gun shows. It's just another example of a group with an agenda taking advantage of the fact that most of their target audience is so sufficiently scared of the object that they're against that they simply refuse to do any research in order to understand the truth of the matter. It's what's taught. Fear guns because they're bad but fear them enough to never ever try to understand what they are, how they work, what the laws involving them are, what can and can't be bought legally, etc, etc. The sheep then follow.
So long as access to healthcare is in the hands of an amoral1 for-profit industry, you can't really expect them to be working for the people.
-------
1It's not necessarily immoral, as the responsibility of a company is to make money. Heck, IIRC, they have a legal obligation to their investors to make as much money as possible. So they're not immoral, they're amoral.
-------
1Public education, police, fire departments, libraries, medicare, social securitiy, road maintenance, to name a few.
The UAW was.
Dodge, on the other hand? They are just a bunch of morons over there and have been since the 70s.
Will: most countries also have a far far smaller population with far less ethnic diversity within it's borders. Also, it's becoming more and more apparent that as the percentage of gun ownership rises, crime actually Decreases. Heck the wild west wasn't even wild like the movies show etc. And gun ownership percentages were VERY high out there, murder in general was actually fairly low back then. Do you know why that is? Because frankly Guns are like Nukes. They are great Deterrents.
The bad guys down in Columbia, and Central/South America in general? Most of them ARE NOT using our Crappy Unreliable M16. Jungle conditions are not permissive to the weaponry, (Or for that matter any condition outside of a spotless Labortory... ) and the Ak is much easier to use, and maintain, they are also loads cheaper to purchase and much easier to get ahold of. The ones that are using M16s? Are getting them from LAW ENFORCEMENT down south of our borders. You know the people we (as in the Government) Sell the guns to in the first place.
Hell some of them even have Tanks, and attack helicopters. Do you wanna tell me they are getting those from Gunshows too? If they are, please by all means Will show me what gunshow and where, because I have a ticket to book, because I've been getting Jipped.
The thing is, there is not a Single thing the Anti Gun Nazis have espoused that's even remotely accurate, and they don't even have any circumstantial evidence that really weighs in their favor either. If anything circumstantial and tertiary evidence is showing that Gun Ownership is doing more GOOD for society than bad.
Public education
Socialist, state-run indoctrination centers, for producing pro-government citizens, to increase reliance and dependence on the government, to increase profit.
medicare, social securitiy
Socialist, unjust redistribution of wealth for the purpose of getting people's votes and keeping the poor and infirm dependent on the government, to increase profit.
Out of curiousity, why do people continually complain about insurance companies while skipping over the source? Shouldn't hospitals and doctors be called greedy when they provide (often times necessary) services at prices which are outlandish or unaffordable? Something as common and widespread as childbirth supposedly can cost around $10k.
I don't have as huge issue with doctors/hospitals (I do think their prices are insane though), but I also don't have an issue with insurance companies. I was just wondering why insurance companies are villified while the doctors/hospitals gets off free.
They are part of the Unholy Trinity too, but we can only go after one at a time really. Because each of them is that messed up.
It seems like the mindset is: healthcare is too expensive so insurance companies are evil because they don't cover everyone and everything. At least to me, it seems like it should be: healthcare is too expensive, so we should skip the middle man and somehow lower prices at the source. I never understood why a simple, common thing like an overnight visit for childbirth can cost $10k without complications.
People will say that insurance companies kill people by not covering their procedures. They expect the insurance company to lose money to save lives. But its fine for the doctors to kill people by not doing the procedure if they don't get paid. They're not expected to lose money to save lives.
I guess I don't like the inequality. But I guess its easier to hate some corporation with no face than your local doctor.
Fixing Insurance is the easy part. (In comparison to Pharmacuiticals, and Doctors) We'll get to the other pair of greedy bastards eventually.
And the easiest fix isn't always a good fix.
One, is that if you aren't covered, it's difficult just to get in to a doctor. If you haven't convinced the secretary that you can pay (either through insurance or having a great big wad of cash laying around) then it's unlikely you'll even get to talk to a doctor.
That and, if you have insurance, then you're in the situation where for most of your life someone has been giving them money to have you covered. Looking at my last paycheck, I pay about 9% of each and every paycheck to my insurance company. And before I got on my own insurance, I was covered by one of my parent's insurance. That adds up. So when you do get sick and then the insurance company says "oh no, we can't cover this" it's a bit of an upset. Its "You've gotten how much money out of me over the last 25 years, and now you're denying me a procedure in the name of profits?"
Toss in that, because "it's the way things are done", you don't really have a good alternative. While I, personally, would prefer to have my health coverage through a savings plan (instead of paying an insurance company, I put my monthly amount in a special savings account that gets matched to some degree by my employer, much like they contribute to your health insurance plan but into a savings account instead) then a gamble (which is basically what insurance is. You're making a bet that you'll get sick while they're betting you won't. If you do get sick, you win and they pay out! Unless they can find a way to say "no" and keep your money anyway. It's a gamble where they can change the rules and cheat) but that's not how the system works. If I want my employer to provide me the same benefits it gives other people, then I have to go along with health insurance, there just isn't another option.
Then of course there's the fact that the insurance companies have been cheating. Whether it's spontaneously discovering pre-existing conditions when you get seriously sick ("What? You have aids now? Uh, well, we're not going to cover you anymore because all your life you've had ashtma and just never knew, you evil liar you.") and played fast and loose with the rules (Being a woman is a pre-existing condition. Being the victim of domestic violence is a pre-existing condition.) and so-on, they've done a lot to earn people's ire. Whether to the degree that they've received it or not is a matter of judgement, but you can't say that they've been playing fair all along.
So, a summary...
People vilify the insurance companies rather then doctors for a variety of reasons, including...
- Without insurance you might not be able to visit a doctor at all
- Even if you've been playing by the rules, they may still deny you coverage
- There aren't other viable options then dealing with the insurance industry
- They make and change the rules to the end of profits, and most people have no choice but to play by them, even though the dice are loaded from the start
- Did I mention the whole "being a woman" is a pre-existing condition?
For example, your first point was that without insurance, you won't even get service. That's the service provider's fault. They are the people denying you service.
People focus on not having insurance or not being covered OVER the excessively expensiveness of the service. And I'm not talking about having a serious condition or needing an emergency surgery, stuff as routine as having a kid costs obscene amounts of money.
Doctors/hospitals just seem to get a free pass while people are focused on the insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies.
I see the reasons that people vilify insurance companies. But my question remains: why don't people vilify the service providers.
Because they do their job. They heal people for money. That's what they're supposed to do. Insurance companies (in the US, as I can understand it) are supposed to pay so that their customers can get healed by doctors in hospitals.
So when a customer gets sick, and the insurance company refuse to pay up, it's logical that you blame them, because they're the ones failing to do the job they've been paid for. Perhaps the doctors and hospitals should demand less money for their services to begin with, but at least they tend to provide you with the services they've been paid, unlike insurance companies.
People aren't always rational, and to many people it appears that the insurance company is the gatekeeper to health care. Whether you feel that's accurate or not is irrelevant.
When they pay for my routine dential visit, they're doing their job. But if I need to have major dential surgery and my plan doesn't cover that completely, then that doesn't mean they're not doing their job.
When I selected my health insurance, there were several different plans with included different options and had different costs. If I chose a plan that is cheaper, shouldn't I expect less coverage? If I wanted a completely comprehensive plan, I'd expect it'd cost more.
To me, its similar to auto-insurance. You balance what risks you're willing to take with how much money you want to pay. Obviously having a worst case scenerio is worse in the health insurance arena, but there were agreed upon conditions. Their job is to make health care more affordable and they honestly do it. If the insurance companies were gone (and prices didn't drop), much less people would be able to afford health care.
Erato: But the insurance company is doing its job. Its paying for the agreed upon expenses. Its one thing if they remove the agreed upon coverage, but its another thing if your insurance just doesn't cover what you want to get done.
Except that it can be difficult to figure out exactly what you get with many insurance companies. When people think they're covered and it turns out they aren't, due to some obscure clause in the contract written in a language most people have trouble deciphering, they get mad. Because it feels like the insurance company was trying to rip them off. Which it was. As EE said, it's a bet, only, the big company with the money and the lawyers have a lot of opportunities to cheat.
Their job is to make health care more affordable and they honestly do it. If the insurance companies were gone (and prices didn't drop), much less people would be able to afford health care.
I'm not sure about that. Insurance doesn't make healthcare cheaper, it's just a way to protect yourself against the worst. In the vast majority of cases, people will spend more money on insurance than they'll ever get back, because if they didn't, insurance companies would take a loss. Most people, if they put as much money into a savings account each year as they pay to get health insurance, would be able to afford health care and have money left to spend.
Other disturbing news. The Top Execs weren't what was killing GM. (They sure as hell didn't help mind you)
The UAW was.
Dodge, on the other hand? They are just a bunch of morons over there and have been since the 70s.
Will: most countries also have a far far smaller population with far less ethnic diversity within it's borders. Also, it's becoming more and more apparent that as the percentage of gun ownership rises, crime actually Decreases. Heck the wild west wasn't even wild like the movies show etc. And gun ownership percentages were VERY high out there, murder in general was actually fairly low back then. Do you know why that is? Because frankly Guns are like Nukes. They are great Deterrents.
I know the wild west wasn't as bad as it is portrayed in movies and I know other countries have smaller populations, and in some case much higher police to civilian ratio than we have I'm just not comfortable with some kinds of guns being in the hands of civilians. Just seems kinda I don't know stupid, then again I also don't like the KKK and other groups having what amount to armed camps in the states I personally think the neo nazis and KKK should be put on the list of terrorist orginizations and outlawed, but not going off track..
The bad guys down in Columbia, and Central/South America in general? Most of them ARE NOT using our Crappy Unreliable M16. Jungle conditions are not permissive to the weaponry, (Or for that matter any condition outside of a spotless Labortory... ) and the Ak is much easier to use, and maintain, they are also loads cheaper to purchase and much easier to get ahold of. The ones that are using M16s? Are getting them from LAW ENFORCEMENT down south of our borders. You know the people we (as in the Government) Sell the guns to in the first place.
I'm aware of where they get their weapons I know those countries militaries might as well not exist, though to be fair Mexico is trying to change things and they seem to have a president who is willing to stand up to the cartels so who knows maybe things will change.
Hell some of them even have Tanks, and attack helicopters. Do you wanna tell me they are getting those from Gunshows too? If they are, please by all means Will show me what gunshow and where, because I have a ticket to book, because I've been getting Jipped.
LOL I just know here in Florida the two gun shows I've been to I saw far fewer background checks going on, and I believe the laws are somewhat more relaxed at them. I could be wrong on that but I'm not sure. I have seen people buy old grenades with the primer and such taken out of them, how hard is it to refill them with something like black powder though?
The thing is, there is not a Single thing the Anti Gun Nazis have espoused that's even remotely accurate, and they don't even have any circumstantial evidence that really weighs in their favor either. If anything circumstantial and tertiary evidence is showing that Gun Ownership is doing more GOOD for society than bad.
Maybe I'm willing to give you the benifit of the doubt but buying rifles originally designed for the military still seems kinda I don't know scary. The only reasons I can even think of for wanting something like an Ak-47 even one that isn't fully auto is if your going to go kill a whole lot of people.
Erato: But the insurance company is doing its job. Its paying for the agreed upon expenses. Its one thing if they remove the agreed upon coverage, but its another thing if your insurance just doesn't cover what you want to get done.
And this is the issue insurance should cover all medical expenses no exceptions allowed. If you have medical insurance then the company should be legally obligated to pay all medical bills without a premium or copay that's what you pay them for. Unfortunatley they don't or they charge obscene amounts.
When they pay for my routine dential visit, they're doing their job. But if I need to have major dential surgery and my plan doesn't cover that completely, then that doesn't mean they're not doing their job.
I beg to differ every plan should cover every medical expesne otherwise what good is it?
When I selected my health insurance, there were several different plans with included different options and had different costs. If I chose a plan that is cheaper, shouldn't I expect less coverage? If I wanted a completely comprehensive plan, I'd expect it'd cost more.
No they should charge a small fee and cover everything otherwise it's not worth crap.
To me, its similar to auto-insurance. You balance what risks you're willing to take with how much money you want to pay. Obviously having a worst case scenerio is worse in the health insurance arena, but there were agreed upon conditions. Their job is to make health care more affordable and they honestly do it. If the insurance companies were gone (and prices didn't drop), much less people would be able to afford health care.
Except medical expenses are so high most people cannot afford them that's what insurance is for if it's not going to cover everything its worthless. Hence why we need a major over haul.
And I meant that without insurance companies, the amount of people able to recieve expensive procedures would be much lower. You are correct that their business model revolves around the fact that most people won't spend what they pay. I guess I should have said it reduces the variability in the cost of healthcare. It limits some of the "you become broke because of an accident or illness" but obviously does not eliminate it.
So I'm not trying to say insurance companies are saints, but I'm wondering why doctors/hospitals seem to go blameless. The same analogy could be drawn against pharmaceutical companies who seem to be highly vilified.
And I understand that medical fees are really high. That's what I'm wondering about. Why are fees so high? I could understand it if it was to get the best brain surgeon in the world to do some new, rare procedure, but even simple, routine hospital stays like the typical childbirth visit can cost $10, 000. I really wish I knew a doctor, so I could ask him what is actually reasonable.
So I wondering why we accept the fact that doctors/hospitals charge outrageous prices for procedures that seem routine?
williamhm75: The problem is that if they cover everything, then the fees would be much higher. If you want cheap fees, the coverage has to be less. If you want everything covered, the fees have to be higher. If not, how can they stay in business?
And I understand that medical fees are really high. That's what I'm wondering about. Why are fees so high? I could understand it if it was to get the best brain surgeon in the world to do some new, rare procedure, but even simple, routine hospital stays like the typical childbirth visit can cost $10, 000. I really wish I knew a doctor, so I could ask him what is actually reasonable.
So I wondering why we accept the fact that doctors/hospitals charge outrageous prices for procedures that seem routine?
Not sure why part if is probably due to the ridiculous insurance doctors need against lawsuits. Personally health care should be free and available to everyone not just the rich or those who can afford it, call it socialist if you want but it does work in Europe and other places not without a host of other problems true and it would require a lot to implement it as well as potentially higher taxes, but our tax codes need to be rewritten anyway right now their are way too many loop holes for the people who really have to get out of paying taxes. If you fix the tax codes you could then probably afford universal health care.
Compared to what it looks like we're moving towards (government mandate of private healthcare), I'd actually chose a government run healthcare system. That just seems to make very little sense to me. But , I'd prefer a more free market system in the first place. But if I had to chose one of the two, I'd say do it right instead of whatever half-assed system we'll have in place come 2012.
And I'd strongly support simplifying the tax system. I'd personally be down with some sort of super high sales tax (instead of an income tax), but just simplifying the system by making less exceptions would be good.
I know the wild west wasn't as bad as it is portrayed in movies and I know other countries have smaller populations, and in some case much higher police to civilian ratio than we have I'm just not comfortable with some kinds of guns being in the hands of civilians. Just seems kinda I don't know stupid, then again I also don't like the KKK and other groups having what amount to armed camps in the states I personally think the neo nazis and KKK should be put on the list of terrorist orginizations and outlawed, but not going off track..
I'm aware of where they get their weapons I know those countries militaries might as well not exist, though to be fair Mexico is trying to change things and they seem to have a president who is willing to stand up to the cartels so who knows maybe things will change.
LOL I just know here in Florida the two gun shows I've been to I saw far fewer background checks going on, and I believe the laws are somewhat more relaxed at them. I could be wrong on that but I'm not sure. I have seen people buy old grenades with the primer and such taken out of them, how hard is it to refill them with something like black powder though?
Maybe I'm willing to give you the benifit of the doubt but buying rifles originally designed for the military still seems kinda I don't know scary. The only reasons I can even think of for wanting something like an Ak-47 even one that isn't fully auto is if your going to go kill a whole lot of people.
Thing is with those groups they are Criminal Organizations. They by definition do not Play by the Rules. The only thing Anti Gun Laws are doing, is keeping people from being able to adequately defend themselves from those groups. The amount of Fully Auto weapons, grenades, hand made armored vehicles (in some extreme cases), etc aren't going to drop in those groups just because the rest of the Legal Population can't have em. And if you say "well it's law enforcements job" What's the average Response Time, Will? 20 -45 minutes if I recall correctly depending on neighborhood and luck.
And furthermore the cops? Aren't armed well enough to handle those nut jobs. Hell the cops can't even handle Gang Wars. Do you think they could stand a remote chance against well organized and disciplined Paramilitary forces, especially with their little crappy kevlar vests and pea shooter handguns? You're better off holing up somewhere with an AR15 and blowing whatever **** comes looking for you into nothingness.
Or a high powered Game hunting rifle.
And when did you go to those gunshows?
Yeah, and how hard is it really to make a Bomb in general though? I mean really if I'm going to kill loads of people I'm not wasting my time with bullets. Some fertilizer, gasoline, and ammonia later I've got a much more deadly weapon. How hard is it to modify a weapon that was never Fully Auto to start with and give a Semi Auto a Hair Trigger? Hell you don't even really need to give a semi auto a hair trigger if your fingers are fast enough. So are you saying those should be banned too?
Yeah, Mexico and maybe. But that's not Columbia, Chile, Paraguay, and a host of others in the South American Continent.
Lots of stuff we use every day, was originally designed for Military Use. The Interstate, Computers (let's be honest here), the internet, Cellular communications, satelites, GPS, the list is innumerable. These are all tools, and all of which if used in a malicious manner can seriously Wreck Havoc on society in general, some of which More So than even owning something like an Abrams tank would.
Most Ak owners in the US aren't planning on killing people with them, most of them are Collectors, some are Sportsman, and some are hunters. Most people that plan on killing other people with guns? Probably are using a good old fashioned Semi Auto 9mm pistol, or MAYBE a Shotgun.
Thing is with those groups they are Criminal Organizations. They by definition do not Play by the Rules. The only thing Anti Gun Laws are doing, is keeping people from being able to adequately defend themselves from those groups.
I've heard this before but I've never quite understood it. How does having a gun allow you to defend yourself against other people with guns? From what I've heard about gang shootings, either someone is marked for death and shot, or someone gets hit in the crossfire. The victim doesn't benefit from having a gun in either of those cases, because the shot comes too fast and unforeseen to do anything about it.
I can understand self defence and training in hand-to-hand combat, because you can often see those attackers coming, or they'll still leave you standing after the first punch, or they wont even punch you but try to grab you instead, all of which leaves you time to strike back. But once someone points a gun at you and shoots, nothing save a bad aim or a bulletproof vest will save you.
Besides if Guns were Worthless for self defense against other guns do you think my government would waste money on giving them to Law Enforcement? Having a gun is better than no gun at all in a Gun Fight.
Heck the term Gun Fight stems from the fact that, there are shots being exchanged. Something else that will save you when getting shot at is it not hitting you in a vital area.
Being armed with a gun, and smart use of cover is alot better than just praying that "maybe he won't see me!".
All of the above should be obvious. It seems to me that it's not. I can't exactly tell you why.
BTW, I own an SKS (the AK's cousin) and I've yet to use it to kill another human being. I own it because I am a collector and I use it for target shooting and for hunting as well. Could it kill someone? Yep. But so can your butter knife. Again, it's not the object, it's the person holding on to it. Unless you go after the source issue, you'll never correct the problem.
Cover, will also save you. And really there are ALOT of bad shots out there.
Besides if Guns were Worthless for self defense against other guns do you think my government would waste money on giving them to Law Enforcement? Having a gun is better than no gun at all in a Gun Fight.
Heck the term Gun Fight stems from the fact that, there are shots being exchanged. Something else that will save you when getting shot at is it not hitting you in a vital area.
Being armed with a gun, and smart use of cover is alot better than just praying that "maybe he won't see me!".
Cover is not a gun. And police officers have guns because they're supposed to initiate and interfere with fights, not just try to get away unharmed. Besides, we're not just talking about hardened criminals getting guns (and even if we were, the fact that the police can arrest them simply for carrying weapons is a huge advantage, at least in countries where the police are expected to be able to deliver good evidence).
I was stalked by my violent ex for a little over a year, and while having a gun might have been an advantage at some point (I can't recall a single time that it would be, but I won't dismiss the possibility), him not having a gun was a true blessing. If I'd ever wondered at that time if having American weapon laws would have been a good thing, I assure you, the answer would have been a resounding NO!, because no gun can ease feeling of danger that comes from having a mentally unstable stalker able to instantly kill you at a whim and a distance.
It seems like the crux of their argument is that if you ban guns, criminals will still obtain them illegally. So you may make it slightly more difficult for a criminal to own a gun, but you make it impossible for a law abiding citizen to own a gun.
I also do not know how easily criminals in countries which ban guns obtain them. Is it common for organized crime, gangs, or even robbers to have guns in your country?
Cover is not a gun. And police officers have guns because they're supposed to initiate and interfere with fights, not just try to get away unharmed. Besides, we're not just talking about hardened criminals getting guns (and even if we were, the fact that the police can arrest them simply for carrying weapons is a huge advantage, at least in countries where the police are expected to be able to deliver good evidence).
I was stalked by my violent ex for a little over a year, and while having a gun might have been an advantage at some point (I can't recall a single time that it would be, but I won't dismiss the possibility), him not having a gun was a true blessing. If I'd ever wondered at that time if having American weapon laws would have been a good thing, I assure you, the answer would have been a resounding NO!, because no gun can ease feeling of danger that comes from having a mentally unstable stalker able to instantly kill you at a whim and a distance.
Cover and a Gun again. Combination. Or hell just having a gun. Being held at gunpoint in an alleyway? As you are "fumbling" in your purse for your wallet, you could just Cap the SOB that's probably going to kill you anyway with a holdaway pistol. Same applies with a gun under the coat.
Trust me, it's much better to be like armed in that kind of situation. Let alone a situation where shooting has already started.
If guns were so worthless, against other people with guns we would have found a new weapon and defense system by now.
Your stalker, depending on your country's self defense laws could have had a harder time thinking about stalking you or approaching you. If he thinks his safety is legitmately on the line he's probably going to at least think a little before trying to approach you.
Your stalker could already kill you from a distance, or hell in a much more thorough manner than a gun. Did he have access to gasoline, and lawn fertilizers? If so all he had to do there, was come up with a detonator device and bam dead the next time you got in your car.
As your stalker ex didn't care about laws anyway he probably could have come up with a gun illegally. So really what would you rather have, no gun while he has one? Or would you rather have the chance at blowing him away if he came for you?
But isn't their point, if he wanted to shoot you, he could still obtain a gun illegally?
It seems like the crux of their argument is that if you ban guns, criminals will still obtain them illegally. So you may make it slightly more difficult for a criminal to own a gun, but you make it impossible for a law abiding citizen to own a gun.
Except criminals aren't just criminals. There are many degrees. There are planned acts of crime and spontaneous acts of crime. There are professional criminals and amateurs. There are criminals with no scruples and criminals who still see themselves as basically good people.
I don't believe for a second that my stalker would have ever gotten out and tried to to obtain a gun illegally, let alone carrying it around, and I don't believe he would have ever planned to kill, or even hurt me. But he sometimes lost control of himself and let his anger get the better of him, threatening me, lashing out at me, trying to get into my house etc.. If he'd had a gun at any of these occasions, things could have gotten ugly, if for no other reason than threatening me to comply would have been so much easier, and thus more tempting.
I also do not know how easily criminals in countries which ban guns obtain them. Is it common for organized crime, gangs, or even robbers to have guns in your country?
I don't actually think guns are banned anywhere, just restricted. You can still obtain permission to own weapons for the purpose of hunting, or as collectors items, just not always the exact ones you want. Robbers here sometimes have guns, though they often turn out to be fake. But carrying around an illegal gun or showing it in public is risky, because the police can arrest you on the spot and put you in jail for a long time (by Danish standards), so we rarely have incidents of spontaneous gun violence or shooting accidents.
We've recently seen an increase in gang violence and subsequent shootings, but this is a relatively new phenomenon, and I doubt it could be prevented by the onlookers being allowed to carry firearms. And it seems to be a huge help for the police that they don't have to wait for gang members to openly hurt or kill someone in order to arrest them. If they suspect someone of being a gang member, they can obtain a search warrant, or wait until he enters a visitation zone (areas, usually inside heavily populated areas, where the police are allowed to search people for weapons), and arrest him simply for carrying an illegal weapon.
America has a very similar set-up. See a guy in a gang area that looks like a gang banger? The cops can stop him and check him out. If he's carrying a weapon, he's boned unless he's got a concealed carry permit - if that's even legal where he is. We have gun laws and penalties for using guns in crimes. Felons can't even legally own a weapon. It's not like it's an everybody has a gun situation.
Yeah, there are background checks that go into just owning a firearm. We don't hand them out like pez candy. (really we don't! No matter how much Hil Dog and company would like to espouse otherwise) Shootings are also not that common, stabbings etc? Beatings and assaults? Much more common than Shootings.
You could argue that your ex would be more dangerous if he had a gun in those situations, but would he have been able to get one over here. Also if you had a gun you would also be decidedly dangerous perhaps more so.
Usually gang bangers don't have permits. Because they don't want the gun traced back to them immediately if it's left at a scene. A very very large percentage of them don't even have guns registered to them.
If you are a safe, law abiding, and conscientious gun owner then what would you have to fear from the process of buying a gun being made more strict in order to weed out dangerous and unlawful purchasers and being held responsible for what happens with a gun you own?
It's also been demonstrated that registration doesn't solve crimes. Perhaps surprisingly, people that register their weapons aren't really likely to use a weapon that can be traced to them in a crime. Really. Registration has also been shown to be - twice - a prelude to confiscation (or elimination if you prefer). Britain and Australia both used forced registration to determine who had what so that they could then compel them to turn the guns in when it was decided that private citizens didn't need guns any longer. I hope that explains why some people are a little reticent to trust registration programs as they've been proven to have no real benefit and whole lotta downside.
Why do people assume "gun control" means "gun elimination"?
If you are a safe, law abiding, and conscientious gun owner then what would you have to fear from the process of buying a gun being made more strict in order to weed out dangerous and unlawful purchasers and being held responsible for what happens with a gun you own?
The fact that oh I don't know we have some fairly tight gunlaws as it is? Most of the people that have guns illegally got them illegally. In most states you are supposed to go through a background check, felons can't own firearms legally. What more do you want? Pysch Evaluations? (too costly and time consuming, and might not even work in the first place), DNA registry?
Alot of the bigger guns require special permits already.
You can't just walk into a store and freely buy a gun.
Gun Control is alot like DRM in the best of cases. Frustrating for the guy following the rules, and ultimately ineffective at stopping the Bad People, from acquiring the product anyway.
If guns were not so prevelant and so freely available there would be far fewer guns making their way to the criminal element.
Canada has about 1/3 the number of guns per capita as the US but only a minuscule murder and gun-crime rate by comparison. There were 594 murders in Canada in 2007 with about 30% (approx. 178) committed with guns.
Compare this to the US where there were 16,425 murders in 2007 and about 70% (approx. 11,497) were committed with guns. Even adjusting for population differences, the US gun murder rate is nearly 10 times that in Canada.
The main difference is gun control. Not banning, control. We have much stricter gun laws here - particularly in regards to concealed weapons, semi- and fully-automatic weapons, and handguns - and the result is far fewer gun-related death and crimes. Sure there are illegal guns on our streets, but most of them are - no surprise - shipped up from the US. Despite the lack of freely available heavy weapons, handguns and assault weapons we still have some of the best hunting in the world, so that argument doesn't really hold a lot of water.
Now don't get me wrong, I don't claim our gun laws are perfect by any stretch of the imagination, I'm simply pointing out that effective gun control can is workable, that it does not mean a complete ban on firearms, and that free access to guns clearly leads to greatly increased levels of gun related crime.
Which clearly demonstrates that existing gun laws do not work and bolsters, rather than disproves, the idea that revisions to gun control laws are necessary.
If guns were not so prevelant and so freely available there would be far fewer guns making their way to the criminal element.
Wha? Take a look at drug laws and how effective they are for a minute. This is simply wrong. Drugs aren't legally prevelant and not freely available and yet, somehow, they seem to be all over the damn place causing all sorts of problems. It's almost as if criminals don't care about laws and regulations and the like. Insane, I know.
Drugs are illegal in the US of A. People still buy and sell them in huge amounts. The point here is that no law is going to stop criminals from being criminals. No restriction is going to restrict a criminal. Stop blaming illegal use of firearms on the law abiding people that manufacture, sell, buy, own and use them. They are not the problem. Restricting them isn't gonna do a damn thing. It already isn't. Why on Earth would you think that, if criminals already ignore the laws we have on the books, that crime would suddenly decrease if new, harsher laws were passed? It just doesn't make sense and the 'war on drugs' ought to show anyone willing to pay even a tiny bit of attention exactly why.
Say we restrict the allowable weapons to any non-handgun and non-semi-auto. That's gonna somehow reduce crime? How? You can't own pot. You can't own coke. You can't own ecstasy. Somehow, though, people still do. So tell me why a ban on a type of gun or even the far less extreme increased difficulty in gaining a permit or whatever is gonna stop a criminal from getting whatever it is he's after anyway. How? Why, suddenly, would this criminal decide to obey the law? By definition, he doesn't play that game. Gun control only has an impact on the law abiding. No matter how well written or well intended a law is, it still relies upon the individual to comply. Only those already predisposed to do so will. This stuff is common sense.
We already have laws on the books that impart more punishment on criminals that use weapons to commit a crime. We have laws that prohibit convicted felons from owning firearms. Nobody in the world of crime cares. So what can we do? Further restrict the law abiding with feel good legislation? That's been proven not to work, hasn't it? No, the answer is to up the penalties already in place. Commit a crime with a gun? 25 years added with no chance of parole until they're completed. Obtain a gun illegally or own a gun illegally? Same. Maybe even more. Make people pay for using these tools in a nefarious way. That's a way that may actually have an impact upon the people that are the actual problem instead of those that obey the law. In other words, it targets the right group - unlike registration, permits, etc. Much better, IMO.
Wha? Take a look at drug laws and how effective they are for a minute. This is simply wrong. Drugs aren't legally prevelant and not freely available and yet, somehow, they seem to be all over the damn place causing all sorts of problems. It's almost as if criminals don't care about laws and regulations and the like. Insane, I know.
Apples and oranges.
Differing ethnicities. As I recall we have a much more diverse range of ethnic groups than you do in Canada.
Also, it's a proven fact that we're a violent bunch down here. Take away our guns and we'll just murder each other with cars, bombs, knives etc.
Given our population of 300+ million people, 11k deciding to murder someone with a gun really isn't a concern.
Apples and oranges.
No. It's reality. Criminals do not obey laws.
Can you explain how more gun laws are going to decrease crime?
As a fun tidbit, I decided to see how many times 27,272 goes into 365. Your average person will live 74.71 and alot of numbers years before getting Shot and killed. I think that it's safe to say Guns aren't really a problem in America.
you actually have greater odds of being killed by a Drunk Driver than getting shot. (Numbers are fairly close) Dying in an accident? much greater odds. (37,000)
Heart Disease kills 600k every year.
So yeah.
www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm anyway you've got alot to worry about from Natural Causes compared to firearms and your fellow man in America.
Something to factor into our "high" murder rate.
Differing ethnicities. As I recall we have a much more diverse range of ethnic groups than you do in Canada.
Sorry, but no. Canada is more ethnically diverse. In fact Toronto, my home town, is actually the most ethnically diverse city in the world.
Also, it's a proven fact that we're a violent bunch down here. Take away our guns and we'll just murder each other with cars, bombs, knives etc.
Then why make it so very, very easy to do by making guns so easily available? Guns don;t kill people, they just make it a lot easier to kill people.
Given our population of 300+ million people, 11k deciding to murder someone with a gun really isn't a concern.
I'm sure it is of great concern to the friends, family and loved ones of approximately 11,000 of your citizens.
Because frankly if we didn't murder each other with firearms it'll be something else.
Since Guns have been becoming more widespread in America, the murder rate is actually FALLING. Not increasing. If anything circumstantial evidence says that the gun laws we have in place, or the increased distribution are doing MORE good than harm over time.
Seriously, as more of our states are issuing Concealed carry permits and gun ownership has soared the amount of Murder has dropped. Couldn't be because Firearms are a good deterrent or something.
In America in 2009 alone there were 14 MILLION guns sold.
And only 11k of them were involved in lethal shootings?
Firearms have also in the past acted in part as a Deterrent against Foreign invasion of America as recently as WW2.
“I would never invade the United States, there would be a gun behind every blade of grass.”
–Admiral Yamamato, Commander of the Japanese Navy WW2
Also Aussieland and it's gun bans have had the OPPOSITE effect of making the citizenry safer. Assault has risen 44 percent, murder went up, robberies etc.
Also the amount of countries that practice Gun Bans that inflict Genocides on their populace (that can no longer in anyway defend itself) is disturbingly high.
There's more FOR owning guns than there is against it.
Canada also has about 1/3 the per capita murder rate as the United States.
(0.0149063 per 1000 v 0.042802 per 1000; www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_perca...)
So its hard to compare the violence in the countries.
Also, the chart here: www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.htm... shows that there appears to be no link between % household with guns and firearm homocide rate.
The US has 39% and 3.72
Norway has 32% and 0.30
Canada has 29.1% and 0.76
City. But Toronto is hardly the whole of Canada.
Tell that to the rest of Canada. ;)
Because frankly if we didn't murder each other with firearms it'll be something else.
So why make it easier? The "we'd just kill each other another way" argument is more than a little spurious.
Since Guns have been becoming more widespread in America, the murder rate is actually FALLING. Not increasing. If anything circumstantial evidence says that the gun laws we have in place, or the increased distribution are doing MORE good than harm over time.
Seriously, as more of our states are issuing Concealed carry permits and gun ownership has soared the amount of Murder has dropped. Couldn't be because Firearms are a good deterrent or something.
A deterrent only works of the other party knows you have it. By definition, a concealed gun it not a deterrent.
You are assuming a causal link between more guns and decreased violence when no evidence of such a link exists. Violent crime rates in general have been falling for many years. Same here in Canada. The reduction in gun violence reflects this, though it remains proportionally the same over time.
And yet in Austrailia it has risen now that guns are illegal down there.
* Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent.
* Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent.
* Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!
This has been since their ban on guns.
It's because frankly the crooks have less to worry about from Law Biding Citizens. Over here, crime is falling because the crooks have to at least consider the idea that their would be victims could be armed.
Yeah it sucks for the 11k people that died from guns. But how many of those guns are legally owned and registered I wonder? Probably not as many as you'd think. But really 1: 27,272 is hardly an epidemic. That's like saying we should all spend our entire lives indoors because Lightning will strike you.
A deterrent only works of the other party knows you have it. By definition, a concealed gun it not a deterrent.
That's not true. If the other party knows that you COULD have it, it can still act a deterrent. Its the whole hidden warden idea. If you know that some people will have guns but you don't know who, then you are less likely to attack anyone (compared to knowing if they had a gun or not).
If anything it's numbers that are utterly Contrary to what Hil Dog and her Gunophobic friends would have everyone believe.
Heck ever notice how most of these mass shootings that have happened were in Gun Free zones?
Differing ethnicities. As I recall we have a much more diverse range of ethnic groups than you do in Canada.
Um... have you actually looked at interracial crime statistics vs. intraracial crime statistics? I haven't done so myself in a long time, but last time I did so I remember it being that, by far, most violent crimes were intraracial, not interracial, even when adjusted for populations.
Easier? You do realize gun ownership (legally) Isn't just a trip to Walmart away down here right? Banning guns or Restricting them will actually make it EASIER for the criminals to kill people. And I have proof.
And yet in Austrailia it has risen now that guns are illegal down there.
* Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent.
* Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent.
* Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!
This has been since their ban on guns.
According to conservative e-rag WorldNetDaily and like minded people who wish to foster the same agenda.
It's because frankly the crooks have less to worry about from Law Biding Citizens. Over here, crime is falling because the crooks have to at least consider the idea that their would be victims could be armed.
Or, more correctly, that it is a myth: www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns....
Yeah it sucks for the 11k people that died from guns. But how many of those guns are legally owned and registered I wonder? Probably not as many as you'd think. But really 1: 27,272 is hardly an epidemic. That's like saying we should all spend our entire lives indoors because Lightning will strike you.
No, it's like saying that placing stricter controls on dangerous weapons would reduce the number of people killed by them.
Here's a link to a study on the effect of banning Saturday Night Specials in Maryland: injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/5/4/259...
Cutting to the chase: "Conclusions—Maryland's law has reduced the use of banned Saturday night specials by criminals in Baltimore. Contrary to the claims of some opponents of gun control laws, regulation of the lawful market for firearms can also affect criminals."
I'm not saying there is a simple fix, nor am I suggesting banning guns or that doing so would eliminate murder or violence, I simply cannot fathom why any sane, responsible gun owner would oppose tighter regulation. If you're not doing anything wrong you've nothing to fear.
If you're not doing anything wrong you've nothing to fear.
How about "If I'm not doing anything wrong, why do they care what I'm doing?"
I'm not saying there is a simple fix, nor am I suggesting banning guns or that doing so would eliminate murder or violence, I simply cannot fathom why any sane, responsible gun owner would oppose tighter regulation. If you're not doing anything wrong you've nothing to fear.
Why would any sane, responsible person think more tightly regulating law-abiding citizens will cause a decrease in crime? If I'm sane and responsible, why regulate me? What problem will that solve? Once again, you're looking for a solution in the wrong place. The law-abiding are not the problem, the criminals are. Criminals, by definition, do not respect the law. Targeting those that already follow the law with more laws isn't any kind of answer. It won't work. The people breaking the law will just break these new ones, too. So the only people effected are the law-abiding. Why not increase the penalties that are already on the books? Why not actually enforce them and make sentences mandatory? Target those responsible for crimes, not those that aren't. Know what I can't fathom? Why this seemingly obvious situation is so often looked right past.
Because tighter regulation tends to lead to eventual Banning.
Ah yes, the old "slippery slope" argument - the waterslide of reasoned debate.
How about "If I'm not doing anything wrong, why do they care what I'm doing?"
If what you are doing involves firearms everyone should care.
Why would any sane, responsible person think more tightly regulating law-abiding citizens will cause a decrease in crime? If I'm sane and responsible, why regulate me? What problem will that solve? Once again, you're looking for a solution in the wrong place. The law-abiding are not the problem, the criminals are. Criminals, by definition, do not respect the law. Targeting those that already follow the law with more laws isn't any kind of answer. It won't work. The people breaking the law will just break these new ones, too. So the only people effected are the law-abiding. Why not increase the penalties that are already on the books? Why not actually enforce them and make sentences mandatory? Target those responsible for crimes, not those that aren't. Know what I can't fathom? Why this seemingly obvious situation is so often looked right past.
Nobody is talking about regulating citizens, they are talking about regulating guns.
And just FYI, just want to clear up a few things in case people get the wrong impression.
I am not anti-gun. I dig guns. I'm planning a friend's bachelor party in Vegas so we can all go to The Gun Store and fire some fully-auto fun. I am also not in favour of excessive legislation over personal liberty. I do believe that firearms are far too prevalent and that more needs to be done to reduce the danger they present.
Here's a quick graph of total violent crimes by year from '94 through '08, though I'm pretty sure the data for '94 is incomplete. [link] You can find more data (and graphs) at the AIC's website, [link], which is pretty neat. Can look at all sorts of statistics, compare by total amounts or percent change over previous year, lots of neat stuff. Seriously, looking at crime statistics has never been so much fun!
Moving on though, since the numbers don't actually tell you the crime rate (they give raw numbers or percent change from previous year, not any indication of the crime rate compared to the total population) I popped the numbers into a spreadsheet to see what rates I could dig out of them.
For population, I got numbers from Wikipedia and the CIA Fact Sheets, and since that's the way the AIC site gave it, I measured crime in # of victims per year. The percentages I give ard # of victims/population
What did I find?
In '95 there were...
130,083 victims of any violent crime (0.76% of the population)
325 murder victims (0.0019% of the population)
5,258 armed robbery victims (0.0308% of the population)
13,099 sexual assault victims (0.0767% of the population)
In '99 there were...
172,346 victims of any violent crime (0.91% of the population)
344 murder victims (0.0018% of the population)
9,452 armed robbery victims (0.0499% of the population)
14,699 sexual assault victims (0.0777% of the population)
In '04 there were...
193,137 victims of any violent crime (0.96% of the population)
263 murder victims (0.0013% of the population)
6,030 armed robbery victims (0.0300% of the population)
19,171 sexual assault victims (0.0954% of the population)
In '08 there were...
207,098 victims of any violent crime (1.01% of the population)
260 murder victims (0.0013% of the population)
6,716 armed robbery victims (0.0326% of the population)
19,733 sexual assault victims (0.0958% of the population)
I did, of course, calculate the numbers of the interim years, but without being able to easily make a table (and since messing with the html wouldn't have been "easy") I just picked these years, as they avoided the spikes I noticed, and give a broad view. The years inbetween seemed to follow the general trend (crime in general is up, murer in particular is down), though I didn't look too hard at the other violent crime statistics, chosing these ones as being of particular interest/relevance, alongside the overall statistic.
So... just how was taking away guns supposed to reduce crime? There's a correlation with the murder rate going down, but that seems to be about it... that armed robbery went up consistently over the years following is certainly interesting... though I'm not sure if "armed robbery" is just with a gun, or with any sort of weapon.
If what you are doing involves firearms everyone should care.
Uh, no? Privacy, hello? If I have a gun, then it's only anyone else's business if I do something with it I 'ought not to. Your right to know anything about anything I do doesn't start till I do something to you. As long as I'm a law-abiding citizen, you have absolutely zero justification to care about what's under my bed.
To do otherwise is to presume guilt.
Violent crime with a gun is down. Violent crime with a knife is way up. Which gives me the picture of a convenience store clerk being held up with a switchblade, because he doesn't have a shotgun under the counter.
America has a very similar set-up. See a guy in a gang area that looks like a gang banger? The cops can stop him and check him out. If he's carrying a weapon, he's boned unless he's got a concealed carry permit - if that's even legal where he is. We have gun laws and penalties for using guns in crimes. Felons can't even legally own a weapon. It's not like it's an everybody has a gun situation.
Can they just do that? What are the specific rules?
You could argue that your ex would be more dangerous if he had a gun in those situations, but would he have been able to get one over here. Also if you had a gun you would also be decidedly dangerous perhaps more so.
Yes, I know he would be able to get one over there, which is why I'm glad I don't live over there. And I don't want to be dangerous. Unlike him, I was still mostly in my right mind, so I was acutely aware of the risks. Getting into a gun fight with him could get one or both of us killed, and I assure you, he would have been much more able to ignore that possibility than me.
And I've still not seen an example of a gun used in self defence against another gun. A bank robbery? What are the odds that someone happens to carry a loaded gun into a bank, is able to draw it without getting noticed, and aim and shoot the robber in the first try? What are the odds if there's more than one robber? Or what about a robbery at home? The only way I could see that happen, would be if the robbers tried to sneak up on you, and you noticed them before they noticed you, and you were able to get to your gun and shoot them before they shot you. That's not how it happens here.
And I've still not seen an example of a gun used in self defence against another gun.
David Zaback in Renton Highlands, Washington. Not a perfect case, as there was also a police officer present, but it's one of the more amusing ones.
People breaking into homes, and getting shot ? yeah that happens quite often actually.
the mindset that "guns are useless for self defense" is a victim mind set. Why ever fight back in any fight? You can get hurt!
There are alot of documented cases of guns saving someone long before cops could respond. Frankly if it's between me and the *** threatening my life? I'm going for the gun, while the girlfriend calls the cops. Because frankly I'd rather have a gun in those 20 minutes (If you are lucky) before the cops show up.
Just like I'd rather have a sword than nothing at all in a self defense situation. Or my hand to hand training.
I don't believe in Call the cops and pray the guy is a nice guy for 20 minutes.
And actually there's a fairlydocumented case of people in a town that was more or less Loaded for bear, having their bank get robbed and the shot the robbers on out of town. This happend to Jesse James.
Face it Erato, anytime there's a need for a Firearm or the need to defend yourself **** has already hit the fan. And when *** hits the fan it's better to be armed and or trained in combat than not.
If Defense with firearms were pointless, do you think Cops would have firearms? Hell no they'd be stuck with Tonfa Batons, Mace and Cuffs. It's much better to be able to shoot back than to not be able to shoot at all. Heck Cops are starting to get AR15s in the back of their squad car trunks in order to keep up with the firepower the Big Gangs are starting to bring to their gang wars. (guns that said gangs get ILLEGALLY mind you. Again Criminals don't care about Laws)
Gun involved self defense happens once every 13 seconds in America. Sounds to me like Guns aren't totally worthless for self defense.
Another interesting stat is that half of the attackers outnumbered the Defender.
In 83.5% of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first -- disproving the myth that having a gun available for defense wouldn't make any difference.
www.pulpless.com/gunclock/stats.html
Oh that's not the only site by the way with those figures. The list goes on and on. Guns aren't worthless for self defense.
David Zaback in Renton Highlands, Washington. Not a perfect case, as there was also a police officer present, but it's one of the more amusing ones.
I looked it up, and ye, it is amusing. However, it relies on people having guns readily at hand, and there's no indication it saved any lives. I remember some years ago, when someone did a statistic showing that Denmark had more bank robberies than the countries we usually compare ourselves to. A lot of people were in favour of the banks' lax security being tightened, to become closer to that of comparable countries, but it turned out that, despite having a higher number of robberies, we had a lower number people killed or wounded in bank robberies. Some experts (I didn't notice at that time who, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was the police) said that the lack of security was directly responsible for this.
Committing a robbery might be easy, but if it meant the robbers feeling less threatened, and tending to be less inclined to escalate the situation, it was worth it. So a bank got robbed, the police picked up the robbers afterwards, and nobody got hurt. The debate became about whether it was preferable that a small group of people would be wounded, held hostage, or killed, or that a larger group would be threatened and robbed, but suffer no physical harm.
What I'm getting at here, is that escalating violence doesn't always save lives, even in self-defence. If a robber knows there's a risk he'll be shot at, he'll also be more likely to panic and shoot as soon as he sees movement. Usually, the police here warns people about playing the hero, because it's often more likely to hurt than help. That's not to say you shouldn't do anything if another's life in is danger, but usually, they say the safest method is not trying to do the police's job.
David Zaback in Renton Highlands, Washington. Not a perfect case, as there was also a police officer present, but it's one of the more amusing ones.
I looked it up, and ye, it is amusing. However, it relies on people having guns readily at hand [...]
Wait, you want a case where a gun helped protect someone where the person had to excuse themselves from the crime scene, go home, unlock their gun safe, take out and load their gun (the ammo of course is stored in a seperate location), head back to the crime scene, and then defend themselves?
That might be a bit of a hard one to find a case for, as time travelers are notoriouis for covering their tracks and staying out of the news...
Erato: look up any number of actual gun fights from the wild west.
People breaking into homes, and getting shot ? yeah that happens quite often actually
Do people in your country usually carry a gun when they break into people's home? Normally, burglars here try to avoid getting into any sort of confrontation. A guy broke into my parent's neighbours house while she was watching TV, and the moment she saw him and screamed, he ran away. And she was over 70 years old when that happened. It's the most violent incident I recall ever happening in that neighbourhood, it so serious the police came right away, with a dog patrol to track him. Sure, there has been tons of stuff stolen in that neighbourhood, but nobody has ever been threatened with a gun.
I can imagine a burglar bringing along a gun just in case, if guns are easy to obtain, but I wouldn't call shooting someone just for being in your house without permission 'self-defence', because there's almost no risk that you would have been hurt anyway.
the mindset that "guns are useless for self defense" is a victim mind set. Why ever fight back in any fight? You can get hurt!
Yes, isn't the idea about self-defense to prevent yourself and others from getting hurt?
There are alot of documented cases of guns saving someone long before cops could respond. Frankly if it's between me and the *** threatening my life? I'm going for the gun, while the girlfriend calls the cops. Because frankly I'd rather have a gun in those 20 minutes (If you are lucky) before the cops show up.
Just like I'd rather have a sword than nothing at all in a self defense situation. Or my hand to hand training.
I don't believe in Call the cops and pray the guy is a nice guy for 20 minutes.
How do you plan on holding him up with a gun for 20 minutes? What do you imagine would have occured for it to happen? He would have either knocked on your door, counting on someone to open, and pulled a gun and stepped inside as you or your girlfriend did. Or he would have tried to enter undetected, which would mean a bigger chance of him detecting you before your detected him (him being alert and trying to be quiet), and threatened one of you with the gun when he got to you.
Or perhaps you detect him first, in which case you still have to get to your gun fast. Even assuming you have it loaded and lying around in a place easy to reach, you might not be in the right room. And assuming you detect him first, get to your gun before he notices, and manages to point it at him, he could easily have had his gun drawn the whole time, in which case it's just a matter of who shoots first, unless one of you succeed on an intimidate check
And actually there's a fairlydocumented case of people in a town that was more or less Loaded for bear, having their bank get robbed and the shot the robbers on out of town. This happend to Jesse James.
That's chasing criminals, not self defense.
Face it Erato, anytime there's a need for a Firearm or the need to defend yourself **** has already hit the fan. And when *** hits the fan it's better to be armed and or trained in combat than not.
And the vast majority of times, there isn't a need for a firearm to begin with. Especially not when so few people have guns. Sure, the hardened criminals have them (but they're rarely that easy to subdue, with or without a gun), but a whole lot criminals here a amateurs, acting on impulse. They're not likely to go through the risk of obtaining an illegal gun, or the trouble to obtain a legal one, especially a handgun (which is a lot harder here), so most of their crimes are committed unarmed. If they could just get a gun, most of them probably would have done so before they even considered becoming criminals (it might be my prejudices speaking, but I believe those kinds of people would be more interested in owning guns than the rest of us), and they'd have the guns when the impulse struck them. Or in the case of kids, be able to obtain them from their parents.
If Defense with firearms were pointless, do you think Cops would have firearms? Hell no they'd be stuck with Tonfa Batons, Mace and Cuffs. It's much better to be able to shoot back than to not be able to shoot at all. Heck Cops are starting to get AR15s in the back of their squad car trunks in order to keep up with the firepower the Big Gangs are starting to bring to their gang wars. (guns that said gangs get ILLEGALLY mind you. Again Criminals don't care about Laws)
Police officers are expected to confront criminals, in situations where they have the initiative. They're not supposed to have criminals sneak up on them unexpectedly, and neither are they expected to be targeted for execution (which is how the vast majority of shootings happen). Besides, having police officers be the only people allowed to carry guns around gives them an edge over the vast majority of criminals, who aren't armed. That doesn't men that extending this permission to everybody would make people more safe.
Gun involved self defense happens once every 13 seconds in America. Sounds to me like Guns aren't totally worthless for self defense.
Another interesting stat is that half of the attackers outnumbered the Defender.In 83.5% of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first -- disproving the myth that having a gun available for defense wouldn't make any difference.
www.pulpless.com/gunclock/stats.html
Oh that's not the only site by the way with those figures. The list goes on and on. Guns aren't worthless for self defense.
And again, I'd like some more concrete examples, where it's clear that the gun actually saved peoples lives against a criminal who had a gun, and would likely have had it even in a country with more restrictions. Because I haven't noticed any instance in which having all the people present armed would make it more safe for anyone, in any situation I've been in that has included crime, violence, semi-violence, or potential violence.
I have heard of one instance, perhaps two, where a robber was careless enough to allow someone to attack. In one instance, a group of boys broke into a man's house and threatened him with a gun. At some point, the boy with the gun turned away, and the man managed to grab a kitchen knife and stab him in the back. Of course, in this instance, the man using a gun instead of a knife would only happen if it was lying loaded on the kitchen table, so the only likely difference would be that the boys would probably have had a real gun, instead of the fake they used.
I don't recall exactly what happened in the second instance, so maybe it's moot because the robber wasn't armed in the first place, but apparently, a man got into a fight with a lone robber while the wife called the police, and when the police arrived, both combatants had been hurt, but none of them had been killed. Again, I'm not sure if a gun would have made a difference, except increasing the likelihood that somebody, perhaps the robber, perhaps one of the victims, would have died.
Wait, you want a case where a gun helped protect someone where the person had to excuse themselves from the crime scene, go home, unlock their gun safe, take out and load their gun (the ammo of course is stored in a seperate location), head back to the crime scene, and then defend themselves?
That might be a bit of a hard one to find a case for, as time travelers are notoriouis for covering their tracks and staying out of the news...
I'm just wondering how often you people carry around your guns around in everyday life. Do you have them at work? School? Partying? Do you have a gun in your belt when you enter a bank, in case you need to stop a robbery? Because most crimes start with the criminal initiating the violence and the victim being unprepared. If you don't have a loaded gun lying around within easy reach, it's hard to see the use.
I'm just wondering how often you people carry around your guns around in everyday life. Do you have them at work? School? Partying? Do you have a gun in your belt when you enter a bank, in case you need to stop a robbery? Because most crimes start with the criminal initiating the violence and the victim being unprepared. If you don't have a loaded gun lying around within easy reach, it's hard to see the use.
As I spend most of my time on a college campus, and college campuses in the USA are pretty much "no gun" zones, no, I don't carry. Probably wouldn't even if I worked in a place where it was permitted. Well, maybe if I was in the south, but at that point can you blame me for being paranoid?
But that's not really the point. I mean, of course people that don't carry can't use a gun for self-defense. But then you run across the cases of people who do carry that can. Is it often? Nah, not really. People are pretty gun-shy, not even happy with police officers carrying half the time (seriously, there's a group of people lobbying Starbucks to kick police officers out of their stores because they carry. Dead serious).
But if you don't have a tool availible (which is what most gun control advocates want), then of course you can't use it. And arguing that it's not used is a reason why it shouldn't be availible, when it's not used because it isn't availible, is just circular reasoning.
But that's not really the point. I mean, of course people that don't carry can't use a gun for self-defense. But then you run across the cases of people who do carry that can. Is it often? Nah, not really. People are pretty gun-shy, not even happy with police officers carrying half the time.
So the majority of people don't have access to guns (i.e. have them easily at hand) when they would need to defend themselves, but criminals have them when they commit crimes? That doesn't sound safe to me. I'm fine with the whole liberty argument (I'm not sure why it's such a big deal, considering how many other restrictive laws you have, but I digress), it's the safety thing that boggles me.
or a Knife. Hell I sleep with my knives in my headboard, the Gun's in a dresser. I don't even live in a dangerous area.
The thing is, having one is still better than just sitting there totally helpless thinking "oh god don't shoot, stab or **** me!".
Given the statistic that most gun self defense incididents involve the assailent starting it, I think it's pretty self evident that guns are a good Defense Weapon to have handy. Especially in a world where it takes the cops 20 minutes or longer to show up.
So the majority of people don't have access to guns (i.e. have them easily at hand) when they would need to defend themselves, but criminals have them when they commit crimes? That doesn't sound safe to me.
Yes, funny how having a disarmed populace while not disarming the criminals creates an unsafe situation. It's almost as if the restrictive carry laws and general scorn for anyone packing heat in their day-to-day activities is only a consideration to law-abiding citizens, and not to the criminals that would threaten them.
I'm just wondering how often you people carry around your guns around in everyday life. Do you have them at work? School? Partying? Do you have a gun in your belt when you enter a bank, in case you need to stop a robbery? Because most crimes start with the criminal initiating the violence and the victim being unprepared. If you don't have a loaded gun lying around within easy reach, it's hard to see the use.
I think that's why people (such as Zombie_Babies and Cpt_Micha) are supporters of concealed carry laws which would make it perfectly legal to walk around with a gun on your person.
Nobody is talking about regulating citizens, they are talking about regulating guns.
Umm. You know what those regulations on guns effect, right? Citizens. Specifically, the law-abiding ones. Passing regulations is great, but it still relies upon the citizens following those regulations. They don't function in a vacuum. And, as I've repeatedly said, the only people that follow regulations are law-abiding already. It doesn't change a thing.
And just FYI, just want to clear up a few things in case people get the wrong impression.
I am not anti-gun. I dig guns. I'm planning a friend's bachelor party in Vegas so we can all go to The Gun Store and fire some fully-auto fun. I am also not in favour of excessive legislation over personal liberty. I do believe that firearms are far too prevalent and that more needs to be done to reduce the danger they present.
Believe it or not, I don't think you gave any impression otherwise. I may be a card-carrying NRA member, but I'm not nearly as insane as some of my co-members.
Not everyone for regulation increase is against gun ownership. I think I've argued my points in a way as to reflect that opinion. I try to stick to what's actually involved instead of assuming things about the other person's position.Anyhoo, I never buy the 'safety' angle. More people are killed by cars than by guns. Maybe we should regulate those a li'l better. People kill other people with knives. Maybe we should restrict who can and can't own a steak knife. Scredrivers are also a kind of common murder instrument. Well, maybe mechanics are the only people that need those - ASE Certificate required, of course. Baseball bats? Yeah, those are frequent offenders, too. The MLB is ok, but what about allowing these dangerous instruments on college campuses? High schools? Well, I'm not so sure about that. My point is simply that a firearm is a tool like any other. It, by itself or in the hands of someone that's familiar with their operation and has no desire to misuse it poses no greater threat than your mechanic and his screwdriver or you grandmother in her car. It's a thing. People occasionally use things to harm other people. The thing isn't the problem, the people is (are).
Well, I'm still also willing to hear how, exactly, increasing restriction on firearms ownership will decrease crime. I've asked a couple times and haven't heard anything. But that seems to be how this stuff goes most of the time. This is feel good legislation we're talking about. It'll make the Brady people feel better but it won't change a thing. And that's why I am totally against it.
Oh, I hope you have fun at that party. I'm so jealous I think I created a new shade of green.
Can they just do that? What are the specific rules?
I want to make it clear that I'm no expert on the matter, but from what I gather, seeing a gathering of people in a gang area flagging is considered 'probable cause'. I could be absolutely 100% wrong, but I don't think so.
And I've still not seen an example of a gun used in self defence against another gun.
Here's a convenient gathering of just such stories. Not all are gun vs gun, but those stories are there. This links to a portion of the NRA's website. These stories are published in their monthly magazines. I know many people don't like the NRA and believe that they, as an interest group, present extremely biased material so I feel I need to mention that these stories are not written by the NRA. In each and every one, you'll find the date and magazine issue the story appeared in and you'll also find the source it was taken from - quite frequently local newspapers. In many, you'll also find law enforcement officials lauding the efforts of the armed citizen in their self-defense.
Do people in your country usually carry a gun when they break into people's home? Normally, burglars here try to avoid getting into any sort of confrontation.
Armed home invasions are common. People like to hide the good stuff and threatening them with a gun is a good way to get them to reveal what's hidden and where. It also makes it easier to do things like **** the woman while her husband is forced to watch.
In America, home invasion is not always a one-off attempt by a junkie to get drug money. Quite frequently, it's a group of thugs that do this for a living. The do it repeatedly and they do it armed. I, for one, feel far more comfortable being armed at home - even though I've also practiced martial arts for nearly 20 years. I also feel far more comfortable knowing that my fiancee is armed when I'm not there since she isn't a martial artist. And I feel even more comfortable knowing she not only knows how to operate the weapon, she's damned good at firing it, too. Anyone in that house posing any threat to her or her son is likely leaving in either a hurry or a bag. She's a good shot.
How do you plan on holding him up with a gun for 20 minutes?
Read some of those stories I linked to. You'll find examples of people doing exactly this. It takes some balls to break into a house. Those balls frequently shrink when the invader is faced with a weapon. Some flee, others kind of go into shock. They become extremely compliant with a gun to their head.
And again, I'd like some more concrete examples, where it's clear that the gun actually saved peoples lives against a criminal who had a gun, and would likely have had it even in a country with more restrictions.
Check that link. ;)
Yes, funny how having a disarmed populace while not disarming the criminals creates an unsafe situation. It's almost as if the restrictive carry laws and general scorn for anyone packing heat in their day-to-day activities is only a consideration to law-abiding citizens, and not to the criminals that would threaten them.
Exactly.
I think that's why people (such as Zombie_Babies and Cpt_Micha) are supporters of concealed carry laws which would make it perfectly legal to walk around with a gun on your person.
Yep. Some states allow open carry which, IMO, is a far better deterrent. But not even every state supports Concealed Carry yet. We also have, in a lot of states, the Castle Doctrine which states that you can use deadly force to defend you and yours while in your home without fear of prosecution or civil damages. In some cases, this extends to personal vehicles (for carjackings) and the office.
Nice to see news stories backing up the Stastical Data.
Scypio; yeah pretty much. I'm a very strong advocate of at least allow for Concealed Carry. (if not open carry. Actually I would prefer open carry. That way the cops at least know when someone's armed or not at just a cursory glance. Doubt we'll see Open Carry laws in too many states but I can always hold out hope)
I'm no slouch in a fight. I've not got the 20 years of martial arts training ZB has, but I've had a couple years of it, and I do maintain my level of training. I've been in two life or death situations, one of which required me to be armed (not with a gun) to see myself and the other party safely through without serious injuries. As far as deterrents go, Guns make much better ones than knives. (Speaking from experience, on both sides of the knife)
Personally though, I feel if I'm in hand to hand I've done something wrong. Ie the bastard wasn't shot first. Capable I might be, but I'm not exactly a heavy weight. Hell I'm not even much of a "middle weight" I'm more like a heavy light weight. Packing a firearm however, does alot to negate any weight or numbers disadvantge I might have for obvious reasons.