split from this thread (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=190150)

It would appear that you're assuming that the civil war that I mentioned would would be fought along definitive geographical boundaries like the last one. Suffice to say it would not, as the proponents of gun ownership are evenly interspersed with the opponents. There would be no north verses south here. And there would be no safe haven for people like you to hide in and wait it out. The war would come to any area where people differ on this issue, which means it would be everywhere. And any government ruthless enough to turn it's nuclear arsenal on it's own population deserves to be ruthlessly overthrown.
And any people that would cause a war on the scale you describe for a matter as simple as owning a firearm deserve to have a watch full eye on them.

War is a very strong term. There would be riots, but I highly doubt the American populous would start a "war" with each other over stricter gun laws.

You'll have to forgive me when I say that your grasp of the tactial is somewhat naively unrealistic.
When did I ever say it would be geographical? Of course it would be everywhere if your prediction were to come true. But, I also find it unlikely that the United States government or police forces would stand for open violence and hostility in the way you describe.

So, they would take to the street and start killing if we told them they couldn't own their precious shotguns? I don't particularly trust the American people, but saying that full war in the country would break out seems unrealistic. People love guns, but I'm under the assumption that many of them aren't prepared to risk their own life and their families life to have the privilege to hunt rabbits.

You might, but look at your gun. Now, think of yourself and your family. If someone came to your house and told you that you needed to relinquish your gun and/or take tests, training, etc to be sure you could be trusted with it... would you take the risk of fighting back? Would you risk your own life, and the possible life of family and friends to keep a hunk of metal?

Dunno. Maybe you would. I like guns, but I'm not going to point one at an officer at my door and shoot.

And we still do in order to keep the government in check and prevent it from becoming the socialist oligarchy that you apparently want it to become.
Ok, now I'm lost.

1#: When did I say I wanted a socialist oligarchy.
2#: We are already socialist in many ways if you had not noticed. Schools, police, firemen, etc.
3#: Never said I wanted an elite class to rule. You can have democracy without assault rifles.

If this was as democratic and free as some hope, then I could go to Wallmart and buy a few pounds of c4 explosive. There are laws in place to keep people from hurting themselves and others with devices that are meant to do harm. Assault Rifles have been banned in many part of America because they are highly dangerous weapons.

I'm not saying fully ban guns. I like guns. I would just prefer much stricter laws in place as far as fire arms go. The United States is just too far into gun culture to give them up entirely, I agree.


No viable enemies but those within who are trying to destroy the constitution for the sake of their own misguided idealism.
So, people who would like stricter gun laws in place are destroying the constitution? There was a point in our history in which blacks were considered 3/5's of a person. Women used to not be allowed to vote. Blacks could not vote.

So, did all that changes to the constitution over time destroy it? Were suffrage supporters out to destroy the constitution? Were people who wanted African Amercan's to vote destroying the constitution?

The beauty of the constitution is that it is so easily bend into new, more modern ideals. Its been changing over the last 200 years.

And if I am not understanding your statement, please inform me.

But, how does this relate to guns? Are you implying we keep guns around to shoot those with misguided ideals? Or, what you consider to be missguided ideals?
I'm sorry, but that seems to be in the political realm to be attended to by the politicians that we vote into office. Not by your glock.

Given the fact that I'm more than willing to give my life for the cause of preserving the freedoms that we now enjoy, this would be the least of my worries. At least half of the law enforcement community and half of the military would be on my side anyway.
Strong statement.

So, the police will disagree with stricter gun laws? I'm sorry, but from the little I know about the police... they are getting shot at quite a lot. I'm sure many of them would be glad to roam the streets and do the job they are doing without being shot at by a pistol that some idiot bought at wal-mart.

The armed forces are also a different breed from the rest of us. Japan has an armed force, and they have a nationwide public ban on guns.

I'm not saying disarm the military. That would be an incredibly stupid move. But, a military is in a separate category to the rest of us. They are given the privilege to fight and die for the country because of the career they have taken and the training they have.

I doubt, however, that the idiots who roam our street and shoot our police men have the same training and discipline that they have.

And you think it will be safer with the law-abiding population unable to properly defend itself? The criminals will still have guns, you know, given the fact that they are not law-abiding.
Considering that the stats say that states and countries with stricter gun laws have far less gun related deaths... I'll have to say yes, for now.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita)
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita)
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_hom_vic_by_wea_gun-crime-homicide-victims-weapon-gun)
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_hom_tot_num_of_vic_percap-total-number-victims-per-capita)

You cannot stop criminals, but you can limit the tools at their disposal. From what I see, having more guns does not work in this culture. It makes it far too easy to go out, get a gun, then have temptation around.

A gun makes you feel strong. Makes you feel secure. But, it shouldn't in my opinion. A gun is an object that is designed to kill, and was invented to kill.

If you feel the need to be secure, why not have a stun gun? If someone charges you, you can still fight back. You can stun them, kicktheir gun away, etc.

That is, if you managed to get the shot off. A gun in the house doesn't automatically mean that when someone jumps through your window that it will be right there like some guiding spirit. But, in the chance that you do grab a gun, why not just let it be a stun gun? They'll go down, but chances are good they wont be dead or in serious condition.

There are more... "peaceful" means to defend yourself other than a buck 12 shotgun. If a gun needed to be in every house, I'd place a stun gun there.

Do we agree? Every body is happy. You and I have something to defend ourselves with even if someone points a bullet gun at us, and I get the heavy weapons out of house-holds.

Or, is there another reason why you prefer having a gun around the house. If so, please explain.

But it's a trade-off, as their suicide rate is one of the highest (ie, Samurai Stockbroker; Samurai Lawyer; and, my personal favorite, Samurai Night Fever ).
Over 25 they have a fairly high suicide rate, but our teen suicide rate is almost double what theirs is.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_sui_rat_in_age_15_24-suicide-rates-ages-15-24)

Suicide rate is a cultural thing, not a gun thing. Their culture demands a LOT from its people. They get worked into depression often, and those too "weak" to continue kill themselves due to the very, very strong sense of honor the Japanese people have.

It is a problem, but it is not related to their lack of weapons, or our involvement with them in World War 2. The tradition of suicide in Japan dates back thousands of years through all their reforms.

We helped put Germany back together, but their culture doesn't deem suicide an honorable thing to do. That is the difference.

Sorry, but for the most part I couldn't care less what the rest of the world thinks of our domestic policies. As for our foreign policies, yes, they could use some work, but that has nothing to do with gun control, IMO.
I was merely making a point. We've done a pretty damn good job of making other countries peaceful and economic/politically prosperous places to live. If we have the ability to give people that first push, why not try and push ourselves, or ask for a push from someone else? We've really been improving over time, but, statistically the countries we have helped back up are better places to live, statistically, than here.

No, it would not be purely political. Such an occurance would be beyond mere civilized debate. It would be a bloodbath like none of us, save students of history, could imagine.
Why?
A number of states have banned assault rifles and larger shotguns. I don't see their streets paved with blood. Sure, people weren't happy about it and they took it to court, but I didn't see the people marching up and down the cities, shooting as they went.

So, why not ban larger weapons in the other states? Why not make it more difficult and involved to acquire a firearm?

This is not 200 years ago. Stricter gun laws wouldn't get people marching on Washington with their shotguns, or mowing down people on their street in the scale you are predicting. Our police force, for one, wouldn't allow it.

I can see riots breaking out if, tomarrow, the president said that all guns in the united states were banned. Politically, that would be an incredibly stupid move.

But, start off banning assault rifles in all 50 states entirely. No civilian needs an assault rifle.

Make shotguns and such more difficult than "Are you over 21?" to get them. There are background checks and permits required in most states, but other than a short wait period of a day or two, you can get practically any shot gun or pistol that you want. Give them a deeper background check, require a mental evaluation, certified training with the said firearm, put them on record for owning a firearm what the firearm in question, etc.

That asking too much? It would weed out those that want a gun for kicks to those and honestly want a gun to do things like hunt, and use them for other non-human targets.

And, if you needed protection, you could get a stun gun. Or, non-lethal bullets. Our police force has slowly been converting over to stun gun usage, and since police related deaths have dropped considerable.

You can defend yourself, but do you need to kill the guy with a 12 gauge? That is still manslaughter, and even in defense you can still get hit pretty hard by a judge. And if you are in the habit of carrying a gun around with you for defense, you can get slapped with more charges for assuming you needed to use a firearm against another human being.

This statement is nothing short of bigotry, plain and simple.
Ok, I deserved some of that. I apologize if I insulted you.

Although, I think you pulled more from that than you needed. For starters, I love guns. I know, huge surprise there.

I love shoot em up movies.
I build lego guns and pretend to fight things with them.
I play nerf with friends.
I play airsoft with friends.
I go range shooting when my uncle and cousin, who is also a girl (both of which being professional range shooters)
I play a -lot- of games with guns.

But, they are minor commodities. I love guns, but think this country has either lost sight of the goal or never saw it in the first place. You shouldn't be allowed to go to a gun shop and purchase a pistol with little more than a permit and license. You shouldn't be allowed to have a cabinet full to the brim with guns and ammo simply because you want to.

But, I still stand by my statement. Here, let me reword it:

"If a war would start simply because some people couldn't polish their shotgun then there is something wrong with the people of this country. It means we are addicted to violence and fear and would be willing to kill to keep it."

Think I'm shoving my ideals down your throat? Look around you. Assault rifles have been banned. Shotguns have ever shifting laws. Why? Idiots get a hold of them and shoot things they aren't supposed to. Do civilians need Assault rifles? No, they do not. Nobody but a fully trained military solider should be able to hold one, and even then only when needed. Shotguns are croud-control weapons and/or massive damage close range weapons. Do civilians need those? I don't actually think they do, but am willing to hit an agreement on the laws being much stricter than they are.

People who shove beliefs down my throat do such in a political manner. The reason gun laws are growing ever stricter around the countries is because when someone with a gun ready wants to shove their problems down your throat, they do so with a 9mm bullet.

Police don't appreciate being shot by some thugs in an apartment. Police don't appreciate people taking the law into their own hands and blowing the brains out of a robber. They don't appreciate children finding a pistol in their parents closet and shooting a friend, sibling, parent, or school. Parents don't appreciate some teenagers getting a hold of guns and shooting their kid at school. Police don't appreciate minute men on the border killing people who get too close. They don't appreciate vigilantes that feel the law is above them.

Fireworks are great fun, but they are banned in a number of places or have very strict rules imposed because some idiots have blown off their hands, killed people, caused fires, and so much more. Thus, they cannot be trusted to civilians, even though there are probably a lot of people that could use them in a mature manner.

War after war, conflict after conflict has led to the strict rules on guns around the world. Death after death, and idiot after idiot are the reason gun laws continue to go on the rise. They are the one forcing their views on a society that freely allows them the weapon of choice they use.

Want to call me out for this? Point your hate towards the idiots that do all of the above and more. Point yourself at the government that has to put laws into place to try and keep weapons out of those idiots hands.

Laws which go against the second amendment and the people's privilege to own firearms. So, why haven't you grabbed your gun and marched on Washington yet? The government already has strict gun laws which are getting ever stricter. So far, I'm not seeing blood running down the streets.

You and the rest of the people of the United States are already allowing the government to go against the second amendment and put gun control laws into place, many of which ban the ownership of many types of fire arm. You can be angry from your couch and voting booth, but that is as far as the American citizen is going with this.

There will be no war. There will not be democrats and republicans shooting each other in a wal-mart on a daily basis. It would not be the biggest bloodshed in the United States since the civil war.

There would be people flooding the voting booths. There would be politicians debating hotly. The news would be abuzz with information on the subject. People of both sides would be yelling at each other in squares on Fox, CNN, the internet, etc. People would write book after book, and create rally after rally.

The majority isn't picking up their guns now. They most likely wont later. And even if it does get to that point, words are always stronger. Politics is always stronger here. The debate will rage in politics, as it was always intended in the United States. We have the system we have now because this country was intended to value the word and vote more than the bullet.

And, it will be a long, long time till the gun is banned in the United States. They would never be able to simply say "all guns are banned" and leave it at that. The laws we have now will continue to get stricter and stricter, slowly. In the end, you and everybody else will go along with it just as you have at this moment.

I know that others have tried to force their ideals down your throat and tell you how to live and what to think, so why are you attempting to do the same thing here?
How dare you.

How dare you ever, ever compare government "suppression" of lethal, kill intended weapons to the actual bigotry that others have to go through and have had to go through.

So, you can't buy an assault rifle and walk down the street with it? Oh boo-hoo. Go cry me an ocean.

It is also a gross generalization, as many proponents of the Second Amendment happen to be women, as well as being sexist as hell.
Got that from my "testicles" thing? Should have said balls. Ego. Self-security. A placebo or teddy bear to give the illusion of power.

Of course women are also supporters. This far from a "male" thing. Not sure where you got sexist out of it though.

If the Second Amendment should exist for but one reason, that reason would have to be the prevention of tyranny over the majority, as an armed populace is far more difficult to oppress. I'm happy to inform you that the Supreme Court of the United States agrees with me.
Really? Then why do we have gun bans in a number of states? Why is it so hard, in some states, to own a gun? Seems you've chosen to take a blind eye to those little details.

I don't see the UK being oppressed. I don't see Canada being oppressed. I don't see Japan being oppressed. I don't see France being oppressed.

It was a safety measure in place to make sure the military wasn't, as has been in other countries, used against the people. I think it would be very difficult to get our military to turn on the people and take complete control.

But, politically, it could happen over time. The government could probably take control of this country right out from under our feet if they did it right. A majority has proven time and time again that it can be swayed by the right argument. By that time, the majority has lost the sense to pick up their gun if they have already lost their sense to question what the government is doing.

We have democracy for a reason. Politics and government was established so that we wouldn't ever have to point a gun at each others head to make a decision. If the president decides to ban all guns, take the change to court. If the president decides that freedom of speech is bad, then impeach him. If the government decides to blatantly try and take over the country, then vote them out. If one side of our government tries to take more power than it is allowed, the other two can suppress it. We have multiple systems and fail safes to keep this government from ruling over the majority.

If the government does manage to replace this democracy with a dictatorship or some other such system, then they did it with the permission of the people. There are too many ways the majority can politically fight back "peacefully" to allow your armageddon to happen without our knowledge.

If the government could take the country right out from under the American citizens, what makes you think they will have the sense to pick up their guns, march on the white house, and take out the president and put everything right again?

Your guns and Second Amendment are nothing but a teddy bear you can hold when mommy and daddy start fighting. A romantic view of revolution and power to the people. They give you comfort and security, but they are a placebo. When this country's government takes control, it will be slow and quiet enough for the people to follow blindly. By that time, only a few will raise their guns and be defeated by the majority.

Because, after all, a government is only as strong as the people behind it... no matter what the government. When the people decide they no longer want the government in power, they change it. You may think guns are needed, but in the old days the majority ripped through the minority armed forces with pitch forks and torches to put the King's head on a stick.

You might think your guns stop them, but guns are material. Government change is built on the mental. The political. The majority. A government will come to power because the majority allows it. They change when the majority allows it. If the majority chooses, they can overthrow their government with pitchforks. Giving a gun to every person changes absolutely nothing because it is the will of the majority that makes change. A civilian populous with guns is just as easy to control as a civilian populous without guns.

The people will always be more powerful. The majority will always be more powerful. The majority will always allow themselves to be taken control over and ruled. It is why we allow government. It is why we allow and practice religion. It is simply the way our species works.

@True--I think the lower incidence of gun related mortality in places like Japan is much more cultural than anything to do with Occupation policies. Prior to the reintroduction of firearms in late-Tokugawa era Japan (1850s-60s), most Japanese were forbidden to own them anyway (would have made it too easy for the peasants to defeat the samurai) for about 2 1/2 centuries.
That is true. I was using Japan more of an example of heightened gun security around the world after World War 2.

The Second Amendment pertains as much to having an armed citenzenry to combat foreign armies as it also does to keeping the US govt in check. As was pointed out, the per capita death rate from firearms in the US is very low. The numbers seem large when cited out of context. Most legal gun owners in this country aren't irresponsible or the numbers would be much higher. A lot of it is gang-on-gang related violence. I suspect the #s would still be pretty high if they only had knives, louisville sluggers, pipe bombs, etc.. and did not illegally possess guns.
I agree. I also believe things like fireworks, drugs, and other such things can be used responsibly. The thing is, however, that they are not. Even if that be a minority, it is enough to warrant taking the toy away from the kids until they mature enough to have it back.

Call it unconstitutional or unpatriotic. I call it good parenting.

Deaths rate for the states.
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_hom_tot_num_of_vic_percap-total-number-victims-per-capita)

Death rate by guns for states.
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_hom_vic_by_wea_gun-crime-homicide-victims-weapon-gun)

Death rate for states by knifes.
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_hom_vic_by_wea_kni-crime-homicide-victims-weapon-knife)

Bureau of Justice stats:
http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Homicide/State/OneYearofData.cfm)

Murder by Weapon in 2005:
http://img70.imageshack.us/img70/3234/gunstatspickl8.jpg)
All but North and South Dakota had over 50% of weapon related deaths being caused by firearms.
-Guns account for 61% of gun related murders in 2005
-Knifes account for 14%
-"Other" accounts for 24%
Total of 17,449 weapon related murders in 2005.

In the end, however, it really comes down to the fact that this culture revolves around violence and fear. I kinda doubt guns will ever be banned in the united states in the way they are banned in other countries. They are just bred into us. Hell, maybe it is really what is keeping this fragile melting pot together.

And any people that would cause a war on the scale you describe for a matter as simple as owning a firearm deserve to have a watch full eye on them.
You show a very large failure to understand history with this single statement. It is entirely that sort of oppression that ENHANCES the desire to rebel against a government. How often do governments that are lenient on their people, that are kind to their people, that respect their people and have freedom and liberty in their country have revolutions?

Since such a nation truly doesn't exist, then we can only look at the fact that controlling nations like in South America have several revolutions per decade, and more lenient ones like the US or the UK or France have very few. Though the increasing oppression by the UK government and the sort of racist-oppression of the French has shown an increasing amount of uncomfortableness with the limitations on freedom.

That is, in short, more people have spoken out against their government in these countries, US included, the faster the government attempts to keep people from speaking up.

War is a very strong term. There would be riots, but I highly doubt the American populous would start a "war" with each other over stricter gun laws.
Well, we had a war over the ability to separate from another country, that WAS what the Civil War was about, not slavery. So yeah, if our government started treating us in a way we didn't like, there might well be a war.

When did I ever say it would be geographical? Of course it would be everywhere if your prediction were to come true. But, I also find it unlikely that the United States government or police forces would stand for open violence and hostility in the way you describe.
Most US police do not favor gun control laws. The same stands for the military. How are you suggesting there WONT be a war when you as saying the government will use it's heavily armed people to oppress the population and enforce it's unfavorable laws? Last time a country did that to Americans, we had a revolution. And, as I said, there is no assurance that the police and military would ALL side with the government.

So, they would take to the street and start killing if we told them they couldn't own their precious shotguns? I don't particularly trust the American people, but saying that full war in the country would break out seems unrealistic. People love guns, but I'm under the assumption that many of them aren't prepared to risk their own life and their families life to have the privilege to hunt rabbits.
You are assuming that the only person in the family who uses guns is the father. Many families, ALL members of the family are OK with guns. Especially military families, husbands, wives, daughters, sons.

There was a movie I watched called "Men With Guns", it was about a South American country, and what happens to people without guns by people who have guns? The people without, die. The US would collapse into a civil war in an instance if the government started up and killing people in that manner.

You might, but look at your gun. Now, think of yourself and your family. If someone came to your house and told you that you needed to relinquish your gun and/or take tests, training, etc to be sure you could be trusted with it... would you take the risk of fighting back? Would you risk your own life, and the possible life of family and friends to keep a hunk of metal?
And how is that person going to take your gun? By putting a gun to your family? That is EXACTLY why we have guns, to prevent that sort of governmental control. There WILL be a revolution in this country if the police/military/government decide that the best way to enforce a law is to threaten to kill your family if you don't capitulate. Those are the tactics of petty dictators and 3rd world despots.

I don't see how you can even read that sentence and not realize that. We have guns to prevent the government from using their guns to hold us hostage.

Dunno. Maybe you would. I like guns, but I'm not going to point one at an officer at my door and shoot.
But you would allow an officer to point one at you? See, that's the problem. Guns are a waste if you're not willing to use them. If somebody threatened to kill my family, you better believe I wouldn't drop my gun. ESPECIALLY if it was the government.


If this was as democratic and free as some hope, then I could go to Wallmart and buy a few pounds of c4 explosive.
Sure, some people think EVERYTHING should be legal. The situation we have now is a compromise, a "happy medium".

There are laws in place to keep people from hurting themselves and others with devices that are meant to do harm. Assault Rifles have been banned in many part of America because they are highly dangerous weapons.
Yes, some guns are designed to kill other people, that is their only purpose. Owning one however, is not an indication that one WILL kill other people.

I'm not saying fully ban guns. I like guns. I would just prefer much stricter laws in place as far as fire arms go. The United States is just too far into gun culture to give them up entirely, I agree.
I hate people calling it "gun culture". Americans are simply too strong-willed. We aren't going to let a government bend us over and take us for all we're worth, and if they try, we plan to be prepared. Too many times have governments taken the power from the people and then raped the people. That is not a situation we intend to be in.

So, people who would like stricter gun laws in place are destroying the constitution? There was a point in our history in which blacks were considered 3/5's of a person. Women used to not be allowed to vote. Blacks could not vote.
WORLD of difference.

So, did all that changes to the constitution over time destroy it? Were suffrage supporters out to destroy the constitution? Were people who wanted African Amercan's to vote destroying the constitution?
still apples to oranges.

The beauty of the constitution is that it is so easily bend into new, more modern ideals. Its been changing over the last 200 years.
moden =/= better. Any belief to the contrary if foolish.

But, how does this relate to guns? Are you implying we keep guns around to shoot those with misguided ideals? Or, what you consider to be missguided ideals?
I'm sorry, but that seems to be in the political realm to be attended to by the politicians that we vote into office. Not by your glock.
You have stated that you do not trust the American people. Politicians are Americans. Therefore, you do not trust them. Politicians are Americans with great power, and EVERYONE with great power must be kept in constant check. Without exception.


So, the police will disagree with stricter gun laws? I'm sorry, but from the little I know about the police... they are getting shot at quite a lot. I'm sure many of them would be glad to roam the streets and do the job they are doing without being shot at by a pistol that some idiot bought at wal-mart.
Taking a gun away from a man who is shooting at you is not the same as taking a gun away from a man who has done nothing. How do you justify it? Guns are all bad? Guns are tools, people are good or bad or in between. Taking a gun away from a bad person is fine, but taking a gun away from everyone?

I'll give my gun up when the police give up theirs. If I don't need guns to defend myself, they don't either. Crimes happen to people too you know. Cops aren't the only ones put in dangerous situations where a firearm may be useful.

The armed forces are also a different breed from the rest of us. Japan has an armed force, and they have a nationwide public ban on guns.
Last time my cousin took a blood test, he was human, just like you and me. Don't play this "holier than thou" BS. Soldiers are people with training, nothing more.

So, Japan has an armed force and a public ban on guns. that doesn't stop the government from regularly entering your home without a warrant and strip searching you for illegal things, which they do. That also doesn't stop crimes with knives, wire, hands, and any other deadly instrument.

I'm not saying disarm the military. That would be an incredibly stupid move. But, a military is in a separate category to the rest of us. They are given the privilege to fight and die for the country because of the career they have taken and the training they have.
So, it's OK for the government to use the military to subjugate, oppress, and kill us because they don't like what we're doing, but it's not OK for us to do the same to the government. I don't think so.

I doubt, however, that the idiots who roam our street and shoot our police men have the same training and discipline that they have.
Because last time I looked outside my window, there were bandits with black masks acting sneaky-like. Training is not the point, usage is. If the government is using guns to kill and oppress, it is no different from the crime lord who does the same.

Considering that the stats say that states and countries with stricter gun laws have far less gun related deaths... I'll have to say yes, for now.
having 5 million people also helps. What's Goermany's population? 63 million? That's what...237 million LESS people than the US? it's also some 20 times smaller than the US, so, fewer people, smaller space, easier to control. Simple concept.

You cannot stop criminals, but you can limit the tools at their disposal. From what I see, having more guns does not work in this culture. It makes it far too easy to go out, get a gun, then have temptation around.
If a criminal wants a gun, he'll get one. Remember those germans who had that whole arsenal a while back? They weren't even criminals. Now, if non-criminals know how to get guns in a country where they are banned, certainly criminals know better/easier ways to get guns.

A gun makes you feel strong. Makes you feel secure. But, it shouldn't in my opinion. A gun is an object that is designed to kill, and was invented to kill.
Kill....animals.
kill...birds...
kill...people.
Yes, tools can make you feel strong, but rest assured, if somebody wants to kill you, they'll do it with a hammer if they are so inclined.

If you feel the need to be secure, why not have a stun gun? If someone charges you, you can still fight back. You can stun them, kicktheir gun away, etc.
Unforunately, due to the legal system in the US, the policy of "dead men tell no tales" is the best one. If Joe breaks into my house, and I am the only one to see him, and I beat the snot out of him and he runs away, he can take me to court, and it's my word vs his. And oh look, he's got a nice set of casts and some bruises to make him look like the victim.

If Joe breaks into my house and I kill him, I call the cops, say somebody broke in, I shot and killed them, I'm in the right.

That is, if you managed to get the shot off. A gun in the house doesn't automatically mean that when someone jumps through your window that it will be right there like some guiding spirit. But, in the chance that you do grab a gun, why not just let it be a stun gun? They'll go down, but chances are good they wont be dead or in serious condition.
There is no assurance that a stun gun can be fired either. And the criminal can still knock it out of your hand and use it on you. You have just as good a chance to shoot them with a gun as you do with a stunner. And you have no assurance that the latter will stop them cold, while you do with a gun.

There are more... "peaceful" means to defend yourself other than a buck 12 shotgun. If a gun needed to be in every house, I'd place a stun gun there.

Do we agree? Every body is happy. You and I have something to defend ourselves with even if someone points a bullet gun at us, and I get the heavy weapons out of house-holds.
1: You have a stunner, I have a gun, I'm 10 feet away, you shoot, nail me in the leg. But I'm on speed, I feel nothing. I pull the trigger till my gun is empty, you are dead, your house is mine, and I'm none the worse for wear.

2: You have a stunner, I have a gun, I shoot at you, I miss, you shoot at me, you miss, you have to reel in your little cables, while I fire again, and again, and again. Or, your run away, now I have a gun and a stunner.

Why?
A number of states have banned assault rifles and larger shotguns. I don't see their streets paved with blood. Sure, people weren't happy about it and they took it to court, but I didn't see the people marching up and down the cities, shooting as they went.

So, why not ban larger weapons in the other states? Why not make it more difficult and involved to acquire a firearm?
it's a state's rights issue. if California feels that they are a problem, the state has the right to ban them. if in Colorado they are not, then the state will not. That is the problem with Federal laws, because they apply one standard to a variety of different situations. maybe only a 100 people own shotguns in South Dakota, and only 2 have been used to kill people. There is no need for a ban on them there.

This is not 200 years ago. Stricter gun laws wouldn't get people marching on Washington with their shotguns, or mowing down people on their street in the scale you are predicting. Our police force, for one, wouldn't allow it.
So, our police are going to what? Kill us? Oh yes, that'll stop the violence...just like it did every other time some government decided it would use the police for to kill it's people into submission. We saw how well that turned out.

I can see riots breaking out if, tomarrow, the president said that all guns in the united states were banned. Politically, that would be an incredibly stupid move.

But, start off banning assault rifles in all 50 states entirely. No civilian needs an assault rifle.

Make shotguns and such more difficult than "Are you over 21?" to get them. There are background checks and permits required in most states, but other than a short wait period of a day or two, you can get practically any shot gun or pistol that you want. Give them a deeper background check, require a mental evaluation, certified training with the said firearm, put them on record for owning a firearm what the firearm in question, etc.
It's not a question of the right to own guns anymore now. Now it's a state's rights issue and big government. If X kind of guns aren't a problem in Wyoming, why should we apply California-level laws to them? Obviously they don't need it. Now, instead of people seeing the government as taking away their guns, they're seeing the government as taking away their right to decide for themselves. And it all keeps going downhill.

That asking too much? It would weed out those that want a gun for kicks to those and honestly want a gun to do things like hunt, and use them for other non-human targets.
The only thing the government needs to be concerned about is an intention to use guns against other people. If I want an AK-47 to blast away with at some targets where I'll never hit other people, then I'm not a problem.

And, if you needed protection, you could get a stun gun. Or, non-lethal bullets. Our police force has slowly been converting over to stun gun usage, and since police related deaths have dropped considerable.
And killings by cops with stun-guns has been increasing. You wanna let these guys keep the big guns and leave us with the toys? I don't think so.

You can defend yourself, but do you need to kill the guy with a 12 gauge? That is still manslaughter, and even in defense you can still get hit pretty hard by a judge. And if you are in the habit of carrying a gun around with you for defense, you can get slapped with more charges for assuming you needed to use a firearm against another human being.
If I have a permit to carry a gun, it says on the permit, that if I take it out I must have the intent to use it. Anything else is brandishing a weapon. If i carry a gun for self defense and have never used it otherwise, no judge is going to, in good mind, slap you down for following all their silly gun laws.

"If a war would start simply because some people couldn't polish their shotgun then there is something wrong with the people of this country. It means we are addicted to violence and fear and would be willing to kill to keep it."
If the government would deem it necessary to take away people's weapons when they are doing nothing wrong, then it is the government who wishes us to live in a state of fear, not the people.

Think I'm shoving my ideals down your throat? Look around you. Assault rifles have been banned. Shotguns have ever shifting laws. Why? Idiots get a hold of them and shoot things they aren't supposed to. Do civilians need Assault rifles? No, they do not. Nobody but a fully trained military solider should be able to hold one, and even then only when needed. Shotguns are croud-control weapons and/or massive damage close range weapons. Do civilians need those? I don't actually think they do, but am willing to hit an agreement on the laws being much stricter than they are.
Shotguns are great for hunting too you know. I still don't see why you are OK with the idea of a government, armed with high-powered weaponry, should be allowed to enforce laws preventing people from having any similar weaponry.

People who shove beliefs down my throat do such in a political manner. The reason gun laws are growing ever stricter around the countries is because when someone with a gun ready wants to shove their problems down your throat, they do so with a 9mm bullet.
Under your ideas, you seem OK with the government enforcing it's beliefs in the same manner.

Police don't appreciate being shot by some thugs in an apartment.
A man with a gun is not a "thug in an apartment" you are naive to think in such a manner. Taking away guns from the good people will not stop cops from being shot by the bad people.

Police don't appreciate people taking the law into their own hands and blowing the brains out of a robber.
That however, is their job. If they don't like it, they can, like my cop friend, find a new job.

They don't appreciate children finding a pistol in their parents closet and shooting a friend, sibling, parent, or school. Parents don't appreciate some teenagers getting a hold of guns and shooting their kid at school.
Oh lord...you pulled a "WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDKIDS!!!!!"
It's an appeal to emotion and not a valid argument.

Police don't appreciate minute men on the border killing people who get too close. They don't appreciate vigilantes that feel the law is above them.
Well, maybe we wouldn't have to do that if the government put more money into police and less money into limiting good people's means of defense.

Fireworks are great fun, but they are banned in a number of places or have very strict rules imposed because some idiots have blown off their hands, killed people, caused fires, and so much more. Thus, they cannot be trusted to civilians, even though there are probably a lot of people that could use them in a mature manner.
Yes, a few stupid people have done some stupid things and nature isn't always favorable. However, there is no constitutional law that says we have a right to those things. Most people recognize that they are for fun and enjoyment, not self defense.

War after war, conflict after conflict has led to the strict rules on guns around the world. Death after death, and idiot after idiot are the reason gun laws continue to go on the rise. They are the one forcing their views on a society that freely allows them the weapon of choice they use.
Because, of course, the constant bloodshed in Britain and Japan are absolutly the case for gun laws. um, NO.

Want to call me out for this? Point your hate towards the idiots that do all of the above and more. Point yourself at the government that has to put laws into place to try and keep weapons out of those idiots hands.
Gun laws only handicap the law abiding. The rest still know how to get their guns if they want them.

Laws which go against the second amendment and the people's privilege to own firearms. So, why haven't you grabbed your gun and marched on Washington yet? The government already has strict gun laws which are getting ever stricter. So far, I'm not seeing blood running down the streets.
because we are OK with SOME limits. Not bans.

You and the rest of the people of the United States are already allowing the government to go against the second amendment and put gun control laws into place, many of which ban the ownership of many types of fire arm. You can be angry from your couch and voting booth, but that is as far as the American citizen is going with this.
Now, if only a politician would give a darn about gun laws instead of abortion or gay marriage. Honestly, I'd love to see it.

There will be no war. There will not be democrats and republicans shooting each other in a wal-mart on a daily basis. It would not be the biggest bloodshed in the United States since the civil war.
that is your opinion, as you have already shown you would rather be oppressed than defend yourself. Be it death or oppression? What was that quote we seem to forget?

Oh, right, it was: "Give me liberty, or give me death."

There would be people flooding the voting booths. There would be politicians debating hotly. The news would be abuzz with information on the subject. People of both sides would be yelling at each other in squares on Fox, CNN, the internet, etc. People would write book after book, and create rally after rally.
if a gun ban was about to happen? of course.

The majority isn't picking up their guns now. They most likely wont later. And even if it does get to that point, words are always stronger. Politics is always stronger here. The debate will rage in politics, as it was always intended in the United States. We have the system we have now because this country was intended to value the word and vote more than the bullet.
Oh, yes, because words solved the Revolution. Because words solved the Civil War. Um, no. Politics fails sometimes and all we're left with is to prove one way or the other that we're right. If you want t surrender and be oppressed? Go right ahead, me? I'm not so fond of the idea, neither is my family.

And, it will be a long, long time till the gun is banned in the United States. They would never be able to simply say "all guns are banned" and leave it at that. The laws we have now will continue to get stricter and stricter, slowly. In the end, you and everybody else will go along with it just as you have at this moment.
possibly.

Of course women are also supporters. This far from a "male" thing. Not sure where you got sexist out of it though.
The implication that you put forth that it was only men likly stemmed from your constant repetition of defending the family, a concept histrically associated with the male of a household.

Really? Then why do we have gun bans in a number of states? Why is it so hard, in some states, to own a gun? Seems you've chosen to take a blind eye to those little details.
No state has outright gun bans, even in California it is not difficult to own a gun.

I don't see the UK being oppressed. I don't see Canada being oppressed. I don't see Japan being oppressed. I don't see France being oppressed.
Then it is YOU who are taking a blind eye to the details. There is much chatter among the French and the British about the moves their government is making towards oppression. or maybe you just ignored those riots in France? Or perhaps you didn't notice the spy drones Britain sent up into the air to spy on their people? Or the cameras that tell people with a children's voice to pick up their trash and fine them if they don't.

It was a safety measure in place to make sure the military wasn't, as has been in other countries, used against the people. I think it would be very difficult to get our military to turn on the people and take complete control.
And why do you think it would be difficult? You have said throughout this post that you believed that the government would have no problem using the police and military to enforce these bans. In short, using guns to enforce gun bans.

But, politically, it could happen over time. The government could probably take control of this country right out from under our feet if they did it right. A majority has proven time and time again that it can be swayed by the right argument. By that time, the majority has lost the sense to pick up their gun if they have already lost their sense to question what the government is doing.
If enough people are willing to give up like you, sure.

We have democracy for a reason. Politics and government was established so that we wouldn't ever have to point a gun at each others head to make a decision. If the president decides to ban all guns, take the change to court. If the president decides that freedom of speech is bad, then impeach him. If the government decides to blatantly try and take over the country, then vote them out. If one side of our government tries to take more power than it is allowed, the other two can suppress it. We have multiple systems and fail safes to keep this government from ruling over the majority.
that does not mean we are safe.

If the government does manage to replace this democracy with a dictatorship or some other such system, then they did it with the permission of the people. There are too many ways the majority can politically fight back "peacefully" to allow your armageddon to happen without our knowledge.
That is sadly, generally true, at least in the case of the US or other truly democratic nations. I'm sure sitting down is going to stop the government from using the military to start a bloodbath. Tienanmen Square? Woodstock ring any bells? The police were downright vicious on the Civil Rights movement, though not all the oppression came in the form of shooting. There were dogs, firehoses(which hurt like heck), firebombings, kidnappings, beatings. The government doesn't need to kill you to oppress you.

If the government could take the country right out from under the American citizens, what makes you think they will have the sense to pick up their guns, march on the white house, and take out the president and put everything right again?
You never know.

Your guns and Second Amendment are nothing but a teddy bear you can hold when mommy and daddy start fighting. A romantic view of revolution and power to the people. They give you comfort and security, but they are a placebo. When this country's government takes control, it will be slow and quiet enough for the people to follow blindly. By that time, only a few will raise their guns and be defeated by the majority.
You know, I have a few choice words in response to this, but I don't want to get in trouble. In short, this statement is quite rude and offensive in the beginning.

And yes, that very well may happen, can't say for sure though.

Because, after all, a government is only as strong as the people behind it... no matter what the government. When the people decide they no longer want the government in power, they change it. You may think guns are needed, but in the old days the majority ripped through the minority armed forces with pitch forks and torches to put the King's head on a stick.
And the people can change too, in 50 years, we may oppressed, 20 years later, there might be a revolution which will change things. The majority changes over time, from left to right, pro to against.

You might think your guns stop them, but guns are material. Government change is built on the mental. The political. The majority. A government will come to power because the majority allows it. They change when the majority allows it. If the majority chooses, they can overthrow their government with pitchforks. Giving a gun to every person changes absolutely nothing because it is the will of the majority that makes change. A civilian populous with guns is just as easy to control as a civilian populous without guns.
And afterward, things may change back. You speak so much of change, yet you seem to think it is linear. Change is cyclical. That's why coins are round.

The people will always be more powerful. The majority will always be more powerful. The majority will always allow themselves to be taken control over and ruled. It is why we allow government. It is why we allow and practice religion. It is simply the way our species works.
Indeed, and after the majority agrees, they may come to realize they really disagree.


I agree. I also believe things like fireworks, drugs, and other such things can be used responsibly. The thing is, however, that they are not. Even if that be a minority, it is enough to warrant taking the toy away from the kids until they mature enough to have it back.
we are not slaves. We do not have to prove we are free. We are only as free as we choose the be. The government does not decide when we are grown up, we do. Anything else is bunk.

Call it unconstitutional or unpatriotic. I call it good parenting.
Kids say the darnedest things! -_-

In the end, however, it really comes down to the fact that this culture revolves around violence and fear. I kinda doubt guns will ever be banned in the united states in the way they are banned in other countries. They are just bred into us. Hell, maybe it is really what is keeping this fragile melting pot together.
Believe what you like, and I'll continue to believe that you are wrong. My friend, I don't care what you say, but I'll be damned if I don't believe you have the right to say it.



.....and you didn't think this topic was long enough. HA!

As regards gun laws, I've always heard that it was the cities and states with the strictest gun control laws and regs that tended to have the highest incidence of violent crime. When a scumbag has to worry about whether or not his intended victims can fight back, he usually tends to behave like the bully he is and move on to more "docile" potential victims. I'd have to agree w/Web and Q that you're a bit naive here, True. Why do you feel threatened by responsible law abiding citizens with guns? The criminal classes will always be able to access their weapons regardless of the laws on the book (the US border is sooo large-- >5000+ miles and they can't even keep out narcotics and illegals, nevermind firearms). The govt. you seem to trust so implicitly is usually the one responsible for these problems in the first place b/c it doesn't do enough to enforce the statutes and laws already on the books. I think that you are right in one respect....the government, or the power mad socialist engineers that currently inhabit it, will (and do) seek to erode people's awareness of their rights by dumbing the populace down over time. They are a patient lot in the end. If they succeed, we will become the hopelessly socialist nightmare you seem to embrace out of a misplaced sense of fear. You speak with a sort of forked tongue on the bigotry issue, marginalizing people who don't favor your point of view on this issue.

I've just been called an unpatriotic treasonous socialist bigot by two people.

I am not going to play into your blatant flame baiting Qliveur. The same goes for the majority of your post, Web Rider. I came here to try and express my opinion on the subject and have mature debate. So far the only one here that has attempted that is Totenkopf, and I thank him for that.

I apologize if I insulted you at all, but that is what other people's opinions do. If you read my post simply to call me a socialist bigot, then you shouldn't have replied to me at all. People have opposing opinions.

I'll return to this subject when people are willing to reply to me without the flame baiting.

People, calm down, please, and double check all your posts for flame tendencies before hitting the post button. Handing out warnings or closing a thread because of flaming is not my idea of a good time. Thanks.

Your entire post was one gigantic flame-bait, True. Honestly, what did you expect? I was out of line, and I admit it. I should not have responded in such a manner, no matter how offensive I found your post. And it was offensive.
The same goes for the majority of your post, Web Rider.Other than the fact that he dared to disagree with you, there is nothing about Web Rider's post that would constitute flaming or baiting whatsoever. He was even polite. I was not. He showed restraint. I didn't. His post did not get deleted. Mine did.

I've just been called an unpatriotic treasonous socialist bigot by two people.
no, you have been called an unpatriotic treasonous socialist bigot by one person. I did nothing of the sort. In fact I believe I clipped the lines to those regards from my reply as I didn't like them.

I am not going to play into your blatant flame baiting Qliveur. The same goes for the majority of your post, Web Rider. I came here to try and express my opinion on the subject and have mature debate.
says the person who wrote the 10-mile-long post in the first place. I was going to reply to this topic saying how dissuaded I was from even replying because you're post was so massive. After a few moments of consideration, and several hours of writing, I wrote the post you see above. Since I took the time to address your post and provide "serious debate", I would like a little respect in return.

I made no statements against you aside from my starting claim that you failed to understand history, one claim that a certain belief was foolish, and one instance of naive and blind. The latter you called the rest of us out on.

You know, I was highly tempted to make a short, snarky response to your post, claiming it was too much to read or some assault on your character. So I reread my post several times after writing this long winded thing. I reread it all again right now, just to make sure I wasn't flaming you like you claimed.

The proof is in the pudding as they say, I did not flame you, nor did I attempt to flame bait you, I attempted to show respect for your massive post. An attempt which I feel succeeded. However, I am, to say the least, very upset that all that effort is being thrown back in my face under a false accusation that I am flaming you.

I apologize if I insulted you at all, but that is what other people's opinions do. If you read my post simply to call me a socialist bigot, then you shouldn't have replied to me at all. People have opposing opinions.
Yes, I even presented one, and while you whine about us not listening to you, you throw my efforts in particular back in my face. You are doing the same thing you accuse us of doing. Ignoring people's opinions because they differ from yours. I made no assault on your character and I'd like you to kindly show me some respect and actually READ my post, I don't care if you respond to it, and retract your statement that I was flaming you, as it is a gross LIE.

If you want to express your opinion, great. Remember however, this this is a two way street and sometimes opinions intersect each other. Do not come here to preach and not hear out others. I heard you out and replied in kind, do the same or leave.

no, you have been called an unpatriotic treasonous socialist bigot by one person. I did nothing of the sort. In fact I believe I clipped the lines to those regards from my reply as I didn't like them.
From the sarcastic nature of some of your comments, I simply assumed that it was flame baiting. If I miss read the tone, then I apologize.

says the person who wrote the 10-mile-long post in the first place. I was going to reply to this topic saying how dissuaded I was from even replying because you're post was so massive. After a few moments of consideration, and several hours of writing, I wrote the post you see above. Since I took the time to address your post and provide "serious debate", I would like a little respect in return.
I will reply to your post when I make sure that your post was not in the tone that I assumed. I thank you for reading it, but do not appreciate the tone of your comments if I am indeed reading them correctly.

I would not want to reply in an angry manner if the anger was missplaced.

I made no statements against you aside from my starting claim that you failed to understand history, one claim that a certain belief was foolish, and one instance of naive and blind. The latter you called the rest of us out on.
Then I miss read the tone of your post.

You know, I was highly tempted to make a short, snarky response to your post, claiming it was too much to read or some assault on your character. So I reread my post several times after writing this long winded thing. I reread it all again right now, just to make sure I wasn't flaming you like you claimed.
Then I did miss read the tone and apologize for making an unfounded accusation.

The proof is in the pudding as they say, I did not flame you, nor did I attempt to flame bait you, I attempted to show respect for your massive post. An attempt which I feel succeeded. However, I am, to say the least, very upset that all that effort is being thrown back in my face under a false accusation that I am flaming you.
Again, I apologize for that and will attempt a reply to your post in a bit. It being 5am here, I'm not up for the challenge of debating.

Yes, I even presented one, and while you whine about us not listening to you, you throw my efforts in particular back in my face. You are doing the same thing you accuse us of doing. Ignoring people's opinions because they differ from yours. I made no assault on your character and I'd like you to kindly show me some respect and actually READ my post, I don't care if you respond to it, and retract your statement that I was flaming you, as it is a gross LIE.
Ok, I understand your frustration, and I apologize for it.

If you want to express your opinion, great. Remember however, this this is a two way street and sometimes opinions intersect each other. Do not come here to preach and not hear out others. I heard you out and replied in kind, do the same or leave.
I apreciate that and am sorry for calling you out for something that was unfounded.

I do, however, feel that Qliveur's comments and recent PM to me have been incredibly rude and immature. I am currently frustrated with his comments, so I apologize if my frustration leaked over onto you Web. I was out of line in my assumption that you were being rude to me, and I apologize for my rude comments in this entire thread.

I just find being called an unpatriotic treasonous socialist bigot just a tiny bit insulting and on the off-putting side. You can relate to my feelings of spending hours on a post and then getting laughed at and spit on instead of given a proper response.

I'll take this time to cool down, then reply to you Web. I promise.

Your entire post was one gigantic flame-bait, True. Honestly, what did you expect? I was out of line, and I admit it. I should not have responded in such a manner, no matter how offensive I found your post. And it was offensive.
Apology, if it can be called that, not accepted. At all. I refuse to apologize to you for being "offensive" because you have given me no reason to. I already apologized to you earlier for my out-of-the-line redneck comment.

Want to know why?

Because you have called me, in no uncertain terms, an unamerican unpatriotic treasonous socialist bigot and to "please get out of my country."

Because of the PM you sent me an hour after that post, if my forum clock is right.
:mob:

:crybaby:

:violin:
The fact you admitted to being out of line and added "I should not have responded in such a manner", then turned right around to flame bait me in the place you think you are safe from moderators after already having a post deleted...

Keep throwing the bait out. I'll watch as you catch more than you bargained for.

True_Avery and Qliveur: You would both do well to carefully consider whether your next posts constitute debate or ad hominem commentary as the latter will earn you infraction points and post deletions. ~tk

Web:
hough the increasing oppression by the UK government and the sort of racist-oppression of the French has shown an increasing amount of uncomfortableness with the limitations on freedom.

Which has happened (almost) every time their freedom has been shrinked, most likely it will only cause a minor backlash before business as usual, at "worst" it'll lead to the formation of a new populist party.

If a criminal wants a gun, he'll get one. Remember those germans who had that whole arsenal a while back? They weren't even criminals. Now, if non-criminals know how to get guns in a country where they are banned, certainly criminals know better/easier ways to get guns.

While they can get a gun, it dosen't mean the will. When most guns are ilegal (as in only hunting weapons are legal, and a strict permit system for those), a criminal sees getting a gun as an extra chance of the police catching him/her. It's also fairly pointless for the burgular, since the main reason for a criminal to be armed is to be able to protect himself from an armed victim, after all, burgulars want your valuables, not your life. Also, in most places, robbing someone won't put you behind bars for too much time (everything is relative), while doing it with a gun will.
Sure, gangs will still use guns against each other, the police, and during high profile crimes, but the average burgular won't.

Yes, tools can make you feel strong, but rest assured, if somebody wants to kill you, they'll do it with a hammer if they are so inclined.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you saying is people will use whatever is at hand? If so, wouldn't it be better if they where to use things like knives, hammers etc, which gives the victim a better chance to run away?

If Joe breaks into my house and I kill him, I call the cops, say somebody broke in, I shot and killed them, I'm in the right.

Seems like something needs to be done about the law, though I understand why people knowing the law would go for the kill.

And killings by cops with stun-guns has been increasing

Well, of course they have. Once they are more widely adopted they'll end up being used in a lot more "dangerous" situations. Besides, it apears that a lot of people (including cops) don't treat stun guns as a weapon, and hence are willing to use them in situations they'd never even consider shooting.

You have a stunner, I have a gun, I'm 10 feet away, you shoot, nail me in the leg. But I'm on speed, I feel nothing. I pull the trigger till my gun is empty, you are dead, your house is mine, and I'm none the worse for wear.

Huh? Did I miss something or is the U.S home to criminals acting like soldiers, taking and holding instead of stealing and fleeing. Besides, ever heard of the novel idea of running away and calling the cops instead risking your skin for your valuables?:D

You have just as good a chance to shoot them with a gun as you do with a stunner. And you have no assurance that the latter will stop them cold, while you do with a gun.

You don't get that asurance from a gun either, otherwise, only dead people would have bullet wounds.

If X kind of guns aren't a problem in Wyoming, why should we apply California-level laws to them? Obviously they don't need it.

I actually agree with this, one size fits all tend to end up as, one compromise, hated by all.

Well, maybe we wouldn't have to do that if the government put more money into police and less money into limiting good people's means of defense.

Or maybe those vigilantes would be deterred if geting guns where harder, who knows.

Because, of course, the constant bloodshed in Britain and Japan are absolutly the case for gun laws. um, NO.

Huh? Fill me inn please, though if you are talking about Japans almost 100% conviction rate (also when the penalty is death), I agree, though it has nothing to do with gun laws.

Now, if only a politician would give a darn about gun laws instead of abortion or gay marriage. Honestly, I'd love to see it.

Politicans give a darn about issues that concern the majoroty, the day gun laws become important to people, they'll give a darn.

Oh, right, it was: "Give me liberty, or give me death."

Commonly used by those who'll never pay that price for liberty.

Because words solved the Civil War. Um, no. Politics fails sometimes and all we're left with is to prove one way or the other that we're right. If you want t surrender and be oppressed? Go right ahead, me? I'm not so fond of the idea, neither is my family.

Who says anything about surendering? Countless countries have been ridd of bad rulers without needing guns. Even if you want an armed revolution, if it comes to that, getting one will be unlikely to be very dificult.

or maybe you just ignored those riots in France?

Caused by much the same kind of discrimination that caused blacks in the U.S to do the same, albeit on a larger scale. Don't see big government as the cause, pherhaps you'd enlighten me?

Or perhaps you didn't notice the spy drones Britain sent up into the air to spy on their people?

You mean like the countless private cameras do for the govt in basically every country?

Tienanmen Square?

Which happened in a democratic country, oh wait nvrmnd

The police were downright vicious on the Civil Rights movement, though not all the oppression came in the form of shooting. There were dogs, firehoses(which hurt like heck), firebombings, kidnappings, beatings. The government doesn't need to kill you to oppress you.

Nice story, you forgot the ending:D


Tot:
When a scumbag has to worry about whether or not his intended victims can fight back, he usually tends to behave like the bully he is and move on to more "docile" potential victims.

So change the victims from the wealthy to the poor? Seems like a bad deal to me. Besides, if criminals have to worry about victims with guns, they'll arm themselves, dosen't really make the deal any better.

the US border is sooo large-- >5000+ miles and they can't even keep out narcotics and illegals, nevermind firearms

Supply and demand, the U.S demand narcotics and ilegals, so whenever the border guards close one way, they find another, seen those nifty (nearly) submarines? If however more criminals isn't geting a gun, we harm demand, and as a nice side effect, the smuglers.

The govt. you seem to trust so implicitly is usually the one responsible for these problems in the first place b/c it doesn't do enough to enforce the statutes and laws already on the books.

Got any solutions to the problem?

the power mad socialist engineers that currently inhabit it
we will become the hopelessly socialist nightmare


No offence, but do you know what socialism is? The U.S is more like a funny mix of liberal and conservative than anything else, and will probably remain so for a long time.

I'm not going to comment any further than whoever wrote this fallacy;

Because, of course, the constant bloodshed in Britain and Japan are absolutly the case for gun laws. um, NO.

Now I don't know who wrote it, it was in murph's post, but I take it that this is some kind of argument that gun laws don't work...

I take it someone isn't at all familiar with the statistics then? The US is still top and has been for as long as one cares to remember of the rich nations citizens killed by gun lists... The UK and Japan are both very near the bottom of that same list. If you really really want me to pull you out a several sources I will do...

I don't have much other interest in this discussion, other than please don't use propoganda and lies to support your arguments.

Tot:
So change the victims from the wealthy to the poor? Seems like a bad deal to me. Besides, if criminals have to worry about victims with guns, they'll arm themselves, dosen't really make the deal any better.

Main problem I see here is that you assume that everyone that breaks into someone's house only intends to steal something and are averse to using violence. I've heard that "professional burglars" do tend to try to operate this way, but it's not universally true of all household invaders (rapists, thugs, etc...). Even if you arm yourself with a gun before breaking into someone's home, you still have to deal with the fact that they might be better armed than you or in a better position to kill you than people in areas with strict gun control. Hence a course of least resistance. Afterall, he just might be breaking into your house to score enough $$ for his next fix (and most of the poor in this country have that kind of "wealth" lying around).


Supply and demand, the U.S demand narcotics and ilegals, so whenever the border guards close one way, they find another, seen those nifty (nearly) submarines? If however more criminals isn't geting a gun, we harm demand, a nice side effect, the smuglers.

You seem to have lost me a little here. You seem to confirm that smugglers can bring a wide range of items into the country that are contraband. If we can't seem to stop the flow of narcotics here (or illegal immigration), what makes you think that strict gun control laws can't/wouldn't/don't create a pent up demand for illegal firearms?


solutions to the problem?
Well, one of the first things an oppressive govt need to do is effectively disarm the populace. With Second Amendment rights and some knowledge of those rights, the US population can keep it's govt somewhat in check. You may end up with tyranny in the end (not impossible), but it will have to be arrived at in a much more sneaky and indirect way.


No offence, but do you know what socialism is? The U.S is more like a funny mix of liberal and conservative than anything else, and will probably remain so for a long time.

None taken. Socialism is a political and economic sytem that tends to see the govt as the solution to your problems rather than the private sector. We have been afflicted with elements of this (SSI, etc..) since the 1930s (yeah, FDR and company were themselves socialistic in temperment). It's not state ownership and control like in the commie system, mostly heavier govt involvememnt via regulations and such to keep the "evil capitalist" in line and convince the populace that the nanny state only has your best interests at heart. My guess is that b/c europeans and many Americans differ over the value of such philosophies (many americans have come to embrace them, though), we may never agree that socialism is a "good thing".

Main problem I see here is that you assume that everyone that breaks into someone's house only intends to steal something and are averse to using violence.

I don't asume that they are averse to using force if opposed, the point is, if they arm themselves with bats, knives etc it's far more likely that no one dies in a confrontation. After all, how many burgulars actively try to kill their victims?

but it's not universally true of all household invaders (rapists, thugs, etc...).

But of all invaders, how many aren't burgulars? Rapists tend to be known to the victim, and rarely needs to break in. As for thugs, I'll be honest, I don't know how often it happens in the U.S, but where I have lived, they make up a tiny fraction of all invaders.

You seem to have lost me a little here. You seem to confirm that smugglers can bring a wide range of items into the country that are contraband. If we can't seem to stop the flow of narcotics here (or illegal immigration), what makes you think that strict gun control laws can't/wouldn't/don't create a pent up demand for illegal firearms?

Because it haven't in other countries with strict gun laws, after all, criminals buy most of the guns smuggled in, and if they don't feel the need to arm themselves, the smugglers suffer.

You may end up with tyranny in the end (not impossible), but it will have to be arrived at in a much more sneaky and indirect way.

But this aply to countries without lots of guns flowing around, the prefered weapon of the rebell is the bomb, which is damn near impossible to prevent the population from getting their hands on. Few rebelions start with all out armed assaults, and by the time that becomes an issue, there will be plenty of guns thanks to smuggling/outside support.

When it comes to socialism: Socialism is probably the second most diverse political direction (the most is liberalism), it encompases everything from: the state should own chunks of companies, and a lot of things should only be provided by the state to: the free market is a tool, and it should regulated in a way that let the "elite" (as in private persons, not members of the beurocrasy) get rich, while preventing the difference betwen rich and poor from becoming too great, essentially left leaning liberals.
From what I have seen, the socialist policies in the U.S tend to fit into liberalism aswell, so I don't really think there is much reason for you to worry. Of course, the political landscape changes, so one day you might get a socialist president, though I don't see it happening soon.

We will never agree that socialism is a good thing, simply because most socialists take issue with many socialist policies. To give an example, we have technically only big socialist parties in Norway, yet they can't even agree that they are all socialist:D

Well, I'm going to guess you mean that the "victims" arm themselves w/bats, etc... Main problem I see is that if I'm a perp and can/will get guns to commit my crimes, my pistol will generally trump your bat/knife in fairly close quarters (especailly the higher caliber the bullet). I think that "professional burglars" seek to minimize contact with their marks, but not everyone that breaks into a home is a pro. Also, a good swing at your head with a bat will most likely kill you if it connects. Knives can be very effective if the perp is skilled.

Given our cultural differences and vastly larger population, it might not be a good idea to compare Norway and America in this fashion. In the short run, I agree that a USSA is unlikely. Don't know what the future holds, though.

Well, I'm going to guess you mean that the "victims" arm themselves w/bats, etc...

Or not at all, I guess it's a cultural thing, but confronting someone who might very well be armed for the sake of your belongings seems rather stupid to me.

Main problem I see is that if I'm a perp and can/will get guns to commit my crimes, my pistol will generally trump your bat/knife in fairly close quarters (especailly the higher caliber the bullet).

Yes, but how likely is it to be attacked by a perp at all? Or how likely is this to happen in a way that your gun can make a diference?

Also, a good swing at your head with a bat will most likely kill you if it connects. Knives can be very effective if the perp is skilled.

Yet since you have argued the superioroty of guns vs knives bats etc, I expect you to agree that it's more likely that no one dies in such a situtaion, besides, runing from someone with a bat is far easier than runing from someone with a gun.

Given our cultural differences and vastly larger population, it might not be a good idea to compare Norway and America in this fashion.

I'm not just comparing with Norway, I also lived in South Africa, which tops the list. There, cowards get robbed, heroes get killed.

Or not at all, I guess it's a cultural thing, but confronting someone who might very well be armed for the sake of your belongings seems rather stupid to me.

Actually, I wasn't sure if you meant the perps or their victims could use bats and knives in lieu of handguns/firearms. There are no doubt many here who probably feel similiarly. Sort of what homeowners insurance is probably for anyway. I think it's more than just stopping someone b/c you don't want to lose the 52" plasma tv you just bought (or anything else, really). If you get a firearm to protect your house, but then never do anything to learn how to handle it.....it might as well be like that stuff on tv where they tell you not to try this at home. ;)


Yes, but how likely is it to be attacked by a perp at all? Or how likely is this to happen in a way that your gun can make a diference?

Yes, if you "cower" in your room, and they are merely burglars content to loot a few things downstairs, you're probably correct. Unfortunately, you have no guarantees for someone else's behavior.


Yet since you have argued the superioroty of guns vs knives bats etc, I expect you to agree that it's more likely that no one dies in such a situtaion, besides, runing from someone with a bat is far easier than runing from someone with a gun.

Well, for close quarters (ie homes) fighting, a solid handgun (no .22s now, you might only make the perp angry enough to attack you) would tend to trump bats and knives, especially if you know what you're doing. Otherwise, refer to first pp. Remember, though, you still have to negoiate the house to get out of it in order to run far enough away from the bat wielding perp. If you slip/trip..... (and assuming you've confronted them or they are closer than you realize). Soo many factors......never cut and dry.



I'm not just comparing with Norway, I also lived in South Africa, which tops the list. There, cowards get robbed, heroes get killed.

"Heroes" get killed here too, I'm sure. So do the perps as well. Fact is, no matter how well armed you may be, the perp has the initial advantage due to the element of surprise. Doesn't mean the tables can't be turned.

Web:
Which has happened (almost) every time their freedom has been shrinked, most likely it will only cause a minor backlash before business as usual, at "worst" it'll lead to the formation of a new populist party.
Depends on the people I suppose, in a more complacent society, that's probably true, though depending on the level of oppression, that may be good enough. Revolutions don't have to be violent all the time, though that tends to happen in any major political shift, intended or not.

While they can get a gun, it dosen't mean the will. When most guns are ilegal (as in only hunting weapons are legal, and a strict permit system for those), a criminal sees getting a gun as an extra chance of the police catching him/her. It's also fairly pointless for the burgular, since the main reason for a criminal to be armed is to be able to protect himself from an armed victim, after all, burgulars want your valuables, not your life. Also, in most places, robbing someone won't put you behind bars for too much time (everything is relative), while doing it with a gun will.
Sure, gangs will still use guns against each other, the police, and during high profile crimes, but the average burgular won't.
Probably more due it not being worth the effort, it's harder to trace a knife that the burglar runs off with than the bullet left in the guy he shot. Assuming that all the person wants is your money, that may be true, though I recall a case somewhere of a guy murdering than raping his victims, sometimes in the other order, in an apartment complex, the last lady survived because she didn't fight him. He killed them simply because he could, not for any other reason.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you saying is people will use whatever is at hand? If so, wouldn't it be better if they where to use things like knives, hammers etc, which gives the victim a better chance to run away?
no, not really, if I nail you with a hammer it's about as likly to kill you as with a hammer. a 2x2 chunk of steel hitting your head is just as likly to kill you as a .45 Sure, the victim could run away easier, but if the burglar has the element of surprise, the victim is likly trapped IN the home, where running away is only 5-10 feet.

Seems like something needs to be done about the law, though I understand why people knowing the law would go for the kill.
It's not really the laws, it's the criminals and the lawyers who abuse the system. The self defense laws are pretty straight-forward, he attacks/invades, you defend, that's SUPPOSED to be OK.

Well, of course they have. Once they are more widely adopted they'll end up being used in a lot more "dangerous" situations. Besides, it apears that a lot of people (including cops) don't treat stun guns as a weapon, and hence are willing to use them in situations they'd never even consider shooting.
And that's another problem with them. You are giving cops a weapon that is AS dangerous as a gun, yet does not carry the same stigma as a gun. Same goes for normal people. You are hesitant to use a gun to shoot a person, knowing they may die if you do. You do not hesitate to shock them till they stop moving, which is just as likly to kill them.

Huh? Did I miss something or is the U.S home to criminals acting like soldiers, taking and holding instead of stealing and fleeing. Besides, ever heard of the novel idea of running away and calling the cops instead risking your skin for your valuables?:D
A LOT of people do not buy into the police propaganda that it is best to just let the criminal have their way and then let them leave. I don't for one. It's also a very slippery slope. One day we get complacent and let people run off with our money. Pretty soon we're letting them rape our daughters and not moving to defend or help.
At that point, something is seriously wrong with people, far more so than liking guns.

You don't get that asurance from a gun either, otherwise, only dead people would have bullet wounds.
of course, but you have to admit, it's a whole lot easier.

Or maybe those vigilantes would be deterred if geting guns where harder, who knows.
Not to quote comic books, but not all vigilantes use guns. Nor, given how squishy the average human is, are guns the only solution to permanently stopping a person.

Huh? Fill me inn please, though if you are talking about Japans almost 100% conviction rate (also when the penalty is death), I agree, though it has nothing to do with gun laws.
the statement was in response to Avery's comment that strict gun laws are formed because of constant bloodshed in the world.

Politicans give a darn about issues that concern the majoroty, the day gun laws become important to people, they'll give a darn.
Politicians care about issues the media make look important. Gun issues do concern the majority in varying ways.

Commonly used by those who'll never pay that price for liberty.
Commonly used by many people in multitudes of places for a variety of reasons. Just because liberty can be won without dying, does not mean I won't risk my life over it.

Who says anything about surendering? Countless countries have been ridd of bad rulers without needing guns. Even if you want an armed revolution, if it comes to that, getting one will be unlikely to be very dificult.
And which countries would those be? last time I checked, very, very very few countries have had a massive political shift, from oppressed to free or mostly free, without a considerable amount of violence.

Caused by much the same kind of discrimination that caused blacks in the U.S to do the same, albeit on a larger scale. Don't see big government as the cause, pherhaps you'd enlighten me?
Most of the riots occur in the massive French housing projects, and are caused by various non-native French, immigrants and so on. Because of an inherant discrimination among employers against non-French. Because the French government is so socialist, it has a large hand in ALL business, and therefore, can easily oust the racism the same way other countries have, by forcing employers to do so. The lack of action here is telling that the French govt doesn't really care. It's what happens as well when a country decides that the best way to operate is to have 10% of it's population unemployed because that's a healthy employment rate.

You mean like the countless private cameras do for the govt in basically every country?
I think I would wager that a private camera affixed to a stop-light is a far cry from a mobile hover drone that could sit outside your window and watch your left-handed fun.

Which happened in a democratic country, oh wait nvrmnd
a revolution need not take place in a democratic country, China has oppression, people who don't like it, and a government that enforces it with military might. That IS the kind of place I was suggesting could occur IN a democratic nation if people let their rights be eroded.

Nice story, you forgot the ending:D
that the massive death of peaceful folk pressured the ruling class to pressure their government to change the laws? That hardly stopped poor treatment of blacks and other minorities.

I'm not going to comment any further than whoever wrote this fallacy;

Actually, the quote is mine and it was in response to Avery's comment on how the strict bans on guns have occurred as a response to constant, exessive, uninterrrupted violence(with guns) in the world and that particular nations. Since such violence did not, and does not exist in those nations, quite frankly I find the notion that excessive and constant violence was the motivation behind their implementation to be quite the stretch.

No comment on them not working in the slightest, just a comment on their formation.

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp)

"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."

Think for a moment about the concept of the flamethrower, okay? The flamethrower. We have them! Well, we don't have them, the Army has them. That's right, we don't have any flamethrowers. I'd say we're ****ed if we have to go up against the Army...­­­

***Think for a moment about the concept of the flamethrower, okay? The flamethrower. We have them! Well, we don't have them, the Army has them. That's right, we don't have any flamethrowers. I'd say we're ****ed if we have to go up against the Army...

***

QFT

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp) First, let me say I have my license to carry a concealed weapon and I was once a member of the NRA, so take this with a grain of salt. I love the gun lobby’s statistics, they want to compare children’s death and show that Firearms only 181 died of firearms compared to 3,059 dieing in motor vehicles accidents. Sounds impressive and shows how safe firearms are compare to automobiles. (sarcasm!) Guess I’ll buy my 12, 11, 10 and 8 year old cousins guns for Christmas, oh that right we keep guns away from children so they are not kill by guns. What is the percentage of deaths for children under 14 that play with loaded weapons and ride in cars?

Actually, if the statitics are correct, then it merely highlights the fact/position that gun related fatalities--while individually tragic--don't amount to a national crisis that justifies the govt in heavily restricting gun ownership. Afterall.....what political whore doesn't like to say he/she is "doing it for the children"? Yeah, right. :rolleyes:

Well, the army may have flamethrowers, but that just means they get to play human torch. :xp: The standoff weapons they have are more of a concern should the unthinkable ever occur.

I'm not saying I approve of children owning guns, I'm trying to make a point, especially with the last few parts on that page of the site, such as the quotes of Thomas Jefferson.

Actually, if the statitics are correct, then it merely highlights the fact/position that gun related fatalities--while individually tragic--don't amount to a national crisis that justifies the govt in heavily restricting gun ownership. Afterall.....what political whore doesn't like to say he/she is "doing it for the children"? Yeah, right. :rolleyes:A moron owning a gun and accidently shooting themselves is not a tragedy or a national crisis. A child that unknowing picks up a gun and shoots themselves is a tragedy and a national crisis. I’m just under the opinion that restricting gun ownership is not the answer. I believe punishing morons that allow children access to fire arms is (example: a 5 year old is accidently killed with his father’s gun. Let say the life expectancy of the child is 75, then the father’s sentence would be a minimum of 70 years in prison. Before someone points that this will only fill up already overcrowded prisons, let us remember there were only 181 cases in 1995. Most gun owners and parents are not morons; this law would only affect the morons in society.)

Given that the number is only 181 (out of ~300 million), it fails to rise to the level of national crisis. I do agree, somewhat, with your attitude toward irresponsible parenting on this subject. Of course, if applied to most criminals that use violence, I guess there'd be no point in a parole board hearing for most of these types of perps (ie violent offenders).

Of course, if applied to most criminals that use violence, I guess there'd be no point in a parole board hearing for most of these types of perps (ie violent offenders).If we are talking a violent offenders that harmed children then I would tend to agree. If I’m going to error I believe we should error on the side of protecting the innocent and those that cannot protect themselves, children and the elderly.

I could care less about the numbers. One child dying needlessly due to the ignorance of a grown up is too many. That a 181 we never grow up to have the option of having their own little rug rat is a national tragedy. Heck one of them could have been the next George Bush. :D

I agree that it's a tragedy, but still only a personal one. I'd think that you'd believe George Bush ending up in that category would be an aversion of a natioanl tragedy. :D Also, agree with your first point as well.

If we are talking a violent offenders that harmed children then I would tend to agree. If I’m going to error I believe we should error on the side of protecting the innocent and those that cannot protect themselves, children and the elderly.

I'm going to have to take issue with "elderly". Who are these "elderly" who cannot defend themselves? Granted there are a lot of older folks in nursing homes, but there are just as many, if not more, who do not. Many of these folks are the force behind powerful groups like AARP, one of the most powerful lobbying groups in America.

Futhermore, I am aware of many adults who are 60+ who are healthy and can defend themselves from attackers and many of the more rural kind are quite fond of their weapons.

Now, while children are on average not capable of this kind self-defense, that's not to say that there aren't some kids who can kick my butt with their bare fists.

But, I would have to say that on average, a good deal of the elderly, either through legal means or their own abilities, are quite capable of defending themselves.


Of course, the most logical way to "defend" the elderly is to kill them after their reach a certain level of incapablility, to spare them from the ravaging effects of old age, the pains of dying slowly and breaking down, or being taken advantage of by the stronger. Additionally, it is very healthy for a society to not have, as we do now, am upside-down support system, where more money is being paid out to the retired and elderly due to them living longer and a smaller generation of working folks providing into the system for them.


but we don't want to go down that road...

I'm going to have to take issue with "elderly". Who are these "elderly" who cannot defend themselves? Granted there are a lot of older folks in nursing homes, but there are just as many, if not more, who do not. Many of these folks are the force behind powerful groups like AARP, one of the most powerful lobbying groups in America. Normally I’d ignore your rant, thinking you’ve just not had enough life experience or been very fortunate (or unfortunate) enough never see someone within your family unable to defend themselves due to that ravages of age. However, after having to get up to go over to my parents’ house last night at 4:30 am to pick my 75-year-old stepfather off the floor I am going to say while you are correct about some (I have a 90 great uncle that I would not want to mess with), the majority of the elderly are not going to be able to defend themselves from a brutal attack from a healthy person in their prime. Time has a way of reducing our capability both physically and mentally, add to that diseases common to the elderly such as arthritis, diabetes, hypertension and at least in my family cancer and you get a pretty defenseless human being. Don’t even get me started on the thieves, pretending to be legitimate business, that prey on the elderly mentally trying to separate them from their life savings. Not every elderly person falls for these scams, but enough do to keep this thieves’ in business. So while not every elderly person needs protection, the same can be said for some children. However, anyone one the preys on those that cannot defend themselves is the scum of the earth.

Of course, the most logical way to "defend" the elderly is to kill them after their reach a certain level of incapablility, to spare them from the ravaging effects of old age, the pains of dying slowly and breaking down, or being taken advantage of by the stronger. Additionally, it is very healthy for a society to not have, as we do now, am upside-down support system, where more money is being paid out to the retired and elderly due to them living longer and a smaller generation of working folks providing into the system for them.
Instead of protecting the innocent and punishing those that would do them harm you come to the “most logical” thing to do is kill the elderly. How is that logical? Personally I find this logic both selfish and lazy. To me it is the job of society to protect those that cannot protect themselves. Following this logic then we should kill the children too because they are not adding to society at this time. So then this would be the final generation and we would benefit from our own work and that of the previous generation we just killed and not have to share with the next generation. Sounds perfect:(

Normally I’d ignore your rant, thinking you’ve just not had enough life experience or been very fortunate (or unfortunate) enough never see someone within your family unable to defend themselves due to that ravages of age. However, after having to get up to go over to my parents’ house last night at 4:30 am to pick my 75-year-old stepfather off the floor I am going to say while you are correct about some (I have a 90 great uncle that I would not want to mess with), the majority of the elderly are not going to be able to defend themselves from a brutal attack from a healthy person in their prime. Time has a way of reducing our capability both physically and mentally, add to that diseases common to the elderly such as arthritis, diabetes, hypertension and at least in my family cancer and you get a pretty defenseless human being. Don’t even get me started on the thieves, pretending to be legitimate business, that prey on the elderly mentally trying to separate them from their life savings. Not every elderly person falls for these scams, but enough do to keep this thieves’ in business. So while not every elderly person needs protection, the same can be said for some children. However, anyone one the preys on those that cannot defend themselves is the scum of the earth.
I do, in fact, have a grandmother in a nursing home who isn't home(mentally) for more than 20 minutes). So, kindly keep the "oh you haven't...." BS to yourself please. I am well aware of what time can do and I am well aware of how physically capable a person can remain should they choose, and not be adversly affected by disease/disorder. The best protection from con-men is awareness, so that the elderly can protect themselves. If they are not of sound mind as you seem to imply the elderly might be simply because of their age, then some other course of action must be taken. However, there is no standard that if you are over a certain age you need special "protections". Those kind of protections are equatable to a limitation of a freedom, if a person proves that they are no longer capable of taking care of themselves, then something should be done. As we did with my grandmother.


Instead of protecting the innocent and punishing those that would do them harm you come to the “most logical” thing to do is kill the elderly. How is that logical? Personally I find this logic both selfish and lazy. To me it is the job of society to protect those that cannot protect themselves. Following this logic then we should kill the children too because they are not adding to society at this time. So then this would be the final generation and we would benefit from our own work and that of the previous generation we just killed and not have to share with the next generation. Sounds perfect:(
No, in fact, since my argument is not based on their contributions to society. I said their "incapability", implying no specific age limits, contribution amount or what have you. Only a specific level of ability based on what they have shown to have. The people who are capable live, the people who are not, die, survival of the fittest.

And everyone knows you can't apply this same logic to children because the children have yet to reach their capabilities, the difference being that a child's body is working towards their peak, while somebody "incapable" is someone who has fallen well below any kind of peak they had before.

Besides, it was all an exaggeration of what might happen when going too far to "protect" people from "ravages of time".

I do, in fact, have a grandmother in a nursing home who isn't home(mentally) for more than 20 minutes). Sorry to hear that. My prayers will be with you and your family. So, kindly keep the "oh you haven't...." BS to yourself please. Well ain’t that sweet. I am well aware of what time can do and I am well aware of how physically capable a person can remain should they choose, and not be adversly affected by disease/disorder. Then why are we debating this? However, there is no standard that if you are over a certain age you need special "protections". And I never said there should be a standard. I said those that harmed people that who could not protect themselves. Those kind of protections are equatable to a limitation of a freedom, if a person proves that they are no longer capable of taking care of themselves, then something should be done. How can what I was suggesting put any limitation of freedom on the elderly or children for that matter? I said that people who commit crimes against those that cannot protect themselves should suffer greater punishment. It only limits the freedom of the criminal and put no restriction on the child or anyone else. It is not a liberal idea, it is a family values idea.

Besides, it was all an exaggeration of what might happen when going too far to "protect" people from "ravages of time".
Then why bring it up? It has nothing to do with my post.

The problem is, mimartin; that wouldn't be an entirely just system of punishment. As much as I find it horrifying and saddening the things many criminals do, I beleive that everyone deserves a second chance. I doesn't matter if the civilian did or didn't have the ability to defend him/herself, there were still guns/whatever other lethal weapon/means involved.

Then why is it justifiable to more severely punish someone that kills a police officer than an ordinary citizen? I agree to the second chance except when it comes to someone that harms children. Depending on what was done they may have ruined a young persons life, so their life should be ruined too IMO.

Maybe it shouldn't be; I agree with you on that.

Then why is it justifiable to more severely punish someone that kills a police officer than an ordinary citizen? I agree to the second chance except when it comes to someone that harms children. Depending on what was done they may have ruined a young persons life, so their life should be ruined too IMO.

But that's really generally true about "younger" people (ie 18-25/30) anyway, given that people can live to 78+ these days. From a societal pov, killing officers means the perp has even less problem with the idea of killing "innocents" and therefore is deemed a bigger threat to everyone than the perp who doesn't. Not a perfect system, btw. Sometimes a cop may be crooked and not worthy of such "consideration". But that's material for another thread, I'd think.

Maybe it shouldn't be; I agree with you on that.
You are not agreeing with me. I believe someone that kills a police officer should get more severe penalty. When the criminal can go back in time and give their victim a second chance then I will be all for second chances for people that harm children, the elderly or those whose job is to protect us. Some things in life don't have the option of a second chance and that is why we should think before we act. What I wanted to know is since that isn’t the reason the American Judicial system is the mess it is, why would punishing people more severely that prey on children or the elderly (the ones that cannot protect themselves) destroy the American Judicial system (Personally I already consider it destroyed.)

I would agree that it shouldn't. Destroyed? Maybe. Malfunctioning? Definitely.

Sorry to hear that. My prayers will be with you and your family. Well ain’t that sweet.
my point, is simply, do not jump to assume that a person has not experienced something simply because they hold a different opinion than you.

Then why are we debating this?
Because you didn't seem to get what I was saying the first time.

And I never said there should be a standard. I said those that harmed people that who could not protect themselves.
yes, in fact, you specified the "elderly" and "children". Those are standards commonly applied to people over 60 and people under 12, respectively. How you define somebody who cannot protect themselves can be just as tricky though. And that's why it's so hard to protect them, because you don't usually know that a person cannot protect themself until after something has happened to them.

How can what I was suggesting put any limitation of freedom on the elderly or children for that matter?
Any attempt in protect will always impede upon one's freedom. A seatbelt protects, while limiting the ability to move around while in a car. Screening your mother's calls protects her, but limits her freedom to choose who she wants to talk to.

While not all such protections cause such obvious limitations as reprecussions, the paralell is more than obvious.

I said that people who commit crimes against those that cannot protect themselves should suffer greater punishment. It only limits the freedom of the criminal and put no restriction on the child or anyone else. It is not a liberal idea, it is a family values idea.
Family values? Oh there's a RICH idea. In any case, harsher punishment might protect future victims, but has no effect on those already made victims. As well harsher punishment can make people more lax, assuming that the harsher punishment will make preying on them harder, but their relaxing makes preying on them easier. Thus bringing you back to square one.

As for family values, they differ from family to family, do not think some standard can apply to even all Americans.


Then why bring it up? It has nothing to do with my post.
then you either did not read it or you failed to understand it. It was a statement about how if we always feel people need to be "protected", then pretty soon, somebody's protection is going to outweigh somebody else's life. Should not the younger generation's income be protected against overdemanding elderly who draw out more than the young put in?

At some point, one person's well being will have to weigh against another's, and carried far enough(which is more easily done than assumed), it will be one person's life weighed against anothers. Do we sacrifice the elderly so that the adults can have more to raise their children with? Or do we sacrifice the children(say, limiting brithrates) so that the adults can pay more to the elderly?

my point, is simply, do not jump to assume that a person has not experienced something simply because they hold a different opinion than you. Since I never assumed a standard, the point is?

yes, in fact, you specified the "elderly" and "children". Those are standards commonly applied to people over 60 and people under 12, respectively. How you define somebody who cannot protect themselves can be just as tricky though. And that's why it's so hard to protect them, because you don't usually know that a person cannot protect themself until after something has happened to them. No I said people that cannot defend themselves and then stated two examples. Never stated any standard nor was I using a commonly applied standard. You drew your own standards and applied it to my statement.


Any attempt in protect will always impede upon one's freedom. Well let us get rid of all laws then in the name of freedom. I still see no impedement to anyones freedom, but the criminal.


then you either did not read it or you failed to understand it. I could say the same thing, but instead I will just say I'm done with this.