Another Mass Shooting in the US

[Camelopard]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/03/04/2179800.htm?section=justin

Makes you wonder if these people will ever learn. :confused:

But hey it's my right to carry arms............................and to shoot the crap out of anyone that disagrees with me.

[maxu05]

At this rate, it would be safer to send your kiddies to school in Iraq, rather than the US :D

[555-04Q2]

Our schools are just as dangerous except over here the kids normally get stabbed to death. We do also have gun deaths all the time though. Funny, it doesnt get the same media attention as it does in the USA. Shows how used to violence we are over here :(

[maxu05]

I have a great idea, home school your kids.

[TOgoFASTER]

I don't understand the school references as this happened at home.

We're all living in Amerika.

More than one in 100 adults in the United States is in jail or prison. The world leader in such things and by a large margin.

[maxu05]

You must be so proud :crazy: :D

[anthonyvop]

I don't understand the school references as this happened at home.

We're all living in Amerika.

More than one in 100 adults in the United States is in jail or prison. The world leader in such things and by a large margin.

That is because we can afford to and we have some of the best police enforcement in the world.

[Drew]

Is this another let's have a go at the USA thread? :p :

[SOD]

Joe Qaeda strikes again.

[SOD]

I don't understand the school references as this happened at home.

We're all living in Amerika.

More than one in 100 adults in the United States is in jail or prison. The world leader in such things and by a large margin.

one day your a model citizen, the next day you're a criminal ;)

[gofastandwynn]

Makes you wonder if these people will ever learn. :confused:

But hey it's my right to carry arms............................and to shoot the crap out of anyone that disagrees with me.

Yes, we have the right own guns. You know why? Because our founding fathers and framers of the constitution HAD JUST FOUGHT A WAR for their independence that they would not have been able to win WITHOUT GUNS. We have the 2nd amendment in America so we can take back our government if we have to. That is why we own guns, for the philosophical right to revolution.

The ATF estimates that close to 76,000,000 people in the US own guns. Now, should we ban them because less than 1% misuse them?

[Daniel]

Yes, we have the right own guns. You know why? Because our founding fathers and framers of the constitution HAD JUST FOUGHT A WAR for their independence that they would not have been able to win WITHOUT GUNS. We have the 2nd amendment in America so we can take back our government if we have to. That is why we own guns, for the philosophical right to revolution.

The ATF estimates that close to 76,000,000 people in the US own guns. Now, should we ban them because less than 1% misuse them?

My Grandfather fought in Tobruk and he had a gun. Doesn't mean I need one :rolleyes:

I reckon the UK should allow people to shoot the **** out of other people for the "philosophical" right to revolution. What a crock. You own guns because you're insecure. Simple as.

[SOD]

Yes, we have the right own guns. You know why? Because our founding fathers and framers of the constitution HAD JUST FOUGHT A WAR for their independence that they would not have been able to win WITHOUT GUNS. We have the 2nd amendment in America so we can take back our government if we have to. That is why we own guns, for the philosophical right to revolution.

The ATF estimates that close to 76,000,000 people in the US own guns. Now, should we ban them because less than 1% misuse them?


see Waco in 1993 what happens when ya plot against Uncle Sam, :dork:

[Daniel]

see Waco in 1993 what happens when ya plot against Uncle Sam, :dork:

Bah. They just needed bigger guns. That's their only problem.

[Breeze]

My Grandfather fought in Tobruk and he had a gun. Doesn't mean I need one :rolleyes:

I reckon the UK should allow people to shoot the **** out of other people for the "philosophical" right to revolution. What a crock. You own guns because you're insecure. Simple as.

Daniel, I've come to expect better from you. I am dissapointed. :mad:

[Daniel]

Daniel, I've come to expect better from you. I am dissapointed. :mad:
Hey. I expect better than people to WANT to own something that is so easily capable of KILLING another human being. We live in a civilised world! This isn't the wild west and you don't have a foreign nation ruling you.

[TOgoFASTER]

That is because we can afford to and we have some of the best police enforcement in the world.


LOL Freedumb!
Did it surprise you China was just in second place?

[TOgoFASTER]

We have the 2nd amendment in America so we can take back our government if we have to. That is why we own guns, for the philosophical right to revolution.



I agwii! Let's start with the current occupiers of the White House and take back the government. The right to revolution as you put it, was writen more like this, that when a government no longer represents the will of the people that it should be overthrown and replaced with a government more conductive to the general welfare.

[gofastandwynn]

I reckon the UK should allow people to shoot the **** out of other people for the "philosophical" right to revolution. What a crock. You own guns because you're insecure. Simple as.

All Americans don't go around shooting each other with guns, and if you think that because it's what you hear on the news then I guess South Africa must all me raciest because all we read about apartheid. It's stupid.

The vast majority own guns in America for hunting (and yes, people do hunt with pistols, in fact there is a "pistol only" hunting season here.)

[gofastandwynn]

Hey. I expect better than people to WANT to own something that is so easily capable of KILLING another human being. We live in a civilised world! This isn't the wild west and you don't have a foreign nation ruling you.

You're right, we need to ban knives, baseball & cricket bats, chainsaws, & broken glass. Those cane be easily used to kill somebody. What else....can't have a car because you can run over people, and you burn someone to death so we better ban fire too. :rolleyes:

[Daniel]

All Americans don't go around shooting each other with guns, and if you think that because it's what you hear on the news then I guess South Africa must all me raciest because all we read about apartheid. It's stupid.

The vast majority own guns in America for hunting (and yes, people do hunt with pistols, in fact there is a "pistol only" hunting season here.)
I never said they should allow EVERYONE to shoot each other.

[Daniel]

You're right, we need to ban knives, baseball & cricket bats, chainsaws, & broken glass. Those cane be easily used to kill somebody. What else....can't have a car because you can run over people, and you burn someone to death so we better ban fire too. :rolleyes:

When's the last time someone went on a killing spree with a baseball bat? Apples and oranges.

[Rollo]

Yes, we have the right own guns. You know why? Because our founding fathers and framers of the constitution HAD JUST FOUGHT A WAR for their independence that they would not have been able to win WITHOUT GUNS.

I totally agree.

In Australia we went about it all totally wrong and just voted to form a new country, what a waste. Think of all the lives that could have been needlessly shed if Australia had adopted a similar contribution. It's just criminal that a country could be started using entirely peaceable methods and just shows the sheer bloody civil-mindedness of Australians. What a joke!


The ATF estimates that close to 76,000,000 people in the US own guns. Now, should we ban them because less than 1% misuse them?

No way. You can trust every single one of them, right? ;)

[gofastandwynn]

see Waco in 1993 what happens when ya plot against Uncle Sam, :dork:

See Nazi Germany. I would be willing to bet that the Jewish people would have been able to defend themselves better if they had guns. Oh wait, the Nazis banned the Jewish from owning guns. Huh, I wonder why they did that? :rolleyes:

Now, I am not saying that the US or and Government is Nazi like, but it could be at some point in the future. Did anyone in Germany in 1916 think a private in the army would take control of the government and slaughter millions of men, women and children?

[Daniel]

I totally agree.

In Australia we went about it all totally wrong and just voted to form a new country, what a waste. Think of all the lives that could have been needlessly shed if Australia had adopted a similar contribution. It's just criminal that a country could be started using entirely peaceable methods and just shows the sheer bloody civil-mindedness of Australians. What a joke!

Too bloody right. I think you should go on a rampage and kill lots of people now just to cement Australia's place as a chest beating and proud nation in the world. It's only right mate.

[gofastandwynn]

I totally agree.

In Australia we went about it all totally wrong and just voted to form a new country, what a waste. Think of all the lives that could have been needlessly shed if Australia had adopted a similar contribution. It's just criminal that a country could be started using entirely peaceable methods and just shows the sheer bloody civil-mindedness of Australians. What a joke!





And preferably that is how it would happen, we would just vote them out. But if it can't happen that way, there must be other options available.

[Daniel]

See Nazi Germany. I would be willing to bet that the Jewish people would have been able to defend themselves better if they had guns. Oh wait, the Nazis banned the Jewish from owning guns. Huh, I wonder why they did that? :rolleyes:

Now, I am not saying that the US or and Government is Nazi like, but it could be at some point in the future. Did anyone in Germany in 1916 think a private in the army would take control of the government and slaughter millions of men, women and children?

Exactly. The US is NOT Nazi like and although GWB is a bit of a loon at times he's no Hitler by a long shot. Who are you protecting yourselves against? Why is it that in these situations where there's a gun toting fool no one ever pulls out their 44 magnum and blows them away? Firstly because you **** yourself when someone wanting to kill you has a gun in their hand and secondly you could kill someone you don't want to. The old story about the guy holding up a gun shop getting shot by all the people inside isn't true you know.

[gofastandwynn]

When's the last time someone went on a killing spree with a baseball bat? Apples and oranges.

Here is one http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/8-8-2004-57626.asp

Here is one from Australia http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,19530337-29280,00.html

[Daniel]

Baseball bat murderers 8 : Gun toting loonies ?????

[Rollo]

See Nazi Germany. I would be willing to bet that the Jewish people would have been able to defend themselves better if they had guns. Oh wait, the Nazis banned the Jewish from owning guns. Huh, I wonder why they did that? :rolleyes:

Now, I am not saying that the US or and Government is Nazi like, but it could be at some point in the future. Did anyone in Germany in 1916 think a private in the army would take control of the government and slaughter millions of men, women and children?

Shenanigans!

1. The 1919 German Constitution does not include any rights to bear arms.
2. The 1938 law forbade Jews in the manufacture of weapons and ammunition. Not the ownership
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Germany#The_1938_German_Weapons_La w
3. Do you honestly think that Jews living in Germany would have been able to stand up against the fully moblised and indeed mechanised German Army?

I'm calling Shenanigans on you. Shenanigans! Shenanigans!

[gofastandwynn]

Exactly. The US is NOT Nazi like and although GWB is a bit of a loon at times he's no Hitler by a long shot. Who are you protecting yourselves against? Why is it that in these situations where there's a gun toting fool no one ever pulls out their 44 magnum and blows them away? Firstly because you **** yourself when someone wanting to kill you has a gun in their hand and secondly you could kill someone you don't want to. The old story about the guy holding up a gun shop getting shot by all the people inside isn't true you know.

You are right, it isn't nazi like, but it does not mean it could not happen in the future.

You do hear about people shooting the gun toting fool, but those stories don't get played up because they are as big. Here is one http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/local&id=5955736.
And the vast majority of people don't own guns in the USA (75%), and normally you hear about the spree killings happing at places where guns are banned.

Me, I don't own a gun. I have never fired a gun in my life and never want to. But it dosen't mean I don't support someone else's right to own one.

[gofastandwynn]

Shenanigans!

1. The 1919 German Constitution does not include any rights to bear arms.
2. The 1938 law forbade Jews in the manufacture of weapons and ammunition. Not the ownership
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Germany#The_1938_German_Weapons_La w
3. Do you honestly think that Jews living in Germany would have been able to stand up against the fully moblised and indeed mechanised German Army?

I'm calling Shenanigans on you. Shenanigans! Shenanigans!

Did you read a little bit further into what you quoted?

From your link:

"On November 11, 1938, the Minister of the Interior, Wilhelm Frick, passed Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons. This regulation effectively deprived all Jews of the right to possess firearms or other weapons."

[gofastandwynn]

Baseball bat murderers 8 : Gun toting loonies ?????

You asked when was the last time it happened, I found those in one google search.

But you want to compare numbers, OK.

In 2005, 10,100 were killed with firearms in the USA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_gun_violence#Homicides
In 2006, 17,941 were killed in "alcohol-related" automobile collisions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunk_driving_%28United_States%29.

And guessing some of those firearm deaths may be alcohol related, it sound to me like we need to ban alcohol because it kills far more than firearms do, right?

[Rollo]

Did you read a little bit further into what you quoted?

From your link:

"On November 11, 1938, the Minister of the Interior, Wilhelm Frick, passed Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons. This regulation effectively deprived all Jews of the right to possess firearms or other weapons."

Nice try.
You won't find these regulations either enacted in German Law or on any German Law site. That originates with Bernard Harcourt.

[Rollo]

You asked when was the last time it happened, I found those in one google search.

But you want to compare numbers, OK.

In 2005, 10,100 were killed with firearms in the USA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_gun_violence#Homicides
In 2006, 17,941 were killed in "alcohol-related" automobile collisions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunk_driving_%28United_States%29.

And guessing some of those firearm deaths may be alcohol related, it sound to me like we need to ban alcohol because it kills far more than firearms do, right?

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/gun-deaths-in-rapid-decline-since-buyback/2006/12/13/1165685752421.html
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/01/02/1072908906612.html
http://www.usyd.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=1502

In 2006, 256 people were killed firearms in Australia (ABS Yearbook 2006) or to put that in perspective, if Australia had the same population as the USA in 2006, then that figure would be 3456 not 10,100.

I'm guessing that 100% of all firearm deaths are firearm related.

[Daniel]

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/gun-deaths-in-rapid-decline-since-buyback/2006/12/13/1165685752421.html
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/01/02/1072908906612.html
http://www.usyd.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=1502

In 2006, 256 people were killed firearms in Australia (ABS Yearbook 2006) or to put that in perspective, if Australia had the same population as the USA in 2006, then that figure would be 3456 not 10,100.

I'm guessing that 100% of all firearm deaths are firearm related.
Yeah but Australia would only have 30% or so of the liberty and freedom of the US. Guns and death means freedom Rollo!

[gofastandwynn]

Nice try.
You won't find these regulations either enacted in German Law or on any German Law site. That originates with Bernard Harcourt.

It wasn't huh?

Ah, here is a paper on the subject published in Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law.
http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/article-nazilaw.pdf l

But what am I thinking, not giving the Nazis benefit of doubt. The Nazi's were such nice guys and cared so much about Jewish rights. :rolleyes:

[Breeze]

.......Did anyone in Germany in 1916 think a private in the army would take control of the government and slaughter millions of men, women and children?

Lance Corporal by 1916, fwiw.

Why does every political thread have to evoke Hitler?

Still, its an extreme example as is Rollo's peaceful Australian Revolution.

For me, while I don't own any guns, I do refuse to leave my government, police forces, etc. with the final word on my freedom. That freedom is mine to keep or yield as I see fit and providence help anyone who tries to take it away without just cause.

[gofastandwynn]

Guns and death means freedom Rollo!

Well.... yea, it is. I believe my parents told me "With freedom comes responsibility." Now, should we ban them all because the extreme minority can't handle the responsibility?

Now, this one of my favorite shows, and they did a whole episode about gun control that they present from all sides...

Just watch and voice your opinion
Pt. 1http://youtube.com/watch?v=4MQmOEA1s8g
Pt. 2http://youtube.com/watch?v=-HiBms6NhYE&feature=related
Pt. 3http://youtube.com/watch?v=iusKWjwi0Wo&feature=related

[Daniel]

Well.... yea, it is. I believe my parents told me "With freedom comes responsibility." Now, should we ban them all because the extreme minority can't handle the responsibility?

Now, this one of my favorite shows, and they did a whole episode about gun control that they present from all sides...

Just watch and voice your opinion
Pt. 1http://youtube.com/watch?v=4MQmOEA1s8g
Pt. 2http://youtube.com/watch?v=-HiBms6NhYE&feature=related
Pt. 3http://youtube.com/watch?v=iusKWjwi0Wo&feature=related
It's the consequences though. Alcohol causes deaths too. But if someone gets drunk they're far more likely to collapse in a heap than they are to kill lots of people. If someone misuses a gun someone's going to die....

[Tomi]

But it dosen't mean I don't support someone else's right to own one.

Same here, i support that every american should have a gun, if possible they should get an automatic weapon around the time they start the school. It would not take many years and the world would be much nicer place.

[Rollo]

But what am I thinking, not giving the Nazis benefit of doubt. The Nazi's were such nice guys and cared so much about Jewish rights. :rolleyes:

Either you were being sarcastic or you have absolutely no grasp whatsoever of the enormity of the evil that occurred in Nazi Germany. I hope it is the former.


Well.... yea, it is. I believe my parents told me "With freedom comes responsibility." Now, should we ban them all because the extreme minority can't handle the responsibility?


10,100 deaths in a year? I think that's more than enough reason. This is bloody disgusting.


Still, its an extreme example as is Rollo's peaceful Australian Revolution.

At the 2008 X Games, we have EXTREME VOTING!!! We have all the hot ballot action as people cast their vote in the SUPER SECRET EXTREME BALLOT BOX. But you can only catch the action as it happens live on ESPN.

[gofastandwynn]

It's the consequences though. Alcohol causes deaths too. But if someone gets drunk they're far more likely to collapse in a heap than they are to kill lots of people. If someone misuses a gun someone's going to die....

But even then the gun is only the tool. The gun dosen't fire itself. If someone misuses a car someone could die. (and it is could, not will)

[gofastandwynn]

Either you were being sarcastic or you have absolutely no grasp whatsoever of the enormity of the evil that occurred in Nazi Germany. I hope it is the former.



10,100 deaths in a year? I think that's more than enough reason. This is bloody disgusting.


A, Of course I am being sarcastic. If you look at the "smiles" button on the bottem of the page, :rolleyes: means sarcastic.

B, How do you know the stories behind all of those deaths? How many of them were police related? How many of them could have still have happened if there was a knife used?

Those deaths 10,100 deaths are tragic, that is why it is illegal to kill with a gun.

[Daniel]

Those deaths 10,100 deaths are tragic, that is why it is illegal to kill with a gun.

You can't just tell people "ooh that's illegal" and hope that they'll stop. I don't believe in nannying people or anything but this is silly.....

[Breeze]

Statistics courtesy of the United Nations:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita

And from Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_countries_by_gun_ownership

What can we learn from this? It doesn't take a lot of guns to have a high murder rate. Venezuela is a perfect, if extreme, ;) (rollo) example. I mean, they don't even make the top 30 on homicides by firearm list!! What are they doing all those murders with, I'd like to know.

[gofastandwynn]

You can't just tell people "ooh that's illegal" and hope that they'll stop. I don't believe in nannying people or anything but this is silly.....

Yes you can, it's called the law. It is there to control society by telling them what they can and can't do.

Well if it is not going to stop them and they are going to do it anyway, why make it illegal? If the law has no influence on people, what is the point of the rule of law?

[Breeze]

You can't just tell people "ooh that's illegal" and hope that they'll stop......

Good point Daniel. This is especially true of individuals with criminal intent.

You could tell them though, "If you do, you're likely to get shot dead on the spot by all the gun toting, law abiding citizens who won't let you get away with it."

That might be a strong deterrent, eh? I dunno. I expect some folks will break the law no matter the price they have to pay.

[Daniel]

Good point Daniel. This is especially true of individuals with criminal intent.

You could tell them though, "If you do, you're likely to get shot dead on the spot by all the gun toting, law abiding citizens who won't let you get away with it."

That might be a strong deterrent, eh? I dunno. I expect some folks with break the law no matter the price they have to pay.

But then like in South Africa they won't ask nicely they'll just shoot you first and then take your car.

[Breeze]

S.A. must be one of the unclivilized countries with no government or law enforcement to put your trust in.

[Daniel]

SA doesn't legislate for there to be this sort of crime. It happens because people are armed, criminals are cowards and they don't enjoy risks

[Rollo]

Good point Daniel. This is especially true of individuals with criminal intent.
You could tell them though, "If you do, you're likely to get shot dead on the spot by all the gun toting, law abiding citizens who won't let you get away with it."

"likely to get shot dead on the spot by all the gun toting, law abiding citizens"
Shot dead? As in murder?
To summarise: In order to stop some one with "criminal intent" who might break the law, you intend to actually break the law to enforce it.
As it stands, someone with "criminal intent" has just as much Second Amendment right to bear arms as your so called "law abiding citizens".

[Breeze]

Huh??? What kind of crime do they legislate for?

[gofastandwynn]

"likely to get shot dead on the spot by all the gun toting, law abiding citizens"
Shot dead? As in murder?
To summarise: In order to stop some one with "criminal intent" who might break the law, you intend to actually break the law to enforce it.
As it stands, someone with "criminal intent" has just as much Second Amendment right to bear arms as your so called "law abiding citizens".

Wow, that is a a bit of a stretch .

He is referring to somebody who has committed a tort, like robbing a store or trying to rape somebody. Then in self defense, you can protect yourself, but even then under law you can shoot them only if they presenting a threat. For example, if you catch somebody breaking in and they charge at you, you can shoot them in self defense. But the the robber is running out the door with the TV, he is not presenting a direct threat to you and you generally cannot shoot them.

[Camelopard]

The Nazi's were such nice guys and cared so much about Jewish rights.

And this thread what to do with jewish rights??? :(

[gofastandwynn]

And this thread what to do with jewish rights??? :(

Sarcasm mixed with an example of a government taking away the people ability to defend themselves. See previous posts.

[Breeze]

"likely to get shot dead on the spot by all the gun toting, law abiding citizens"
Shot dead? As in murder?
To summarise: In order to stop some one with "criminal intent" who might break the law, you intend to actually break the law to enforce it.
As it stands, someone with "criminal intent" has just as much Second Amendment right to bear arms as your so called "law abiding citizens".
No rollo. What Daniel said was

You can't just tell people "ooh that's illegal" and hope that they'll stop......
The implication here is that they are already breaking the law. This is not a Tom Cruise movie.
Also, in my response to Daniel, the implication is that if the criminal act does NOT take place, nobody gets shot.

See how easy it is when you read what is written and not what you are translating it into? If English isn't your first language, then please accept my apology for the sarcasm. Otherwise, putting words into other peoples mouths and putting your own spin on another's post is the number one reason people get into heated debate on this forum.

[Breeze]

Sorry, love to continue, but have to go now. Have fun folks. And please, no firearms!! :D

[Camelopard]

Sarcasm mixed with an example of a government taking away the people ability to defend themselves. See previous posts.

Well imo it was a shame that the original inhabitants of the Americas did not have firearms to defend themselves against the illegal European Invaders, oops sorry settlers :rolleyes: .

[gofastandwynn]

Well imo it was a shame that the original inhabitants of the Americas did not have firearms to defend themselves against the illegal European Invaders, oops sorry settlers :rolleyes: .

Exactly, if the Indians were armed maybe the settlers wouldn't have taken their land from them.

[Camelopard]

Exactly, if the Indians were armed maybe the settlers wouldn't have taken their land from them.

So working on that presumption it is ok for every Iraqi to own their own AK-47s and shoot the invaders and Iran should be able to have Nukes for self defence as that would be a very effective deterrent to anyone invading them :p :.

[gofastandwynn]

So working on that presumption it is ok for every Iraqi to own their own AK-47s and shoot the invaders and Iran should be able to have Nukes for self defence as that would be a very effective deterrent to anyone invading them :p :.

Well, yea, it is, which is probably why they want nukes in N. Korea & Iran. But then you have "With freedom comes responsibility" from an earlier post. Are the Iranians responsible enough to posses nuclear weapons? Most of the world and the UN Security Council say no, they are not.

The same goes for the possession of guns in the US. If you are not responsible enough to have a gun (drug user, mental illness, felon) you can't posses one.

[Rollo]

The same goes for the possession of guns in the US. If you are not responsible enough to have a gun (drug user, mental illness, felon) you can't posses one.

Can I remind you of the very first post in this thread.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/03/04/2179800.htm?section=justin

Four adults and two children were found shot dead inside a Memphis home

Do you mean to say that the person who shot dead four adults and two children was responsible? Wouldn't if have made sense for this person not to have a gun in the first place?

[anthonyvop]

Old but still rings true.

FIREARMS REFRESHER COURSE FOR THE 2ND AMENDMENT DERANGED

1.An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.

2.A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.

3.Colt: The original point and click interface.

4.Gun control is not about guns; it’s about control.

5.If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?

6.If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.

7.Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.

8.If you don’t know your rights, you don’t have any.

9.Those who trade liberty for security have neither.

10.The United States Constitution (c)1791. All Rights Reserved.

11.What part of “shall not be infringed” do you not understand?

12.The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.

13.64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.

14.Guns only have two enemies; rust and politicians.

15.Know guns, know peace, know safety.No guns, no peace, no safety.

16.You don’t shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.

17.911: Government sponsored Dial-a-Prayer.

18.Assault is a behavior, not a device.

19.Criminals love gun control; it makes their jobs safer.

20. If guns cause crime, then matches cause arson.

21.Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.

22.You have only the rights you are willing to fight for.

23.Enforce the gun control laws we ALREADY have; don’t make more.

24.When you remove the people’s right to bear arms, you create slaves.

25.The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.

[TOgoFASTER]

The same goes for the possession of guns in the US. If you are not responsible enough to have a gun (drug user, mental illness, felon) you can't posses one.

LOL...You forgot the word legally... LOL
So much for the rule of law and personal responsiblity when the rule of cold hard cash says yes, yes you can posses as many as you have the cash to buy.
You seem to have several NRA scripted messages all messed up. LOL

[anthonyvop]

LOL...You forgot the word legally... LOL
So much for the rule of law and personal responsiblity when the rule of cold hard cash says yes, yes you can posses as many as you have the cash to buy.
You seem to have several NRA scripted messages all messed up. LOL
HAHAHA.

Just like in most any other country. The U.K. has some draconian gun laws but the I.R.A. didn't seem to have a problem getting them.

That is the point. Gun Control only serve to hurt law abiding citizens.

[gofastandwynn]

Can I remind you of the very first post in this thread.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/03/04/2179800.htm?section=justin


Do you mean to say that the person who shot dead four adults and two children was responsible? Wouldn't if have made sense for this person not to have a gun in the first place?

No, he clearly wasn't responsible to posses a gun. And as the article says, they don't know a whole lot right now. Did he posses the gun legally? It dosen't say, and much like Columbine, if they were caught for any of the gun laws the broke before the shooting it never would have happened.

Now we go back to square one, should we just start banning things and taking away freedoms because less than 1% of the population used it illegally?

[SOD]

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c74/theborderfox/mcturbo.jpg

[SOD]

HAHAHA.

Just like in most any other country. The U.K. has some draconian gun laws but the I.R.A. didn't seem to have a problem getting them.

That is the point. Gun Control only serve to hurt law abiding citizens.

The IRA didnt have a problem getting guns after Ray-Gun bombed president Ghadafi's daughter.

Thnaks 4 playin

[anthonyvop]

The IRA didnt have a problem getting guns after Ray-Gun bombed president Ghadafi's daughter.

Thnaks 4 playin
And before?

Selective memory you have. Maybe it is to lack of Sunshine.

[Breeze]

Do you mean to say that the person who shot dead four adults and two children was responsible? Wouldn't if have made sense for this person not to have a gun in the first place?

It would have been better for the six dead, of that I'm sure we can all agree. What we seem to be disagreeing about is whether or not it would be better to prohibit the ownership of guns for everybody in order to protect possible victims who might get shot to death some time in the future.

The answer to that question is NO. It would be much worse to deprive citizens of their right to bear arms. A murderer kills some, a tyrannical government oppresses virtually all. If you accept the premise that the individual rights of life, liberty and property are inalienable, it is as inevitable a conclusion for you and I as it was for Jefferson, Washington, Adams, Franklin, Mason, Hancock, and on and on.

Plus, if you go back to my post with links to murder statistics, it is immediately evident that plenty of murders can be commited with or without guns.

[ShiftingGears]

Plus, if you go back to my post with links to murder statistics, it is immediately evident that plenty of murders can be commited with or without guns.

But you couldn't go on a rampage with a knife and kill as many, could you? That is really what that gun control argument comes down to.

[555-04Q2]

Huh??? What kind of crime do they legislate for?

Its not legislated, but one of our ministers was on record in 2006 as saying, "steal from the whites as its the right thing to do". :s hock: The mind boggles :confused:

We are a violent country, period. Historically and currently. The USA though, is also a violent country.

[Breeze]

Its not legislated, but one of our ministers was on record in 2006 as saying, "steal from the whites as its the right thing to do". :s hock: The mind boggles :confused:

We are a violent country, period. Historically and currently. The USA though, is also a violent country.

Partner, they're ALL violent countries.

Except maybe GB with their English sensibility and civilization.

No, wait. GB has a long history of violence, too. Sorry. I guess that means the whole human race has a tendency towards violence. :(

[Breeze]

But you couldn't go on a rampage with a knife and kill as many, could you? That is really what that gun control argument comes down to.

I don't think any gun ownership advocate denies the lethality of a gun. That's just not really up for debate. When used properly, guns kill things.

And you are right. That is one of gun control advocates' lead arguments.

But just like you did in quoting only the last sentence of my post, they have to ignore all the stuff about individual liberty, right to private property, right to self defense. You know, the really fundamental issues.

(not that you ignored the rest of my post. I guess it just didn't seem as important to you. Or, perhaps you don't buy into the inalienable rights thing?)

[maxu05]

I can always see violent people and villians getting hold of guns, but, I don't think that is the reason guns should be banned. I think that if you do have laws to make it illegal to have a gun, you will stop the average family man/woman from blowing people away because his wife/husband is divorcing him/her. It's the same as what my father told me about locks, "Locks are to keep honest people out" Crooks will always be able to get hold of guns, but why turn honest people that are having a few problems into potential murderers, by giving them access to weapons.

[BDunnell]

I would only like to add two things. Firstly, anyone who owns a gun with the primary intention of using it for self-protection is far too paranoid about their safety. Currently, the USA seems to lead the world when it comes to security paranoia, so the two things go together naturally. Secondly, if your neighbourhood really is so dangerous that it's safest to be armed, there are deeper-rooted problems there — problems that shooting people in the name of security probably won't fix.

[BDunnell]

Crooks will always be able to get hold of guns, but why turn honest people that are having a few problems into potential murderers, by giving them access to weapons.

Very well put. :up:

[gadjo_dilo]

That is why we own guns, for the philosophical right to revolution.


We started the revolution of 1989 empty handed. :laugh:

[BDunnell]

We started the revolution of 1989 empty handed. :laugh:

:laugh:

Yes, and I don't remember much shooting on the streets of Leipzig, Gdansk, etc, either...

[gofastandwynn]

We started the revolution of 1989 empty handed. :laugh:

Those governments were also on the verge of collapse to start with, and in Romania's case the not all of the military commanders carried out Ceauşescu's order to open fire on the crowd.

Unless you are speaking about 1989 in Tiananmen Square.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d8/Tianasquare.jpg

I think that turned out different. :rolleyes:

[anthonyvop]

:laugh:

Yes, and I don't remember much shooting on the streets of Leipzig, Gdansk, etc, either...
Really?
That is your argument?

What if the Gov had decided to not cave in?
What if they sent in the troops and started mowing down protesters?
What if the US and the UK hadn't been involved behind the scenes?

What if Ghandi didn't back up his "Non-Violent" protest with the threat of 500 Million Hindis rising up and revolting.

No Government has been overthrown without at least the threat of violence from their own people or outsiders.

[SOD]

Unless you are speaking about 1989 in Tiananmen Square.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d8/Tianasquare.jpg

I think that turned out different. :rolleyes:

Where are all the dead bodies from Tiananmen square?

[gofastandwynn]

Where are all the dead bodies from Tiananmen square?

Are you being serious here?

[anthonyvop]

Are you being serious here?
What is really scary is that he is!

[SOD]

Are you being serious here?
so you cannot vouch for the dead there?

[Malbec]

so you cannot vouch for the dead there?

woah.

How old are you SOD?

If you're old enough to remember the fall of the Berlin wall then you'll remember Tianamen square, you'll remember live footage of Chinese soldiers advancing across the square at night, you'll remember watching people being shot live on TV. You'll remember students dragging away dead and wounded colleagues appealing to cameramen for help.

I still remember the footage of the Chinese soldier walking across the square firing his AK47 into the crowd stopping and reloading his weapon casually backlit by a burning IFV like it was yesterday.

Thats not stuff you forget easily.

You might as well start denying WW2 ever happened while you're at it.

Apologies if this post comes across as being aggressive but I find the ignorance of the scale of killing at Tianamen Square or its total denial rather shocking.

[gofastandwynn]

so you cannot vouch for the dead there?

BBC coverage of the Tiananmen Square Massacre (http://youtube.com/watch?v=XJBnHMpHGRY)

BBC: On this Day - 1989: Massacre in Tiananmen Square (http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/4/newsid_2496000/2496277.stm)

CBC coverage of the Tiananmen Square Massacre (http://youtube.com/watch?v=yyj-3S_ulvI)

I will let the rest of the world do it for me...

[anthonyvop]

so you cannot vouch for the dead there?
Just click on these to enlighten your sensibilities.

http://cryptome.cn/tk/tiananmen-kill.htm

http://www.cnd.org/June4th/massacre.html

Now grow up!

[Malbec]

In order to put the photograph at the top of this page into context you really have to view the whole video.

Bearing in mind that the night before the PLA had butchered hundreds and perhaps thousands on that very spot, the word bravery doesn't do this man justice.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9klv9q19rTY&feature=related

[BDunnell]

Really?
That is your argument?

What if the Gov had decided to not cave in?
What if they sent in the troops and started mowing down protesters?
What if the US and the UK hadn't been involved behind the scenes?

What if Ghandi didn't back up his "Non-Violent" protest with the threat of 500 Million Hindis rising up and revolting.

No Government has been overthrown without at least the threat of violence from their own people or outsiders.

All of which, to be honest, has nothing to do with the US gun laws. The argument that they may one day allow people to rise up against some sort of dictatorship is way too far-fetched, and betrays a lack of confidence.

[BDunnell]

I must add that there can really be no discussion as to whether Tiananmen Square was an atrocity, involving many deaths. SOD, for starters, I'd advise you to read the memoirs of BBC reporter John Simpson and his account of events there.

[Rollo]

All of which, to be honest, has nothing to do with the US gun laws. The argument that they may one day allow people to rise up against some sort of dictatorship is way too far-fetched, and betrays a lack of confidence.

And for the record, if a "tyrannical" government was actually voted to power then the right to revolution at law is tenuous at best, since the right for a state to secede is illegal (Texas vs White) and strictly speaking the Declaration of Independance has never held the force of law.

Anyway, if you were to mount a revolution against a military worth $548bn/year, do you honestly think a revolution is remotely possible?

The argument that the right to "self-defence" is also spurious as this is not once mentioned in the constitution, and wasn't mentioned as one of the inalienable rights in the first place.


A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

Well-regulated? Something which causes more deaths per year than a banned drug like Thalidomide ever did, is scarcely "well regulated"
How pray tell is keeping citizens armed "necessary to the security of a free state?" What the hell are the Army, Air Force, Navy, Marines and Coast Guard for? Are they inadequate?

The truth is that virtually no privately held weapon in modern times has ever been used in the security of the United States, but has violated the life liberty and happiness of the very people which their "inalienable rights" are supposed to protect.

10,100 lives per year according to the US people is an acceptable price to pay for those "inalienable rights", because the "right to bear arms" is more valuable than the lives of those people.

[Malbec]

All of which, to be honest, has nothing to do with the US gun laws. The argument that they may one day allow people to rise up against some sort of dictatorship is way too far-fetched, and betrays a lack of confidence.

That may be, but you have to take into context the origins of the USA and the US constitution.

The nascent US largely defeated the British because most men carried arms and attacked the British forces before melting away into the population at large, inflicting casualties and sapping the morale of the occupying force just as the VC or the Iraqi resistance are doing to them now.

Then you have the fact that even post independence the 13 states did not trust each other and certainly did not trust the idea of a federal government even though they built one in the knowledge that only a collective government would be strong enough to represent American needs in the future.

The article in the Constitution allowing the bearing of arms was put in place to reassure both the population and the 13 states themselves that if the federal government was to prove overbearing they would be able to defend themselves. In that sense you cannot really separate the right to bear arms from the notion of independence and freedom in the American psyche. It is up to them whether the steady flow of deaths resulting from the possession of firearms is a worthy price to pay for the notion of independence, so far it looks like they feel it is.

[BDunnell]

That may be, but you have to take into context the origins of the USA and the US constitution.

The nascent US largely defeated the British because most men carried arms and attacked the British forces before melting away into the population at large, inflicting casualties and sapping the morale of the occupying force just as the VC or the Iraqi resistance are doing to them now.

Then you have the fact that even post independence the 13 states did not trust each other and certainly did not trust the idea of a federal government even though they built one in the knowledge that only a collective government would be strong enough to represent American needs in the future.

The article in the Constitution allowing the bearing of arms was put in place to reassure both the population and the 13 states themselves that if the federal government was to prove overbearing they would be able to defend themselves. In that sense you cannot really separate the right to bear arms from the notion of independence and freedom in the American psyche. It is up to them whether the steady flow of deaths resulting from the possession of firearms is a worthy price to pay for the notion of independence, so far it looks like they feel it is.

I agree, and from my point of view, it is utterly indefensible. There is only so far a modern nation can look back when making policy without going too far, and only so far its citizens can look back when making decisions for themselves. I suppose the question is, 'when does the death toll become too high'? If the answer is 'never', then I find that deeply sad.

[gofastandwynn]

All of which, to be honest, has nothing to do with the US gun laws. The argument that they may one day allow people to rise up against some sort of dictatorship is way too far-fetched, and betrays a lack of confidence.

No, it isn't far-fetched. It happened in Germany in the 30's, to this country in 1776.

The second amendment to the United States Constitution states:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

They put this in this in there because the people had just got done fighting a war against a state militia and they knew that they may have to do that again, so they made the possession of guns a right that the state could not take away. It's that simple.

And if you are referring to a "lack of confidence" in our government, then yes we do to a certain extent. I believe it was George Orwell that said "With power comes corruption." That is why they are up for election every so many year and limit the years the president can rule. Because we don't fully trust or have confidence in our government.

[SOD]

woah.

How old are you SOD?

If you're old enough to remember the fall of the Berlin wall then you'll remember Tianamen square, you'll remember live footage of Chinese soldiers advancing across the square at night, you'll remember watching people being shot live on TV. You'll remember students dragging away dead and wounded colleagues appealing to cameramen for help.

I still remember the footage of the Chinese soldier walking across the square firing his AK47 into the crowd stopping and reloading his weapon casually backlit by a burning IFV like it was yesterday.

Thats not stuff you forget easily.

You might as well start denying WW2 ever happened while you're at it.

Apologies if this post comes across as being aggressive but I find the ignorance of the scale of killing at Tianamen Square or its total denial rather shocking.


I didnt say that there were no dead students there.

[SOD]

Just click on these to enlighten your sensibilities.

http://cryptome.cn/tk/tiananmen-kill.htm

http://www.cnd.org/June4th/massacre.html

Now grow up!

and your estimate of the kill count is?

[SOD]

Exactly, if the Indians were armed maybe the settlers wouldn't have taken their land from them.

your land can be taken from you even if you have lots of guns thanks to the new eminent domain laws in the USA. The reaction in the USA to the all-new eminent domain powers was indifference.

The Hulman George family is about to land grab all of Georgetown Road in Indianapolis thanks to eminent domain.

[gofastandwynn]

your land can be taken from you even if you have lots of guns thanks to the new eminent domain laws in the USA. The reaction in the USA to the all-new eminent domain powers was indifference.

The Hulman George family is about to land grab all of Georgetown Road in Indianapolis thanks to eminent domain.

Nice try.

Eminent domain is nothing new, it is part of the Fifth Amendment. And they can't just take it from you, there must be due process after which you must be paid market value for the property, and the last must be for the "purpose of benefiting the general public."

The Hulman-George is not using eminent-domain, The city of Speedway, IN is using it for a public redevelopment. (http://www.redevelopspeedway.com/index.html)
And to shoot more whole in you fantasy, Bush passed Executive Order 13406 in 2006, stating that eminent domain may not be used "for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken."

PS, what does that have anything to do with the topic at hand? If you want to talk about eminent domain, start a new thread....

[Rollo]

The second amendment to the United States Constitution states:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

They put this in this in there because the people had just got done fighting a war against a state militia and they knew that they may have to do that again, so they made the possession of guns a right that the state could not take away. It's that simple.


Yes "being necessary to the security of a free State". The 13 fledgling colonies as new nation had no free standing army. The need to quickly form an army was needed to defend the nation. I'm more than sure that if you turned your newly created militia against the United States, you've not only be arrested for civil disobedience but be put on trial for treason, which itself is a violation of the Article 3, Section 3 of the constitution.

Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Your "revolution" against "tyrannical" governments is a pissy excuse, because it's illegal.

[TOgoFASTER]

Exactly, if the Indians were armed maybe the settlers wouldn't have taken their land from them.

Could be the guns they did have would have worked better if tribes weren't given blankets infected with small pox in free trade etc.
Genocide is genocide with or without guns and sugar coated history to back the lies up. :rolleyes:
History isn't found in a B grade western movie. Go Custer! LOL

[gofastandwynn]

Yes "being necessary to the security of a free State". The 13 fledgling colonies as new nation had no free standing army. The need to quickly form an army was needed to defend the nation. I'm more than sure that if you turned your newly created militia against the United States, you've not only be arrested for civil disobedience but be put on trial for treason, which itself is a violation of the Article 3, Section 3 of the constitution.

Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attained.

Your "revolution" against "tyrannical" governments is a pissy excuse, because it's illegal.

First of all, the colonies did have an army, the Continental Army, which was formed back in 1775. And the United States had the United States Army, formed in 1784. All this before the Constitution was adopted in 1787, so to say they didn't have an army at the time of the Constitution is false.

The "being necessary to the security of a free State" has to do with the militia, not the people. It declares a well-regulated militia as "being necessary to the security of a free State" and prohibits infringement of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." See if this video helps. (http://youtube.com/watch?v=1GNu7ldL1LM) It covers multiple items, like how the 5th Amendment covers due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, and eminent domain.

And as far as Treason goes, Title 18 of the United States Code defines treason as "whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason,"

Now, if you declare war against them, you clearly are not "owing allegiance" to them, so you can not be brought up for treason. This is why nobody from Confederate States of America was tried for treason after the American Civil War, because they did not owe allegiance to the Union.

An of course it is illegal, that is why it is a rebellion. How many rebellions do you see where nobody beaks any law in the process? The founding fathers were breaking the law when they signed the Declaration of Independence. This is why when Benjamin Franklin signed he said "We must all hang together, or, assuredly, we shall all hang separately." He also said, "Any people that would give up liberty for a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety."

[tsarcasm]

amen, real patriot, guns do save lives, from criminals w/illegal unregistered guns. also the naitonal guard is NOT the militia, a militia is you and me. the nat. guard is state/federal and thus in iraq. Franklin would be rolling in his grave as a result of these orwellian times in the police state.

[ShiftingGears]

I don't think any gun ownership advocate denies the lethality of a gun. That's just not really up for debate. When used properly, guns kill things.

And you are right. That is one of gun control advocates' lead arguments.

But just like you did in quoting only the last sentence of my post, they have to ignore all the stuff about individual liberty, right to private property, right to self defense. You know, the really fundamental issues.

(not that you ignored the rest of my post. I guess it just didn't seem as important to you. Or, perhaps you don't buy into the inalienable rights thing?)

No need to get presumptious on me - I just commented on the part of your post I disagree with.
Of course civil liberties are fundamental, but inaction is not an option here. There are many other countries with guns, but there aren't as many school massacres. The real question this raises is why? That is what I feel should be the point debated. Not mindless finger-pointing, but healthy debate about the issue.

Personally, I see no reason for relaxing gun laws in Australia, as I feel safe and free as it is. And there are other ways of self defence besides carrying a lethal weapon.

[gadjo_dilo]

Those governments were also on the verge of collapse to start with, and in Romania's case the not all of the military commanders carried out Ceauşescu's order to open fire on the crowd.


You don't know how's to live under a dictatorship and how the service of Securitate worked. So I don't comment anymore. Those who were on the streets knew what they risked and still did it. The result was more than 1400 deaths and 3000 wounded.

[555-04Q2]

Partner, they're ALL violent countries.

Except maybe GB with their English sensibility and civilization.

No, wait. GB has a long history of violence, too. Sorry. I guess that means the whole human race has a tendency towards violence. :(

Indeed. Societies and their values have collapsed all over the world.

[rah]

Lol yanks and their guns. Why is it that gun control is seen as taking away your freedom. Do you have the freedom to own explosives or artillery? Just a bit silly really. If you need a gun for self protection, move. Or maybe petition the govt to own claymores to give those nasty robbers a surprise.

Just found this for your viewing pleasure. Just out of interest, is a 50cal HMG used for self defense much in suburbia these days?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=FVms5xxwpEE

[Daniel]

Lol yanks and their guns. Why is it that gun control is seen as taking away your freedom. Do you have the freedom to own explosives or artillery? Just a bit silly really. If you need a gun for self protection, move. Or maybe petition the govt to own claymores to give those nasty robbers a surprise.

Just found this for your viewing pleasure. Just out of interest, is a 50cal HMG used for self defense much in suburbia these days?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=FVms5xxwpEE
Tut tut mate. Think of all those people Martin Bryant freed in Tassie :rolleyes: Death = freedom!

ROFL @ that video. The mind boggles!

[BDunnell]

Indeed. Societies and their values have collapsed all over the world.

There's nothing like a bit of optimism about the human race, is there?

[Rollo]

Tut tut mate. Think of all those people Martin Bryant freed in Tassie :rolleyes: Death = freedom!

Just think, Australia learnt from its experience and introduced tighter controls and guess what? The number of gun deaths halved :eek:
http://www.usyd.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=1502

The risk of dying by gunshot has halved since Australia destroyed 700,000 privately owned firearms, according to a new study published today in the international research journal, Injury Prevention.

Less death as a result of removing guns? Whoda thunk it? Whoa! That's crazy talk.

[555-04Q2]

Just think, Australia learnt from its experience and introduced tighter controls and guess what? The number of gun deaths halved :eek:
http://www.usyd.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=1502


Less death as a result of removing guns? Whoda thunk it? Whoa! That's crazy talk.

Over here, most people have lost their gun licences due to stricture laws. Guess what? Our gun related murder rate is increasing every year :(

[anthonyvop]

Just think, Australia learnt from its experience and introduced tighter controls and guess what? The number of gun deaths halved :eek:
http://www.usyd.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=1502


Less death as a result of removing guns? Whoda thunk it? Whoa! That's crazy talk.
You guys just don't get it!

By and large Americans live by a certain rule.

It is better to die on your feet than live on your Knees.

I am a law abiding citizen.

The day they tell me I have to turn in my guns is the day I become a Criminal!

[rah]

You guys just don't get it!

By and large Americans live by a certain rule.

It is better to die on your feet than live on your Knees.

I am a law abiding citizen.

The day they tell me I have to turn in my guns is the day I become a Criminal!

We know, and you have some weird rules.

It is better to live life, than hide under your bed. Who do you think live their life on their knees anyway?

So tell me, why do you need a gun so much?

[TOgoFASTER]

"Any people that would give up liberty for a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety."

Good point, one I have brought up often in the last 6 years or so. :rolleyes:
Too easy.

[jens]

Here in Estonia a few days ago a teacher (?!) shot... a lightbulb and a door hinge during a lesson.

[anthonyvop]

We know, and you have some weird rules.

It is better to live life, than hide under your bed. Who do you think live their life on their knees anyway?
Pretty much everyone who lives under a Government that doesn't trust them to protect themselves.


So tell me, why do you need a gun so much?
I use to participate in shooting competitions. I still enjoy shooting and do hunt from time to time.

Plus I also realize that if I am in a situation in which I need to defend myself the police will not be there.

[anthonyvop]

"Any people that would give up liberty for a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety."

Good point, one I have brought up often in the last 6 years or so. :rolleyes:
Too easy.

That is a ridiculous statement.
So in case of rioting, Natural disaster or war martial law shouldn't be enforced?

[tsarcasm]

Correct Anthony!!!!!!! The Police only PICK UP THE PIECES

If or when an armed criminal confronts you w/an Illegal Weapon. What's a lawabiding american to do? Beg and weep, giving away your hard earned money to a felon OR defend yourself? The Police will be there to take you or him to the grave or to console you for being mugged. No thanks!

[Erki]

Interesting that those same Americans who cry out about how much they need their guns to protect themselves from their corrupt government are also going on about "American values". American value = corrupt government, violence.

Makes sense if you look at how the country was founded.

[ShiftingGears]

Martial arts serves as reliable self defence. :up:

[Daniel]

Martial arts serves as reliable self defence. :up:

Yeah but if everyone takes up karate or judo or something then less people will have guns and less people will be killed and therefore less people will be free. Don't you get it? You're not free until you've been shot by someone!

[TOgoFASTER]

That is a ridiculous statement.
So in case of rioting, Natural disaster or war martial law shouldn't be enforced?

LOL Where the hell did martial law come out of what I said friend?
The US is not under martial law and hasn't been during these 'war' years.
Aren't we suppose to be out shopping or some such? LOL
You can't stand for the statements about gun control as they would take away a god given right of yours.
While your friends in the White House have crushed many more rights without you apparently noticing.
I know... you're a law abiding citizen and those infringements will never come back to hurt you.
As thought those on the receiving end of the night of the long knives.

Continue talking in circles, by all means.

[maxu05]

Maybe you can amend the constitution to include the right for your kids to carry Milan Missiles, just in case the local school bully pushes your kid over in the playground :laugh:

[tsarcasm]

The 'true' meaning of an unalienable right to bear arms is for it's citizens to fight an opressive and controlling government. America is to be a land w/out Kings & Royality. Kings who, at their whim, can, could and will Tax, Kill, Imprison, and Steal Private Property! To prevent these govt. abuses we have guns. None of this is still true. The Federal Reserve, IRS Taxes, and military/police state have made the Constitution no better than toilet paper.
The govt. kills millions of poor brown people oversees and imprisons 1 in 100 adults. 2 dollars spent on military for every dollar spent on it's citizens. It's the end of an empire and they always fall.

1usd=2gbp=1.1cdn=1.56eur add a 10,000,000,000,000 trillion dollar debt, 12% inflation w/a 2% savings rate, the end is nigh'

[anthonyvop]

LOL Where the hell did martial law come out of what I said friend?
The US is not under martial law and hasn't been during these 'war' years.
Aren't we suppose to be out shopping or some such? LOL
You can't stand for the statements about gun control as they would take away a god given right of yours.
While your friends in the White House have crushed many more rights without you apparently noticing.
I know... you're a law abiding citizen and those infringements will never come back to hurt you.
As thought those on the receiving end of the night of the long knives.

Continue talking in circles, by all means.

Martial law has been used many times in the US. Mostly after National disasters.
After Hurricane Andrew hit Martial law was implimented. Under this Gun Shops were forced to remain close for weeks. Luckily I was well stocked because looting was a problem.

I am going to spell it out for you anti-gun people.

I have a gun. I have every right to defend myself as I see fit. No Government or organization has a right to prevent me from doing so.

Now you may feel safer in your country and live content thinking your Gov will protect you. That is fine. Good for you. It doesn't work for me. Like the majority of Americans I am self-reliant.

[Eki]

Martial law has been used many times in the US. Mostly after National disasters.
After Hurricane Andrew hit Martial law was implimented. Under this Gun Shops were forced to remain close for weeks. Luckily I was well stocked because looting was a problem.

I am going to spell it out for you anti-gun people.

I have a gun. I have every right to defend myself as I see fit. No Government or organization has a right to prevent me from doing so.

Now you may feel safer in your country and live content thinking your Gov will protect you. That is fine. Good for you. It doesn't work for me. Like the majority of Americans I am self-reliant.
That's typical for third world nations like the US who can't build a government that works for the citizens. Instead, you have a nation where the citizens work against the government.

[Daniel]

Martial law has been used many times in the US. Mostly after National disasters.
After Hurricane Andrew hit Martial law was implimented. Under this Gun Shops were forced to remain close for weeks. Luckily I was well stocked because looting was a problem.

I am going to spell it out for you anti-gun people.

I have a gun. I have every right to defend myself as I see fit. No Government or organization has a right to prevent me from doing so.

Now you may feel safer in your country and live content thinking your Gov will protect you. That is fine. Good for you. It doesn't work for me. Like the
majority of Americans I am self-reliant.

You know what I'd do if I was a criminal, I was robbing someone's house and I lived in a place where gun ownership was common?

I'd shoot them before they got the chance to do something. How's that for your gun protecting you?

[BDunnell]

Martial law has been used many times in the US. Mostly after National disasters.
After Hurricane Andrew hit Martial law was implimented. Under this Gun Shops were forced to remain close for weeks. Luckily I was well stocked because looting was a problem.

I am going to spell it out for you anti-gun people.

I have a gun. I have every right to defend myself as I see fit. No Government or organization has a right to prevent me from doing so.

Now you may feel safer in your country and live content thinking your Gov will protect you. That is fine. Good for you. It doesn't work for me. Like the majority of Americans I am self-reliant.

Self-reliant = paranoid.

[Rollo]

I have a gun. I have every right to defend myself as I see fit. No Government or organization has a right to prevent me from doing so.

No you don't. Neither in the constitution nor under common law principles. This is a bald faced lie.

[SOD]

Martial law has been used many times in the US. Mostly after National disasters.
After Hurricane Andrew hit Martial law was implimented. Under this Gun Shops were forced to remain close for weeks. Luckily I was well stocked because looting was a problem.

I am going to spell it out for you anti-gun people.

I have a gun. I have every right to defend myself as I see fit. No Government or organization has a right to prevent me from doing so.

Now you may feel safer in your country and live content thinking your Gov will protect you. That is fine. Good for you. It doesn't work for me. Like the majority of Americans I am self-reliant.

Good luck against defending yourself against the Joe Qaeda, not to mention the possibility of you turning into a Joe Qaeda.

[anthonyvop]

No you don't. Neither in the constitution nor under common law principles. This is a bald faced lie.
Constitution?

Common Law?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

[anthonyvop]

That's typical for third world nations like the US who can't build a government that works for the citizens. Instead, you have a nation where the citizens work against the government.

Actually the Gov pretty much works for the citizens in the U.S.

It is in Europe where the citizens work for the Government.

BTW
A wise man once said.

"The Government that Governs best governs the least."

[anthonyvop]

You know what I'd do if I was a criminal, I was robbing someone's house and I lived in a place where gun ownership was common?

I'd shoot them before they got the chance to do something. How's that for your gun protecting you?
You would be a stupid criminal.
Criminals, by their nature, are a lazy bunch. They want a high payoff with little effort. That is why they stay away from possible confrontations.
Would you really try to enter a house knowing that the resident is armed?

After Florida past a conceal-carry law two things happened.
Robberies and muggings dropped dramatically but there was a spike in crimes against tourists after arriving from airports. Makes sense. they knew that those who just got off a plane wouldn't be armed.

[rah]

Actually the Gov pretty much works for the citizens in the U.S.

It is in Europe where the citizens work for the Government.

BTW
A wise man once said.

"The Government that Governs best governs the least."

Actually the Gov in the US works for major corporations. Thats why you get much better health care in Europe where they want to prevent you from getting sick, compared to the US where they want to make money off you.

The Gov in the US takes advantage of its citizens. Starts with the education system.

[Camelopard]

The Gov in the US takes advantage of its citizens. Starts with the education system.

And cons the young uneducated to go off and fight wars on behalf of the multi-national oil companies, not forgetting the nice profits that get made out of their death and injury for companies like halliburton :mad: .

[BDunnell]

Actually the Gov pretty much works for the citizens in the U.S.

It is in Europe where the citizens work for the Government.

BTW
A wise man once said.

"The Government that Governs best governs the least."

I see absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the actions of US governments on behalf of their citizens are in any way more positive than those of any European country's government — far from it, in fact.

[tsarcasm]

yeah, the US locks up more of it's citizens per/capita than Red China!! 1 out of 100 adults is in prison, that's sad. The govt. tries to legislate morality, that doesn't work.... On Capitol Hill there are 3x as many Lobbists than politicians. The Govt. only cares about money and control. Why would the Fed be printing money into oblivion. This summer we'll have to buy bread w/wheelbarrells until the Amero is introduced, bad times : (

[Daniel]

You would be a stupid criminal.
Criminals, by their nature, are a lazy bunch. They want a high payoff with little effort. That is why they stay away from possible confrontations.
Would you really try to enter a house knowing that the resident is armed?

After Florida past a conceal-carry law two things happened.
Robberies and muggings dropped dramatically but there was a spike in crimes against tourists after arriving from airports. Makes sense. they knew that those who just got off a plane wouldn't be armed.
You should stop getting "facts" from the NRA website :)

[Erki]

Martial law has been used many times in the US. Mostly after National disasters.
After Hurricane Andrew hit Martial law was implimented. Under this Gun Shops were forced to remain close for weeks. Luckily I was well stocked because looting was a problem.

I am going to spell it out for you anti-gun people.

I have a gun. I have every right to defend myself as I see fit. No Government or organization has a right to prevent me from doing so.

Now you may feel safer in your country and live content thinking your Gov will protect you. That is fine. Good for you. It doesn't work for me. Like the majority of Americans I am self-reliant.

If you don't feel safe there then why don't you move?

[Roamy]

Martial arts serves as reliable self defence. :up:

But the older one gets the better it is to use the martial arts known as "Winchester" You don't have to go to the gym all the time.

[Daniel]

But the older one gets the better it is to use the martial arts known as "Winchester" You don't have to go to the gym all the time.
Which allows someone to grow fat and stupid and means that they lose touch with reality.

[anthonyvop]

Actually the Gov in the US works for major corporations. Thats why you get much better health care in Europe where they want to prevent you from getting sick, compared to the US where they want to make money off you.

The Gov in the US takes advantage of its citizens. Starts with the education system.
Stop drinking the Bong Water.

The US has the best health Care system in the world. All the Europeans do is tell you how to live your life.

[Daniel]

Stop drinking the Bong Water.

The US has the best health Care system in the world. All the Europeans do is tell you how to live your life.

Are you talking to yourself again?

[Malbec]

The US has the best health Care system in the world. All the Europeans do is tell you how to live your life.

The best healthcare available in the world is in America but only for those with the very best health insurance policies which is a tiny minority. I've seen what the average American premium holder is entitled to and I'm afraid that it falls a little short (not by much but a little) of what the taxpayer gets in the UK.

Looking from this side of the Atlantic your healthcare costs and what the whole American population gets for it is a joke.

And before you spout off about how wonderful things are there, one word, litigation. That on its own pushes up the costs of running a practice by 40% compared to Europe, and that cost dear friend is passed onto the consumer.

Another side effect of having a state funded healthcare system is we don't get unions demanding outrageous healthcare benefit demands when negotiating with companies. How much of those UAW deals have to go on healthcare? Are GM and Ford happy with healthcare costs?

Anyway I'm sure you're happy with what you get in return for 15% of GDP and we're happy with the universal coverage we get for spending 8%.

[SOD]

Stop drinking the Bong Water.

The US has the best health Care system in the world. All the Europeans do is tell you how to live your life.

Fidel Castro built a better healthcare system in Cuba than many cities in the USA has. How do you feel about that!

[Breeze]

Fidel Castro built a better healthcare system in Cuba than many cities in the USA has. How do you feel about that!
Now I'll grant you, the publishers of this article have an anti-Castro agenda, but I suspect they know one helluva lot more about the who, what, where, when and whyfore of Cuba's healthcare system than SOD does.

And as someone else pointed out, its the fat cats at the top who get the best of everything. Some egalitarian system, eh?

http://www.canf.org/Issues/medicalapartheid.htm





The end of Soviet subsidies forced Cuba to face the real costs of its health care system. Unwilling to adopt the economic changes necessary to reform its dysfunctional economy, the Castro government quickly faced a large budget deficit. In response, the Cuban Government made a deliberate decision to continue to spend money to maintain its military and internal security apparatus at the expense of other priorities--including health care.



According to the Pan American Health Organization, the Cuban Government currently devotes a smaller percentage of its budget for health care than such regional countries as Jamaica, Costa Rica, and the Dominican Republic.[


Health Care in Cuba: "Medical Apartheid" and Health Tourism



Of course, not everyone in Cuba receives substandard health care. In fact, senior Cuban Communist Party officials and those who can pay in hard currency can get first-rate medical services any time they want.


What this tells us is, when money is no object everybody can have it good. When you don't have to depend on the fruits of your own labors and can glom off some unwitting benefactors (Soviet citizens in this case), the sky is the limit. That is, until they pull the plug.

For an in depth discourse on this concept, I'll refer you to Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand.

[jso1985]

You would be a stupid criminal.
Criminals, by their nature, are a lazy bunch. They want a high payoff with little effort. That is why they stay away from possible confrontations.
Would you really try to enter a house knowing that the resident is armed?

I'd do if I have a better gun than the resident!, and let's just say buying that gun isn't that difficult in the US ;)


Fidel Castro built a better healthcare system in Cuba than many cities in the USA has. How do you feel about that!

No he didn't, according to my mother(former member of the Bolivian Socialist party that's it) who went to Cuba in 2000, in many aspects the Cuban health system is worse than the Bolivian one. so I guess it's harldy better than the one from a well developed country

[rah]

Stop drinking the Bong Water.

The US has the best health Care system in the world. All the Europeans do is tell you how to live your life.

Lol bong water! are actually a person, or are you a stereotype that has developed the ability to type?

The US health system is a joke. Health care is basic human right, not an opportunity for capitalism.

[Malbec]

The US health system is a joke. Health care is basic human right, not an opportunity for capitalism.

Its fine for healthcare to be a field open for capitalism as long as it provides a good deal for people.

What I don't understand about the Americans is that they appear so proud and satisfied with a system that rips them off left right and centre. I suspect thats because of ignorance of other healthcare systems which are presented to them as being socialist and therefore suspect.

I'm a bit disappointed that Americans aren't as gullible in other fields, otherwise I'd be making a killing selling a lot of nearly new London Bridges to people.....

[Breeze]

...... Health care is basic human right, not an opportunity for capitalism.

That's a good point rah. As I've posted a few times on this thread, certain rights are inalianable, the first being our right to life. What this right requires is the freedom to pursue those things necessary to its sustenance, i.e. food, shelter, protection from the elements, and, as it pertains to guns, the right to defend our lives and property (food, shelter, etc.) from those who would try to take it away from us.

Thing is, these rights, while many in the world may enjoy the freedom to pursue their satisfaction, in an of themselves are no guarantee of success. We may be free to seek employment, but there's no guarantee we'll get a job any more than we may be free to hunt for our own food, but no guarantee we'll bring anything home.

So it is with healthcare. Its one thing to say I have a right to healthcare, but another thing entirely to claim that someone qualified to do so is obligated to provide it to me. In a free society, the qualifications which make a physician an expert at healthcare are much the same as the food in your refrigerator, or the money in your pocket. His expertise is his property, intellectual property in this case. His to keep, use and dispose of as he sees fit, whether he chooses to seek remuneration or provide services pro-bono.

It is only in a State which dilutes or even disregards the fundamental right to property where a doctor is compelled to provide his services to others. And no surprise, its done, in effect, at the point of a gun! What an irony.

[Breeze]

Its fine for healthcare to be a field open for capitalism as long as it provides a good deal for people.

What I don't understand about the Americans is that they appear so proud and satisfied with a system that rips them off left right and centre. I suspect thats because of ignorance of other healthcare systems which are presented to them as being socialist and therefore suspect.

I'm a bit disappointed that Americans aren't as gullible in other fields, otherwise I'd be making a killing selling a lot of nearly new London Bridges to people.....

It is rather laughable Dylan. Americans are, by and large, happy to have, even insist upon a public education system, but shun a public healthcare system when in practice, they would operate in much the same way, and on the same "socialist" principles.

Then too, we may fear that what will happen to the quality of healthcare AVAILABLE will be the same as has happened to the quality of public education. It'll go down precipitously and cost twice as much as privatized system to bring up to standard.

[Eki]

It is rather laughable Dylan. Americans are, by and large, happy to have, even insist upon a public education system, but shun a public healthcare system when in practice, they would operate in much the same way, and on the same "socialist" principles.

Then too, we may fear that what will happen to the quality of healthcare AVAILABLE will be the same as has happened to the quality of public education. It'll go down precipitously and cost twice as much as privatized system to bring up to standard.
I don't believe public education equals low quality. Finland has all public education, and yet it ranks first in international assesments:

http://www.pisa.oecd.org/document/2/0,3343,en_32252351_32236191_39718850_1_1_1_1,00.ht ml

Key findings

*
Finland, with an average of 563 score points, was the highest-performing country on the PISA 2006 science scale.
*
Six other high-scoring countries had mean scores of 530 to 542 points: Canada, Japan and New Zealand and the partner countries/economies Hong Kong-China, Chinese Taipei and Estonia. Australia, the Netherlands, Korea, Germany, the United Kingdom, the Czech Republic, Switzerland, Austria, Belgium and Ireland, and the partner countries/economies Liechtenstein, Slovenia and Macao-China also scored above the OECD average of 500 score points.
*
On average across OECD countries, 1.3% of 15-year-olds reached Level 6 of the PISA 2006 science scale, the highest proficiency level. These students could consistently identify, explain and apply scientific knowledge, and knowledge about science, in a variety of complex life situations. In New Zealand and Finland this figure was at least 3.9%, three times the OECD average. In the United Kingdom, Australia, Japan and Canada, as well as the partner countries/economies Liechtenstein, Slovenia and Hong Kong-China, between 2 and 3% reached Level 6.

[Breeze]

I don't believe public education equals low quality.
It certainly doesn't have to, but in the case of US public education, that has been the case. Unfortunately, buearacracy and a disconnect from the constituency makes the system less accessable and less accountable to the students and their parents as compared to a private system.

[Eki]

It certainly doesn't have to, but in the case of US public education, that has been the case. Unfortunately, buearacracy and a disconnect from the constituency makes the system less accessable and less accountable to the students and their parents as compared to a private system.
I think the problem might be that there are both private and public schools in the US. The private ones can pay higher salaries and therefore get the best and most qualified teachers. Here the teachers make about the same regardless of the school they teach in since the schools are all public and the salaries are negotiated by the teachers' trade union.

[Roamy]

Here is one for the guns


PHOENIX — A rabid mountain lion attacked a 10-year-old boy north of Phoenix, scratching the child on the back before being shot to death.

A biologist with the Arizona Department Game and Fish says the boy suffered scratches on his back but wasn't seriously injured during Saturday's attack.

But biologist Randy Babb said Monday that the boy will have to undergo a series of shots after being exposed to rabies.

Game officials have also recommended shots for other people who touched the lion. Someone who was with the boy shot the animal.

[Malbec]

I think the problem might be that there are both private and public schools in the US. The private ones can pay higher salaries and therefore get the best and most qualified teachers. Here the teachers make about the same regardless of the school they teach in since the schools are all public and the salaries are negotiated by the teachers' trade union.

I don't think that is the problem at all.

If Finland doesn't have any private schools at all (something I find a little difficult to believe) then it is almost unique in the non-Communist world. There are plenty of countries with excellent public school performance that have both private and public schools.

There are other differences, the budget given to public schools, social attitudes towards education and so on which are more likely to account for the difference.

[Eki]

I don't think that is the problem at all.

If Finland doesn't have any private schools at all (something I find a little difficult to believe) then it is almost unique in the non-Communist world.

I don't know any private schools here except driving schools, flight schools and some vocational schools of some large corporations where they train their own workers (but there the students get paid instead of paying). I'm not sure, but I suspect that other Nordic countries don't have many private schools either.

[anthonyvop]

Health care is basic human right, not an opportunity for capitalism.
Health care a Human right?
Lets see....
Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness....Right the bear arms, Right to vote.

Nope....Nothing here stating that Healthcare is a basic human right.

BTW There is free basic healthcare for all in the US. Nobody is turned away at hospitals for emergency treatments just because they can't pay.

The US has the best all around healthcare in the world bar none. We have the best cutting edge technology. best pharmaceuticals. best doctors. best treatments.

[anthonyvop]

I think the problem might be that there are both private and public schools in the US. The private ones can pay higher salaries and therefore get the best and most qualified teachers. Here the teachers make about the same regardless of the school they teach in since the schools are all public and the salaries are negotiated by the teachers' trade union.
Actually the private schools on the average pay less than public schools and have less benifits.

[Breeze]

Actually the private schools on the average pay less than public schools and have less benifits.
Fewer benefits, but it does point to the buearacracy issue I brought up earlier. Private schools are far more directly accountable to the families who pay tuitions and alumni who provide additional support.

[Malbec]

The US has the best all around healthcare in the world bar none. We have the best cutting edge technology. best pharmaceuticals. best doctors. best treatments.

All-round?

No.

Do your research anthony. If most of your population including those that have some degree of health insurance aren't able to access that cutting edge it isn't all-round is it.

If American healthcare is that good why is it that you spend double the GDP of countries like the UK yet your life expectancy is about the same?

Would you be happy spending $50k to get a BMW when you know others are buying the same model for $25? If so I have some special deals for you!

Have you read the small print of your health insurance?

A few years ago one of my colleagues went to do a fellowship in the US to at a centre of excellence in a particular condition. By coincidence his daughter happened to fall ill with that condition whilst he was out there. Being a doctor he had carefully selected his family healthcare coverage and politely asked if he could be treated at that centre of excellence. The insurance company declined and shunted him to another hospital hundreds of miles away that didn't specialise in that disease as it was one that was on their list of preferred hospitals. That simply doesn't happen in Europe, you get referred to the centre that specialises in the condition with no financial considerations, yet all European states with the exception of France spend around half what the US spends while giving universal coverage.

Whilst I can understand that laypeople like you who know nothing about the intricacies of healthcare provision can wax lyrical about how good/bad things are if you are on the inside of the system you can see the faults. I'm not suggesting that the European model is the elixir, it has many faults of its own, however your stance on this issue simply has little to back it up.

Oh BTW the US isn't the world leader in pharmaceuticals, the really big boys are British/German in terms of research. America IS the world's biggest market though, I'll grant you that much.

[Malbec]

Fewer benefits, but it does point to the buearacracy issue I brought up earlier. Private schools are far more directly accountable to the families who pay tuitions and alumni who provide additional support.

Private schools are selective and exclusive too, ie they select the best pupils and exclude anyone who causes too much trouble. Public schools aren't in a position to do either.

Again if you're willing to dig into your pockets to send your kids to private school you're likely to prioritise education at home too, hence why private schools tend to perform better.

[Breeze]

Private schools are selective and exclusive too,
Not neccesarily. Perhaps so in the UK, but FAR, FAR less so here in the US. Just pay the tuition. :)
http://www.capenet.org/facts.html#FAQ

It turns out that of the eight million youngsters in grades K-12 who come from families with annual incomes of $100,000 or more, 80 percent (6.4 million) attend public schools and 20 percent (1.6 million) attend private schools. US Census Bureau statistic


ie they select the best pupils and exclude anyone who causes too much trouble. Public schools aren't in a position to do either.
Not so in the first part, though some schools are more selective, as with higher education. E.G. Harvard, Cambridge, etc.
As with trouble makers, our public schools are plenty tough on them, too. No shortage of disciplinary actions, but yes, perhaps more tolerant than private schools. The obvious solution to this is, DON"T BE A TROUBLE-MAKER!


Again if you're willing to dig into your pockets to send your kids to private school you're likely to prioritise education at home too, hence why private schools tend to perform better.
Abso-frickin-lutely!! That's the best argument for private education I've ever heard! Results tend to meet expectations, don't they.

[TOgoFASTER]

Martial law has been used many times in the US. Mostly after National disasters.
After Hurricane Andrew hit Martial law was implimented. Under this Gun Shops were forced to remain close for weeks. Luckily I was well stocked because looting was a problem.

I am going to spell it out for you anti-gun people.

I have a gun. I have every right to defend myself as I see fit. No Government or organization has a right to prevent me from doing so.

Now you may feel safer in your country and live content thinking your Gov will protect you. That is fine. Good for you. It doesn't work for me. Like the majority of Americans I am self-reliant.

Clueless in Sloth FLA and on all counts.

[BDunnell]

Private schools are selective and exclusive too, ie they select the best pupils and exclude anyone who causes too much trouble. Public schools aren't in a position to do either.

Again if you're willing to dig into your pockets to send your kids to private school you're likely to prioritise education at home too, hence why private schools tend to perform better.

It is worth pointing out that, just as state schools are not a panacea of uselessness as some seem to feel, so private schools are not a panacea of brilliance by any means. As Stephen Fry said recently, some of the most stupid people you'll come across get sent to private school. Plenty of those of us who went to state school have turned out fine. I know you weren't saying this isn't the case, but I have to say it.

On the subject of healthcare, Dylan, how dare you provide a reasoned argument based on personal knowledge instead of just saying that your own country's healthcare system is the best!

[anthonyvop]

All-round?

No.

Do your research anthony. If most of your population including those that have some degree of health insurance aren't able to access that cutting edge it isn't all-round is it.

If American healthcare is that good why is it that you spend double the GDP of countries like the UK yet your life expectancy is about the same?


Do your research.
Life expectancy is not only related to healthcare. Other factors play a huge part.

Remember the original premise of this thread? We have a higher murder rate.

The US is a big Country with varied geography and weather.

Many parts of the US are secluded and far from civilization.

Natural Disasters. When was the last time the UK suffered from an earthquake? Tornadoes(We have a lot of them)? Hurricanes? Lighting?

Drownings. With literally thousands of miles of warm water beaches millions of Americans swim in the ocean. Many of them drown.

Auto accidents. there are more cars per capita in the US than in the UK. Also we have many more highway miles. Geography plays a part here as well. In the US there are large areas where the nearest emergency care will be dozens if not hundreds of miles away.

Even Sports play a major part. Football is the number 1 sport in the US. Millions play organized football. The wear and tear on the body adds up. Did you know that the average life expectancy of an NFL player is 10 years younger than the average?
Other sports take their toll as well. Baseball, Hockey, Scuba diving, even fishing can be a dangerous habit(Drowning, Boating accidents)

Then, of course, there is the illegal Alien issue. With numbers estimated at approx 12-14 million that skews the numbers as well. Coming from a 3rd world nation they have not had the best of medical care, diet or lifestyle. So it would come as no surprise that their life expectancy is lower even with our health care after they arrive. Which is a problem. You see how the poor in the US get no health care then someone is pulling a fast one when the emergency rooms in our major cities are swamped with illegals.

[anthonyvop]

Clueless in Sloth FLA and on all counts.

Fascism is an ugly thing!

[DonJippo]

Do your research.
Life expectancy is not only related to healthcare. Other factors play a huge part.

Remember the original premise of this thread? We have a higher murder rate.

The US is a big Country with varied geography and weather.

Many parts of the US are secluded and far from civilization.

Natural Disasters. When was the last time the UK suffered from an earthquake? Tornadoes(We have a lot of them)? Hurricanes? Lighting?

Drownings. With literally thousands of miles of warm water beaches millions of Americans swim in the ocean. Many of them drown.

Auto accidents. there are more cars per capita in the US than in the UK. Also we have many more highway miles. Geography plays a part here as well. In the US there are large areas where the nearest emergency care will be dozens if not hundreds of miles away.

Even Sports play a major part. Football is the number 1 sport in the US. Millions play organized football. The wear and tear on the body adds up. Did you know that the average life expectancy of an NFL player is 10 years younger than the average?
Other sports take their toll as well. Baseball, Hockey, Scuba diving, even fishing can be a dangerous habit(Drowning, Boating accidents)

Then, of course, there is the illegal Alien issue. With numbers estimated at approx 12-14 million that skews the numbers as well. Coming from a 3rd world nation they have not had the best of medical care, diet or lifestyle. So it would come as no surprise that their life expectancy is lower even with our health care after they arrive. Which is a problem. You see how the poor in the US get no health care then someone is pulling a fast one when the emergency rooms in our major cities are swamped with illegals.

You forgot NASCAR from your list :crazy:

[Malbec]

Do your research.
Life expectancy is not only related to healthcare. Other factors play a huge part.

Remember the original premise of this thread? We have a higher murder rate.

The US is a big Country with varied geography and weather.

Many parts of the US are secluded and far from civilization.

Natural Disasters. When was the last time the UK suffered from an earthquake? Tornadoes(We have a lot of them)? Hurricanes? Lighting?

Drownings. With literally thousands of miles of warm water beaches millions of Americans swim in the ocean. Many of them drown.

Auto accidents. there are more cars per capita in the US than in the UK. Also we have many more highway miles. Geography plays a part here as well. In the US there are large areas where the nearest emergency care will be dozens if not hundreds of miles away.

Even Sports play a major part. Football is the number 1 sport in the US. Millions play organized football. The wear and tear on the body adds up. Did you know that the average life expectancy of an NFL player is 10 years younger than the average?
Other sports take their toll as well. Baseball, Hockey, Scuba diving, even fishing can be a dangerous habit(Drowning, Boating accidents)

Then, of course, there is the illegal Alien issue. With numbers estimated at approx 12-14 million that skews the numbers as well. Coming from a 3rd world nation they have not had the best of medical care, diet or lifestyle. So it would come as no surprise that their life expectancy is lower even with our health care after they arrive. Which is a problem. You see how the poor in the US get no health care then someone is pulling a fast one when the emergency rooms in our major cities are swamped with illegals.

Thats a pretty poorly thought out post anthony. Natural disasters etc do not cause enough deaths to skew life expectancy rates significantly. Even the SE Asia Tsunami disaster barely affected life expectancy figures in the countries it affected. Sports? Car accidents? Murders? All things that tend to affect the young more than the elderly and again don't really impact on life expectancy that much. In the big scheme of things those numbers are insignificant. If you'd studied public health you might have understood that point. Not even America's participation in Iraq or Vietnam affected life expectancy although WW2 did very slightly.

To put another angle on things Italy has lost more young men since 2003 through work related accidents than all coalition members put together have lost in Iraq during the same period, yet their life expectancy is level with the rest of Europe.

Illegal aliens are not included as they generally operate outside the system and are therefore not included in public figures.

Nope, life expectancy is dependent on two major factors, the welfare of the society you're measuring (proper nutrition, decent living conditions etc) and the quality of the healthcare provided.

You want the facts? If you're Bill Gates you'll get the best healthcare in the world. Assuming you're slightly above average income you will get very good healthcare in nice surroundings if you're ill but if you get something rare or expensive to treat you'll find your insurance company will start using the small print to limit your healthcare considerably. This doesn't happen in Europe.

If you're not covered then... you'll get patched up when things go wrong but don't expect much more.

So I see nothing in your post that explains how you can be happy spending double what we spend in Europe yet achieve very similar healthcare results across the board.

Is the satisfaction gained from flagwaving really worth all that money?

[Daniel]

Thats a pretty poorly thought out post anthony. Natural disasters etc do not cause enough deaths to skew life expectancy rates significantly. Even the SE Asia Tsunami disaster barely affected life expectancy figures in the countries it affected. Sports? Car accidents? Murders? All things that tend to affect the young more than the elderly and again don't really impact on life expectancy that much. In the big scheme of things those numbers are insignificant. If you'd studied public health you might have understood that point. Not even America's participation in Iraq or Vietnam affected life expectancy although WW2 did very slightly.

To put another angle on things Italy has lost more young men since 2003 through work related accidents than all coalition members put together have lost in Iraq during the same period, yet their life expectancy is level with the rest of Europe.

Illegal aliens are not included as they generally operate outside the system and are therefore not included in public figures.

Nope, life expectancy is dependent on two major factors, the welfare of the society you're measuring (proper nutrition, decent living conditions etc) and the quality of the healthcare provided.

You want the facts? If you're Bill Gates you'll get the best healthcare in the world. Assuming you're slightly above average income you will get very good healthcare in nice surroundings if you're ill but if you get something rare or expensive to treat you'll find your insurance company will start using the small print to limit your healthcare considerably. This doesn't happen in Europe.

If you're not covered then... you'll get patched up when things go wrong but don't expect much more.

So I see nothing in your post that explains how you can be happy spending double what we spend in Europe yet achieve very similar healthcare results across the board.

Is the satisfaction gained from flagwaving really worth all that money?

Bah! you can prove anything with facts and well thought out arguments :p

[Camelopard]

The USA can't afford cheap health care and free education for all it's citizens as the illegal war in Iraq is costing way too much money. Some estimates have the cost so far as being way over 2 TRILLION dollars :eek: :eek: :eek:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/jan/07/usa.iraq

Hang on, The Guardian is just a trendy leftest rag of no substance so here's some others...

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aairaqwarcost.htm 9 BILLION dollars a MONTH!!!!!

Not to mention the lives of nearly 4 THOUSAND US troops, let alone the number of incocent Iraqis killed or injured.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/10/news/economy/costofwar.fortune/

But hey, I don't care coz my halliburton shares are going through the roof :) .

[555-04Q2]

No you don't. Neither in the constitution nor under common law principles. This is a bald faced lie.

Yes you do. I've been in a situation where my life was at stake (twice actually) and both times I did everything possible to defend myself and my family. Trust me, when your life and your families life is about to be taken from you for no good reason other than hatred and greed, you do anything you can and screw the laws and politics. Everyone has the right to defend themselves.

[BDunnell]

Fascism is an ugly thing!

And so is ignorance based on xenophobia and insularism.

[Daniel]

And so is ignorance based on xenophobia and insularism.
Just for the record I think Sarah Jessica Parker is an ugly thing :)

[BDunnell]

Just for the record I think Sarah Jessica Parker is an ugly thing :)

Who is she?

[Daniel]

Who is she?
She's some hollywood person that was in Sex and the City

[BDunnell]

Ah, that's why I don't know her.

[anthonyvop]

Illegal aliens are not included as they generally operate outside the system and are therefore not included in public figures.



Wrong.
Illegal aliens are counted. They attend our schools. Fill our hospitals and even get, in some states, drivers licenses.
They are counted in the census.
When a dead body is brought into the morgue asking their immigration status is not high on the list of questions.

Let me throw some facts at you guys:

Nobody in the US is denied basic health care.

The rich always will get better health care anywhere. U.S.A., UK, Canada, Finland..doesn't matter.

Health Care is NOT a human right.

[Malbec]

Let me throw some facts at you guys:

Nobody in the US is denied basic health care.

The rich always will get better health care anywhere. U.S.A., UK, Canada, Finland..doesn't matter.

Health Care is NOT a human right.

Where did you get the impression that I was arguing that people are denied healthcare in the US?

You're absolutely right, the rich often do get better healthcare anywhere, yet the gulf between what the rich and poor get is far far larger in the US than anywhere else. Is that something you're proud of?

The 'healthcare as a human right' issue is clearly something over which there will be no agreement so isn't really worth discussing.

Something you've continued to ignore though is whether you're happy spending double what we're spending in Europe on your healthcare and what you get out of that. Ever thought of addressing that issue? Its not much of an issue for me, I'm not the one getting ripped off, you are.

[Breeze]

You're absolutely right, the rich often do get better healthcare anywhere, yet the gulf between what the rich and poor get is far far larger in the US than anywhere else. Is that something you're proud of?
Here's your chance to restate that one!!


The 'healthcare as a human right' issue is clearly something over which there will be no agreement so isn't really worth discussing.

Perhaps if we say something like "the pursuit of healthcare as a human right" we could find agreement. Its when we (sic) start thinking that because certain things are neccessary to sustain life, someone else is obliged to provide them that we begin to disagree.

And I must say, this has been one of the most civilized and enlightening philosophical discussions in some time. I hope we can all continue to refrain from personal attacks! :up:

[Malbec]

Perhaps if we say something like "the pursuit of healthcare as a human right" we could find agreement. Its when we (sic) start thinking that because certain things are neccessary to sustain life, someone else is obliged to provide them that we begin to disagree.

The thing is that conceptually it isn't "someone else" providing the support (at least in Europe). The belief is that anyone can fall from grace into poverty and unemployment. Both social security and state provided healthcare are supposed to be subsidised by the employed to support the unemployed while on the climb back to employment and solvency. You or I could be employed one day and unemployed the next.

Obviously in reality things don't quite work that way and there are those who are willingly or unwillingly permanently unemployed, but that is the underlying concept behind state provided care.

And I agree, this is quite a good debate!

[SOD]

Fascism is an ugly thing!

just proves his point.

[anthonyvop]

just proves his point.
What?
That he has fascist leanings?

[SOD]

What?
That he has fascist leanings?

wrong again vop.

[gadjo_dilo]

Last night on tv news I had another proof of what is like to allow guns in the hands of any idiot.
Look how an angry driver who was guilty of breaking the rules threatens another driver who dared to say it:

http://www.protv.ro/filme/unii-soferi-fac-legea-in-trafic-cu-pistolul.html?id_file=47489#47489

[anthonyvop]

wrong again vop.
Well he does.

Gun Control is Fascism.
Mandatory health Care is Fascism.
Government mandated lifestyle is Fascism.
The collective above the individual is Fascism.

[Daniel]

Well he does.

Gun Control is Fascism.
Mandatory health Care is Fascism.
Government mandated lifestyle is Fascism.
The collective above the individual is Fascism.
You should have just said "Everything that is naughty is fascism"

[Breeze]

You should have just said "Everything that is naughty is fascism"

noooo, naughty is freeeeedommmm :D

[Daniel]

noooo, naughty is freeeeedommmm :D
I agree ;)

[anthonyvop]

I agree ;)
So I am free to be naughty with my guns?

[Daniel]

So I am free to be naughty with my guns?
Owning guns for self protection in the US isn't naughty. It's very very very silly. Silly is not acceptable :) Sorry!

[Breeze]

So I am free to be naughty with my guns?
As long as you agree to suffer the consequences of your actions, your social contract will remain valid.

Yours truly,
John Locke

[rah]

Well he does.

Gun Control is Fascism.
Mandatory health Care is Fascism.
Government mandated lifestyle is Fascism.
The collective above the individual is Fascism.

Oh dear, maybe you need to have a look at a dictionary.

Gun control protects my freedom
Is there or has there ever been mandatory health care? what are you on about?
Free health care is a human right.
The government mandates lifestyles to a certain extent. All governments do it to some level. But don't worry your government is not Fascist as it was elected by a "democracy". At least that what you call it.
The collective above the individual is what every government is designed to do. Thats how society works.

This might help your definition.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Fascism

[Jag_Warrior]

You own guns because you're insecure. Simple as.

I own guns for the same reason that I own sports and racing cars: because I like them... and I can. :)

But when it comes down to need, no, I don't need a gun or a car (of any type), for that matter. I certainly don't need a gun that holds 100 rounds or a car that can top 150mph. If I'm going to work some distance from my home, all I really need is some sort of transportation. It could easily be public transport. And uh, I don't need freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom to assemble (though I'd miss all the peeps here and at the race track). All I, or anyone, really need is air and three hots & a cot.

I'm really sorry that some of my fellow American citizens are too irresponsible and careless about human life to own or possess a firearm. I'm sorry that some people drink and drive too. But the fact that they're f'ed up should not impact my life... unless they come into my space.

I left where I used to live because there were too many people around me who didn't seem to respect the lives and property of others. I lived in a nice area, but short of walling yourself in and becoming a city dwelling hermit, it's impossible to isolate yourself and totally avoid thugs. So I moved to a place where there are probably more guns per adult than any place other than Iraq or Israel. But the people here are more... er, civilized, for lack of a better term. So I'm as at ease as a lil bunny in tall grass. And yet every granny and grandpa is armed to the teeth.

In the U.S. we have a people problem, not a gun problem.

[SOD]

Well he does.

Gun Control is Fascism.
Mandatory health Care is Fascism.
Government mandated lifestyle is Fascism.
The collective above the individual is Fascism.

hahaha, how do feel about the Federal Reserve bailout of Bear Sterns? Is JP Morgan an arm of the US government?

try rebelling now :dork:

[Camelopard]

No bets as too how this one will turn out!

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/03/18/2193390.htm?section=justin

[Daniel]

No bets as too how this one will turn out!

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/03/18/2193390.htm?section=justin
It's 1939 all over again!

[anthonyvop]

hahaha, how do feel about the Federal Reserve bailout of Bear Sterns? Is JP Morgan an arm of the US government?

try rebelling now :dork:
What are you talking about?
And what does it have to do about the subject(s) of this thread?

[Roamy]

having a gun or two allows me to sleep quite well at night. Plus a dog to give me advance warning to retrieve them from my hiding place. In Mexico all the criminals have guns so the people just have to take a few rounds quite often. When I lived there I was really thinking about making a crossbow. At least one mother****er would bite the dust before me.

[TOgoFASTER]

Well he does.

Gun Control is Fascism.
Mandatory health Care is Fascism.
Government mandated lifestyle is Fascism.
The collective above the individual is Fascism.

A label maker on the same scale as Faux News and talk radio.
I'm a Fascist? Or PCed as I'm "Fascist like." LOL
Whatever fits the moment or latest distress...
That was really weak even for you vop.
I'm surprised I didn't get labeled as a red lovin commie. :D

Quote: rah
"Oh dear, maybe you need to have a look at a dictionary."
Indeed

In my life experiences I've learned self thought is not a common factor in those that follow a blind-eyed agenda that is regurgitated word by word from a main text of the day's spoon fed might is right propaganda.

Self reliant... LOL

I own at least one gun, they are not for self protection. I don't need an assault rifle to make up for other deficiencies, or to feel like a man. If you think your guns are going to protect your individually hand picked freedumbs or your life you need to take a good look around lately and try reading some substantial fact based history.
Health care... never understood why that was injected into this thread, but you have apparently little or nothing to offer other than regurgitated factoids that have little to do with the total picture in reality.
Government mandated lifestyle? What the heck are you talking about? Almost as good as injecting the pro martial law tripe.

Like I said before feel free to continue, it's amusing.


LOL

[Daniel]

Man. Don't you get it? More death = more freedom. You're not free until you're dead because of "rights" which date back to a time when people did need to defend themselves.

[TOgoFASTER]

Man. Don't you get it? More death = more freedom. You're not free until you're dead because of "rights" which date back to a time when people did need to defend themselves.

I know I should have voted for Ugg. :)