Listen Americans

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 09:03 PM
link   
...(sigh) ANOTHER guns in the U.S. thread. Why do weakminded people who watch a dumb movie and believe everything in it always start these threads? Why do the same people who think the U.S. gov. is a oppressive, tyrannical org. always seem to think that Americans should get rid of their guns?

Yet there is a problem with gun violence in the U.S. No one can deny this. As for the "people can kill with knives just as easily as they can with guns" argument, give me a break. Ever tried to kill 30 people with a knife? Ain't gonna happen. However, you can do that with a semi-auto rifle. The problem isn't guns in America, the problem is guns in American cities. this is where most of the violence happens. Americans pride themselves on their individualism and freedom. And when you have this many kinds of different minded individuals living in a clustered area, tempers are bound to flare up. Easy access to fire-arms only make the situation more deadly.

Certain movies (westerns) have potrayed the old west cities and towns as places full of guns. The image of the cowboy walking down mainstreet with his six-gun holstered on his leg is false. A few movies however, have gotten it right. In reality, most cities and towns forbade the carrying of firearms within city limits. Out in the country, you could ride around all day with as many as you wanted. Why? because they realised the truth of the above paragraph. When you entered a town, you had to either leave your weapons outside the city limits, or turn them into the local authorities. I for one believe this practice should have never ceased. It is extremely rare that you here about someone living out in the sticks grabbing his SKS and going on a kill-crazy rampage. Although it does happen occaisionally.

One of the things Americans DESPISE, however, is weak-minded Euros' who watch a film bashing a certain element of American life and then have the nerve to believe that they have the moral authority to stand in judgement on us.

I don't have to tell you how much I despise Michael Moore. I don't have to tell you how much I wish for Mike to have a nasty run-in with a heart attack.(yes, I wish him to die, slowly and painfully) If Mike could find the time to take Europes' penis out of his mouth, and stop making money off xenophobic Eurotrash who bend over for anything anti-U.S., I might not hate him so much.
But I don't see that happening any time soon.




posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 09:25 PM
link   
Help me regroup this discussion into one issue instead of three, because it's diverging overwhelmingly and not as intrinsically related as you're taking for granted.

You post low death rates for hard to get assault weapons compared to easy to get handguns and say that's proof assault weapons aren't bad, and should be easier to get since it's the easy to get handguns killing people. Then say the high death rates from easy to get handguns would be lowered if they were even easier and quicker to get. And then in the same post talk about how Americans should be allowed handguns on Airplanes because even if they shot the thing up they wouldn't crash (like that makes me feel better) and talk about the Swiss not getting invaded because they all have rifles and training and low crime. Whew. I'm not dissing you, I'm just drunk with the 180's.

What I can say from my point of view is I've been to Switzerland and we're not Swiss. It's probably my favorite place in the world, and has the friendliest people I've ever met that bend over backwards to do things like stop their car in the middle of block if you even look like you want to cross the street. How can you say enough about a people that speak four plus languages and get along with everyone?


Conversely I've also been to NYC. Do I really need to explain where I'm going with this?

We're like the anti-Swiss. In fact, I find us Americans to be among the least friendly, non level headed, road raged, addicted, alcoholic, partisan, racist, intolerant, vengeful, whack job people on the planet. Granted, I haven't been to the middle east. But as I understand it, they have problems...and guns too.

And telling me a story about how people in America are afraid they'll get shot at work so they need their own gun quick, doesn't exactly change my opinion. In fact, it enforces it.

Like I started out saying in this thread. I'm not for banning guns (even handguns). All I asked for was compromise from an uncompromising gun lobby. But you've perfectly demonstrated the extremes they demand again, despite my efforts to compromise. So I have to say, again...I feel forced toward the left on the whole issue.

I don't think I'm being emotional or irrational in seeking some compromise, but I find the gun lobby's positions incredibly so. Talk about idealist lefties. This total armament, low crime, perfect harmony utopian dream of the gun nuts is an absolute crock. No matter how many bits and pieces of stats here and stats there and stats from yesteryear they piece together in a deluded tapistry of "how things should be" in order to ensure we keep Hitler at bay and Osama off planes...that's not how it is, or how it would work now at all. Sorry. Just my opine.

[Edited on 15-7-2004 by RANT]



posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 09:47 PM
link   
Even though I have participated in this thread, I have not expressed my opinion on the central issue of gun control. Even though I am a left-wing liberal, I disagree with most liberals on this issue. When the Second Amendment says that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," I really don't see much room for interpretation.

In my opinion, all gun control laws are unconstitutional and should be repealed. The meaning of the word "arms" is and always has been "personal weapons for killing human beings." This would include fully automatic weapons, as well as so called "assault weapons." The assault weapon ban is a total joke anyway, as gun manufacturers just make some slight modification, such as removing a bayonet lug, and presto, no longer an assault weapon. The argument of gun control advocates that assault weapons are not needed for deer hunting is also ridiculous. Remember, arms are weapons designed to kill human beings, not deer.

I am also opposed to background checks for weapons purchases. This is a clear infringement of the right to keep and bear arms.

I would be in favor of gun registration and of making possession of an unregistered firearm a misdemeanor. After all, we require registration of automobiles.

I am not the only liberal opposed to gun control. Howard Dean has an A rating with the NRA. The liberal talk show host Mike Malloy is also opposed to gun control. I am sure there are others, but I cannot think of any at the moment.



posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 09:52 PM
link   
Hey, we get to have guns to keep the King of England outta our face. The right to bear arms is a good thing.



posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 10:37 PM
link   
Okay, donguillermo all fine and logical.

But please continue. Can I carry a gun in my coat? Go to work with an AK-47? And all this at what 18? It'd sure make senior year interesting.

Basically, does our forefather worship and focus on one ammendment mean despite changing times I must now be forced to arm myself before boarding a plane because I refuse to be the only slack jawed yokel not packing. Oh man, guns at Six Flags. Bars. Court. Yeah, this is great idea. I'm sure Cops approve. You can't have tinted windows but you can have a gun when they pull you for speeding?

I can't believe we're even discussing this. Or that anybody thinks Republicans are ever going to let you take guns inside their convention. Libertarians might but they've gone insane.

This is ridiculous.



posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 10:53 PM
link   
If I can carry concealed weapons, can I carry two? Ten?

Can I dress like Neo?

What about a Pirate?

I'm partial to swords. So some wierd Pirate/ Napolean / Higlander getup, you know...for protection.

Can I build a Mad Max car? With a cannon. Just for protection?

If no, then you're for gun restrictions. If yes to all, then tell me where you ARE for gun restrictions... because at some point everyone is.



posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
Okay, donguillermo all fine and logical.

But please continue. Can I carry a gun in my coat? Go to work with an AK-47? And all this at what 18? It'd sure make senior year interesting.


Well, I think a case can be made for concealed weapon permits. As far as carrying a gun to work, I think that would be up to the employer. I would favor 21 as the minimum age to own a gun.

By the way, carrying a gun in plain view is legal in many states, including Virginia, Nevada, and Arizona. Please read the following article from the Washington Post, registration required.

Guns Worn In Open Legal, But Alarm Va.


On July 2, Fairfax County police received a 911 call from a Champps restaurant in Reston. Six men are seated at a table, the caller said. They're all armed.

Dispatchers quickly sent four officers to the scene. The officers were "extremely polite" and were hoping that some of the men were in law enforcement, said Sgt. Richard Perez, a spokesman for the police department. None was.

The men told the officers "they were just exercising their rights as citizens of the commonwealth," Perez said.

Turns out, packing a pistol in public is perfectly legal in Virginia. And three times in the last month, including at Champps on Sunset Hills Road, residents have been spotted out and about in the county, with guns strapped to their hips, exercising that right.


I had to laugh at this article, because I used to frequently walk around my neighborhood with a .357 magnum Ruger revolver strapped to my waist. Once, one of my neighbors called the cops. The cops told me what I was doing was perfectly legal, but that I was scaring hell out of my neighbors. They requested that I refrain from the practice unless I had a good reason for doing so.



posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 11:13 PM
link   
RANT says


If yes to all, then tell me where you ARE for gun restrictions... because at some point everyone is.


Well, I have already said that I favor gun registration, and that permits to carry a concealed weapon are reasonable. I think anyone convicted of a felony while in possession of a firearm should have their gun rights revoked for, say, ten years. I'm not sure of the law, but I think right now ex-felons are not allowed to possess guns, period.



posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
If yes to all, then tell me where you ARE for gun restrictions... because at some point everyone is.


At the risk of loosing all credibility and being called insane for being a libertarian, I am not for gun control EVER!

Try to throw one at me, if you are so confidant "everyone is."

Tanks, howitzers, dosn't matter. A government is "The People", right? So what do THE PEOPLE have to fear from THE PEOPLE. Even if one man could build an army of 10,000 Americans, they would not succed in storm DC without the backing of the American people. There are too many of us. Not to mention the logistics of building a force like that without detection would take longer than one mans life, making it near to impossible.

So what do we have to fear? Do you realy think the guy next door is going to shell out millions for a modern main battle tank, tens of thousands for a round for it, and then have an accidental discharge and blow up your house? If you owned a tank would do that? ask 100 people that question and the answer will always be no. So what makes us so arrogant that we think we wouldnt, but everyone else will. Do you believe that people are for the most part good and will do the right thing? I think that has alot to do with most of the gun control issues. I trully believe that as a whole, given true freedom and liberty, our society, while it may not be the ultra rich super power it is today, would shine like never before.

So far as changing the topic goes, I was simply responding to your questions.

you said

Someone, anyone tell me why background checks, waiting periods and safety devices are bad?


so I told you about how Philip Russell Coleman could still be alive today if not for the backround checks and waiting periods.

Please dont ask a question then bag on me for showing enough respect to answer it. Also, you seem to be simply stating your opinion as your argument, as if to say "this is what I believe, and if you dont see it you must be insane" but then ofer nothing to back it up. I trully participate here to hear the opinions of different people as well as the REASON THEY THINK THAT, for without reason it means nothing. If anything is, as you like to label, insane wouldnt it be the ideal that simply states idea without stating why? I can at least show enough faith in your ability to think rationaly to EXPLAIN my veiw, as will any real libertarian. We didnt get all these "insane" and unorthodox veiws by being stubborn or anti-social.


Heres one for you, says more than I could (i tend to be longwinded) faster about the crazy libertarian issue. "You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the great struggle for independence." - Charles A. Beard (1874-1948)


I think it is wonderfull that you dont want ban all guns. Just remember when you are thinking about how, as you said, people get stuck on this one issue, that it is the most important one, and for good reason. without the means to defend yourself, you are slave. slaves have no rights. try standing up to armed opressors and telling them you have the right to say whatever you want. wont work without some freinds and some guns. so how will you secure your other rights when your second amendment rights are gone? Ask any elderly Jew if they thought German Jews would have been better off if each one of them had a handgun. I can tell you what the answer will be.

Just remember, the second gives you the capacity to keep secure all other rights. if you trust our gov. would never take them away even if we had no guns, you can share the same belief and fate of the 20 or so million killed by stalin, of course he just wanted the guns to make it safer for everyone.
once you cant stand up for your right, you are the mercy of those who "decide" your rights.



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 12:05 AM
link   
donguillermo

be carefull of the open carry laws there in Nevada. although it is legal in the state and in Vegas, north las vegas and henderson as well as boulder city all have local laws against open carry. you have to watch for the blue street signs of north las vegas, because they WILL arrest you up there for having it in your car not broken down with the ammo two movements away from the weapon.



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 12:06 AM
link   
guns arent the problem

guns dont kill people. when was the last time you saw a gun jump up and shoot someone?

people kill people. america is a land filled with crazy people. thats why gun crimes here are so high



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 06:09 AM
link   
Cavscout, I should clarify I'm not bashing you and really not even people that maintain the widely stated Libertarian position on this (tanks, howitzers, etc. doesn't matter), but rather just expressing an opinion that I consider self evident simply because I know what I'd do with such unlimited freedom.

I am that crazy person I fear. And surely I'm not alone. This discussion has made me replay every drunken brawl, mugging, employer that fired me, road rage incident, etc. that ever happened to me and consider what would have happened if one or more of us had been packing. And in those incidents where the other person did criminally show me a gun or point it at my head, then I know the only reason I'm here (and not dead or in jail) is that I didn't have one to point back. Even with the freedom of home defense while living across the street from near nightly wilding riots, I never considered purchasing a gun simply because I can't begin to convey how angry a human being can get faced with percieved injustice. And how irrational one becomes when angry (drunk, high, cheated on, broken hearted, etc.). But that's okay, because it's my right not to arm.

But if society were to attempt this fundamental shift to anything goes, I'd feel compelled to arm or at a minimim like a sucker if I didn't. Meaning my last real option is to arm or never leave the house.

Beyond just my perceptions of myself, lest you find me anomolous my friends are buck crazy too. My family. My exes. I'm not trying to make a joke. I sincerely just can't imagine integration into the society you seek. Nor would I desire to try. For if I did, it would almost assuredly go overboard as in my previous Mad Max example because that's just how I do things. It's how most Americans do things IMO, but with me it's a definite fact. Even now I'm thinking...well maybe if I could get a big gun it would be okay. No. No it wouldn't. Not at all.


So we just differ. I'm not going to change your mind, and you're not going to change mine. But at least I see where you're coming from now, and I appreciate it.



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 07:25 AM
link   
one may be able to outrun a person with a knife. However, never knew anyone that could outrun a bullet.

To all those putting up statistics-last I read there were under 50 homicides in the United Kingdom per year. That many get shot and killed in this city in a week. Guns don't kill people people with guns do.



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by madmanacrosswater
one may be able to outrun a person with a knife. However, never knew anyone that could outrun a bullet.

To all those putting up statistics-last I read there were under 50 homicides in the United Kingdom per year. That many get shot and killed in this city in a week. Guns don't kill people people with guns do.


And what city might that be? You are clearly exaggerating, as that would mean that this city accounted for approximately 25% of all gun homicides per year.

With a population of 951,000 and 366 homicides of all types per year, Detroit is considered the murder capital of the country. Your suggestion that there are 2600 gun homicides per year in your city is just ludicrous.



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by donguillermo

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

Get the facts straight. Guns account for a tiny percentage of homicides in the US. More people are strangled with rope, stabbed with knives, or beaten to death. Guns are low on the list of murder weapons.

Id suggest you actually do a little research before you come off so half cocked and sounding stupid, because thats exactly what this sounds like.


You are the one who needs to get your facts straight. There are more homicides with guns than all other weapons combined. From the Department of Justice website

Homicide trends in the U.S.


I would suggest YOU take the same advice I gave Simon and put it to good use. Since you obviously are taking statistics at face value.

DOJ stats only count for REPORTED crimes, solved cases, ect. They do not factor in unreported crimes, manslaughter, or accidnetal death.

Actually try studying and cross comparing statistics before you go waving them around like you understand them.



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 02:49 PM
link   
Skadi_the_Evil_Elf says


I would suggest YOU take the same advice I gave Simon and put it to good use. Since you obviously are taking statistics at face value.


Here is the advice you gave to Simon.


My advice to you would be to stop watching so much TV andf stop believing everything Michael Moore tells you.


Since my statistics do not come from TV or Michael Moore, but the official Department of Justice website, I do not see how your advice to Simon applies to me.


DOJ stats only count for REPORTED crimes, solved cases, ect. They do not factor in unreported crimes, manslaughter, or accidnetal death.


And how would you propose that the DOJ include statistics on unreported crimes? And are you claiming that most murders go unreported? I suppose some do, like missing person cases. In order for your original statement to be true, there would have to be many more unreported murders than reported murders. In your original post, you said


Get the facts straight. Guns account for a tiny percentage of homicides in the US. More people are strangled with rope, stabbed with knives, or beaten to death. Guns are low on the list of murder weapons.


So do you have any evidence at all to back up the statements in your original post? No you do not. The statistics from the DOJ are the best statistics available, based on compilations from many law enforcement agencies. You have nothing but your claim that many murders go unreported. Do you have any evidence that these unreported murders are committed mostly by strangulation, stabbing, and beating?



Id suggest you actually do a little research before you come off so half cocked and sounding stupid, because thats exactly what this sounds like.


You need to take your own advice here, because you didn't do any research before you made your ridiculous claim that "Guns account for a tiny percentage of homicides in the U.S."


Actually try studying and cross comparing statistics before you go waving them around like you understand them.


Again, you need to take your own advice. How many statistics did you study and cross compare before you made your ridiculous claims? Answer: none. You made ridiculous statements with no evidence. The polite description for that behavior is "making things up." The accurate description is "lying."



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 04:10 PM
link   
Actually, Skaldi's correct about the underreporting of crime. There's been quite a bit of that in the news here in Texas lately, but it's actually epidemic in America... particularly if a city is having an upcoming event.

Here the police chief of Atlanta accuses his city of doing that:
www.bestplaces.net...

Colleges underreport crime:
www.dailybruin.ucla.edu.../18/2000

New Hampshire (juvenile victims):
www.unh.edu...

Texas....
www.awol-texas.org...

School districts across the nation....
www.jointogether.org...

There's a LOT more articles like this, but I don't feel like listing all the ones I see. I'm only googling for US but I see this is being reported in other countries. So yes, Skaldi is right.



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 04:24 PM
link   
Byrd, since we're talking about homicides (gun related versus other method) how can unreported muggings, beatings, vandalism (whatever) even matter in the argument?

Unless there's some epidemic of unreported homicides by something other than firearm (like rope, sword or sharks with lasers on their head) I'm not seeing the point of dismissing DOJ statistics.

Skadi said "Guns account for a tiny percentage of homicides in the US" and that's not supported statistically or intuitively.

[Edited on 16-7-2004 by RANT]

Is it just were arguing apples and oranges? Guns may account for a lower percentage of "violent crime" in general or definately account for a tiny percentage of deaths, including disease, etc. But "homicide" is a very special term reserved for taking a life with intent. Not manslaughter, etc.

And as Don eloquently pointed out in his defense of the evil that people do with guns. A gun is patently a tool for taking life. A "homicide" tool protected by the Constitution. Am I missing something?

I don't think homicides are THAT under reported in America.

[Edited on 16-7-2004 by RANT]



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 04:37 PM
link   
Byrd says


There's a LOT more articles like this, but I don't feel like listing all the ones I see. I'm only googling for US but I see this is being reported in other countries. So yes, Skaldi is right.


No one has questioned that there are unreported crimes. That is the only thing Skaldi is right about. In order for him to be right about his original contention that guns account for a tiny percentage of homicides, he would have to prove two facts.

1. There are a large number of unreported murders, at least a few thousand.

2. A large majority of these unreported murders were committed by some means other than guns.

He has no evidence of either of these facts. Indeed, such evidence is probably impossible to obtain. Therefore, as I said before, his original claims amount to making stuff up.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join