[Count Zero]

Kaiju, I wasn't quoting you.
Now I am:
"You have to get rid of the killer to stop the killing."
But is it absolutely necessary to make it easy for him to kill? Guns do just that.
And why is no one listening to me?
Total freedom with guns doesn't work, total control over guns doesn't work (well, actually it does, but NRA and gun-toting republicans are too strong in America for that to ever happen). So solution: Stricter gun laws. A several week waiting period, need to be 21 to get a gun, need to be a member of a gunclub, NO criminal record AT all, regular check up/test... ANYTHING...
But hey, it's your country, and I'm having serious second thoughts on wanting to live there.

[Ragnarok]

I was talking with someone about this topic yesterday, and he told me:

quote

Quote:

"The civiliced countries give the goverment the legitimate power of using violence, civilians can't use violence, so USA won't be a complete civilizated country until it does"

I agree with him. In Europe only goverment can use violence, whenever a civilian makes use of violence, is making something illegal. And there aren't serial killers.

[Chris]

quote

Quote:

I agree with him. In Europe only goverment can use violence, whenever a civilian makes use of violence, is making something illegal. And there aren't serial killers.

Too much power, which turns into coruption.

[Count Zero]

"Too much power, which turns into coruption."
Yep, and we ALL know how capable Americans are in choosing their politicians. Hah!
No, I kid. But that's were the people get their say, if someone is found to be corrupt, they get voted out of office. No one would have the power to randomly use the violence to their own needs, i.e. corrupted purposes.

[Snookrod]

Sorry I was so late joining in on the fun...I was back home cleaning up my rifle so I can take out a 6-pt next month. :-)

History Lesson: Watch for governments that try and limit the power of the people and remove their guns...HITLER

If that happens again you can still count on the good ole USA (with our guns) to come over there and bail you out again.

[JayBee]

And Snookrod drops ten points in my estimation by claiming the Americans won WWII... you can't keep a good exaggeration down, eh?

Go back and watch Saving Private Ryan... that's about as near as you're going to get to having the Americans win that one

------------------
. . : : j a y b e e

www.sketchboard.co.uk

[Chris]

There are no winners in war

[FatPenguin]

about gun control:

In Canada, Australia, most of Europe etc. there are very strict gun control laws, and when you compare the number of murders/people to America, it is about 1% or something of our yankee friends.

Obviously you might say lack of gun control laws leads to more murders. But in Switzerland there is compulsery military service for every male. Every man in the country has a gun, and yet there are no murders!

The most obvious difference between the swiss and the americans is that Swiss people generally aren't idots. Now i'm not saying all Americans are stupid or anything, but there certainly are a LOT of idots in the county. Their idiocy is encouraged by the media, and before long you have kids who think it's cool to walk around school shooting people in the head. I think it's definately getting time for Castro to take over

[Ragnarok]

Snookrod:"History Lesson: Watch for governments that try and limit the power of the people and remove their guns...HITLER"
You have missed the point. German military power was reduced to only 200.000 people on one side of the rihn but hitler gave the people weapons so they can take over the neighbours. SO, germany had guns control UNTIL Hitler came to power. Therefore, this argument is against what you were trying to support.

[Snookrod]

For those of you who continue to misrepresent facts and improperly quote historical data.

At the time the Constitution was adopted, many of its drafters felt no need to enumerate specific individual rights since the national government could exercise only the limited powers delegated to it in the Constitution. The limited powers of the federal government assured the freedom of the individual from federal interference, as that government could not oppress where it was already forbidden to act. However, there were enough objectors to ratification of the Constitution that a compromise was struck by enacting a Bill of Rights.

The first 10 amendments to the Constitution, adopted in 1791, constitute the Bill of Rights. Its sole purpose was to protect the individual against acts of the federal government. In 1833, Chief Justice John Marshall held in Barron v. Baltimore that the guarantees enumerated in the Bill of Rights were a limitation only on the federal government. The result was a lack of federal constitutional protection of the individual against the acts of state governments (other than a few individual rights guaranteed in the body of the Constitution proper).

[Snookrod]

Continued:

Actually, crime rates are the same in Switzerland, Israel and Norway, where gun laws are relatively mild, as they are in England, Italy and Japan, where guns are almost entirely prohibited.

In Switzerland, most citizens are members of the national defense force and are issued fully-automatic rifles and ammunition, to be kept at home, ready to be put into use in a national emergency. Outside their formal military duties, the Swiss expend about 60 million rounds of ammunition with the guns each year, mostly for target practice. Crimes with the guns are virtually unheard of. By comparison, Italy's gun law, 'the most restrictive in Europe,' had left her southern provinces alone with a thousand firearm murders a year, thirty times Switzerland's total.

England annually has twice as many homicides with firearms as it did before imposing its tough laws. Furthermore, crime rates for robbery, assault, burglary, and motor vehicle theft are higher in England (including Wales) than in the United States. And while U.S. crime rates have been declining significantly, the reverse is true in England and Wales.

According to a late 1998 study by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, For most U.S. crimes . . . the latest crime rates (1996) are the lowest recorded in the 16-year period from 1981 to 1996. By comparison, English crime rates as measured in both victim surveys and police statistics have all risen since 1981. The murder rate is higher in the U.S. than in England and Wales, but the U.S. rate has been declining, while the rate in England and Wales has remained unchanged.

Ironically, it is because Japan's crime rates are rising despite its severe gun control laws, that that country is trying to lead a call for worldwide gun control through the United Nations. But, as law professor David Kopel noted in a work voted 1992 Book of the Year award by the American Society of Criminology's Division of International Criminology. Japanese-style gun control requires measures that could not be imposed in the U.S.

In Japan, citizens have fewer protections of the right to privacy, and fewer rights for criminal suspects, than in the United States. Japanese police routinely search citizens at will and twice a year pay "home visits" to citizens' residences. Suspect confession rate is 95% and trial conviction rate is more than 99.9%.

Your gun control "facts" are nothing but myths.

[Ragnarok]

In Switzerland the population is low, so the rate of murders can't be high.
Also, they are a neutral country, so their position on guns and army are really different from the rest.
I have no idea of the numbers about England, but they are similar to USA, don't you think? (I'm talking about culture and mind, not numbers of deads)
Italy has it's mafia, which is a result of Mussolini in my opinion.
Now, please give me numbers about France, Spain, Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, etc...
Oh, and you didn't answer my post about hitler.

-Ragnarok

[Snookrod]

I am assuming that you are referring to the Treaty of Versailles...and no the German military was to a size of 100,000 men. The treaty also demilitarized a large section of Germany nearest France, and forbade the German ownership of military aircraft, poison gas, or any naval units. The merchant marine and navy were to give their ships to Britain (they gave their merchant marine but scuttled their navy). But enough about that. If you want, I can detail how Hitler removed the guns of impure citizens and systematically removed them from existence. I think it is important that you realize the disturbing process of removing the ability of the people to protect themselves.

I can only respond to one post at a time...as time permits.

[Snookrod]

Hitler rejected the Treat of Versailles and created his 25 Points along with the Nazi party in the early 1920's. At his point he claimed that Jews were not German citizens and were to be treated as aliens. Years later he assumes control and publishes the Mein Kampf.
In 1933, the Gestapo was formed along with Nazi decree defining a non-Aryan as anyone descended from non-Aryan, especially Jewish, parents or grandparents. One parent or grandparent classifies the descendant as non-Aryan...especially if one parent or grandparent was of the Jewish faith. This effectively removed their GUNS, food, ammunition, and shelter...then came the concentration camps.

There is no need to relive this atrocious time period. What we need to remember is that the people should rule the government, not the other way around. Gun control is a very effective method to reduce the peoples' ability to protect themselves.


[This message has been edited by Snookrod (edited November 20, 2000).]

[JayBee]

Just a quick one - I obviously haven't done as much research as snook, but a couple of things stood out. While I totally agree with his "people should rule government" idea, I think that the idea of arming the populace does not have to follow from this.

quote

Quote:

What we need to remember is that the people should rule the government, not the other way around. Gun control is a very effective method to reduce the peoples' ability to protect themselves.

Protecting them from what? The Government? That's fine on paper, but what you've missed out is that *Majority* of people should rule the government. Arming the populace can allow popular civil uprisings to become practical, but it can also allow bullets to replace ballots, leading to a minority junta.

YES, I agree that the first thing any installed junta does is disarm the populace, but to cite Nazism as the logical conclusion of "what happens when you take peoples guns away" is to ignore the facts you otherwise know so well!

Gun control was a result of the Nazi sentiment in Germany, not a cause of it. It was also not, I hasten to add, a cause of its longevity - look to propaganda for that one, and the US media knows plenty about propaganda.

As for the "amendments" to the constitution - fair enough. I didn't know that one.

However, private ownership of firearms is not guaranteed by it. Also, it should be noted that, while crime rates in the UK are rising, they are rising slowly. So too are US rates dropping VERY slowly, with hardly any change in violent crime.

We also don't have quite as many under 12s shooting people.

Gun control is not the only factor to the gun issue. A certain degree of responsibility is required of a country's citizens as well. The US has no such responsibility in general. Neither does the UK (Hey, I'm not going to start pointing fingers here!), but at least we realise that there is this inherent lack of responsibility, and seek to curb it.

Probably makes no sense, that lot, but I didn't read it over!

Let the debate continue - this is quite fun


------------------
. . : : j a y b e e

www.sketchboard.co.uk

[Snookrod]

Gun control served as the most important factor in rounding up the jews in Nazi Germany and abroad. They had no way to protect themselves. I was just making a side point about gun control with the mention of Nazi's and gun control. Because in fact I could care less about gun control in Australia, England, Spain, Finland, and other countries. My experiences with those countries are quite limited and I have to go by what I read. I also realize that most other countries in the world do not have a Constitution and Bill of Rights which expressly provide rights for firearm ownership. With that said, I prefer to comment on gun control in the United States.
------
Considering that we have over 300,000,000 people and have had (3) school shootings, I think you are speaking of propaganda...(that you chastised)

I am glad to see that you understand the inverse relationship between crime in countries with gun control vs countries without.

[Brue]

ok yall, i got an argument for that gun killing people stuff. Cause yesterday here in Calgary a kid got stabbed to death.
he owed a guy 30 bucks and forgot to bring it to school so the kid stabbed him three times in the neck. The moral of the story is: Guns dont kill people. Anything shiny does, so dont play with SPOONS!

[Ragnarok]

The spoon doesn't exist, Neo

[Ragnarok]

I understand your point, but I still disagree with you. It's late and I'm exhausted so I will post a long answer on a few days...

-Ragnarok

[Spitfire]

This conversation has no end, ive seen enough of em to know that...

One thing is important : It are not the weapons that kill people, it are people that kil people because they 1. are mentally defective and/or 2. society is defective.

Gun laws, population size, geographic location, constitutions, they all dont have jack shit to do with violent crime rates. The only thing that causes violent crime is the general attitude of the population towards their fellow citizens and to life/people in general.

America, and im sorry to say this, is a cold country. People dont have half the decency, heart and respect european people have. If you go to italy and talk to a guy in a bar, in 30 mins he�ll invite you
for dinner, introduce you to his friends and family and pretty much told you your life story. If you approach an Englishman to ask the way, he�ll take tremendous effort to make sure you fully understand the route. In the Netherlands, when you�re staggering home piss drunk, the average cop will drive you home rather than beat you silly and lock you away.

I�ve met just as many americans in my life as other europeans, and this is how it is. It�s not something americans do on purpose, its not that they�re all assholes, you people just dont have the same social rules of engagement as we do, and that is what supports violent crime.

Pffeeww. End rant.

[This message has been edited by Spitfire (edited November 22, 2000).]

[Spitfire]

Just to illustrate :

When here in the netherlands, a kid gets beaten to death by a drunk asshole, literally hundreds of people will have silent marches with candles and place flowers on the crime scene and the grave. This may sound silly, but it illustrates how people think about their fellow beings here, and how we look upon violence.

[Snookrod]

When a kid gets beaten to death here in the states...we make sure who ever did it doesn't do it again.

[Snookrod]

Spitfire, you live in a country smaller than Daytona Beach�

I think your portrayal of American society is wholly inaccurate. We are a large country (population and land mass) and I�m sure your depiction would fit in somewhere, but for the most part you are wrong.

[Chapel]

Ok I have to say one last thing about this for starters let me ask a few questions to the participants of the discussion.

A. How old are you?
B. Have you ever lived in the United States?
C. Do you have any facts to back up any of the statements made in your arguments?

You all seem to have this "idea" about the United States. Like we are just one huge angry mob concentrated on one continent. We are not bad. We try and help other countries even when our own country is in need of help. Of course you are going to hear about the killings, murders, and other unsettling events that occur over here. That is the national news for you. Bad things are just bigger news than good things. There is a huge population in these little states. Eventually people lose their cool and bad things happen.

I read these posts and all I see are "assumptions" about the US from people who have probably never step foot in this country or have only visited on vacation. (Pretty funny that this is a place to come for vacation if we are so uncivilized.) We can only make comparisons on the information provided to us, but we don't assume. When you make statements like "the US is irresponsible" I feel offended. I'm part of the US.

[This message has been edited by Chapel (edited November 22, 2000).]

[Chris]

I agree

[Striker]

I also agree..

btw, Bush won tonight! ...again

If nothing else, will anyone agree with me that the Gore campain is behaving a bit childish by refusing to accept loss with dignity? I mean, I can understand 1 recount, I wasn't overly outraged (tho considerably annoyed ) when Gore demanded a hand recount, when the courts were brought into the affair I became somewhat pissed..
Now bush has won once again, and Gore, not satisfied with having gnawed off both of his political legs in this ordeal, has moved on to his right arm and is planning on bringing this matter into the courts once again.

At this point I am beginning to find the whole thing slightly humorous because the fight that was once rallying Gore supporters is now alienating them. Right now Gore is doing nothing but solidifying the resolve of republicans to vote for Bush again in 2004, and also giving many democrats reason to change their alliances.

Ah well, that's all for now..

As always, opposition is inevitable, and thus, welcomed with open arms. THAT is what makes America great.

[Brue]

BUSH WON! BUSH WON! WOOHOO! BUSH WON!
but gore is still trying to take it to court cause he cant handle the truth. I PITTY THE FOO!
well anyway.. BUSH WINS!

[Spitfire]

A survey showed that those who voted Gore are willing to accept Bush in case he wins. thoose who voted Bush were not willing to accept Gore, should he win. I guess that says enough : Gore for president.

[Ragnarok]

Chapel, I answer your questions:
-I'm 16
-I've never been in the USA
-I have no facts

But, I've never said my opinion about USA was the right one, there's no right opinion.
And now I ask to you:

A-How old are you?
B-Have you ever been on Europe?
B'-How many european countries have you visited?
C-Do you have any facts to back up any of the statements made in your arguments?

As you can see I only changed one of them.

-Ragnarok

[This message has been edited by Ragnarok (edited November 27, 2000).]

[Chris]

quote

Quote:

A survey showed that those who voted Gore are willing to accept Bush in case he wins. thoose who voted Bush were not willing to accept Gore, should he win. I guess that says enough : Gore for president.

That is because if Gore won, there would have been some type of coruption in the counts. Cause Bush won it 2 times and if the handcount would have made Gore win, then...well, something would have been very wrong, and Gore and Bush supporters should realize that!

Ragnarok, I have never been to Europe, nore have I said anything negative about that country (to my knowledge) on this board. I think what he was getting at is that non-americans were saying some pretty harsh stuff about the US just based on this election stuff going on. Every country makes mistakes, the embarrasments aren't in making the mistakes, the embarrasments are making them again. Which it won't!