If you were president and had control over $billions in spending [Archive]

ETWolverine

Oct 19, 2007, 08:14 AM

First of all, NSG, your question makes an assumption that is in error.

The president does NOT control the money. Congress does. The power of the purse was specifically left to Congress so that the President would never become powerful enough to do the stupid things suggested above, like banning guns and creating "free" healthcare. The idea was that while the President has the power over the military and police in the USA, if he doesn't have control of the purse strings, he can never finance a coup. And in Congress has the power of the purse, but no control of the military, they will never be able to stage a coup for lack of military power. It is a checks-and-balances system.

Now, to some of the suggestions that I have seen above:

Ban guns? Are you nuts? Do you WANT to give away all your rights and freedoms? Do you enjoy the idea that the government will be able to do anything they want to you and you will never be able to stop them because they are armed and you aren't? That's what happened in Hitler's Nazi Germany. The first thing he did was eliminate guns in the hands of civilians. The second thing he did was eliminate their rights. And they couldn't do a damn thing about it because they weren't armed.

If you are so afraid of Bush becoming a dictator (a ridiculous thought, but I've heard people say it), why would you deliberately play into that by calling for disarmament of the civilian population? Why would you give away the power to stop the threat of this person you see as a military tyrant?

As for "free" healthcare, do you mean free government-run health care? Because if you do, how are you going to fund it. Even the billions that are in the treasury wouldn't cover the costs for more than a year or so. Which means you would have to tax the country to keep such a system going. Which just means that it isn't really "free" is it.

And while you are spending all this money on "free" healthcare, who is going to pay for the upkeep of interstate highways, our telecommunications infrastructure, our energy infrastructure, our police, fire and other emergency services, our military, the intelligence services, our federally-funded education system, our overburdened court system, etc. Where is the money for all that boring but necessary stuff going to come from?

People make these huge, grandios pledges that have no basis in reality because they have never actually read a copy of the national budget and have no understanding of how our government really works or what its job really is. Not the politicians in Congress... we already know they don't do anything. I'm talking about the various agencies that atually keep the government running, and that take care of the stuff that you and I take for granted.

Simply put, most people who make "big" suggestions about how they would change things don't really bother to look at how they would fund it, and what they will be affecting by using those dollars for their "big idea" as opposed to something else that really needs to be funded to keep the country working.

Elliot

kindj

Oct 19, 2007, 09:06 AM

Abolish Congress and the Supreme Court and establish myself as Supreme Benevolent Ruler for Life.

Just kidding.

I have to echo ex's statement though, and remember that it's not MY money--it's the taxpayer's money and they expect US (executive and legislative branches) to use it responsibly.

I'd cut foreign aid to those who oppose us, and raise it for those who are our friends.

I'd invest in the research of alternative forms of energy.

I'd invest in medical research. I find it appalling that we can track a dung beetle across the Mojave desert from 40 miles in space, but can't cure cancer.

BABRAM

Oct 19, 2007, 06:08 PM

First of all, NSG, your question makes an assumption that is in error.

But it's still a fun question and her hearts in the right place. Also I agree with you on the guns and health-care issues. I had a very long day at work. Have a good shabbos.

Bobby

magprob

Oct 19, 2007, 07:07 PM

ChihuahuaMomma

Oct 19, 2007, 11:46 PM

This is an interesting question and I see this thread going far. Unfortunately I am too tired right now to comment on said things. So it will remain in my inbox until tomorrow where I will have ample time to answer!

ETWolverine

Oct 22, 2007, 07:44 AM

But it's still a fun question and her hearts in the right place. Also I agree with you on the guns and health-care issues. I had a very long day at work. Have a good shabbos.

Bobby

All right. In the interest of hypothetical questions, here goes:

1) I would make the Bush tax cuts permanent. As it turns out, lowering taxes has actually increased government income significantly, because more people are earning money, and therefore more are paying taxes. Everybody benefits from the tax cuts.

2) I would secure the border, using military and police assets at my disposal. One thing I would do is initiate a program wherein every National Guard unit would rotate through the various border states to practice military operations in desert settings. While there, those units would also be responsible for border patrol and monitoring. This will have the dual effect of lowering illegal immigration and training these units in border control operations in case they are ever sent to Iraq, Afghanistan or any other place where terrorists leaking across borders is a problem. This is a low-cost but effective means of using military assets to secure the borders. (I would also initiate a bonus program, wherein units that actually catch illegals coming across the border using approved methods are given a bonus for each illegal aprehended. That will result in the soldiers being MOTIVATED to do their jobs properly.)

3) I would push for progress in the "Future Warrior" weapons programs in order to get our soldiers in the field the best and most effective equipment available to the US arsenal. This would include new generation body armor, advanced infantry weapons, new tanks and armor composites, etc. I would also push for improvements in training methods in our military, including a bonus program for every additional skill learned by soldiers. The more a soldier knows, the more survivable he becomes while in the military, and the better the jobs he can find once he exits the service. If an infantry guy also learns logistics, combat engineering and demolition, basic combat medicine, earns his jump-tabs, and becomes a sharpshooter, shouldn't he be earning more than an infantry guy with no other special skills? And don't we want our soldiers to cross train in as many skills as possible so that they are able to take the fight to the enemy in as many ways as possible? (I would also make sure that every administrative specialist is also combat ready, just like in the Israeli military. In the US military, roughly 1 of every ten soldiers is a combat soldier. In Israel, 10 soldiers means 10 combat-trained, highly effective killers. That's what our military should be. They can specialize in administrative stuff, but let them be fully trained and ready for combat at any moment.)

4) I would fight against pork-barrel spending in Congress. I would veto anything that has pork attached to it, even if the main bill is something I support. I'm Jewish, I don't do pork.

5) I would reform the State Department by either firing or giving "an office with a window to the world" to any State Department official that doesn't tow the official line when it comes to government policy. If someone at Foggy Bottom decides to push for an Arabist solution to the Israel/Palestinian conflict when I am pushing for a pro-Israel solution, his foggy bottom will be gone from my State Department.

6) I will initiate investigations into any and every "anonymous leak" by government officials. And I will fire the of anyone caught leaking anything to the press or to any source outside of the Executive branch. It may be the job of the press to find out information and report it, but it is the job of the President to prevent them from doing so. That is the adversarial relationship between the media and the government, and that is the way I wish my government to operate.

7) HUMINT, HUMINT, HUMINT. And need I mention HUMINT? I would spend huge amounts of money to develop human intelligence sources against our enemies. While we have the best ELINT (electronic intelligence) capabilities in the world, our HUMINT sources are very lacking. We need to turn bad guys, establish spies, whatever. The CIA has never been quite as good as the Kremlin at doing HUMINT. Post Cold War documentary evidence showed that the USSR won the humint espionage war... they had the highest levels of the US government tied up in knots, while we barely got a few gadeners and custodians into the Kremlin. We did better on ELINT and SIGINT, but they destroyed us in HUMINT. I would spend huge amounts of money to change that fact, especially since the War on Terror is going to be won mostly at the clandestine level. Most counter-terrorism takes place at the HUMINT level.

8) I would enforce the employment laws regarding illegal immigrants. Even if a few illegals manage to trickle across the border past the National Guard units that are guarding the border, I will make the environment for them to find employment in the USA very hostile to them. If you want a job in the USA, come here legally.

9) Any University that doesn't allow ROTC or military recruiting on campus will not get federal funding. Period. You want to live off the government trough, you follow the government's rules. Don't like it? Get your money elsewhere.

10) Any foreign government or agency that gets foreign aid should support the US in the pursuit of its interests. If they actively stand against us, they can try to find their aid elswhere. NO YOU DO NOT GET A CHOICE IN THE MATTER IF YOU ARE TAKING MY MONEY. If you want the "right to choose", get your money from someone else. Kind of like how it is when you live in your parents' home... they make the rules. If you don't like it, get an apartment, get a job and you can make your own decisions.

That's how I would spend my time (and your money) as President.

Elliot

ETWolverine

Oct 22, 2007, 11:02 AM

kindj (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/members/kindj.html) agrees: You gonna run, El?
(https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/members/kindj.html)CaptainRich (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/members/captainrich.html) agrees: Got my vote!
(https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/members/kindj.html)

Nah... too much baggage. I'm an easy "swiftboat" target. I'll never hold public office. Besides, I don't think the country is quite ready for an Orthodox Jewish President who refuses to take off his yarmulka for anyone, including foreign heads of state.

And if they dislike Bush for "his" war in Iraq, they'll absolutely DESPISE me. (Which would just prove I was doing a good job.)

And somehow, I just can't see Bashar Assad or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sitting down with me at the negotiating table (even when not negotiating in good faith), can you?

Elliot

Skell

Oct 22, 2007, 04:13 PM

There are more than likely more people in the state they live in than in all of Aussieland even though Aussieland is roughly the size of the U.S. Therefore, more stupid people per capita. The really intelligent Americans haven't found this site yet since they are busy. Busy setting the trends in the nice things you Aussies will be using next year...like the computer you are using. Even if you were born here, we wouldn't vote for you since you sound like a sissy socialistic wanker dude. Really!

I follow European trends. And I am fond of the odd pull of my . But I do it for enjoyment. What's wrong with that!
Rednecks!

bushg

Oct 22, 2007, 04:24 PM

FrOsT_bItE

Oct 22, 2007, 04:35 PM

I don't know. I wouldn't mind getting some obese kids out to a boot camp and spend at least a few years doing that every 6 months. Hopefully obesity would decrease during those years. OR if that doesn't work, then I wouldn't mind sending a certain amount of money to different countries or places around the world who are in poverty.

Skell

Oct 22, 2007, 05:45 PM

Ban guns? Are you nuts? Do you WANT to give away all your rights and freedoms? Do you enjoy the idea that the government will be able to do anything they want to you and you will never be able to stop them because they are armed and you aren't? That's what happened in Hitler's Nazi Germany. The first thing he did was eliminate guns in the hands of civilians. The second thing he did was eliminate their rights. And they couldn't do a damn thing about it because they weren't armed.

Elliot

Hahahahaha... Forgive me as I wipe the spits of laughter from mt screen. Hahahaha. Oh please make it stop. It hurts to laugh this hard.

Having gun control laws gives away your rights and freedoms??

You think because you have that little pistol tucked under your pillow that it gives you supreme power over your government? Hahahaha. Sorry again. Your mighty US army will be defeated by civilians with hand guns and the like? Is that what you're saying?? C'mon. I thought you were an intelligent man El.

The rest of the world seems to do just fine without every man and women carrying a weapon. Oh that's right, in your view the rest of the world doesn't exist. If it isn't american it isn't right. The rest of the world is wrong. Never us!! Go and tell that to the parents of the next kid gunned down at school who's parents left that gun they needed to over throw Bush unattended and their 8 year old took it to school and blew away 3 of his mates.

Oh that's right. Its personal responsibility. Blame the kid and parents. Not the weapon. It didn't play a part!!

ETWolverine

Oct 23, 2007, 07:40 AM

You think because you have that little pistol tucked under your pillow that it gives you supreme power over your government?

No. I think the 50 cal Barrett high-powered, anti-material, light anti-armor sniper rifle tucked in my gun rack gives me supreme power over the government. Especially if 300 million other people are similarly armed.

THAT is the reason for the second amendment. 300 million people armed against the possibility of the 1.4 million members of the US military being used in a coup. You tell me the odds in that situation. It's not the lone gunman with the Barreta 9 mm. It's the 300 million with hunting rifles, shotguns, semi-automatics, automatics, pistols, army surplus equipment, etc. that protect our liberties.

If even 2% of the nation is armed, that means 6 million people able to stand against our standing military force of 1.4 million. You don't see that as an equalizer? Sure the military has better equipment. But as is often said in military circles, quantity creates a quality of its own. 2:1 odds? I'll take it. And I'll take 300:1 odds even more.

The rest of the world seems to do just fine without every man and women carrying a weapon.

Yeah... they're living really well in Iran, Cuba, China, North Korea, Syria, and all the other dictatorships where guns aren't allowed.

Oh... you mean WESTERN countries. Like Sweden... oh, crap, that's not right. Everyone owns a gun in Sweden. They actually have to own one by law since anyone can be called up for amy service at any time. Or maybe you mean Australia... nope that doesn't work either, since guns are prevalent there as well. Israel? Nope. They all own guns too. The UK? Yeah, guns are illegal. And people don't own guns unless they happen to be rich, Irish, a criminal, etc.

So, exactly which countries are you talking about? Which "rest of the world" do you mean?

Its personal responsibility. Blame the kid and parents. Not the weapon. It didn't play a part!!

Are you saying that it isn't about personal responsibility? If the parents in your hypothetical case had taken responsibility to lock up their gun properly, their 8-year-old would never have gotten his hands on it.

Your discounting of personal responsibility is the cause of so many of the problems we see in society today. People don't take responsibility for ANYTHING today. Not for sex, not for drugs, not for guns, not for smoking, not for how they eat, not for making a living. Nobody is responsible. The GOVERNMENT should take responsibility for all these things and impose rules (which people break regularly) of conduct.

Tell me, Skell, which country with gun control laws has actually been able to keep guns out of the hands of people? If they can't stop drugs from coming into their countries, what makes you think that they can ever stop guns from coming into their countries? And even if you manage to take guns out of the hands of citizens, what makes you think they won't just go to the black market and get another one? The whole idea that "taking away people's guns gets them off the streets" is pure sh!theadedness.

I find it intersting that the States with the strictest gun control laws have the most gun crimes. I find it interesting that countries in Europe with the strictest gun control laws have the highest levels of gun crimes. And I find it interesting that Israel and Sweden, the two countries with the most liberal gun laws have both the lowest level of gun crime and the lowest levels of gun-related accidents. Gee, I wonder why that is.

No I don't. I already know the answer.

Skell, the fact is that you don't know what you are talking about. There is no historical or statistical data to back up your assertion that stricter gun laws result in lower levels of gun violence and gun-related accidents. There is ample evidence to prove the exact opposite. There is also evidence to prove that more liberal gun laws result in significant decreases in crime rates across the board.

"Getting guns off the street" doesn't make people safer or any other stupidity like that. It makes CRIMINALS safer to commit violent crimes. And it creates a black market in illegal guns that are then owned by people who just want to protect themselves from ciminals.

If the "war on drugs" is stupid because it creates the very market in illegal drugs that it is supposed to be stopping, then eliminating gun rights is just as stupid. More so, since the right to bear arms is Constitutionally guaranteed, where the right to recreational drugs is not.

Elliot

CaptainRich

Oct 23, 2007, 02:44 PM

Thank you, Elliot.
You said all the things I would have said!
This salvo was well placed and appropriate!

Skell

Oct 23, 2007, 03:54 PM

I thought that would be your response.
Obviously what the US is doing doesn't work. Give me my country any day. As far away from you gun mad people as possible!

Statistics and "Gun Control" (http://www.jpfo.org/data-docs.htm)

You should join this organisation and spit out that sh1t!!

****EDIT**** Remove word "hicks" and replaced with "people".

bushg

Oct 23, 2007, 03:58 PM

Skell hicks is a bad word. Stop using it. Rednecks isn't very nice either.

Skell

Oct 23, 2007, 04:00 PM

Sorry! Gun wielding maniacs??

Skell

Oct 23, 2007, 04:10 PM

kindj

Oct 23, 2007, 04:19 PM

CaptainRich

Oct 23, 2007, 07:01 PM

Skell

Oct 23, 2007, 10:08 PM

YOU are biased spin, skell! If you don't agree with our constitution, DON'T!

I have never personally seen anyone attack your country's laws or liberal views, yet you still have your own internal issues. Do you now deny that? If you want to change they way you think about America, and if you want to change the way the world thinks about America, and our ways of thinking, you'd better come up with a different theme.

One simple fact is that the United States efforts, beyond our borders, has cost the American taxpayers tons of money! Most of which we would never ask back! But that depends upon the recipeint!! Please read some of this: International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) - Home English (http://www.icrc.org/eng)

I didn't write this. The World community did!!
Or try here:
UN Security Council: Latest News (http://www.un.org/sc/unsc_news.shtml)

Haiti, Sudan, Myanmar, Nepal. Have any of these given ANY support to the U.S.??
Don't try! It hasn't happened and it won't happen.

So next time, when another crisis blows out the evening news, YOU foot the bill and send some
help to Jebel Zubair, only for example. People were literaly pushed into the surrounding waters.
Was there any support there from you or your country? Did you ever hear of it?
Probably not. Too busy not paying any further attention to the slight less worldy matters!

Bash the U.S. any chance you get.

Major fires are burning in the southwest US... Are you and your joey's gonna care? Or send a couple of million to help with OUR crisis?? I thought not!!

But, despite that, when the chips are down, who calls whom?

We have our own fires to fight Captain. Believe it or not we are experiencing the worst drought on record and bush fires down under here completely destroy many lives each year. But you wouldn't know that because you aren't spoon fed it through your news networks. The big difference is Captain I know about what goes on over there. We see it on the news and feel the grief. We know what its like. I'm sorry for your fires but please spare me the lecture on what world saviors you guys are.

Guess what Captain. Im a volunteer fire fighter. If I weren't so busy fighting fires in my own backyard id love to come help!

What crisis have you helped us with Captain??

I didn't attack your constitution. I questioned it. I questioned that its working effectively when I see kids being shot every day in their learning environment. Sorry if you take offense to that Captain.

And for the record I'm not anti american. Not at all. I get disheartened when I see the arrogance of many of you. You fail to see anything wrong. Anyone who is critical is anti american. Its paranoia and fear at work. You are a scared and paranoid country and anyone who questions anything to do with you is labelled anti american. Just because its in your constitution doesn't make it right.

You claim that because I don't have the rights to bear arms that I have no freedom. Am I to say that means you are attacking my country and its laws?? By your standards I should.

magprob

Oct 23, 2007, 10:27 PM

Skell

Oct 23, 2007, 10:29 PM

So what makes you so absolutely positive that the pro-gun position is "spun" and yours is just pure fact?

The site I provided (if memory serves) provides actual DoJ data that doesn't support your conclusions.

Im not positive its pure fact just as I won't accept your facts as pure and gospel.

What I am happy to base it on is that here in Australia we don't have the same problems you do. Ok, we are a lot smaller population. Im not a fool (I know most will argue that) I realise that it is hard to compare. But as I have stated I see everyday on our news gun slayings in america. Kids, EVERYDAY being shot dead. I for the life of me can not remember one shooting at a school in Australia. Not one. Google it and prove me wrong but it won't have happened often.

Lets also take the UK for example. Elliot brought them up. We get British news everyday. I read british media like I read US media. Again I don't see any where near the rate of gun violence in the UK as I do in the US. Not even close.

If you accept that kids being killed at school regularly is just part and parcel of your citizens having the right to bear arms and anything less is unconstitutional than that's fine. You can have that. I find it sad that you believe that but again its different cultures. As my quote in a previous post states it is culturally ingrained into you. Nothing will change your mind. I suppose like nothing will change my mind that everyone owning a gun makes it a safer place. That just doesn't stack up with me. But I don't live in fear like many on here have admitted previously when I have raised this issue on other boards.

Most people argue that they need a gun to stop the bad guys before they get to them. They are scared and live in fear and a gun protects them against that. The rest of the people try and convince me that guns are needed to overthrow the government if need be. Again, I find it somewhat warped but I don't live in a country where that has been instilled in me since birth.

So go and attack my way of life. That's fine! Ill cop it on the chin. Im not defensive and thin skinned like you guys! I don't take criticism of my country as an attack. I accept it but don't have to agree.

Bring up the issue of aborigines and ill most probably agree with you. Then ill discuss your Native Americans and their oppression and you'll accuse me of being anti american, anti bush and any other anti I might be!

It's a trend on these boards. It's a chance for you Bush followers to project your propaganda and fear mongering to anyone who cares to disagree. You gang up and put spins on arguments citing sources that you take as gospel. Both sides of the argument can do that! Its easy. But as soon as your arguments are questioned I am anti american.

Go figure!

inthebox

Oct 23, 2007, 10:31 PM

Gun control, murder , crime are way to complex for simple answers:

A Case for Gun Control (http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~zj5j-gttl/guns.htm)

"3. Stiffer sentences for gun crimes. This has been the position of the NRA for quite some time, and it is certainly one with which I agree.

4. Gun education. Many guns are involved in accidents that could easily have been prevented by a little care or forethought. Perhaps gun purchasers should be required to take lessons in gun safety, at the purchaser's expense. Again, the NRA has long been a proponent of gun education."

Notice that the NRA is in agreement with some of these.

England and Wales top crime league | Special reports | Guardian Unlimited (http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,441810,00.html)

Gun control does not address causality - what is causing crime?
Illegal drugs, gangs, poverty, family breakdown, violent media, lack of parental responsibility, poulation density, poor academic achievement..

Banning guns will not address these issues.

Sorry NSG for going off topic.

But I agree with ETW on post #16 except, I'd go for the

Americans For Fair Taxation: FairTax.org (http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer)

Grace and Peace

Skell

Oct 23, 2007, 10:33 PM

Well, I can't speak for every American but only for me, I am a butthole. I love guns and I love intensly savage wars, bombing, death and destruction. I love the smell of napalm in the morning. I adore smoke waifing thru the trees of a foriegn land. I love watching those old WWII films of Japs on the wrong end of a flame thrower. When General George Patton is on the screen, I stand and salute. I really don't give a big harry rats as if you like it or not.

Im cool with that. I don't mind it either. I like your honesty though mag. Its refreshing. At least you don't try to hide behind a lot of crap regurgitated from right wing web pages and articles. You just say it how it is. Maybe the rest of these guys could take a leaf from your book.

And I don't really give a dogs turd if you think I'm a socialist sissy either. Im not but its no skin off my nose. Ive been called worse!

I got in trouble for using the word redneck before but perhaps you won't mid if I use it here. Your brutal honesty means that you will no doubt appreciate what you are, and that's a redneck! But I'm good with that. We need you guys to make it interesting!

Skell

Oct 23, 2007, 10:41 PM

Captain please tell me something that is occurring in Australia as we speak that you have seen on your news? Don't tell me about what is going on in your country. I''m not a narrow minded fool. We get your news. Too much of it. Frankly I don't care too much at the moment for your major fires in California. Why should I? We have major fires burning here.

You know nothing of my country and its current affairs and nor should you.

What do you do for us Captain that I should be forever in your debt? Please enlighten me!

magprob

Oct 23, 2007, 10:44 PM

I am a red neck and proud of it. I have more street smarts than book learning and I know one thing for certain. When someone hits you, you hit them back... only harder. You knock them on their as and if they get up, you do it again. Next time... probably won't be a next time cause now you got respect.

Skell

Oct 23, 2007, 10:50 PM

Mag, you sounds like my old man and exactly how I will be when I'm a father.

I was taught to defend myself. Stick up for myself. When I'm hit I don't walk away. I hit back.
But I never go looking for a fight. I'm not a mug who shoves his chin out to be hit.

What argument are you trying to make? Any? Or are you just giving us a good life lesson?

magprob

Oct 23, 2007, 10:58 PM

I never go looking for a fight but I am more than willing to particapate. I would much rather have my gun and not need it than need it and not have it. Not being an American, you really can't make a call on that one way or another. This place is huge. There are people from all over the world here. There are some flat crazy bastards running the streets dude. I ain't giving up my gun. That's what I'm saying.
If you are happy with your government telling you that you cannot be trusted with a gun, then fine. I am very happy that your country is crime free. But, there is much more truth than poetry to the saying that when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. That's just the way it is here in America. I can go out back to my shop, and with materials I get from the internet, build a gun in three evenings that will rip you a new A-hole.

Skell

Oct 23, 2007, 11:08 PM

I never go looking for a fight but I am more than willing to particapate. I would much rather have my gun and not need it than need it and not have it. Not being an American, you really can't make a call on that one way or another. This place is huge. There are people from all over the world here. There are some flat crazy bastards running the streets dude. I ain't givin up my gun. That's what I'm sayin.
If you are happy with your government telling you that you cannot be trusted with a gun, then fine. I am very happy that your country is crime free. But, there is much more truth than poetry to the saying that when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. That's just the way it is here in America. I can go out back to my shop, and with materials I get from the internet, build a gun in three evenings that will rip you a new A-hole.

Ill agree. It's a cultural thing. Neither way is perfect so we'll just all agree that we are happy with what we have in our respective countries.

My country isn't crime free. But I certainly don't feel the need to own a gun to protect myself. Not even close!

magprob

Oct 23, 2007, 11:18 PM

Skell

Oct 23, 2007, 11:28 PM

And that is fine Skell. I respect your lifestyle and beliefs. My remark about the Socialistic Sissy...whatever I said was not a personal attack. You know that. It was to show the contrast of beliefs and how you will never change most rednecks minds! :)

I know that and I didn't take it as one. I think I am more like you guys than you think. Just a few issues where we disagree. Its why I come here to tell the truth!

Skell

Oct 23, 2007, 11:40 PM

The whole idea that "taking away people's guns gets them off the streets" is pure sh!theadedness.

Elliot

What I find pure sh1theadedness is accepting that there is an epidemic of gun violence involving children that nothing is wrong. But as we have sorted out that's just me and my culture. Im happy being a sh1thead. Beats being shotinthehead!

magprob

Oct 23, 2007, 11:43 PM

Anything beats being shot in the head Skell. That's why you got to practice your fast draw!

ETWolverine

Oct 24, 2007, 07:34 AM

El you so cleverly regurgitate all this information as you always do with your biased spin on it and accuse others of not having data or evidence to back it up. And then when you are pressed to do so you provide web sites from biased organisation similar to that which I have posted above.

Just because you regurgitate facts from website that you think are right because they agree with you doesn't mean they are right.

And yet, here you are with no facts whatsoever to back up your assertion that gun control lowers gun violence. You can't even fine BIASED data that makes thatassertion... because it simply isn't true.

And just so you know, I don't get my data from pro-gun websites. I get them from crime statistics and gun ownership statistis put out by governments. The raw data, unfiltered by any organizations with a bias, speaks pretty clearly on its own. I don't need to spin it.

You have children being killed every day because of gun violence. Surely you don't need me to provide facts of that?

How many? How often? Where? What are the gun cotrol laws like in the places where these events occur? Are the number of deaths from gun violence in locations with strict gun control laws lower or higher than those with more liberal gun policies? Without that data, you are speaking based on annecdotal information, not based on a true knowledge of the issue.

Yet still you think that there is no issue. You all do!

Nobody has denied that there is an issue. Gun violence is a huge issue. There is simply no proof that banning guns will or has ever stopped gun violence. And there is quite a bit of proof to the contrary. We aren't disagreeing on the nature of the problem. It's the solution that you are proposing that I disagree with.

We may be a much smaller country in population but in my memory we have never had a child gunned down at school. NEVER!! We had the Port Arthur massacre which subsequently lead to change in gun laws in this country. Since then we have had a decrease in gun violence!

Interesting. But not entirely accurate.

In 2002, at Monash University, a foreign student killed two other students. Despite the strict gun control laws established in 1996. There was a huge uproar about how a foreigner was able to get his hands on a gun in the first place. The stricter gun laws don't seem to have been effective there, do they.

Additionally, according to Don Weatherburn, head of the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, gun ownership in Australia (specifically in NSW) is up since 1996. So much for getting the guns out of the hands of civillians.

And finally, in 2006, the British Journal of Criminology printed a peer-reviewed article that showed that there has been no significant change in crime statistics in Australia during the 10-year period since the gun laws in Australia were changed.

Then there's the fact that 85% of gun-crimes in Australia were committed with unregistered guns. How do the gun laws keep unregistered weapons out of the hands of criminals? The answer is that they don't. They only keep guns out of the hands of the people who obey the laws in the first place.

And as a side note, did you know that the rate of adult male gun suicides in Australia increased in the years following the 1996 crackdown in gun laws? I'm not sure what to make of that fact, but it's clear that stricter gun control hasn't prevented gun suicides.

And we citizens aren't so paranoid that we feel violated because we don't have the opportunity to overthrow Bush's little lap dog Howard and his government.

That's because you're a sheeple and you follow the herd, even when you are in disagreement with it.

I'm glad my kids will go to school in my country. Even gladder they won't ever set foot in one in yours!

So am I.

As Kahan said "Americans see guns not through a lens of 20/20 facts but through an elaborate stained-glass window. Are you a big proponent of authority? If so, you probably see guns as a way to make the world safer — as a form of protection against evil deviants. Same goes for people whose identity is rooted in self-sufficiency. You see guns as a form of independence. So gun-control laws will not fix the problem, as far as you're concerned."

True to a point. But I tend to be a small-government conservative. I see guns as a protection from government authority as much as from evil deviants.

Simply, I and many many millions of other in the world don't see it like you do. But of course we are wrong!

I look forward to your next piece of diatribe!

You aren't wrong because you disagree with me or see things differently than I do. You are wrong because you're wrong. You are wrong because the historical and statistical evidence shows that you are wrong... even in your own country, which you hold out as an example of how gun control works.

Elliot

Skell

Oct 24, 2007, 04:10 PM

And yet, here you are with no facts whatsoever to back up your assertion that gun control lowers gun violence. You can't even fine BIASED data that makes thatassertion... because it simply isn't true.

Elliot

Because it would be pointless as the biased arguments you make. As I've said. Ive based my mind up by watching your kids being slaughtered each night on the news! That's enough for me!

Duckling

Oct 24, 2007, 04:19 PM

I would establish affordable health care. Making taking care of your health a greater priority than fixing what you didn't take care of.

I would completely restructure Congress and establish term limits.

Abolish frivolous law suits and rewrite insurance laws.

Create a national driver's license instead of individual states complicating matters.

Increase funding small business start-ups. They are crucial to economic success.

And on the second day...

The small business start-ups is one I totally agree with.

Duckling

Oct 24, 2007, 04:21 PM

Hello girl:

I'd give it back to the people I stole it from.

excon

I would have never thought of this. But yes, that's a good one too.

Duckling

Oct 24, 2007, 04:32 PM

First of all, NSG, your question makes an assumption that is in error.

The president does NOT control the money. Congress does. The power of the purse was specifically left to Congress so that the President would never become powerful enough to do the stupid things suggested above, like banning guns and creating "free" healthcare. The idea was that while the President has the power over the military and police in the USA, if he doesn't have control of the purse strings, he can never finance a coup. And in Congress has the power of the purse, but no control of the military, they will never be able to stage a coup for lack of military power. It is a checks-and-balances system.

Now, to some of the suggestions that I have seen above:

Ban guns? Are you nuts? Do you WANT to give away all your rights and freedoms? Do you enjoy the idea that the government will be able to do anything they want to you and you will never be able to stop them because they are armed and you aren't? That's what happened in Hitler's Nazi Germany. The first thing he did was eliminate guns in the hands of civilians. The second thing he did was eliminate their rights. And they couldn't do a damn thing about it because they weren't armed.

If you are so afraid of Bush becoming a dictator (a rediculous thought, but I've heard people say it), why would you deliberately play into that by calling for disarmament of the civilian population? Why would you give away the power to stop the threat of this person you see as a military tyrant?Elliot

Actually, what helped Nazi Germany was some American businesses and banks. The government should have stepped in more and stopped this. An example is IBM. I'm making this point because you are being extreme here. I'm going to show you the flipside of the coin that you brushed under the rug.
Vive le Canada: Before There Was A Hitler, There Were Nazis In America (http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/2007100109085749/print)

However, I don't agree with total government control (obviously)... yet I also do not agree that we should take that control and hand it to elite businessmen. There has to be a balance.

As for "free" healthcare, do you mean free government-run health care? Because if you do, how are you going to fund it. Even the billions that are in the treasury wouldn't cover the costs for more than a year or so. Which means you would have to tax the country to keep such a system going. Which just means that it isn't really "free" is it.

And while you are spending all this money on "free" healthcare, who is going to pay for the upkeep of interstate highways, our telecommunications infrastructure, our energy infrastructure, our police, fire and other emergency services, our military, the intelligence services, our federally-funded education system, our overburdened court system, etc. Where is the money for all that boring but necessary stuff going to come from?Elliot

Maybe we should ask how the Canadians, Brits, and French do this? They all have free healthcare and maintain being amonst the richest countries in the world.

CaptainRich

Oct 24, 2007, 04:41 PM

Canadians, Brits, and French do this? They all have free healthcare and maintain being amonst the richest countries in the world.
Free? What's so good about free? Have you read elsewhere in this site when many have to wait anywhere from several days to several weeks to be seen by a real doctor or critical needs specialist?
Granted, much of our system is jaundiced by pharmaceutical companies

CaptainRich

Oct 24, 2007, 04:42 PM

Because it would be pointless as the biased arguments you make. As ive said. Ive based my mind up by watching your kids being slaughtered each night on the news! Thats enough for me!

i see kids being shot every day in their learning environment.
If your news is playing the images over and over again in your news media, it's because that media wants to distort your perception of the reality here.

Kids, EVERYDAY being shot dead.
There aren't people being murdered every day, as you claim. It your source's tell you that, I'll label that as yellow journalism.

Duckling

Oct 24, 2007, 04:50 PM

Free? What's so good about free? Have you read elsewhere in this site when many have to wait anywhere from several days to several weeks to be seen by a real doctor or critical needs specialist?
Granted, much of our system is jaundiced by pharmaceutical companies

Hey, it's better than how some Americans never see the doctor.

Got you there Captain :)

shygrneyzs

Oct 24, 2007, 05:03 PM

What would I do if I had the control of the billions, as President? I would scrap the reservations and quit paying for Custer's sins. There are better ways to help a nation than keep feeding it. Revise Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare. People who are criminals in their country would not be allowed in this country, strengthen our borders, help those who sincerely need that boost to get them to self sufficiency (endorse education and work programs that teach people to provide for themselves).

People talk about gun control - it is not the gun that is at fault. It is the access to these weapons and the weapons themselves. There are laws on the books - another law is not going to change much. I could go out and buy a weapon without going through the right channels. Would I? No, but I could. Why is it that young people, at the first indication of anger, run home, get a gun and come back shooting? The gun gives them the control they lack in their life. Identify that root problem and then concentrate on honestly fixing it. The family in crisis. The school in crisis.

Skell

Oct 24, 2007, 05:09 PM

Nice cut and paste from Wiki Elliot. However you did seem to edit / leave out a few good arguments against what you wrote. Once again you only produced those arguments that suited you and not the entire article which also dealt with the arguments for.

"In 2007, researchers at the Australian National University reported "There were on average 250 fewer firearm deaths per year after the implementation of the National Firearms Agreement than would have been expected," There was a reduction in both murders and suicides."

Even Don Weahterburn who you cited in your post was quoted as saying that the reports against gun control are inconclusive. Did you miss that bit Elliot??

"Prominent Australian criminologist Don Weatherburn described the Baker & McPhedran article as "reputable" and "well-conducted" and stated that the available data are insufficient to draw stronger conclusions.[20] Weatherburn noted the importance of policing illegal firearm possession and argued that it should not be necessarily concluded that relaxing restrictions would not affect the homicide rate."

"A study co-authored by Professor Simon Chapman argued that the laws have prevented mass shootings, pointing out in the 18 years prior to the Port Arthur massacre there were 13 mass shootings and in the decade since 1996 there have been none."

This proves what I say Elliot about how you twist so called reports, statistics, facts etc. to suit your argument, while completely discounting the other point of view. You imply that your statistics and reports are to be taken as gospel while I have no evidence and am wrong. I have demonstrated above that you copied and pasted from a wiki article but failed to leave in the parts of that article that argued against your opinion. Is that what you call solid evidence??

Some more reading;

Has anything changed in Australia since the new laws went into effect? Homicides committed with firearms have been declining – from 21 percent of all homicides in 1997 to 16 percent in 2002-2003.

Along with the declining use of firearms in homicide, Australia saw a 44% decline in the use of firearms in armed robberies from 1993 to 2003.[6] From 1997 to 2003, the proportion of robberies committed with a firearm dropped from 10 to 6 percent.

Australian Institute of Criminology, “Facts and Figures: 1998."
Australian Institute of Criminology, “Facts and Figures: 2004.”

"Overall certainly the states with the loosest gun laws have high rates of gun deaths," says Rebecca Peters of the Open Society Institute, which conducted the study.

A foundation that promotes gun violence prevention surveyed state gun laws and found Massachusetts has the strictest. And, according to the federal government, Massachusetts also has the nation's lowest gun death rate.

While there are exceptions, there appears to be a pattern. Louisiana -- which researchers found to have virtually no gun laws -- has the highest gun death rate.

"The gun lobby is running a line at the moment that says there are thousands of gun laws out there not being enforced. This study really debunks that notion in terms of preventative gun laws, there are very few gun laws out there," says Peters.

All states must follow federal gun control laws, but 35 don't require licensing or registration of any firearm, including assault weapons. And only four states limit gun purchases to one a month. The National Rifle Association told CBS News, "This isn't a study. This is a piece of anti-gun propaganda," and declined to comment further on the report.

The director of the study does have anti-gun credentials. She led the charge against the gun lobby in Australia after a massacre there left 35 people dead. As a result, semiautomatic rifles and shotguns are now banned.

"I can tell you it was entirely too easy to purchase the guns. And I honestly believe something should be done," says Robyn Anderson, who bought guns for her friends Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. The two then killed 13 people plus themselves at Columbine High School.

She says a state law requiring background checks at gun shows would have stopped her from buying three guns used by the Columbine killers.

"If I had to fill out paperwork with a private dealer I would not have done it," says Anderson.

Forty-four states have this so-called gun show loophole. In Colorado, legislators refused to close the loophole and voted down virtually every other gun control measure introduced since the Columbine massacre.

CBS News - Breaking News Headlines and Video from CBSNews.com (http://www.cbsnews.com)

I like what this guy has to say. You won't Elliot!

Paul Helmke: Gun Violence: What Are We Going To Do About It? - Politics on The Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-helmke/gun-violence-what-are-we_b_47387.html)

I hope you bother to read the above Elliot. And I hope you see the benefit of taking into regard both side of the argument. I constantly hear Americans acknowledge that yes there is a problem with Gun violence but it isn't the guns fault. Maybe, maybe not, but whatever it is that you are doing at the moment to try and stem this epidemic isn't working. Not even close. As you'll see in my post above, you can argue all day that it hasn't worked in Australia and I can argue back with evidence that it does. Even a scholar that you quoted in your arguments admitted that the evidence suggesting that it hasn't worked is not solid. It doesn't hold completely true. If he isn't confident in his own finding how can anyone else be expected to??

So the fact is Elliot, I'm not wrong. Not even close. My historical and statistical data is as strong if not stronger than yours. Notice my links to Australian Institute of Criminology, “Facts and Figures: 2004". Fairly credible source there Elliot wouldn't you agree.

You present your arguments well and demean others with your defensive attitude Elliot but the facts are you're words are no more poignant or educated than mine. Im no fool, don't treat me like one! I will find holes in your arguments all day if you like just like you will with mine. Its never ending. You acknowlege a problem but offer no solution. Unless your solution is mandatory gun carrying by all. Is that it Elliot?

You want to tell me I'm wrong because I'm wrong and not because I simply disagree with you? I don't believe you!

CaptainRich

Oct 24, 2007, 05:16 PM

Hey, it's better than how some Americans never see the doctor.

Got you there Captain :)
Got what there? I have great insurance but I still don't like doctors... Needles! Run away!

michealb

Oct 24, 2007, 05:30 PM

Okay get ready to flame me...

Immigration:
1.) Depot every non US citizen in prison right away. We should not be holding other countries prisoners exceptions made for certain prisoners of course but all regular Joe Blow prisoners back to your country of origin.
2.) Secure the border doesn't matter how but we will know if any non us citizen crosses our border.
3.) Address farmers issues with increased work permits only given out in to people that are not already in the US so if you want to work and you're here illegally you need to move back and get your work permit.

The war in Iraq
1.) Give the government of Iraq a d-day that if they are not ready to take over their country by a certain date maybe a year or so out. Iraq is going to be broken down in to smaller pieces and given to local countries that are friendly to the US in that Middle East.

The war on drugs
The current method that the US is under taking is failing; we are trying to put a square peg through a round hole.
1.) Decimalize the small amounts of all drugs.
2.) Decriminalize all hemp
3.) Start using alternate treatment methods for criminal drug users (such as the cocaine vaccine)
4.) Increase school funding so kids are taught that although legal not a good idea

Gun control
1.) Bill of right is very clear we have the right to own guns. This is the right that allows the people to enforce the government giving us the other rights.

Health insurance
1.) Make sure the health insurance companies operate in a free market.
2.) Have the government work on things that have low too little profit like vaccines

Prisons

1.) Prisons need to be run more like being on the outside.
2.) Prisoners get a basic meal and shelter for free. Have various jobs and education classes that pay them in services and a small income for when they get out. 1 hour in a class room gets you enough credits to buy a dessert for dinner and maybe $1 to be put into a savings account so you have money when you get out. So you don't have to go rob someone the day you get out in order to eat.

Taxes
1.) Move to a consumer tax system such as the fair tax system

Foreign Policy
1.) The majority of world feels that the US uses it's military to often. So only use the US military when other nations put forth more than 51% of the troops. Unless there is going to be direct harm to the US otherwise.
2.) Scale back the majority of the US bases on foreign territory.

Energy
1.) Dramatically increase funding to alternate energy sources this money is not available to any company that makes more than 30% of its profit from oil or oil companies.
2.) Create solar cell mortgages starting in the southwest and increase if feasible. A solar cell mortgage would give people money to buy a solar power system for their house and be paid back at the rate that the system produces electricity. So if it makes $150 of electricity you pay $150 on the loan until it's paid off then you get the electricity free.

I have more but I already have a long post so I'll stop.

Skell

Oct 24, 2007, 05:36 PM

I find it hard to accept that you think a document that was written in the 1700's is still necessarily applicable today! Don't you think that we have come a long way since then and perhaps the Second Amendment may be a little outdated. We are not talking about farmers owning a shotgun to defend themselves against some cattle rustlers. Guns are being used for much more than that today but you think that because it is in the Constitution it can't be tampered with. Please...

CaptainRich

Oct 24, 2007, 06:03 PM

The documents written way back, were long thought out. But even still, they can and are applied to today. Modified. I don't think we're talking about cattle rustling. Or keeping the neighbor's dog off my lawn. But I'd like to think that I can remain proficient with firearms, either for hunting or protection, real or imagined, and not have some entity tell me I'm irresponsible or delusioned.

Many documents have been modified and changed, interpretively, across time.

The U.S. Constitution is considered a living document.

CaptainRich

Oct 24, 2007, 06:22 PM

Skell agrees: American news feeds reporting gun slaying are innacurate are they? Do I need to witness them first hand?
If your local broadcast regurgitate ( you like that word ) the same crap to fill their airtime, I have no control over that.

Skell

Oct 24, 2007, 06:42 PM

So stick your head in the sand then captain and deny there is a problem (you like to do that).

stonewilder

Oct 24, 2007, 06:52 PM

I would use a portion of it to better education and programs to lower the drop out rates. I would analyze Medicaid and make changes where people would pay according to their income rather that just rewarding those who don't work or get pregnant. Basically I would try to spend it to save for the future. Lastly I would pay myself less money.

michealb

Oct 24, 2007, 07:15 PM

BABRAM

Oct 24, 2007, 08:25 PM

The reason the second amendment exists is because the founding fathers had just beat the best trained best equipped military in the world with a volunteer army with no training.
It has been proven time and time again that no matter how good the army is, a military force can not defeat a determined populace (example: Iraq, Vietnam)

There have been many studies that show that when you allow law abiding citizens to have guns, crime goes down.
Crime Plunges in Pro-gun Town (http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/3/27/223955.shtml)

Michael- I do agree, however would like to point out, from my view, Vietnam was lost due to the rules of engagement. Iraq is a slow process because of the civil factions. Also complicated is the fact they they are re-supplied with weaponry and rebels sourced from outside of their own country as well. However originally in Iraq had the people only been on the same page to overturn their murdering dictator it would had been a great example of the populace vs. existing government. I would like to underline what I'm hearing from your point of view, Elliot's and few others here that I agree with: "We the people" and "right to bear arms" in essence means the public (and we are a republic) has the power to balance any threat, even that of our own government if need be.

Bobby

michealb

Oct 25, 2007, 08:17 AM

Skell,

Okay you don't agree that guns lower crime, fine. I'll make my point a different way.

Swimming pools kill more people in United States than guns do. Swimming pools have no use except for recreation. A swimming pool often take the youngest most innocent of our society. So given this information should we ban swimming pools? They clearly present more of a danger to the public than guns do. What about cars? They are kill more people that swimming pools and gun combined. Cars are very often used to avoid police and commit murder. Where does it end? Once cars, swimming pools and guns are gone. Do we get rid of pointy objects just how far do we take this train of thought?

ETWolverine

Oct 25, 2007, 08:38 AM

Skell,

First, what makes you think I cut and pasted from Wikipedia or anywhere else?

Second, Weatherburn clearly states that gun ownership in Australia is up. So whatever other conclusions that may or may not be drawn from that fact, the one conclusion that may be drawn is that more Australians own guns today than before the gun control laws in 1996 were initiated. Ergo, gun control laws have not had the effect of decreasing the number of guns owned by the population. Do you deny this basic fact? True, no other conclusions can be drawn from the studies... including the fact that gun control laws decrease gun crimes. Which only strengthens my point. There is no proff one way or the other that strict gun laws have any effect on gun crimes or gun-related deaths. Period. I haven't tried to draw any othe conclusion from Weatherburn's statement except that there are more guns on Australia today than there were in 1996.

As for Chapman's argument that there have been "no mass shootings" since the stricter gun control laws were put into place, that simply isn't true. As I mentioned, there is the Monash University shooting. So his conclusion that there have been "none" is already untrue. But more important is the question of WHY there have been no mass shootings. Is it because of stricter gun laws, or because of the fact that (as Weatherburn reported) there are more Australians with guns who are able to fight back against a potential mass-shooter?

Now, for murder and violent cime statistics in the USA by state for 2006:

-------------- per 100,000 pop.
State --------Murders-------- Violent Cimes
USA----------- 5.7------------- 473.5
Alaska ---------5.4------------- 688.0
Alabama -------8.3 -------------425.2
Arkansas -------7.3 -------------551.6
Arizona --------7.5 --------------501.4
California -------6.8 -------------532.5
Colorado -------3.3--------------391.6
Connecticut---- 3.1------------- 280.8
Delaware -------4.9 -------------681.6
Florida ---------6.2 --------------712.1
Georgia --------6.4 --------------471.0
Hawaii ---------1.6 --------------281.2
Iowa ----------1.8 --------------283.5
Idaho ----------2.5-------------- 247.2
Illinois---------- 6.1 --------------541.6
Indiana ---------5.8 --------------314.8
Kansas ---------4.6 --------------425.0
Kentucky -------4.0-------------- 263.0
Louisiana -------9.9 --------------594.4
Massachusets ---2.9 --------------447.0
Maryland -------9.7 ---------------678.6
Maine ----------1.7 ---------------115.5
Michigan -------7.1 ---------------562.4
Minnesota ------2.4 ---------------312.0
Missouri --------6.3 ---------------545.6
Mississippi ------7.7 ---------------298.6
Montana --------1.8 ---------------253.7
North Carolina ---6.1 ---------------475.6
North Dakota ----1.3 ---------------127.9
Nebraska --------2.8 ---------------281.8
New Hampshire ---1.0 --------------138.7
New Jersey ------4.9 ---------------351.6
New Mexico -----6.8 ----------------643.2
Nevada ---------9.0 ----------------606.8
New York -------4.8 ----------------434.9
Ohio ------------4.7 ----------------350.3
Oklahoma -------5.8 ----------------497.4
Oregon ---------2.2 ----------------286.8
Pennsylvania ----5.9 ----------------434.9
Rhode Island ----2.6 ----------------227.5
South Carolina ---8.3 ----------------765.5
South Dakota ----1.2 ---------------171.4
Tennessee -------6.8 ---------------760.2
Texas -----------5.9 ----------------516.3
Utah ------------1.8 ----------------224.4
Virginia ----------5.2 ----------------282.2
Vermont ---------1.9 ----------------136.6
D.C. -------------29.1 --------------1508.4
Washington ------3.0 ----------------345.9
Wisconsin --------3.0 ----------------284.0
West Virginia -----4.1 ----------------279.7
Wyoming ---------1.7 ----------------239.6

(Statistical data from national crime statistics at Disastercenter.com)

The locations with the highest murder rates and violent crime rates is DC. Not so coincidentally, DC also has the STRONGEST gun control laws in the entire nation. No gun ownership by civillians is permitted in DC at all.

The state with the lowest murder rate is New Hampshire. Again, not so coincidentally, New Hampshire has some of the most liberal gun laws, not requiring liscensing for any weapon, and only requiring a permit for the carry of handguns. There are no child access prevention laws or child possession laws in New Hampshire.

Maine, which has the lowest violent crime rates in the nation, also has some of the most liberal gun laws in tha nation, not even requiring a license for carrying a handgun, and only requiring a permit if the weapon is concealed. (Open carry does not require a permit.) Again, they have no juvenile access or juvenile possession laws on the books.

North Dakota, which has the second lowest murder rate and the second lowest violent crime rate also has very liberal gun laws, requiring a licence only for concealed carry of a handgun. (Open carry does not require a license.)

Are you getting the point yet? The states with the lowest crime rates have the most liberal gun laws.

Massachusets, which has some of the strictest gun control laws on the books, ranks only 10th lowest in murder rate and 29th lowest in violent crime rate. Massachusets requires permits for purchase of rifles, licensing for ownership of rifles, requires permits to purchase handguns and licenses for ownership and carry of handguns. They also have very strict juvenile possession, access and transfer laws. Yet they are NOT among the states with the lowest crime rates.

(Gun control law information from CNN.)

The point is that strict gun laws aren't preventing crime. And there is strong evidence that gun ownership does prevent crime.

And I agree with you that what we are doing right now isn't working to prevent gun violence. But what we are doing right now... the national and global trend... is to make stricter gun laws. THAT is what isn't working. THAT is what we need to change.

Unfortunately, I can't read the citations you posted. The firewall on my computer prevents access to them. Can you cut & paste them to word and send them to me in a private message, or C&P them here? I am interested in reading them.

Elliot

Skell

Oct 25, 2007, 04:20 PM

Skell,

First, what makes you think I cut and pasted from Wikipedia or anywhere else?

Elliot

Your previous post on the matter contained text directly taken from here. That's what makes me think, in fact know is a better word, you cut and pasted from Wikipedia. Or am I to assumt that you wrote your spiel in your own words and it just so happened to read word for word what was on the Wiki page.

Gun politics in Australia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia#Measuring_the_Effects_of _Firearms_Laws_in_Australia)

Face it. You copied and pasted part of an argument from a web page that suited you. You failed to ignore important facts on the same page that noted;

Between 1991 and 2001, the number of firearm related deaths in Australia declined 47%.

If you consider a double murder a mass shooting then OK. The article should read that in the 18 years prior to the Port Arthur massacre there were 13 mass shootings and in the decade since 1996 there have been one instead of none as it claims.. Still an improvement by anyone's measure Elliot!

Put simply Elliot you put a spin on the facts to make it read good in your post. It is clear you cut and pasted your post from Wiki (or somewhere with the same text) but failed ot leave out many facts indicating that the gun control laws have made a difference.

It is a pointless exercise trying to point out to you that the arguments for gun control are as strong as the arguments against it. Your pig headed and it is clearly ingrained in to your psychi that whatever Elliot thinks must be right. It must be hard being right all the time. Or at least it must be hard to never be ables to consider that perhaps what you are doing may need a change in direction as it isn't working. Doesn't leave much room for improvement if you are already perfect!

Skell

Oct 25, 2007, 04:42 PM

Just a quick one. So what do you attribute this sharp decline in gun related deaths in Australia immediately after the introduction of gun control laws? Better policing? A change in attitude by criminals? What do you put it down to?

There are many arguments to point to the fact that gun ownership is down. It is pointless posting the links because you can't read them and won't accept them anyway!

You want to know why gun ownership has gone up? Because all those previously illegal and unregistered fire arms have now been registered and are legal. They are legally stored at rifle ranges. Previously, just like in the US no one bothered to legally register there gun. Since tough gun laws have come in people have been forced to register their firearm which indicates an increase in gun ownership. Its inaccurate.

In addition, all remaining guns must be individually registered to their licensed owners, private firearm sales are no longer permitted and each gun purchase through a licensed arms dealer is scrutinised by police to establish a "genuine reason" for ownership. Possession of guns for self-defence is specifically prohibited, and very few civilians are permitted to own a handgun. All the nation's governments, police forces and police unions support the current gun laws.

In the 1996-97 Australian gun buy-back, two-thirds of a million semi-automatic and pump-action rifles and shotguns were sold to the government at market value. Thousands more gun owners volunteered their firearms for free, and nearly 700,000 guns were destroyed.

The Australian rate of gun death per 100,000 population remains one-fifth that of the United States.

In Canada, where new gun laws were introduced in 1991 and 1995, the number of gun deaths has reached a 30-year low.

In the United Kingdom, civilian handguns were banned, bought back from their owners and destroyed. In the year following the law change, Scotland recorded a 17% drop in all firearm-related offences. The British Home Office reports that in the nine months following the handgun ban, firearm-related offences in England and Wales dropped by 13%.

A British citizen is still 50 times less likely to be a victim of gun homicide than an American.

Australian Bureau of Statistics.

These statistics make it pretty clear there is a direct relationship between gun laws and firearm related crime.

The reason it doesn't necessarily hold up in the US (and that is still debatable) is because the states that you claim have strict gun control laws don't actively police them. Until strict laws are put in place and actively policed then of course it won't change.

ETWolverine

Oct 26, 2007, 06:58 AM

Between 1991 and 2001, the number of firearm related deaths in Australia declined 47%.

What about the total murder rates? As I understand it, knife-crimes and knife-murders are way up, and the overall crime rate hasn't changed in the least.

If you consider a double murder a mass shooting then OK. The article should read that in the 18 years prior to the Port Arthur massacre there were 13 mass shootings and in the decade since 1996 there have been one instead of none as it claims.. Still an improvement by anyone's measure Elliot!

Again, true, and I acknowledged that in my response above. However, what is the cause for that improvement? Is it because of stricter gun laws or because MORE AUSTRALIANS HAVE GUNS NOW THAN IN THE YEARS PRIOR TO THE 1996 GUN LEGISLATION? Unless you can prove that there is a direct correlation between gun laws and crime rates, there is no proof. If the number of guns in Australia had gone down instead of up, you might be able to argue that crime statistics are a function of the strictness of gun laws. Since that is not the case, there is no proof of that. Ergo, my argument that gun ownership prevents crime and gun laws do not continues to have a basis. And considering that in most cases where gun ownership is high crime is low (and vice versa), and considering that Australia bears out that pattern, I'd say that I have a pretty strong argument.

Put simply Elliot you put a spin on the facts to make it read good in your post.

EVERYBODY does that. That's what debate is about. People give arguments for their point of view. It just so happens that my arguments are better than yours. But why would I undermine my own position by giving an opposing argument? Is that how you debate? You must not have been on your school debating team.

It is clear you cut and pasted your post from Wiki (or somewhere with the same text) but failed ot leave out many facts indicating that the gun control laws have made a difference.

I did not cut and paste. I did use wikipedia, but I went to the sources cited by wikipedia to get the information in raw form. If it looks like I cut and pasted from wikipedia, perhaps it is because the author of the wikipedia article cut and pasted from the same primary sources I used... which makes sense since I used his bibliography for my research.

I stated the arguments that support my view, yes. I also pointed out the weaknesses in the arguments that oppose my view. So what? Is it my job to make your argument for you? Especially when I disagree with your argument?

It is a pointless exercise trying to point out to you that the arguments for gun control are as strong as the arguments against it.

But they aren't. There is a clear pattern in case after case that proves otherwise, and the sole case that you have pointed out in favor of your argument, Australia, actually proves MY pattern and my argument, as I pointed out.

Your pig headed and it is clearly ingrained in to your psychi that whatever Elliot thinks must be right.

And you are any different? I haven't met too many people outside of a psych ward who go around thinking that they are wrong all the time. Are you such a person? It must be depressing to go around thinking you are wrong.

The fact that I have the stastical data to back up my position just makes that belief that I am right stronger. And to date, you have not been able to question a single one of my arguments... the best you have been able to do is bring up one case where you believe that the pattern differs. And I have shown how there is no proof of that. But my statistical evidence remains unassailed. You haven't even been able to question it.

It must be hard being right all the time.

Nah... it's pretty easy. Being WRONG all the time... that must be hard to deal with.

Or at least it must be hard to never be ables to consider that perhaps what you are doing may need a change in direction as it isn't working.

As I mentioned at the end of my last post, I am trying to change what we are doing because it isn't working. But the thing that ain't working is stricter gun laws. I'm trying very hard to change that, because after 50 years of making striter and stricter gun laws in the USA, it has been demonstrated that those gun laws have not had any noticeable positive effect on lowering violent crime, murder or manslaughter. Stricter guns laws ain't working. So I'm trying to change it.

Doesn't leave much room for improvement if you are already perfect!

Yeah, well, we all have our crosses to bear. Being perfect is mine. It's a tough job, but someone has to do it.

Elliot

michealb

Oct 26, 2007, 04:50 PM

Sounds like we need to have gun control thread.

One more thing I thought of that I would do. I'd get rid of the death penalty. The government makes too many mistakes to do something so final.

nicespringgirl

Oct 26, 2007, 08:46 PM

Being perfect is mine. It's a tough job, but someone has to do it.

I am writing this down... that's so awesome!
Elliot your response is excellent.:)

odom2008dotcom

Oct 27, 2007, 02:38 PM

This person shares the same view I do, I will need a running mate

odom2008dotcom

Oct 27, 2007, 05:09 PM

Everything said by ETWolverine I support also, ETWolverine lets change America

YouTube - CNN / Lou Dobbs - Gov.Spitzer is spolied rich kid brat (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LdWva9vlF0)
YouTube - Border Security and Illegal Immigration - Odom 2008 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9ckUvCIDMk)
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself. (http://www.youtube.com/odom2008dotcom)

Primary item focus on America and Americans. Improve the quality of life .Education,Security and Heath care.
No Excuses,No Politics Because I am not politician, just a common everyday American who believes it's time for real change. And is willing take a stand for a better future.

1) Put aside the concept of red vs blue. I ask for your help in doing this, to a find common ground, so can work together to find long term solutions for a better future.

2)Radically revamp education. Education is the infrastructure of any great nation, regardless of social status and provide the same opportunities to all. This will solve so many of today's problems and this will provide equal opportunities for all. And not to mention this policy will make the United States the best of yet again. Secure all schools with technology. My edacation plan we be unlike any before
It, focus on learning not social status.

3)Illegal immigration. Secure the borders with sense of urgency, and deport those here illegally within 30 days. If you want to be a part of the American society, learn English and come here legally, we welcome you.

4)Stop policing the world and focus on American problems and not other countries, spend our money here and not over there. Focus on Security and winning the War on Terror. We can't fix the worlds problems until we fix our own. Then we will be better suited to address problems on the world stage

5)Make English the official language of the United States.

6)Revamp American infrastructure based on technology for a better future, therefore improving the everyday life of Americans.

7)Stop the outsourcing of American jobs; bring the manufacturing back to America through the use of technology.

8)Modernize the military for the future and protect our soldier with better life saving gear
"I would push for progress in the "Future Warrior" weapons programs in order to get our soldiers in the field the best and most effective equipment available to the US arsenal"
This is excalty the point

9)Fusion Power, which is not nuclear and has no radiation, would power national power grids. Private / Mass Transit would be powered by electricity from Fusion Reactors. Fusion Reactors would be used to crack sea water into Hydrogen/Oxygen, to be used as fuel for cars, aircraft. Homes and Cities will be a 100% electrified or will be using hydrogen fuel, which has nearly zero harmful effects and has no pollution or green house gases

gallivant_fellow

Oct 28, 2007, 10:27 AM

Fusion Reactors would be used to crack sea water into Hydrogen/Oxygen, to be used as fuel for cars,
How about a car that runs on compressed air. Not necessarily oxygen or hydrogen or anything that needs to be isolated, but just the air around us. And an air compressor in the car would be charged by the alternator so it could keep compressing air for the car, equaling infinite fuel. The car would be totally self sufficient and keep in mind that the only thing being done to the air is that it's being compressed, which will have zero effect on the environment.

If you haven't heard about this car or seen it on T.V. then here is a link The MDI Air Car - The World´s Cleanest Car. (http://www.theaircar.com/)
There is still more research to be done before it's as perfect as I made it sound AND it's practical. But still, what a leap past squirting dead dinosaur/plant cocktail into my car so it can use a select amount of it to burn, making me go forward, while poisoning my air. It's almost funny how we power our cars, but it's real.

Skell

Oct 28, 2007, 04:12 PM

For the record Australia wasn't the only case I pointed out Elliot. You must not have read my post.
We are talking about guns and gun deaths Elliot. It is clear in the Statistics that GUN control reduces GUN crime. It is plain as day!! Did you miss that part??

Did you miss the part that explained to you why statistics relating gun ownership has gone up. Legal ownership numbers have risen but number of guns decreased dramatically.

I'm not wrong all the time Elliot. However I am not so ignorant as to think I am right all the time.

From what you have shown me I don't see how your argument is stronger that mine.

I still find it perplexing to understand how you can say that gun laws have failed in Australia when it is clear that gun crime, gun deaths, mass murders etc etc. have all decreased dramatically...

NUMBER OF DEATHS

During the reference period, 1980-95, a total of 10,150 deaths were registered as firearm-related, accounting for 0.5% of all deaths reported. However in terms of premature mortality, firearm deaths are more significant, accounting for about 2.4% of total years of potential life lost before age 76 (see Technical Note). Of total deaths from external causes, which include accidents of all types, and all suicides and homicides, firearm deaths contributed 8.9%. Although the relative magnitude of deaths from the use of firearms as a cause of death is small, such deaths still have public health and social significance. Analysis of ABS mortality data indicates that firearms are involved in approximately one-quarter of all suicides and one-fifth of all homicides.
The majority (78%) of firearm deaths during the reference period were suicides, 15% were homicides while deaths resulting from the accidental discharge of firearms contributed 5%. The remaining 2% were made up of a small number of deaths resulting from legal intervention (deaths by law enforcement agents in the performance of legal duties) and deaths where the intent was undetermined.

OVERALL TRENDS

The crude firearms death rate declined from 4.8 deaths per 100,000 population in 1980 to 2.6 in 1995 (see table 9). This represented a decline of 46% over a period of 16 years. The rate of decline observed remains about the same when firearm death rates are standardised for age to minimise the effect of variations in the age structure of the population over the years. (For details on standardisation see paragraph 9 of the Explanatory Notes.) The 1995 standardised rate of 2.6 was the lowest death rate from firearm use recorded during the reference period.

4397.0 - Firearms Deaths, Australia, 1980 to 1995 (http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/b06660592430724fca2568b5007b8619/9c85bd1298c075eaca2568a900139342!OpenDocument)

In 2000, the United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute (UNICRI) conducted an International Crime Victims Survey that included comparative data on firearm ownership in Australia, the USA, Canada and the UK. From this survey the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) estimated that in 2000 about 10 per cent of Australian households owned a gun, reflecting a decline of 45 per cent in gun ownership since 1989. In Australia, the majority of households which owned a firearm did so for hunting or sport-related purposes. Details of the findings were published in the firearm ownership section of Australian Crime – Facts and Figures 2001.

After the Nationwide Agreement on Firearms was introduced in 1996, the AIC was asked to establish the National Firearms Monitoring Program which regularly produces publications on firearm offences and related issues in Australia.

According to recent firearms data from the AIC, there are currently about 2.5 million registered firearms in Australia belonging to 731 567 individual licence holders.

You see Elliot I will find just as much information to refute your claims that gun ownership makes the world a safer place. Put simply You are less likely to be killed by a gun in this country now than you were 20 years ago prior to gun control laws. And the same goes for the UK and Canada.

ETWolverine

Oct 29, 2007, 07:26 AM

For the record Australia wasn't the only case I pointed out Elliot. You must not have read my post.

I read your post very well. The only other example you gave was Massachusets, and I disproved that example as being factually untrue.

We are talking about guns and gun deaths Elliot. It is clear in the Statistics that GUN control reduces GUN crime. It is plain as day!! Did you miss that part??

But what of overall crime? What's the difference between getting shot to death and getting stabbed to death. If the same number of people are getting killed in crimes, then your gun laws haven't really changed anything, have they. Sure, there fewer gun deaths... so what? They have been replaced by knife-deaths. It's a distinction without a difference. Crime rates and violent crime rates, and murder rates are the same as before.

Did you miss the part that explained to you why statistics relating gun ownership has gone up. Legal ownership numbers have risen but number of guns decreased dramatically.

So there are more people owning guns but fewer guns exist? How does that work? Does that make sense? Not to me.

Sounds like someone is trying to justify something by twisting logic.

I'm not wrong all the time Elliot.

Still waiting for proof of that.

However I am not so ignorant as to think I am right all the time.

I am assuming that you mean "arrogant". And it's only arrogance when you're wrong.

From what you have shown me I don't see how your argument is stronger that mine.

Then perhaps the problem lies with YOU, not me. If every case that BOTH of us point out show that strict gun laws do not result in lower crime rates and the vast majority of cases point to the fact more linient gun lawes and higher gun ownership levels do result in lower crime rates, it seems to me that my argument is pretty damn strong.

I still find it perplexing to understand how you can say that gun laws have failed in Australia when it is clear that gun crime, gun deaths, mass murders etc etc. have all decreased dramatically...

NUMBER OF DEATHS

During the reference period, 1980-95, a total of 10,150 deaths were registered as firearm-related, accounting for 0.5% of all deaths reported. However in terms of premature mortality, firearm deaths are more significant, accounting for about 2.4% of total years of potential life lost before age 76 (see Technical Note). Of total deaths from external causes, which include accidents of all types, and all suicides and homicides, firearm deaths contributed 8.9%. Although the relative magnitude of deaths from the use of firearms as a cause of death is small, such deaths still have public health and social significance. Analysis of ABS mortality data indicates that firearms are involved in approximately one-quarter of all suicides and one-fifth of all homicides.
The majority (78%) of firearm deaths during the reference period were suicides, 15% were homicides while deaths resulting from the accidental discharge of firearms contributed 5%. The remaining 2% were made up of a small number of deaths resulting from legal intervention (deaths by law enforcement agents in the performance of legal duties) and deaths where the intent was undetermined.

OVERALL TRENDS

The crude firearms death rate declined from 4.8 deaths per 100,000 population in 1980 to 2.6 in 1995 (see table 9). This represented a decline of 46% over a period of 16 years. The rate of decline observed remains about the same when firearm death rates are standardised for age to minimise the effect of variations in the age structure of the population over the years. (For details on standardisation see paragraph 9 of the Explanatory Notes.) The 1995 standardised rate of 2.6 was the lowest death rate from firearm use recorded during the reference period.

4397.0 - Firearms Deaths, Australia, 1980 to 1995 (http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/b06660592430724fca2568b5007b8619/9c85bd1298c075eaca2568a900139342!OpenDocument)

In 2000, the United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute (UNICRI) conducted an International Crime Victims Survey that included comparative data on firearm ownership in Australia, the USA, Canada and the UK. From this survey the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) estimated that in 2000 about 10 per cent of Australian households owned a gun, reflecting a decline of 45 per cent in gun ownership since 1989. In Australia, the majority of households which owned a firearm did so for hunting or sport-related purposes. Details of the findings were published in the firearm ownership section of Australian Crime – Facts and Figures 2001.

After the Nationwide Agreement on Firearms was introduced in 1996, the AIC was asked to establish the National Firearms Monitoring Program which regularly produces publications on firearm offences and related issues in Australia.

According to recent firearms data from the AIC, there are currently about 2.5 million registered firearms in Australia belonging to 731 567 individual licence holders.

Not once do these statistics talk about overall crime rates, deaths due to violence other than gun violence, etc. What's the difference if there are fewer gun deaths if the same number of people are dying as a result of crime? How does that indicate efficacy of gun laws? The same number of deaths are occurring!! The same number of crimes are occurring!!

You see Elliot I will find just as much information to refute your claims that gun ownership makes the world a safer place.

Only if you ignore overall data and focus ONLY on guns and not knives and other murders. Australia isn't safer... the same number of people are getting murdered.

Put simply You are less likely to be killed by a gun in this country now than you were 20 years ago prior to gun control laws. And the same goes for the UK and Canada.

Sure. But you are twice (three times, according to some accounts) as likely to be stabbed to death in Australia. The number of gun deaths is down but they have been replaced by knife deaths on a 1:1 ratio. You've gained nothing except a change in the way people are murdered in your country. That's not much of a gain in my book. But perhaps knife murders are more acceptable to you because guns aren't involved.

So what do you intend to do about the "epidemic" of knife deaths? Planning on making stricter knife laws? Going to get the knives off the streets?

And you have not proven such a trend to be true in either the UK or Canada. UK's gun murder rate has been increasing steadily over the past decade, along with their overall crime rates. I haven't really looked at Canada's crime statistics recently so I can't comment without additional research. Ut the last time I looked (several years ago) their crime statistics did not differ significantly from the USA's in terms of gun-law/crime trends.

Bottom line: crime is going to happen. People are going to kill each other for various reasons including greed, lust and hatred. Trying to eliminate guns won't change that basic fact of human nature. All that strict gun laws do is leave law-abiding people with no way to defend themselves against criminals who manage to get their hands on guns anyway despite government's best efforts to keep them out of criminals' hands. Even in cases where the government can decrease the number of guns, people find other ways to kill each other and commit crimes against each other. So stopping guns changes nothing. However, when gun ownership is more prevalent, crime rates decrease because potential criminals know that they are likely to face a person equally armed rather than a helpless individual, and they instead go to places where their potential victims are more likely to be weak and helpless.

Elliot

Skell

Oct 29, 2007, 04:05 PM

Skell

Oct 29, 2007, 04:08 PM

So there are more people owning guns but fewer guns exist? How does that work? Does that make sense? Not to me.

Elliot

Gun ownership numbers have gone up because people are now forced to legally register fire arms where as previously the laws did not require this or were not as stringently enforced.

That's how it works. I wouldn't expect that to make sense to you Elliot.

ETWolverine

Oct 30, 2007, 06:39 AM

AMERICAN CRIME STATS:

Drug offences 560.1 per 100,000 people [4th of 34]
Murders 12,658 [6th of 62]
Murders (per capita) 0.042802 per 1,000 people [24th of 62]
Murders with firearms 8,259 [4th of 32]
Murders with firearms (per capita) 0.0279271 per 1,000 people [8th of 32]

SOURCES: Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, covering the period 1998 - 2000 (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention); UNICRI (United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute). 2002. Correspondence on data on crime victims. March. Turin

AUSTRALIA CRIME STATS

Murders 302 [32nd of 62]
Murders (per capita) 0.0150324 per 1,000 people [43rd of 62]
Murders with firearms 59 [21st of 32]
Murders with firearms (per capita) 0.00293678 per 1,000 people [27th of 32]
Prisoners 22,894 prisoners [42nd of 164]

SOURCES: Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, covering the period 1998 - 2000 (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention); UNODC

CANADA CRIME STATS

Murders 489 [26th of 62]
Murders (per capita) 0.0149063 per 1,000 people [44th of 62]
Murders with firearms 165 [12th of 32]
Murders with firearms (per capita) 0.00502972 per 1,000 people [20th of 32]

UNITED KINGDOM CRIME STATS

Murders 850 [18th of 62]
Murders (per capita) 0.0140633 per 1,000 people [46th of 62]
Murders with firearms 62 [20th of 32]
Murders with firearms (per capita) 0.00102579 per 1,000 people [32nd of 32]

The stats tell me Elliot that our murders per capita are way down on yours. Not just GUN murders but murders which includes knives.

Yep. Australia has lower crime rates than the USA. But how has stricter gun laws contributed to that statistic? Australia had lower crime rates than the USA prior to 1996 as well. The stricter gun laws established in 1996 didn't change that. In fact, they have had NO EFFECT at all on Australian crime rates.

The fact is Elliot that in a country where you assert it should be safer because ordinary citizens are able to carry guns you are actually worse off.

That's because in most of the USA, guns are strictly regulated. However in cases where guns are not strictly regulated, the crime rates are lower in the places with more linient regulations.

For instance, in New Hampshire, where gun control is minimal, the murder rate is 1 for every 100,000 population, or .001 per 1000. That is 1/10th of the number of murders per capita that take place in Australia. Maine's murder rate is 0.0017 per 1,000, or 1/5th of that of Australia. North Dakota's murder rate is 0.0013 per 1,000, also roughly 1/10th of the Australian murder rate. Clearly in states where gun control is minimal, crime rates are lower than in places where gun control is strict, including Australia. The overall US crime rate does not prove anything since MOST states regulate guns strictly.

You are more likely to be murdered in any manner in the US than countries like mine who have gun laws. So your argument that people carrying guns makes it safer just doesn't make sense.

Yes it does. Again, since MOST states have strict gun laws, the fact is that most people do not own guns. Criminals, however, do own them, and so crime is high in those states. In states where gun ownership is legal and not restricted, crime rates and murder rates are 1/10th of those in Australia.

Bottom line: Crime is going to happen. People are going to kill each other. Living in a country where carrying a gun is legal doesn't make you any safer. It does however make you more likely to be shot. It doenst even make you less likely to be murdered with a knife. Your still more likely to be killed.

Using Maine, New Hampshire and North Dakota as examples, your statement seems to be untrue and not based on statistical evidence.

Or are you just going to tell me that your country is more violent than mine. If so then perhaps it is justifiable for you to carry a gun. But it doesn't mean the rest of the world needs to.

First, I have never made any statements about what other countries should do. I have only spoken about what I think the USA should do. Second, I don't believe that we are more violent than other countries. But I do believe that in states where gun ownership is restricted, people are more helpless and the criminals are more brazen. And the statistical data bears that out.

Im safer here in Australia without a weapon than you are in the US even with your assault rifle.

Apparently not. I'll repeat, North Dakota, Maine and New Hampshire have murder rates that are 1/10th to 1/5th of those in Australia, due to their liberal gun laws.

Im sorry you live in such a dangerous climate that guns make you feel safe. As I've said all I along I sense that this is in issue of culture more than anything.

I sense ignorance of the state of US gun control laws, lack of statistical information, and a denial of what is evident to anyone who researches this issue... gun laws do not improve safety fom crime. Legal gun ownership does.

Elliot

gallivant_fellow

Oct 30, 2007, 12:47 PM

You think because you have that little pistol tucked under your pillow that it gives you supreme power over your government?? Hahahaha. Sorry again. Your mighty US army will be defeated by civilians with hand guns and the like?? Is that what you're saying??? C'mon. I thought you were an intelligent man El.
An old quote from you Skell, but I have to comment on it. In cities like NYC, Chicago, LA, they have handguns. In the rest of the US, like where I live, they have rifles comparable to sniper rifles and they are trained to use them with accuracy and stealth from hunting. Of course the military is more powerful, but if it was civilians vs. our troops (for some crazy reason) our troops would have a damn hard time beating an entire nation of snipers (and yes, I would consider sitting in a hunting blind for days sniping, not sharpshooting).

michealb

Oct 30, 2007, 01:32 PM

I honestly don't care how many gun deaths there are. Taking away my rights is not an option.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Ben Franklin

inthebox

Oct 30, 2007, 01:32 PM

ETWolverine

Oct 30, 2007, 02:18 PM

(and yes, I would consider sitting in a hunting blind for days sniping, not sharpshooting)

Possibly. But in truth snipers also MOVE stealthily. In the Israeli military they call it "shesh b'shishim". I'm not sure what it is called here. But the technique, which I was taught years ago in basic training, includes moving inches over a multiple hour period (30 meters over a 2 day period is not unheard of) to slowly and unnoticeably move closer to your target. I was decent at it. Special forces and snipers are friggin' experts. I suspect that Kindj, who was a SEAL knows much more about the technique than I do. But that is the difference between a sniper and a sharpshooter.

Nevertheless, despite the semantic differences between sniper and sharpshooter, your point is well-made. When roughly 5% (15 million people) of the nation is armed with high-powered hunting rifles and large calibur sport-shooting rifles, as well as untold numbers of handguns, the ability to make home-made explosives and weapons out of kitchen chemicles (I can put together a crude form of mustard gas in a few minutes with the right household cleansers), the use of industrial machinery that can be converted to act as weapons in a pinch, heavy construction equipment that is as durable and agile as many tanks, and acess industrial explosives and chemicals and equipment, the chances of taking on the US military successfully are much more realistic than many people might think. In a civil war against our own military, with 15-1 numerical superiority on the side of the civilians, along with intimate knowledge of the territory that most soldiers do not have of areas outside their own home towns, and the equipment and abilities that I spoke of, the chances aren't that bad, actually. In fact, at that point, the military's soles tactical advantages become discipline and combat experience. And that much can be available to former soldiers who are now retired who fight on the side of the civilians. The odds are actually in favor of the civilians in most ways.

So the argument that "my little handgun can't really make a difference" is not true.

Great point, GF.

Elliot

michealb

Oct 30, 2007, 02:20 PM

I would also venture to hazard a politically incorrect guess that certain ethnic minorities have higher rates of gun violence and murder than the general population and that "stricter" gun controls have less of an effect than race in the risk for gun violence.

I don't have the statistical expertise or the time to crunch the figures on this, but if any of these factors proves true , then the effectiveness of "stricter" gun control laws is moot.

Your in luck I have the expertise and the time. I did your two and two that I thought might make a difference as well. I only did it for the top 10 and the bottom 10 though. The two I thought might make a difference were home ownership and high school degrees.

State--------murder---V.crime-----Race----P.density—H.owner-H.degree
D.C.-----------29.1------1508.4------57------9,378------40.8------77.8
Louisiana------9.9------594.4------33------102.6------67.9------74.8
Maryland------9.7------678.6------29.3------541.9------67.7------83.8
Nevada--------9--------606.8------7.7------18.2------60.9------80.7
Alabama------8.3------425.2------26.4------87.6------72.5------75.3
South Carolina8.3------765.5------29.2------133.2------72.5------76.3
Mississippi----7.7------298.6------36.9------60.6------72.3------72.9
Arizona-------7.5------501.4------3.6------45.2------68------81
Arkansas-----7.3------551.6------15.7------51.3------69.4------75.3
Michigan-----7.1------562.4------14.3------175------73.8------83.4
Minnesota----2.4------312------4.3------61.8------74.6------87.9
Oregon-------2.2------286.8------1.8------35.6------64.3------85.1
Vermont------1.9------136.6------0.6------65.8------70.6------86.4
Iowa---------1.8------283.5------2.3------52.4------72.3------86.1
Montana-----1.8------253.7------0.4------6.2------69.1------87.2
Utah---------1.8------224.4------1------27.2------71.5------87.7
Maine--------1.7------115.5------0.8------41.3------71.6------85.4
Wyoming----1.7------239.6------0.9------5.1------70------87.9
Hawaii------1.6------281.2------2.3------188.6------56.5------84.6
North Dakota1.3------127.9------0.8------9.3------66.6------83.9
South Dakota1.2------171.4------0.8------9.9------68.2------84.66
New Hampshire1------138.7------1------137.8------69.7------87.4
*edit: trying to make it readable.

michealb

Oct 30, 2007, 02:22 PM

You'll need to import my data into excel to read it apparently.
*edit: I think I have it readable now.

ETWolverine

Oct 30, 2007, 02:42 PM

From ET's

Last post it can be pointed out that Maine, New Hampshire, North Dakota
Are less densely populated, there population is more homogenous and less diverse, and perhaps drugs and gangs are not as prevalent and that is why gun homicide is much less than in the US in general and compared with Australia.

Perhaps. But WHY is that the case? I would argue that the reason that drugs and gangs are not as prevalent in those locations is because of gun ownership. Drug dealers and gang-bangers are not as free to act with impunity as they are elsewhere. If they try, they risk getting shot by a well-armed civilian who is will and able to protect his property, his family and his neighborhood. So the drug dealers and gang-bangers move to places where armed opposition is less likely.

I would also venture to hazard a politically incorrect guess that certain ethnic minorities have higher rates of gun violence and murder than the general population and that "stricter" gun controls have less of an effect than race in the risk for gun violence.

I would not disagree with that politically incorrect statement. However, there are states where crime is low, but the minority population is not relatively lower than other places.

For instance, Ohio is known to be an important polling state for elections because it has a population that reflects the USA as a whole, almost exactly. It tends to be a good indicator of how specific ethnic groups vote. So... since we know that Ohio's per-capita minority population matches that of the USA as a whole, we would expect crime statistics to reflect the nation as a whole.

Ohio has a murder rate of 4.4 per 100,000. The USA as a whole has a rate of 5.5 per 100,000. Michigan, which is the state next door (just north of Ohio) and has a comparale population mix, but has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation has a murder rate of 7.1 per 100,000, nearly double that of Ohio. If you guessed that Ohio has no registration or licensing requirements for gun ownership, you'd be right.

More tomorrow.

Elliot

xoxchazxox

Oct 30, 2007, 02:47 PM

Tee hee

gallivant_fellow

Oct 30, 2007, 03:10 PM

But the technique, which I was taught years ago in basic training, includes moving inches over a multiple hour period.
No problem, so I'll use my 92 Mercury Sable when the day comes. The enemy will mistake it for a broken down car incapable of movement or containment of human life while I floor it, inching myself into shooting range.

When roughly 5% (15 million people) of the nation is armed with high-powered hunting rifles and large calibur sport-shooting rifles,
That's it? Wow, the gun to person ratio in my area is about 3 to 4 (the crime rate is also close to zero, so you can't say anything about that Skell)

(I can put together a crude form of mustard gas in a few minutes with the right household cleansers),
Me too, an untold number of housewives have found this out the hard way. After the bathtub is cleaner than it's ever been, they wake up on a hospital bed wondering what their miracle cleaner did to them.

Skell

Oct 30, 2007, 05:03 PM

That's it?! Wow, the gun to person ratio in my area is about 3 to 4 (the crime rate is also close to zero, so you can't say anything about that Skell)

WOW! The gun to person ratio in my area is about 0 out of 1000's and the crime rate is also close to zero. So you can't say anything about that galliant_fellow!

Skell

Oct 30, 2007, 05:09 PM

From ET's

last post it can be pointed out that Maine, New Hampshire, North Dakota
are less densely populated, there population is more homogenous and less diverse, and perhaps drugs and gangs are not as prevalent and that is why gun homicide is much less than in the US in general and compared with Australia.

Ill agree with this for sure. I live in a city of about 500,000 and crime is hardly an issue. And it certainly isn't because of gun ownership because no one owns one or if they do they don't carry them with them. They have them registered and locked away accordingly.

Sydney however, a city of 4,000,000 people does have crime problems. This is because it is densely populated, (over crowded), very diverse and drugs and gangs are a lot more prevalent due to this. Legalising the ownership of guns wouldn't change this one bit.

Do you honestly think forcing everyone in the USA to carry a gun at all time would make it a safer place Elliot?

Giving everyone in Australia a gun won't make it a safer place. That is just absurd and Elliot can throw whatever statistics he wants at me and I will refute it. For every report he has saying it makes it safer ill show him a report saying otherwise. Its never ending!

Skell

Oct 30, 2007, 05:10 PM

gallivant_fellow

Oct 30, 2007, 05:19 PM

WOW!! The gun ownership in my area is about 0 out of 0 and the crime rate is also close to zero. So you can't say anything about that galliant_fellow!
Yes I can. We get to play with guns and enjoy an extremely low cime rate. By the way, didn't you say you were from Australia? I thought gun ownership is common over there.

Skell

Oct 30, 2007, 09:39 PM

Yes I can. We get to play with guns and enjoy an extremely low cime rate. By the way, didn't you say you were from Australia? I thought gun ownership is common over there.

You thought wrong! It may be common amongst farmers who use it for pest control but that's about it. I don't know one single person that owns a gun other than for hunting and it is legall registered and stored accordingly. None of my friends or family own or have ever owned a gun nor do they wants to. And they don't feel scared without one. In fact id go as far to say that they would feel more uneasy and less safe for carrying a gun!

And we don't see them as a toy to play with like you do!

You enjoy a low crime rate?? Im happy for you. It's a shame your fellow citizens don't enjoy that same luxury!

ETWolverine

Oct 31, 2007, 06:56 AM

Sydney however, a city of 4,000,000 people does have crime problems. This is because it is densely populated, (over crowded), very diverse and drugs and gangs are a lot more prevalent due to this.

But I thought that gun laws are supposed to prevent crime. If the same gun laws are in place in Sydney as in the rest of Australia, then the crime rate should be uniformly low. That's the argument being made by gun-control advocates: gun laws lower crime. It seems to me that Sydney fails that test. Gun laws are, by your own admission, incapable of stopping the crime that is caused by overpopulation, drug use, and gang activity.

So what you are doing clearly isn't woking, by your own admission.

Do you honestly think forcing everyone in the USA to carry a gun at all time would make it a safer place Elliot?

That is where you are making your mistake, Skell. I'm not suggesting that everyone be forced to carry a gun. I'm saying that they should have the OPTION to do so. And I am saying that in states and localities where that option is available, crime is lower.

Giving everyone in Australia a gun won't make it a safer place.

How do you know that if it has never been tried?

That is just absurd and Elliot can throw whatever statistics he wants at me and I will refute it.

I'm still waiting for the first time.

For every report he has saying it makes it safer ill show him a report saying otherwise. Its never ending!

I'm not using reports. I do my own research on crime statistics and gun laws using raw data. You should try it. You'd be surprised by how much more information you get from looking at the raw data instead of someone else's manipulation of it.

Elliot

ETWolverine

Oct 31, 2007, 07:42 AM

ET :

What do you think of a NATIONAL gun registration?
The argument I hear from [ Rudy ] is that strict gun control in NY does not help reduce crime because of less strict laws in places like VA?

Oh, NSG, sorry to continue the hijack of this thread:o

Grace and Peace

Hi again, ITB.

To continue from yersterday's post:

I have heard that argument before as well, but it is one area where I disagree with Rudy.

First of all, if guns were legally available in NY, people wouldn't be buying them and illegally importing them from VA.

Second of all, you will notice that VA has a MUCH lower crime rate than DC, which is right next door, while also having the same population makeup. That's because VA has legalized gun ownership, where DC has not. So murder in VA is about 1/3 that of DC.

Third, crime in NY is lower than it used to be. That was not accomplished through stricter gun control (Rudy was never actually able to get stricter gun laws passed at either the city or state levels during his tenure), but rather through Rudy's enforcement of nuisance crimes and new zoning laws, as well as getting big businesses to invest in New York. The result was that New york became the "big city" with the lowest crime rate in the nation. Gun laws never entered into the situation. Rudy knows this... he's the guy that made it happen.

As for the idea of national gun registration, I am torn on the issue.

Gun control is clearly a federal issue. The fact that the Constitution gives us the right to bear arms in the Second Amendment makes it clear to me that it is a federal issue rather than a state issue. In that sense, I like the idea of a federal registration system rather than a state-by-state system.

However, I don't believe there should be any fom of gun control at all. I think it's Unconstitutional, whether at the state level or federal level. And I think it's a bad idea for a whole slew of reasons as I have explained above.

I would also point out that after 6 years and $28 million spent, the CoBIS balistic fingerprint system used in New York State to register new handgun sales and identify guns in criminal investigations has resulted in only two "hits" and no arrests for any crime. That's a $28 million system that has proven to be completely useless in stopping crime. What makes us believe that a NATIONAL registration system would be any more effective than that?

The problem is that the guns that criminals use are "off the radar". They don't exist, as far as the government knows. Even in cases where a particular gun is known to the government, it is easy to change the balistic fingerprint of the weapon by changing out the barrel and firing pin for new ones. Even changing the brand of ammo can change the ballistic fingerprint. File off the serial numbers of the weapon, and you're home free. There is no way to effectively register every weapon in such a way as to prevent crime or capture criminals based on information in a database. Trying to do so is a useless excersize that is a waste of money and effort. And the CoBIS system proves it.

I would not have a problem with a federally mandated reasonable waiting period for the purchase of handguns. And I would not have a problem with background checks to prevent legal sale of guns to criminals or mentally impared. But I don't believe that there is any legal basis for the control or banning of firearm sales to non-criminals who are mentally healthy.

Elliot

gallivant_fellow

Oct 31, 2007, 09:06 AM

You thought wrong! It may be common amongst farmers who use it for pest control but thats about it. I don't know one single person that owns a gun other than for hunting and it is legall registered and stored accordingly. None of my friends or family own or have ever owned a gun nor do they wants to. And they dont feel scared without one. In fact id go as far to say that they would feel more uneasy and less safe for carrying a gun!

And we dont see them as a toy to play with like you do!

You enjoy a low crime rate????? Im happy for you. Its a shame your fellow citizens dont enjoy that same luxury!
I think you just have to understand that this country was created by independent men with guns at their sides. The government overpowering us and taking away our guns would be a complete reversal of everything we believe in. They are not only symbols, but tools of our freedom.
Telling an American that they can't have a gun is like saying "Hey, here's an idea! Lets raise King George from the dead and move back to England."

kindj

Oct 31, 2007, 09:56 AM

ETWolverine

Oct 31, 2007, 03:02 PM

Duckling disagrees: That's not true. Many cases of men raping women in the army. How come every other man there isn't shooting this rapists head off? Please go to the Women's research department in an American University.

First of all, Duckling, how many rapes take place in the US military every year? Do you have the information or are you just assuming that to be the case?

I can guarantee you that the level of rape on US military bases is much lower than that of the population as a whole. Part of that is because of military discipline. Part is because of the fact that so many people go around armed.

But there is also the point that not every soldier on an army base carries a weapon all the time. Administrative soldiers rarely carry a weapon except for specific reasons. Guards and combat soldiers do, but what are often referred to as REMFs do not. Perhaps this is a reason that they should... to keep crime on military bases down.

Elliot

Skell

Oct 31, 2007, 08:16 PM

But I thought that gun laws are supposed to prevent crime. If the same gun laws are in place in Sydney as in the rest of Australia, then the crime rate should be uniformly low. That's the argument being made by gun-control advocates: gun laws lower crime. It seems to me that Sydney fails that test. Gun laws are, by your own admission, incapable of stopping the crime that is caused by overpopulation, drug use, and gang activity.

That is ridiculously simplistic! Ridiculous.

By that logic your telling me that states in the US with little or no gun laws should have the same level of crome uniformly in each city. That's just stupid and I can't even believe I'm wasting time arguing this point!

That is where you are making your mistake, Skell. I'm not suggesting that everyone be forced to carry a gun. I'm saying that they should have the OPTION to do so. And I am saying that in states and localities where that option is available, crime is lower.

But Elliot you told me before that you want to change things. You acknowledged that things at present aren't working given your high crime rates. You said you wanted to come up with a solution to change thing.

So if you advocate that carrying a gun reduces crime then why not go as far as forcing everyone to have a gun on them at all time? Surely if you want to change things and guns are as effective as you claim then this is your only option to reduce crime?

How do you know that if it has never been tried?

It has. When it was legal we had 18 mass shootings including more than 30 people in one spree in the decade prior to them becoming illegal. In the decade since we have had laws introduced we have had one, involving 2 people.

You bring up the argument of knives but I've never heard of 32 people being knifed to death in one spree. Despite what you want to say about crime it reduces killings. It may not reduce crime but it reduces murders. Id rather be a victim of a mugging involving a knife then a victim of a bullet in the brain whilst sitting in school Elliot!

The muggings with knives still happen here Elliot. The mass shootings don't.

I'm not using reports. I do my own research on crime statistics and gun laws using raw data. You should try it. You'd be surprised by how much more information you get from looking at the raw data instead of someone else's manipulation of it.

Elliot

That's right. Your own research Elliot. I forgot about that. That stuff you cut and paste from Wiki that I come across in your earlier posts. Research like that should never be refuted!

Skell

Oct 31, 2007, 08:19 PM

I think you just have to understand that this country was created by independent men with guns at their sides. The government overpowering us and taking away our guns would be a complete reversal of everything we believe in. They are not only symbols, but tools of our freedom.
Telling an American that they can't have a gun is like saying "Hey, here's an idea! Lets raise King George from the dead and move back to England."

As I have said before and ill say it again. I see the main difference in our point of views as a cultural one. It is ingrained into your minds. That's fine. I respect that. Where as me and where I'm from it isn't. We aren't taught that is a attack on our freedom to not carry a gun. We don't think that way.
No problems that you do. Its just hard to fathom for most of us! Like it is for you to fathom our thinking!

Duckling

Oct 31, 2007, 08:50 PM

First of all, Duckling, how many rapes take place in the US military every year? Do you have the information or are you just assuming that to be the case?

I can guarantee you that the level of rape on US military bases is much lower than that of the population as a whole. Part of that is because of military discipline. Part is because of the fact that so many people go around armed.
Elliot

I'm sorry, but how dare you belittle this problem? Many women are being tortured and raped in the military (a place full and full and full of guns and weapons). But here is the information you can read of many cases where American military men have raped or sexually tortured some of their own American military women. Now, your argument assumed that the more guns, the more likely that someone in a position like, say a woman being raped, would help “prevent the problem”. I proved you wrong.

Also, you try and manipulate people reading this post, by saying "well if there are rapes, I guarantee there are less in the military". You are manipulating here because you do not mention that the ratio of women to men in the military is FAR LESS than the ratio of women to men OUTSIDE of the military! So, even though there are less women concentrated in the military, there seems to be an oddly high amount of sexual torture. Odd isn't it? I guess that disproved you implying that guns are the solution.

This is not to say that a gun can't help solve a problem. But then this does prove that guns being spread into our hands, as you are an advocate for, is not really an answer.

Your desire for guns needing to be spread to protect us from our own government, is rather a conspiracy theory that I have helped disprove (through using your own logic). You are a little too radical and a bit of a conspiracy theorist in how you analyze things. You should go to the Women's Department in a University instead, and do some research. I warn you though, they will laugh at you if you make your radical rants of not being aware of the tons of cases of women being sexually tortured in the military (a place full of guns). They will also laugh at you for belittling rapes done in armies.

Below you will find how “The US military received 1,700 reported cases of sexual assault in just ONE year (2005)” as stated by the US Defense Department.

BBC NEWS | Americas | Sex assault rise in US military (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4524449.stm)

Here is another one:

Camouflaging Criminals: Sexual Violence Against Women in the Military (http://www.amnestyusa.org/Spring_2004/Camouflaging_Criminals_Sexual_Violence_Against_Wom en_in_the_Military/page.do?id=1105311&n1=2&n2=19&n3=380)

Now, this report shows that 37 American women stationed in Iraq, came out and said that their own American Military men have been torturing them. There were also 88 cases reported of sexual misconduct. These American women, despite the tons of guns, have ended up being raped or tortured by the other men who carry guns (men who are a part of the American military). So your argument is very flawed. I showed you examples of a situation where there are A LOT OF GUNS. And don't you dare say the number is low, because after 37 come out and they are not taken seriously, then imagine how many women went into silence.

So you see? More guns is not the simple answer that you try to sell. You have to think more critically. When someone says that an answer is “violence” they are full of manipulation and propaganda. You know why? People who believe violence and guns are an answer to everything, are people who do not believe in the power to their own position, ideological perspective, or words.

But there is also the point that not every soldier on an army base carries a weapon all the time. Administrative soldiers rarely carry a weapon except for specific reasons. Guards and combat soldiers do, but what are often referred to as REMFs do not. Perhaps this is a reason that they should... to keep crime on military bases down.Elliot

So, only certain people at the high position and honor of working for our protection, carry guns. That's odd. Isn't it rather ironic that every citizen outside of the military should be able to carry a gun? Where is the logic here... this does not make sense. Thank you for highlighting this for everyone.

inthebox

Oct 31, 2007, 09:36 PM

Hi again, ITB.

To continue from yersterday's post:

I have heard that argument before as well, but it is one area where I disagree with Rudy.

First of all, if guns were legally available in NY, people wouldn't be buying them and illegally importing them from VA.

Second of all, you will notive that VA has a MUCH lower crime rate than DC, which is right next door, while also having the exact same population makeup. That's because VA has legalized gun ownership, where DC has not. So murder in VA is about 1/3 that of DC.

Third, crime in NY is lower than it used to be. That was not accomplished through stricter gun control (Rudy was never actually able to get stricter gun laws passed at either the city or state levels during his tenure), but rather through Rudy's enforcement of nuisance crimes and new zoning laws, as well as getting big businesses to invest in New York. The result was that New york became the "big city" with the lowest crime rate in the nation. Gun laws never entered into the situation. Rudy knows this... he's the guy that made it happen.

As for the idea of national gun registration, I am torn on the issue.

Gun control is clearly a federal issue. The fact that the Constitution gives us the right to bear arms in the Second Amendment makes it clear to me that it is a federal issue rather than a state issue. In that sense, I like the idea of a federal registration system rather than a state-by-state system.

However, I don't believe there should be any fom of gun control at all. I think it's Unconstitutional, whether at the state level or federal level. And I think it's a bad idea for a whole slew of reasons as I have explained above.

I would also point out that after 6 years and $28 million spent, the CoBIS balistic fingerprint system used in New York State to register new handgun sales and identify guns in criminal investigations has resulted in only two "hits" and no arrests for any crime. That's a $28 million system that has proven to be completely useless in stopping crime. What makes us believe that a NATIONAL registration system would be any more effective than that?

The problem is that the guns that criminals use are "off the radar". They don't exist, as far as the government knows. Even in cases where a particular gun is known to the government, it is easy to change the balistic fingerprint of the weapon by changing out the barrel and firing pin for new ones. Even changing the brand of ammo can change the ballistic fingerprint. File off the serial numbers of the weapon, and you're home free. There is no way to effectively register every weapon in such a way as to prevent crime or capture criminals based on information in a database. Trying to do so is a useless excersize that is a waste of money and effort. And the CoBIS system proves it.

I would not have a problem with a federally mandated reasonable waiting period for the purchase of handguns. And I would not have a problem with background checks to prevent legal sale of guns to criminals or mentally impared. But I don't believe that there is any legal basis for the control or banning of firearm sales to non-criminals who are mentally healthy.

Elliot

I guess the difference in NYC was Rudy letting the police do their job vs Dinkins. ;)

I did not know about the second to last paragraph. :(

However, the point I disagree with you on is about not having ANY gun control at all.
Wow, that is pretty radical!
It will be "rifle" season here shortly and I don't think the deer will stand a chance against automatic weapons. :eek:

Grace and Peace

inthebox

Oct 31, 2007, 09:45 PM

I would also venture to say that at the time of the second amendment a gun was necessary for survival.

No police force, protection from animals, from the natives, from the British, and also to hunt for food.

Now those issues are not as relevant.

I am NOT against the second amendment. Sorry about the double negative and contributing to this thread going off to never never land. :p

Grace and Peace

ETWolverine

Nov 1, 2007, 06:57 AM

ITB,

I respect that you advocate some form of gun control. I don't and I don't think that the 2nd Amendment leaves any basis for doing so. Perhaps that's a radical position, but I don't shy away from it.

I have heard the argument that "in the old days" we needed a gun for survival against crime, wildlife, to supply food, etc. but today we do not.

Have you ever heard of the concept of the "social contract"? Essentially, it says that individuals agree to give up certain rights and liberties to the community in exchange for being able to live together as a society and so that society can provide certain protections. It is a very old concept that dates back to Socrates. In modern times, it says that we give up certain rights and liberties to the government in order for the government to be able to take care of us. In essence, that is the argument that you are making. "Now that the government protects us from various dangers, we no longer need weapons to protect us, and guns are no longer essential."

But what if the government is failing to do their job? What if the social contract has been broken? Government is clearly unable (or unwilling) to stop crime. The police are REACTIVE not proactive. They can only react after a crime takes place, they do not prevent crimes. So the government is NOT really able to do the job.

At that point the question becomes, if government isn't keeping their side of the social contract, should I keep mine? If the government cannot protect me from crime, then should I not have the ability to protet myself? And if that is the case, don't guns become an essential survival tool again?

That is where I see our country right now. And that is one of the many reasons that I do not support any sort of gun control at all.

Elliot

ETWolverine

Nov 1, 2007, 07:50 AM

Duckling,

Using your own statistic of 1700 rapes in the military in 2005...

First of all, it was 2004, according to the BBC article you cited.

Second of all, the article states that

Of the 1,700 cases reported in 2004:

880 involved an alleged assault by a military person against another
425 involved an alleged assault by a military person against a non-military person
99 involved an alleged assault by a non-military person against a military person
296 involved an unidentified assailant against a military personSeems to me that the only one that is germain to our discussion of rape in the military is the first and last ones combined. That's not to say that the others aren't important, they are. But the only ones that are germain to the discussion of gun control are military vs military or unidentified vs. military. Combined that makes 1,176 cases. Not a small number. However, considering that there are roughly 1,400,000 people in the military, that number becomes 84 per 100,000 of population. That is still a large number... easily as large as Alaska, which has the worst rate of rape in the USA.

So we need to ask a few questions.

1) Where any of the victims carrying guns? I would guess not. A gun isn't a deterrent if they aren't available to be used.

2) Where the assailants carying guns? Probably not. If they were, they would have shot their victims to keep them from talking at all.

3) Where did the rapes take place? Was it in view of people who were armed? Again, probably not, or else the armed bystanders would have stopped the rape from taking place.

4) What is the actual level of gun availability in the military? Do people walk around armed all the time, even if their duties have nothing to do with carrying a gun? Usually not.

5) What has been the law enforcement environement? Gun availability alone is not enough to stop crime. Gun availability combined with proper law enforcement are required to do the job properly. And it seems to me that the military has NOT been doing enforcement propely vis-à-vis rape cases.

So in fact, gun availability played no part in the crime, and not having a gun left the victim unable to defend herself. If the victims had a gun, they probably would have used it. If witnesses had a weapon, they would have stopped the rape fom occurring. So having a gun would have changed the entire event, wouldn't it?

As for the 37 women who came out of Iraq and claimed to have been raped, please keep in mind that there were at the time of the article roughly 130,000 troops in Iraq. That means that the number of rapes was roughly 28 per 100,000 of population. That actually makes it lower than the national average, and comparable to the lowest third of all states. And yet even that number is too high. No question about that.

So why were these women unarmed? And if they were armed, why didn't they use their weapon?

This is not to blame the victims. I blame a system that disallows anyone to carry a weapon in a dangerous environment. I blame a bureaucracy that keeps weapons out of the hands of female soldiers who are not considered "combat" troops.

Duckling, don't you think that these women would have been better served to be armed than unarmed when they were attacked? I certainly do.

Nor am I arguing that guns can take the place of law enforcement. If the hierarchy of the military isn't taking law enforcement seriously, the result can only be an increase in crime. However, in cases where law enforcement does their jobs seriously, gun availability can add to crime prevention. I blame the military for that lack of enforcement.

There is one thing that I have a bit of a problem with, Duckling, and that is your use of the word "torture". As far as I can tell, none of these women have been water-boarded, forced to sleep in cold cells, or any of the other acts that have been categorized as torture in the media. Have these women suffered? Certainly, and I do not diminish their suffering. But torture is a LEGAL term, and it is one that does not apply in these cases, by-and-large.

Now... you might think that my post is minimizing the problem. I'm not. I'm just looking at it through the lens of analysis. I look at the facts unemotionally and draw conclusions based on those facts. Oftentimes that is seen as "cold" or "harsh". But that is the only logical way to go about gathering data and reviewing it. Emotion clouds judgement. I deal with facts, not emotions.

Fact: guns, while more prevalent in the military than outside the military, are NOT widely available and are in fact restricted to certain personnel.

Fact: none of the victims were armed.

Fact: none of the witnesses, if there were any, were armed.

Fact: the military has been lax with regard to sexual crimes law enforcement.

Conclusion: if the victims or witnesses had been armed, the rapes might not have taken place. Restriction of guns did not prevent these crimes, whereas gun availability might have prevented these crimes. The military needs to take a stronger hand in enforcement as well.

Elliot

gallivant_fellow

Nov 1, 2007, 01:23 PM

As i have said before and ill say it again. I see the main difference in our point of views as a cultural one. It is ingrained into your minds. Thats fine. I respect that. Where as me and where im from it isnt. We arent taught that is a attack on our freedom to not carry a gun. We dont think that way.
No problems that you do. Its just hard to fathom for most of us! Like it is for you to fathom our thinking!
Yup, not everyone got a boat ride out of England:)

What I've typed below might sound a little bit repetitive at first, but I hope it helps you to understand a larger spectrum and more details. It's long but I promise it's not boring.

First of all, we have always had guns, guns made this country, our forefathers hunted with them, etc. They are such a regular part of life here. My grandpa needs his gun quite a lot to keep wild animals like deer, red squirrels, etc. from chewing up his wiring or eating his crops. A lot of people live like this here. The US isn't just NYC, Chicago, LA, Seattle, and the big cities, there are a ton of people here living the way I explained my grandpa lives. To them, they think: Why should this perfectly practical tool, which everyone in my family has used in the past, be taken away from me?

However, I think you are more upset about gun crimes in big cities. Drive-bys, school shootings, little boys finding daddy's Glock. You have to narrow down on this specific problem or else people will get guns taken away who don't deserve it. Frankly, I don't think my grandpa and many others are quite fit enough to be chasing a deer with a spear, they need that .22 sometimes.

I agree that a handgun is for killing a man. I see no other use out of it. But people who use guns to murder, many times use illegal guns. If guns were banned, criminals could still easily obtain them. Here's an example: Cocaine is illegal in the US (you're smart enough to figure the rest of this one out).

If guns were banned, responsible farmers and similar people would loose their tool, hunters would lose their sport, everyone would lose their tradition and freedom, and people in big cities would be defenseless against criminals with illegal guns.

Skell

Nov 1, 2007, 03:29 PM

Yup, not everyone got a boat ride out of England:)

What I've typed below might sound a little bit repetitive at first, but I hope it helps you to understand a larger spectrum and more details. It's long but I promise it's not boring.

First of all, we have always had guns, guns made this country, our forefathers hunted with them, etc. They are such a regular part of life here. My grandpa needs his gun quite a lot to keep wild animals like deer, red squirrels, etc. from chewing up his wiring or eating his crops. A lot of people live like this here. The US isn't just NYC, Chicago, LA, Seattle, and the big cities, there are a ton of people here living the way I explained my grandpa lives. To them, they think: Why should this perfectly practical tool, which everyone in my family has used in the past, be taken away from me?

However, I think you are more upset about gun crimes in big cities. Drive-bys, school shootings, little boys finding daddy's Glock. You have to narrow down on this specific problem or else people will get guns taken away who don't deserve it. Frankly, I don't think my grandpa and many others are quite fit enough to be chasing a deer with a spear, they need that .22 sometimes.

I agree that a handgun is for killing a man. I see no other use out of it. But people who use guns to murder, many times use illegal guns. If guns were banned, criminals could still easily obtain them. Here's an example: Cocaine is illegal in the US (you're smart enough to figure the rest of this one out).

If guns were banned, responsible farmers and similar people would loose their tool, hunters would lose their sport, everyone would lose their tradition and freedom, and people in big cities would be defenseless against criminals with illegal guns.

This was a good post and I agree with you for the most part. I just want to stress that I am in no way advocating the banning of guns used as 'tools'. I think it would be silly to ban farmers and the likes if your grandpa having a gun. He needs it to survive just as our farmers in Australia needs there's to keep pests at bay. He and they NEED to have it. And I'm sure he would have it legally registered and only uses it where necessary. My gripe is by no means with your grandpa and his gun. I would never want to take that practical tool away from you.

My gripe is why does Elliot need to carry his sniper rifle? Why does he need this? He claims he needs it for protection because the police cant. Well perhaps therein lies the whole problem. Policing. Perhaps the Government needs to spend more on policing in the US rather than policing the rest of the world. Im sure if the trillions of dollars spent on the War in Iraq was spent at home in the US fighting crime then perhaps the police and government would live up to their side of the social contract and Elliot wouldn't need to carry his gun? But alas, no, he still needs it for the day he and the rest of america take down the government.

Put simply I see much credit in the argument that some form of gun control reduces crime. Im sorry if I have come across that I want guns used as tools taken away. Not at all. I stress that point. Guns used for work and sport should be registered legally and stored according to some sort of strict code. If a gun is owned for clay shooting then store it at the rifle range. If a farmer needs his gun for work then there should be strict conditions on where and how is to use his weapon.

I just find it perplexing to think that someone can't walk down the street and feel safe unless they have a handgun. I actually feel sorry for you. We don't have this problem here. I have lived in some of the worst parts of Sydney (our biggest and most 'dangerous' city) and have never ever felt the need for a gun.

To me Elliot is an irresponsible gun owner. He wants it shoot another human. To me you will never justify that. Your grandpa however is the responsible one and id never take it from him!

But thanks for your post. It makes a lot of sense to me and I agree with you!

gallivant_fellow

Nov 1, 2007, 04:09 PM

Well thanks skell:) , but the part of my post where I said criminals will always have guns is what I must stress the most. If more gun laws come, crime will just evolve again like it always has and guns will be out there again. Plus, all of the old guns in black market circulation will still be out there. Gun control wouldn't really do much. From what I've seen, the guns used in the worst crimes, like where there are innocent bystanders, are illegal in the first place. I saw something on TV about a little girl being shot while one guy was chasing another guy with a fully automatic AK-47. People order the parts from other countries and put them together, or just have them smuggled into this country.

As for handguns, like I said, they aren't good for anything else but killing. But thank god we have them because if a woman is in her bedroom and she turns around to see a man in a ski mask approaching her, I hope she has a pistol to save her life with (This happened to a lady my mom knew). As for Elliot, who is from NY, right? Improved policing won't do anything for him. Imagine this scenario:

Bad guy: Gimme you money, now!
Elliot: One moment, let me grab my cell phone and contact the police
Bad guy: Uuuuu... POW!

What can I say, it will always be the wild west over here. It's good that you want to keep people from dying, but fire is sometimes best fought with fire.

Skell

Nov 1, 2007, 04:22 PM

Yes but Galliant fellow citizens owning guns doesn't seem to stop this violent crime. Even in the cities where gun laws are non existent violent crime is still higher than that in most other western countries. To me it doesn't seem that guns are helping too much.

So perhaps the problem is deeper than simply gun control. Perhaps it is policing. I too still think that it is culture. Australia has a violent culture but not as violet as the US according to statistics. I think a reason for this is that we have limited the use of guns. It has changed our culture. At the time of gun laws being introduced there was an outcry, however now a decade or more on there is barely a whimper of discontent. We still have violent crime, but it doesn't involve near as many gun deaths and violence. The next step is controlling knives and other weapons. This I would argue will contribute again to a change in culture.

Crime will always occur and indeed crime has not changed much since our gun laws have been introduced. Robberies have gone from robbery by gun to by knife. But a telling stat for me is that mass murders / shootings have reduced significantly. In fact they have ceased to exist except for ONE involving two people only.

Where as in the States you have an epidemic of mass murders involving guns. It may not reduce crime but it will reduce murders and that's a start! Ive never heard of 32 people being stabbed to death in one go!

Perhaps the US should look at better policing and changing a culture. Then maybe one day you guys will be happy to turn in your guns because you no longer live in fear. I doubt though that day will ever come. And if it does Elliot still needs his to shoot down the government. :)

CaptainRich

Nov 1, 2007, 04:30 PM

Well perhaps therein lies the whole problem. Policing. Perhaps the Government needs to spend more on policing in the US rather than policing the rest of the world. Im sure if the trillions of dollars spent on the War in Iraq was spent at home in the US fighting crime then perhaps the police and government would live up to their side of the social contract and Elliot wouldnt need to carry his gun??

The police can't prevent every crime as it is committed. In any country! Even yours! You read the part about acknowledging the police are re-active not pro-active, right?

If the US Gov't turned the focus on fighting crime here, we'd all be in a group hug while terrorist over-run us.

What I see is the citizen's here have the constitutional right to own firearms, if desired, and YOU don't like it.

Further, I see you have an opinion on US policy, but we do, too. You want to change our policies and our opinions, but you can't. You've clearly stated the US isn't involved in any way in your country, why your intense concern for ours?

You can't change my thoughts about personal liberties, and I have NO interest in even knowing yours.

michealb

Nov 1, 2007, 05:00 PM

I've said it before but it seemed to get lost in all of the other posts so I'll say it again. If you want to get rid of something that is dangerous why not start with swimming pools.
Swimming pools kill more people in United States than guns do. Swimming pools have no use except for recreation. A swimming pool often take the youngest most innocent of our society. So given this information should we ban swimming pools? They clearly present more of a danger to the public than guns do. What about cars? They are kill more people that swimming pools and gun combined. Cars are very often used to avoid police and commit murder. Where does it end? Once cars, swimming pools and guns are gone. Do we get rid of pointy objects just how far do we take this train of thought

gallivant_fellow

Nov 1, 2007, 05:15 PM

So perhaps the problem is deeper than simply gun control. Perhaps it is policing. I too still think that it is culture.
Like Captain Rich said: police are re-active, not pro-active. And as for our culture: A huge capitalist economy + much racial tension = excessive violence. That's why our culture is so violent. I know how we can solve this problem, we can just kick out all of the other races, throw Adam Smith's and the founding father's ideas in the garbage, and start a new country where the cream stays at the bottom. Sounds good, right? If people can't handle this jungle, then they can get plane tickets to another English speaking country like Australia where they can be perfectly safe and perfectly average.

Dark_crow

Nov 1, 2007, 05:31 PM

Has anyone considered punishment as a factor….Saudi Arabia has a very very low % of violent crimes….Hmmmmm, wonder what kind of sentence a person gets, and I bet they don't provide movies and great food.

gallivant_fellow

Nov 1, 2007, 05:38 PM

Has anyone considered punishment as a factor…
I have. Me carrying a gun. Instead of someone attempting to murder me getting a life sentence, they get a death sentence.

Skell

Nov 1, 2007, 07:14 PM

The police can't prevent every crime as it is committed. In any country!! Even yours! You read the part about acknowledging the police are re-active not pro-active, right?

If the US Gov't turned the focus on fighting crime here, we'd all be in a group hug while terrorist over-run us.

What I see is the citizen's here have the constitutional right to own firearms, if desired, and YOU don't like it.

Further, I see you have an opinion on US policy, but we do, too. You want to change our policies and our opinions, but you can't. You've clearly stated the US isn't involved in any way in your country, why your intense concern for ours?

You can't change my thoughts about personal liberties, and I have NO interest in even knowing yours.

Whoa up there Captain. You got it all wrong. Its not that I don't like it, it that I don't agree with it or understand it. But that isn't your problem, its mine.

Im terribly sorry for expressing an opinion on a public opinions forum. That is all I am doing. Im not telling you how you should run your country and what opinion you should have. Not at all. Im just giving an opinion based on my experience and my research.

And the thing is Captain you do have an opinion on the policies in my country. You have stated them. I think gun control works and is a good idea, you don't. You think it stinks and doesn't work. You think it goes against your rights. You think the policy is wrong. Therefore you think the policy in my country is wrong. You don't like it shall I say!!

I don't have an opinion on your countries policy. I have an opinion on the policy of guns and law enforcement and we just so happen to be talking about the US. There have been previous posts in this thread where Australia's policy has been discussed and attacked. I cop that on the chin and research those claims and come back to discuss / debate.

You seem to be taking it all the wrong way Captain. I don't think my country is better than yours (although it is :) joke.. ), not at all, I'm just discussing something that I believe in, just as your fellow country men here are. They aren't acusing me of anything like you are! They are simply debating with me. Most of your post wasn't a debate, it was an attack on me for having an opinion.

Perhaps I've got it all wrong about how it works on a public forum. Perhaps I should refrain from having input on any thread that doesn't pertain to the country I live in. Perhaps I have no business here.
Because my opinions don't align with yours you don't care for them and you don't want me to express them. Im sorry for that. I just gathered that when someone comes to a public forum they will expect to read other peoples opinions on all matters, particularly on the politics board. Perhaps I should go back to the relationships board where I first met you Captain and where you did want my opinion! Perhaps I was wrong all along in thinking that people of the 'most free country in the world' wouldn't mind someone else other then them having an opinion.

Im sorry my opinion and subsequent enlightening (for me anyway) discussion with Elliot offended you Captain. It was not my intention.

Perhaps you should read the post below to see how most of us feel about others and their opinions here;

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/politics/gi-joe-gets-makeover-146794-4.html

I know you have no interest in what I have to say and I'm sorry for expressing it again here but don't for a minute think you will bully or attack me and ill lie down and cop it Captain!!

Skell

Nov 1, 2007, 07:24 PM

Has anyone considered punishment as a factor…

You have. The Death Penalty was brought back in but it doesn't seem to deter violence.

"The dozen states that have chosen not to enact the death penalty since the Supreme Court ruled in 1976 that it was constitutionally permissible have not had higher homicide rates than states with the death penalty, government statistics and a new survey by The New York Times show.

Indeed, 10 of the 12 states without capital punishment have homicide rates below the national average, Federal Bureau of Investigation data shows, while half the states with the death penalty have homicide rates above the national average. In a state-by- state analysis, The Times found that during the last 20 years, the homicide rate in states with the death penalty has been 48 percent to 101 percent higher than in states without the death penalty.

The study by The Times also found that homicide rates had risen and fallen along roughly symmetrical paths in the states with and without the death penalty, suggesting to many experts that the threat of the death penalty rarely deters criminals.

"It is difficult to make the case for any deterrent effect from these numbers," said Steven Messner, a criminologist at the State University of New York at Albany, who reviewed the analysis by The Times. "Whatever the factors are that affect change in homicide rates, they don't seem to operate differently based on the presence or absence of the death penalty in a state."

That is one of the arguments most frequently made against capital punishment in states without the death penalty — that and the assertion that it is difficult to mete out fairly. Opponents also maintain that it is too expensive to prosecute and that life without parole is a more efficient form of punishment.

Prosecutors and officials in states that have the death penalty are as passionate about the issue as their counterparts in states that do not have capital punishment. While they recognize that it is difficult to make the case for deterrence, they contend that there are powerful reasons to carry out executions. Rehabilitation is ineffective, they argue, and capital punishment is often the only penalty that matches the horrific nature of some crimes. Furthermore, they say, society has a right to retribution and the finality of an execution can bring closure for victims' families.

Polls show that these views are shared by a large number of Americans. And, certainly, most states have death penalty statutes. Twelve states have chosen otherwise, but their experiences have been largely overlooked in recent discussions about capital punishment.

"I think Michigan made a wise decision 150 years ago," said the state's governor, John Engler, a Republican. Michigan abolished the death penalty in 1846 and has resisted attempts to reinstate it. "We're pretty proud of the fact that we don't have the death penalty," Governor Engler said, adding that he opposed the death penalty on moral and pragmatic grounds.

Governor Engler said he was not swayed by polls that showed 60 percent of Michigan residents favored the death penalty. He said 100 percent would like not to pay taxes.

In addition to Michigan, and its Midwestern neighbors Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota and Wisconsin, the states without the death penalty are Alaska, Hawaii, West Virginia, Rhode Island, Vermont, Maine and Massachusetts, where an effort to reinstate it was defeated last year.

No single factor explains why these states have chosen not to impose capital punishment. Culture and religion play a role, as well as political vagaries in each state. In West Virginia, for instance, the state's largest newspaper, The Charleston Gazette, supported a drive to abolish the death penalty there in 1965. Repeated efforts to reinstate the death penalty have been rebuffed by the legislature.

The arguments for and against the death penalty have not changed much. At Michigan's constitutional convention in 1961, the delegates heard arguments that the death penalty was not a deterrent, that those executed were usually the poor and disadvantaged, and that innocent people had been sentenced to death.

"The same arguments are being made today," said Eugene G. Wanger, who had introduced the language to enshrine a ban on capital punishment in Michigan's constitution at that convention. The delegates overwhelmingly adopted the ban, 141 to 3. Mr. Wanger said two- thirds of the delegates were Republicans, like himself, and most were conservative. Last year, a former state police officer introduced legislation to reinstate the death penalty. He did not even get the support of the state police association, and the legislation died.

In Minnesota, which abolished capital punishment in 1911, 60 percent of the residents support the death penalty, said Susan Gaertner, a career prosecutor in St. Paul and the elected county attorney there since 1994. But public sentiment had not translated into legislative action, Ms. Gaertner said. "The public policy makers in Minnesota think the death penalty is not efficient, it is not a deterrent, it is a divisive form of punishment that we simply don't need," she said.

In Honolulu, the prosecuting attorney, Peter Carlisle, said he had changed his views about capital punishment, becoming an opponent, after looking at the crime statistics and finding a correlation between declines in general crimes and in the homicide rates. "When the smaller crimes go down — the quality of life crimes — then the murder rate goes down," Mr. Carlisle said.

Therefore, he said, it was preferable to spend the resources available to him prosecuting these general crimes. Prosecuting a capital case is "extremely expensive," he said.

By the very nature of the gravity of the case, defense lawyers and prosecutors spend far more time on a capital case than a noncapital one. It takes longer to pick a jury, longer for the state to present its case and longer for the defense to put on its witnesses. There are also considerably greater expenses for expert witnesses, including psychologists and, these days, DNA experts. Then come the defendant's appeals, which can be considerable, but are not the biggest cost of the case, prosecutors say.

Mr. Carlisle said his views on the death penalty had not been affected by the case of Bryan K. Uyesugi, a Xerox copy machine repairman who gunned down seven co-workers last November in the worst mass murder in Hawaii's history. Mr. Uyesugi was convicted in June and is serving life without chance of parole.

Mr. Carlisle has doubts about whether the death penalty is a deterrent. "We haven't had the death penalty, but we have one of the lowest murder rates in the country," he said. The F.B.I.'s statistics for 1998, the last year for which the data is available, showed Hawaii's homicide rate was the fifth-lowest.

TBC

Skell

Nov 1, 2007, 07:27 PM

The homicide rate in North Dakota, which does not have the death penalty, was lower than the homicide rate in South Dakota, which does have it, according to F.B.I. statistics for 1998. Massachusetts, which abolished capital punishment in 1984, has a lower rate than Connecticut, which has six people on death row; the homicide rate in West Virginia is 30 percent below that of Virginia, which has one of the highest execution rates in the country.

Other factors affect homicide rates, of course, including unemployment and demographics, as well as the amount of money spent on police, prosecutors and prisons.

But the analysis by The Times found that the demographic profile of states with the death penalty is not far different from that of states without it. The poverty rate in states with the death penalty, as a whole, was 13.4 percent in 1990, compared with 11.4 percent in states without the death penalty.

Mr. Carlisle's predecessor in Honolulu, Keith M. Kaneshiro, agrees with him about deterrence. "I don't think there's a proven study that says it's a deterrent," Mr. Kaneshiro said. Still, he said, he believed that execution was warranted for some crimes, like a contract killing or the slaying of a police officer. Twice while he was prosecuting attorney, Mr. Kaneshiro got a legislator to introduce a limited death penalty bill, but, he said, they went nowhere.

In general, Mr. Kaneshiro said, Hawaiians fear that the death penalty would be given disproportionately to racial minorities and the poor.

In Milwaukee, the district attorney for the last 32 years, E. Michael McCann, shares the view that the death penalty is applied unfairly to minorities. "It is rare that a wealthy white man gets executed, if it happens at all," Mr. McCann said.

Those who "have labored long in the criminal justice system know, supported by a variety of studies and extensive personal experience, that blacks get the harsher hand in criminal justice and particularly in capital punishment cases," Mr. McCann wrote in "Opposing Capital Punishment: A Prosecutor's Perspective," published in the Marquette Law Review in 1996. Forty-three percent of the people on death row across the country are African-Americans, according to the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund.

The death penalty also has been employed much more often when the victim was white — 82 percent of the victims of death row inmates were white, while only 50 percent of all homicide victims were white.

Supporters of capital punishment who say that executions are justified by the heinous nature of some crimes often cite the case of Jeffrey L. Dahmer, the serial killer who murdered and dismembered at least 17 boys and men, and ate flesh from at least one of his victims.

Mr. McCann prosecuted Mr. Dahmer, but the case did not dissuade him from his convictions on the death penalty. "To participate in the killing of another human being, it diminishes the respect for life. Period," Mr. McCann said. He added, "Although I am a district attorney, I have a gut suspicion of the state wielding the power of the death over anybody."

In Detroit, John O'Hair, the district attorney, similarly ponders the role of the state when looking at the death penalty.

Borrowing from Justice Louis E. Brandeis, Mr. O'Hair said: "Government is a teacher, for good or for bad, but government should set the example. I do not believe that government engaging in violence or retribution is the right example. You don't solve violence by committing violence."

Detroit has one of the highest homicide rates in the United States — five times more than New York in 1998 — but Mr. O'Hair said bringing back the death penalty is not the answer.

"I do not think the death penalty is a deterrent of any consequence in preventing murders," said Mr. O'Hair, who has been a prosecutor and judge for 30 years. Most homicides, he said, are "impulsive actions, crimes of passion," in which the killers do not consider the consequences of what they are doing.

Nor, apparently, do the people of Detroit see the death penalty as a way of cutting crime. Only 45 percent of Detroit residents favored capital punishment, a poll by EPIC/MRA, a polling organization in Lansing, Mich., found last year; in Michigan over all, 59 percent favored executions, which is roughly the level of support for the death penalty nationally.

To illustrate the point that killers rarely considered the consequences of their actions, a prosecutor in Des Moines, John Sarcone, described the case of four people who murdered two elderly women. They killed one in Iowa, but drove the other one across the border to Missouri, a state that has the death penalty.

Mr. Sarcone said Iowa prosecutors were divided on the death penalty, and legislation to reinstate it was rejected by the Republican-controlled legislature in 1997. The big issue was cost, he said.

Last year in Michigan, Larry Julian, a Republican from a rural district, introduced legislation that would put the death penalty option to a referendum.

But Mr. Julian, a retired state police officer, had almost no political support for the bill, not even from the Michigan State Troopers Association, he said, and the bill died without a full vote. The Catholic Church lobbied against it.

State officials in Michigan are generally satisfied with the current law. "Our policies in Michigan have worked without the death penalty," said Matthew Davis, spokesman for the Michigan Department of Corrections. "Instituting it now may not be the most effective use of people's money."

Today in Michigan, 2,572 inmates are serving sentences of life without parole, and they tend to cause fewer problems than the general prison population, Mr. Davis said.

They are generally quieter, not as insolent, more likely to obey the rules and less likely to try to escape, he said. Their motivation is quite clear, he said: to get into a lower security classification. When they come in, they are locked up 23 hours a day, 7 days a week, and fed through a small hole in the door. After a long period of good behavior, they can live in a larger cell, which is part of a larger, brighter room, eat with 250 other prisoners, and watch television.

One thing they cannot look forward to is getting out. In Michigan, life without parole means you stay in prison your entire natural life, not that you get out after 30 or 40 years, Mr. Davis said.

In many states, when life without parole is an option the public's support for the death penalty drops sharply. "The fact that we have life without parole takes a lot of impetus from people who would like to see the death penalty," said Ms. Gaertner, the chief prosecutor in St. Paul.

In most states with the death penalty, life without parole is not an option for juries. In Texas, prosecutors have successfully lobbied against legislation that would give juries the option of life without parole instead of the death penalty.

Mr. Davis said a desire "to extract a pound of flesh" was behind many of the arguments for capital punishment. "But that pound of flesh comes at a higher price than a lifetime of incarceration."

Mr. O'Hair, the Detroit prosecutor said, "If you're after retribution, vengeance, life in prison without parole is about as punitive as you can get."

States With No Death Penalty Share Lower Homicide Rates (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=437&scid=)

Sorry it's a bit long winded but I thought it was all relevant.

Have I just opened up another can of worms? :)

CaptainRich

Nov 1, 2007, 08:10 PM

And the thing is Captain you do have an opinion on the policies in my country. You have stated them.
Where have I stated my opinions about your country? On this thread or any other? No where! You have made your version of conclusions, that is all.

I think gun control works and is a good idea, you dont. You think it stinks and doesnt work. You think it goes against your rights. You think the policy is wrong. Therefore you think the policy in my country is wrong. You dont like it shall i say!!!
You're making conclusions based on your interpretations, not mine! You are NOT stating my opinion.

I dont have an opinion on your countries policy. I have an opinion on the policy of guns and law enforcement and we just so happen to be talking about the US.
You think gun control works and it's a good idea, therefore you think the policies in my country are wrong. And, you don't like it shall I say!!
Does that sound at all familiar?? If not , just see your own quote above.

You seem to be taking it all the wrong way Captain. I dont think my country is better than yours (although it is :) joke..), not at all, im just discussing something that i believe in, just as your fellow country men here are. They arent acusing me of anything like you are! They are simply debating with me. Most of your post wasnt a debate, it was an attack on me for having an opinion.
I am not accusing you of anything , simply pointing your own words at YOU! YOU contradict yourself twice in a single post and it's boring. You regurgitate (your favorite word again) your opinion over and over again. And I say it's off topic for this thread. Period.

Perhaps i should refrain from having input on any thread that doesnt pertain to the country i live in. Perhaps i have no business here.
Perhaps you simply forgot the original threads question here. Either that or there's something else you want to start a thread on...

Perhaps i was wrong all along in thinking that people of the 'most free country in the world' wouldnt mind someone else other then them having an opinion.
Everyone has the right to hear others express their opinion, but not to be subject to having it crammed down our throat, in my opinion.

Im sorry my opinion and subsequent enlightening (for me anyway) discussion with Elliot offended you Captain. It was not my intention.
You pointed out that this is a public forum and now you want me to buzz off when I am in agreement with my brethren? Not going to happen!

Skell

Nov 1, 2007, 09:49 PM

You think gun control doesn't work. Didn't you say that? That's an opinion on a policy in my country. Pretty straight forward captain.

Why are you so hostile? What's your problem?

How am I cramming anything down your throat Captain.. I'm having a debate with Elliot. Why am I any more at fault than he is?
Why don't you interpret his posts as cramming an opinion down throats!

As is said Captain you were quite happy to ask for my opinion and take in your post in the relationships board. I offered it there and you even PM's me asking further opinion.

Now I don't agree with you my opinion is all of a sudden an attack on your country. My opinion is now being rammed down your throat.

You have double standards.

If you don't like my opinions or think I'm ramming something down your throat either report me to the mods or put me on your banned list. That way you won't have to read them! I won't exist.

Where did I tell you to buzz off Captain? I haven't. I don't want you to. You attack me and when I take you to task on it you rile up.

Its an easy option for you Captain. If you don't like my opinion don't take any notice of it or answer. That's your choice.

Elliot and I were having a debate about an issue and it was back and forth. Im sure if you ask him he quite enjoyed it as did I. He didn't tell me my opinion was not wanted. He told me I was wrong but not unwanted.

That's the difference Captain. You just attacked me and my opinion because you didn't like it!

Skell

Nov 1, 2007, 09:52 PM

I am not accusing you of anything , simply pointing your own words at YOU! YOU contradict yourself twice in a single post and it's boring. You regurgitate (your favorite word again) your opinion over and over again. And I say it's off topic for this thread. Period.

So I'm off topic but Elliot and everyone else isn't. Again I'm sorry Captain.

I laugh harder every time you mention that regurgitate is my favorite word. You really got me there again Captain. Good one!

I say your attack on me is off topic for this thread but ill get over it.

If you can't then report me to the mods as I said. That's your option so use it!

ETWolverine

Nov 2, 2007, 07:02 AM

Skell, as a side note, I've been enjoying this debate too.

On the topic of the death penalty (yes, you did open a can of worms there), I have opinions on that subject too. Most states where the death penalty has been reinstated, it has rarely been actually used. New York State, for instance, has a death penalty on the books, but it has not been used since it was reinstated, and the Manhattan District Attorney, Robert Morgenthau, has stated repeatedly that he will refuse to seek the death penalty in any case, regardless of how heinous.

So the question is whether having a death penalty that is not actually used makes any difference. I don't think it does.

I don't have as much data on the death penalty as I do on gun control issues. Gun control is a pet topic of mine, whereas the death penalty is one that I spend less time with. I haven't run an actual correlation between crime rates and usage of the death penalty, but I would be surprised if there isn't some sort of correlation there. When I find the time, I'll try to do that analysis and then get back to you with my data, but I won't be able to do it for at least a couple of weeks, possibly more like months. I am curious about the results, though.

On a personal note, I happen to be in favor of the death penalty (big shock there, huh) but I have less data to back up that opinion. I fully recognize that in this instance my opinion is not based in fact, and that when I run the numbers my opinion may change.

Elliot

Dark_crow

Nov 2, 2007, 07:53 AM

I didn't have the death penalty in mind at all, Skell. Living conditions and conditions of punishment is what I thought my post alluded to. It seems to me that countries with harsh [By Americas standards] have much lower violent crime rates.

The point I make is that although you point out the truth….Americas % per 100 of populace is high relative to the majority of other countries I wonder if in fact it is because of liberty and the leniency of its criminal justice system…just a thought.

michealb

Nov 2, 2007, 08:21 AM

Surprisingly I'm against the death penalty. I thought about it and found a couple of things.
1. It costs more money to kill a man than it does to put him in jail.
2. The government killing an innocent man is not acceptable. No matter how small of a chance it might happen.
3. Jail might be worse than death. I don't know but since the criminal will die sooner or later we might as keep him in case he is innocent or in case jail is worse than death.
4. I don't care what happens to the criminal as long as he can't harm anyone anymore. I do care about the innocent man in on death row.

Duckling

Nov 2, 2007, 03:21 PM

If I were President, I would try and help abolish hate speech (consisting of illogical hateful slurs against peoples or groups, based on gender, religion, ethnicity, disability, race, etc).

1. For example, I think it should be illegal for a priest to start calling out "homosexuals are slow, homosexuals are the devil, homosexuals are f*$kd". I think this type of speech should be illegal.

2. BUT this is different from someone expressing why a particular religion or ideology or sexual preference is wrong, in the light of a sound and logical argument they present. I think, for example, if a priest were to talk about the “logical reasoning” behind why it is wrong to be gay, is preferable than for him to start spreading hate speech.

* * *

What I have outlined in number 2, is the way the Canadians do it. I think we should adopt this. I would "suggest" this as President.

You see, people who try to spurt hate, are the people who do not believe in the power of what they say. They don't have enough logic or reasoning behind their position, so they need to depend on something else. And when you depend heavily on intimidation, prejudice and illogical slur, that is called depending on propaganda.

I don't believe we need propaganda in our sites of societal discussion; the media.

michealb

Nov 2, 2007, 04:10 PM

nicespringgirl

Nov 2, 2007, 06:30 PM

You don't have much freedom of speech in the country.
You can't really talk about politics, money, sex, religions openly.
U can't ask too much about others' personal life either. If you do, you are not acting like an american.

michealb

Nov 2, 2007, 07:10 PM

It may not be polite speech and people may not listen but you are free to talk about those things as much as you want in US. There is a big difference between being told that your impolite and the police breaking down your door because you put out some anti-government literature.

Duckling

Nov 2, 2007, 07:45 PM

In theory I agree there is no reason we need to have hate speech in this country. Most of europe has outlawed hate speech as well. I've always thought though, that the measure of how free a country is not how much they allow things they like but how much they allow things they don't like and I have never heard of a countries down fall being too much freedom. So while I may not like it I have to protect it because the next speech to be outlawed maybe mine.

Yes, but what I encouraged is still, of course, allowing to hear arguments that we do not like. I actually think we need tons more of this.

This is where we diverge:

Let's look at the example of how most people do not enjoy hearing a Catholic priest tell them to not wear a condom when they have sex. Most people, even Catholic, are wearing condoms anyway.

In Canada, just as in the United States, it is all right for the priest to put out the "reasoning" behind his religion not allowing condoms.

But, in Canada, it is not allowed for the priest to start spreading that "people who use condoms are fk*d, are the devil, are slow and
worthless, are etc". Although, in the United States, this second type of hatful speech is allowed (as in, hate speech that just throws
Illogical hateful slurs against race, religion, sexuality, women, etc, is allowed).

It may not be polite speech and people may not listen but you are free to talk about those things as much as you want in US. There is a big difference between being told that your impolite and the police breaking down your door because you put out some anti-government literature.

People have sex in their homes, right? But do people come to a children's park and start having sex in the middle of the public? No, that's illegal. You see my point then? So, your response is illogical and does not follow my stance (although, it "appears" to).

Please try and look at the two contexts that I had outlined. I believe the Canadian way that I provided is healthier than the hate speech laws we have in America.

nicespringgirl

Nov 2, 2007, 07:49 PM

It's funny that Americans would make out in front others when they are drunk but they still keep their mouth shut about religion, money,politcs no matter where they are.

Duckling

Nov 2, 2007, 08:01 PM

It's funny that Americans would make out in front others when they are drunk but they still keep their mouth shut about religion, money,politcs no matter where they are.

I would tend to disagree with you here, because what you wrote does not make sense.

Americans do discuss politics, money, and religion, but in the correct context.

Now, you mentioned that Americans would make out in front of others when they are drunk. Yes, so you just named the context (being in a bar or letting loose at a party).

I think you agree that most Americans don't make out in classrooms, or while giving a public speech, and so forth.

michealb

Nov 2, 2007, 08:48 PM

So do you want to outlaw hate speech in public forums but still allow in private? In some parts of europe hate speech is outlawed completely even in private places. I'm not familiar with the canada law on how it's treated. What concerns me about outlawing hate speech is who gets to decide what hate speech is? I might think it is perfectly acceptable to say there is no god for example but maybe the religious right thinks that it is hateful to say that they have the majority so they win. I might... might be okay with local governments passing an anti-hate speech law in public places but I don't think it is the federal governments place to totally ban it

Duckling

Nov 2, 2007, 09:18 PM

So do you want to outlaw hate speech in public forums but still allow in private? In some parts of europe hate speech is outlawed completely even in private places. I'm not familiar with the canada law on how it's treated.

I clearly used the example of Canada. I also made my examples clear, just in case anyone tries to put a spin on them. I made it clear that I'm not talking about the example of some european countries not allowing hate in private places. You know what my take on this is.

What concerns me about outlawing hate speech is who gets to decide what hate speech is? I might think it is perfectly acceptable to say there is no god for example but maybe the religious right thinks that it is hateful to say that they have the majority so they win.

Who gets to decide? Through rational and logical arguments and free speech, the best constitutions are decided. And this can take place without having people spread, "women are fk*d or gays are slow" on a micraphone. This only produces hate, corruption, and ignorance in soceity.

What's there to fear in using sound logical arguments? If you need brutal-hateful slur in the place of diplomatic and sound arguments, then you don't believe in the power of what you're saying. And like I said before, that's called relying on propaganda.

I might...might be okay with local governments passing an anti-hate speech law in public places but I don't think it is the federal governments place to totally ban it

I never said that a government should have any sort of right to ban hate speech in a person's diary or something. In fact, I provided an example to make this clear: "people are clearly legally able to have sex at home. But people are not to have sex in the middle of a classroom or restaurant table".

Dark_crow

Nov 3, 2007, 12:19 PM

If I were President, I would try and help abolish hate speech (consisting of illogical hateful slurs against peoples or groups, based on gender, religion, ethnicity, disability, race, etc).

1. For example, I think it should be illegal for a priest to start calling out "homosexuals are slow, homosexuals are the devil, homosexuals are f*$kd". I think this type of speech should be illegal.

2. BUT this is different from someone expressing why a particular religion or ideology or sexual preference is wrong, in the light of a sound and logical argument they present. I think, for example, if a priest were to talk about the “logical reasoning” behind why it is wrong to be gay, is preferable than for him to start spreading hate speech.

* * *

What I have outlined in number 2, is the way the Canadians do it. I think we should adopt this. I would "suggest" this as President.

You see, people who try to spurt hate, are the people who do not believe in the power of what they say. They don't have enough logic or reasoning behind their position, so they need to depend on something else. And when you depend heavily on intimidation, prejudice and illogical slur, that is called depending on propaganda.

I don’t believe we need propaganda in our sites of societal discussion; the media.
Personally I believe we have had enough of the “Political Correctness” you advocate. Pointing out a crime and attaching the term ‘Hate’ to modify it is just another element that serves the purpose of one group or another and not everyone.