[Skell]

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]

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]

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

[ETWolverine]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[stonewilder]

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.