[quote]AndyG wrote:
A homicide rate per gun discharge is a poor way of looking at things because there will be more discharges if there is no gun control. Gun control is looking to stop the number of discharges.[/quote]
I’m more fearful of the apparent monthly vaginal discharge T-mag’s Australians have been hitting us with lately.
mike
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Could the libertarian circle please tell me how they draw a line?
A knife a gun, a rifle,all OK, right?
100 rifles? Machine spring guns and mines? A tank batallion? Weapons of mass destruction?
What’s forbidden in Utopia?[/quote]
I would say that you can use any direct fire weapon that’s organic to an infantry battallion.
mike
[quote]orion wrote:
Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Could the libertarian circle please tell me how they draw a line?
A knife a gun, a rifle,all OK, right?
100 rifles? Machine spring guns and mines? A tank batallion? Weapons of mass destruction?
What’s forbidden in Utopia?
I´d say enough to overthrow a government- That means including assault rifles.
[/quote]
This would almost go against the point. The second amendment (it is the second right?) came into existence because
“It is not the people who should fear the government, but the government fear the people”.
The united states came into existence because of a revolt against the government.
So to tell an american “if it can permit you to over throw a government, it’s too much” makes no sense, since it goes against the founding idea of the second amendment.
edit: And for the record, it is legal in england to own and operate/drive a TANK in the streets.
That’s about right dave.
but there should be some limit. I’ll leave it up to others to argue about what it should be.
Aragorn, that’s the cause of death, not the denominator in the deaths statistic.
Don’t really know much about that case and like yourself can’t be arsed doing to much research. He would have been found insane. Don’t you have that in America?
[quote]dhickey wrote:
AndyG wrote:
4.4 per 100 00 in Texas.
0.4 in Australia.
Not astronomical at all!
Who gives a shit about gun related death stats? Is it any more pleasent to be killed by knife or baseball bat? Total murder rate or accidental death rates would be more telling.[/quote]
Check the total murder rate then. USA is about 5-6 times higher.
[quote]AndyG wrote:
Aragorn, that’s the cause of death, not the denominator in the deaths statistic.
[/quote]
Cause of death is the only possible denominator. Honestly, are you allowed outside without a hockey helmet on your head?
I’m glad we have strict gun control in Canada, although obviously criminals still get their hands on them.
I dont think imposing such a control in the US would be successful though. The US is a very violent society–it’s ingrained in their culture and history.
When I lived in the US I was really surprised at the importance the average citizen places on “the gun”–in using it to dole out justice or protect their family from the boogeyman hellbent on robbing and raping their family.
Not to say that these fears are unfounded or ridiculous, but it’s a much different way of thinking than the average Canadian or European for instance.
A law banning guns wouldnt change any of these fears or attitudes.
[quote]Floortom wrote:
A law banning guns wouldnt change any of these fears or attitudes. [/quote]
A law banning guns would be unconstitutional. Thanks for your non-american opinion. It is worth about as much as a sweat-drenched pubic hair.
What is it with you 3rd world countries thinking the US gives a flying fuck about your pointless opinion?
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Floortom wrote:
A law banning guns wouldnt change any of these fears or attitudes.
A law banning guns would be unconstitutional. Thanks for your non-american opinion. It is worth about as much as a sweat-drenched pubic hair.
What is it with you 3rd world countries thinking the US gives a flying fuck about your pointless opinion? [/quote]
You seem upset?
[quote]AndyG wrote:
Aragorn, that’s the cause of death, not the denominator in the deaths statistic.[/quote]
Yes, I know that. The demoninator is “people” hence 100,000 people. I really didn’t think I needed to explain that.
Yes we do.
[quote]Floortom wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Floortom wrote:
A law banning guns wouldnt change any of these fears or attitudes.
A law banning guns would be unconstitutional. Thanks for your non-american opinion. It is worth about as much as a sweat-drenched pubic hair.
What is it with you 3rd world countries thinking the US gives a flying fuck about your pointless opinion?
You seem upset?[/quote]
Just tired of people like you looking over the fence and offering opinions when it is none of your fucking business. If you are happy being disarmed, then fine, no one cares. You don’t see Americans lining up to tell you how stupid, and nutless you are for ceding that right to the government.
But you guys start slobbering at the mouth to get a chance to opine in our our affairs.
I guess I should be used to it by now, the US seems to be all you non-americans have to talk about.
[quote]blazindave wrote:
orion wrote:
Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Could the libertarian circle please tell me how they draw a line?
A knife a gun, a rifle,all OK, right?
100 rifles? Machine spring guns and mines? A tank batallion? Weapons of mass destruction?
What’s forbidden in Utopia?
I´d say enough to overthrow a government- That means including assault rifles.
This would almost go against the point. The second amendment (it is the second right?) came into existence because
“It is not the people who should fear the government, but the government fear the people”.
The united states came into existence because of a revolt against the government.
So to tell an american “if it can permit you to over throw a government, it’s too much” makes no sense, since it goes against the founding idea of the second amendment.
edit: And for the record, it is legal in england to own and operate/drive a TANK in the streets.[/quote]
I think you misinterpreted his point.
He is saying that the people should be allowed to arm themselves to the point where they are capable of overthrowing the government. I agree with this.
Fear the government that fears your gun.
The US love affair with guns goes back to our founding. Natural rights, revolution against an authoritarian government, a focus on the individual against the state. Plus the western expansion and the frontier.
Most other countries, certainly asian dictatorships but even most european countries come from the completely opposite tradition. Rights are bequeathed to the people by the government and not the other way around like in the US.
All governments including our own WANT to control guns. Our constitution explicitly prevents it. To me and I think most Americans … the idea of the government coming into my house and taking my colt python is inconceivably offensive.
Any man that relinquishes to the government the responsibility for protecting himself has become a sheep.
It’s also very much a male vs. female thing too. Talking to liberals about guns is a lot liking talking to most women about guns. They just don’t get it.
Back to the concealed carry for teachers topic … there’s a reason the suicide shooters always pick gun free zones to do their deed … post offices, school yards, government buildings …
Teachers carrying guns doesn’t scare me any more than sheriff’s with guns …
[quote]Regular Gonzalez wrote:
blazindave wrote:
orion wrote:
Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Could the libertarian circle please tell me how they draw a line?
A knife a gun, a rifle,all OK, right?
100 rifles? Machine spring guns and mines? A tank batallion? Weapons of mass destruction?
What’s forbidden in Utopia?
I´d say enough to overthrow a government- That means including assault rifles.
This would almost go against the point. The second amendment (it is the second right?) came into existence because
“It is not the people who should fear the government, but the government fear the people”.
The united states came into existence because of a revolt against the government.
So to tell an american “if it can permit you to over throw a government, it’s too much” makes no sense, since it goes against the founding idea of the second amendment.
edit: And for the record, it is legal in england to own and operate/drive a TANK in the streets.
I think you misinterpreted his point.
He is saying that the people should be allowed to arm themselves to the point where they are capable of overthrowing the government. I agree with this.
[/quote]
Can’t be.
What should be forbidden? Enough to over throw the government - includes assault rifles…i read it as him saying if you have enough to over throw the government it’s too much.
If not, then my bad.
[quote]Floortom wrote:
I’m glad we have strict gun control in Canada, although obviously criminals still get their hands on them.
[/quote]
This has got to be one of the most retarded things i have ever read.
“Ah gee i love strict gun laws, but it’s true that criminals still have guns – dur–go peaceful canada!!”
I think you’re an idiot. I am a fellow canadian and the gun registry has got to be some of the most useless and expensive shit soccer moms like you have come up with.
Damn fucking right criminals still get their hands on them. Sure doesn’t stop the gangs in my area from using them.
So exactly, in your words please, is the point of strict gun laws?
FYI, i’ve lived in the states (california) as well as europe (france, italy and germany) and people were friendlier in the states than in europe. I’ve never worried about anything in the states and i had never heard of anything crazy. In germany it wasn’t unheard to hear how your friend survived a knife encounter with a bunch of turkish gangbangers because -OMG- he had a knife too.
When he busted out his knife, those fuckers ran.
So the conclusion here is the easy targets are what criminals are after. If everyone is sporting a gun, then criminals are less likely to go after anyone at all.
I’m not really for the idea of right to bear arms like in the states, because we arent used to it and i feel it would escalate. However something that has been ingrained in a country
since it’s birth should remain as is because for them, it works.
No matter what country, you will get the crazies. We just had that guy knife a passenger in the bus. We’ve had our school shootings too. Should we now ban all knives? Stop pointing the finger at the americans. We’re as violent as they are.
Don’t take the exception and make it the rule.
Great post blazindave. nice work. I particularly like your note about things ingrained in a country from its birth. Interestingly, it works both ways… some crazy things over in the subcontinent work for them though I’m pretty much at a loss for how that could be, and would certainly never want those things to find their way across the water to me.
every school I have ever attended had an on campus police officer.
high school due to the size of the student body had a few,4 if I remember correctly along with private security.
also every school I went to had a police station a few miles away and response time for EMS or police was no different than anyplace else in the community about 3 mins but because of the police that was already on campus they had first responders.
some thing happens in class,teachers call the campus cop and he is there within a mater of moments.
now if every school,not just the inner city ones had that going for them,why the need for teachers to carry guns?
I just dont think that guns should be in school.
not because its wrong,but because there is too high a risk for some sort of accident.
what if a teen gets ahold of the teachers gun somehow and starts shooting. or the teacher panics and shoots some kid in the face or something.
[quote]Nich wrote:
every school I have ever attended had an on campus police officer.
high school due to the size of the student body had a few,4 if I remember correctly along with private security.
also every school I went to had a police station a few miles away and response time for EMS or police was no different than anyplace else in the community about 3 mins but because of the police that was already on campus they had first responders.
some thing happens in class,teachers call the campus cop and he is there within a mater of moments.
now if every school,not just the inner city ones had that going for them,why the need for teachers to carry guns?
I just dont think that guns should be in school.
not because its wrong,but because there is too high a risk for some sort of accident.
what if a teen gets ahold of the teachers gun somehow and starts shooting. or the teacher panics and shoots some kid in the face or something.
[/quote]
What reason would a teacher have to shoot a kid in the face?
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
AndyG wrote:
Aragorn, that’s the cause of death, not the denominator in the deaths statistic.
Yes, I know that. The demoninator is “people” hence 100,000 people. I really didn’t think I needed to explain that.
Don’t really know much about that case and like yourself can’t be arsed doing to much research. He would have been found insane. Don’t you have that in America?
Yes we do. [/quote]
Well then why the fuck are you talking about guns per firearm discharge?
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Just tired of people like you looking over the fence and offering opinions when it is none of your fucking business. If you are happy being disarmed, then fine, no one cares. You don’t see Americans lining up to tell you how stupid, and nutless you are for ceding that right to the government. [/quote]
Don’t see the American’s sticking their nose in other people’s business ever do we?