I think the constitution is just fine, but i wouldn't call it sacred.
I've never called it sacred, but I also don't want to open it up and have people start fucking with it. The only proposals for ammendments to the constitution I've seen lately have had to do with restrictions to freedom and liberty. Ban gay marriage, ban flag burning, ban abortion, ban, ban, ban.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
I've never called it sacred, but I also don't want to open it up and have people start fucking with it. The only proposals for ammendments to the constitution I've seen lately have had to do with restrictions to freedom and liberty. Ban gay marriage, ban flag burning, ban abortion, ban, ban, ban.
You responded to a reply I made to someone who did call it sacred.
So is it legal for an american citizen to buy a private own nuclear missile?
I still laugh at the "RIGHT" to own a gun that is include in the constitution, where is it written in this Constitution that you have a Constitutional right to have a decent place to live in, or a decent roofs to raise your family under? I guess some rights have been forgetten at the profits of corporate rights. But i'm canadian, AND french, so what would i know?
"L'homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers"
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
then show me the exceptions. if the founding fathers thought that guns would never progress past the point they have; or; if the founding fathers wanted future generations to own/posess weapons inferior to their attackers; please show me the evidence. in addition to the constitution we have letters written between the founding fathers which further express their intent. are you taking these into consideration?
That's a silly argument. It has no basis in fact. Some countries (or cities) have more/less crime than others.
which is why stats are given "per capita". if i take 10 canadian criminals and 10 american vicars and compare their criminal activities; i could say that 10 out of 10 canadians are criminals yet all americans are not. it's rediculous.
different cities have different crime rates because THERE'S MORE BLOODY PEOPLE! i live in a town of 2000 people. everyone carries guns. we've had no real crime and no gun deaths. following your train of thought; this either proves that an armed society is a polite society; OR; that people here are much better people than those in say NYC.
being on the subject; if you trace back crime rates in cities; cities where you are not allowed to carry a gun have much higher crime rates. search back further and you will see that crime increased when the city banned victims from carrying guns.
a man with a gun is a citizen; a man without a gun is a subject.
then show me the exceptions. if the founding fathers thought that guns would never progress past the point they have; or; if the founding fathers wanted future generations to own/posess weapons inferior to their attackers; please show me the evidence. in addition to the constitution we have letters written between the founding fathers which further express their intent. are you taking these into consideration?
which was the accepted behavior of the time. what's your point?
which is why stats are given "per capita". if i take 10 canadian criminals and 10 american vicars and compare their criminal activities; i could say that 10 out of 10 canadians are criminals yet all americans are not. it's rediculous.
different cities have different crime rates because THERE'S MORE BLOODY PEOPLE! i live in a town of 2000 people. everyone carries guns. we've had no real crime and no gun deaths. following your train of thought; this either proves that an armed society is a polite society; OR; that people here are much better people than those in say NYC.
being on the subject; if you trace back crime rates in cities; cities where you are not allowed to carry a gun have much higher crime rates. search back further and you will see that crime increased when the city banned victims from carrying guns.
a man with a gun is a citizen; a man without a gun is a subject.
There are citizens who are criminals, and your country give these people easy access to every kind of tools they need, then you claim that you have a right to own a gun to protect yourself against other citizens who own guns but are dangerous. It's a never ending circle that makes the whole bullshit that is the NRA alive and very strong,
In other words, every level of society in the USA is allowed and encourage to own guns, to defend themselves against other gun owners. That's why in most civilized nation in the world, we rely on cops to do this job of protection, and still have lower crime rate than in the US. To each their own i guess.
"L'homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers"
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
So is it legal for an american citizen to buy a private own nuclear missile?
I still laugh at the "RIGHT" to own a gun that is include in the constitution, where is it written in this Constitution that you have a Constitutional right to have a decent place to live in, or a decent roofs to raise your family under? I guess some rights have been forgetten at the profits of corporate rights. But i'm canadian, AND french, so what would i know?
the persuit of happiness. you don't have a right to a roof over your head; you have the right to put a roof over your head. you have the right to choose. you can choose to be poor or choose to work and persue your dreams and happiness.
a nuclear missle is a WMD and falls under differnt guidelines.
the persuit of happiness. you don't have a right to a roof over your head; you have the right to put a roof over your head. you have the right to choose. you can choose to be poor or choose to work and persue your dreams and happiness.
a nuclear missle is a WMD and falls under differnt guidelines.
but as you said; you're canadian and a SUBJECT.
It's pretty lame compare to the clear amendment that calls for the RIGHT to own a weapon, the right to have a decent place to live is include in a blurry paragraph (pursuit of happiness). Let me put it this way, a homeless man wouldn't win anything in court if he'd be calling for his right to have a decent place to live, but someone will win his case for his right to have a decent gun to defend himself (probably against the poor homeless guy), pretty fucked up priorities.
"L'homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers"
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
There are citizens who are criminals, and your country give these people easy access to every kind of tools they need, then you claim that you have a right to own a gun to protect yourself against other citizens who own guns but are dangerous. It's a never ending circle that makes the whole bullshit that is the NRA alive and very strong,
In other words, every level of society in the USA is allowed and encourage to own guns, to defend themselves against other gun owners. That's why in most civilized nation in the world, we rely on cops to do this job of protection, and still have lower crime rate than in the US. To each their own i guess.
so i guess there's a cop following every citizen around to protect them from crime. here; a cop is called AFTER a crime is committed.
i've carried a handgun into canada several times so your laws are worth only the paper they are written on.
then show me the exceptions. if the founding fathers thought that guns would never progress past the point they have; or; if the founding fathers wanted future generations to own/posess weapons inferior to their attackers; please show me the evidence. in addition to the constitution we have letters written between the founding fathers which further express their intent. are you taking these into consideration?
which was the accepted behavior of the time. what's your point?
which is why stats are given "per capita". if i take 10 canadian criminals and 10 american vicars and compare their criminal activities; i could say that 10 out of 10 canadians are criminals yet all americans are not. it's rediculous.
different cities have different crime rates because THERE'S MORE BLOODY PEOPLE! i live in a town of 2000 people. everyone carries guns. we've had no real crime and no gun deaths. following your train of thought; this either proves that an armed society is a polite society; OR; that people here are much better people than those in say NYC.
being on the subject; if you trace back crime rates in cities; cities where you are not allowed to carry a gun have much higher crime rates. search back further and you will see that crime increased when the city banned victims from carrying guns.
a man with a gun is a citizen; a man without a gun is a subject.
I understand what per capita means. That doesn't change the fact that some regions/countries/cities are have more/less crime, per capita, than others. I don't believe that guns have a direct correlation to most of those stats. The anti-gun crowd uses "gun crimes" in their stats, the pro-gun crowd uses arguments like yours.
I'm pro choice, but I think the NRA and the "anti-gun" groups are both off full of shit for the most part. They both miss the bigger picture entirely when they ply their stats. Bowling for Columbine has a good example of this, when Moore cites the relative peace (and relative lack of "gun crime") in that country depsite the fact that a very large segment of the Canadian population owns guns.
so i guess there's a cop following every citizen around to protect them from crime. here; a cop is called AFTER a crime is committed.
i've carried a handgun into canada several times so your laws are worth only the paper they are written on.
Then democracy and state of law are stupid and shouldn't exist, therefore leading us to the next system that we'Ve never try, anarchy, maybe that's the key, where rights wouldn't be written in a book and choosen to fit the likes of some in powerfull position. Then i agree, anarchy is pretty much the system i'd like to see, but will never happen.
Until then, if you cross the border with your gun and haven't been arrest or had any problems, you're just lucky, just like the bank robber who has never been caught, there are plenty of criminal act commited each and every day who are not intercept or even known of, so your argument about laws on paper is crap, you don't have the right to carry your gun here, it's a criminal offense to carry a gun in public spaces, i wish you good luck in the future trying to do it over and over again, and keep bragging about it.
At least our laws and Constitution, do nothing to encourage gun ownership, it's still a weapon that is seen as a sporting goods or collector items, as oppose to what i understand from you, that you like guns for every unique citizen, for protection against the evil doers.
"L'homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers"
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
I understand what per capita means. That doesn't change the fact that some regions/countries/cities are have more/less crime, per capita, than others. I don't believe that guns have a direct correlation to most of those stats. The anti-gun crowd uses "gun crimes" in their stats, the pro-gun crowd uses arguments like yours.
I'm pro choice, but I think the NRA and the "anti-gun" groups are both off full of shit for the most part. They both miss the bigger picture entirely when they ply their stats. Bowling for Columbine has a good example of this, when Moore cites the relative peace (and relative lack of "gun crime") in that country depsite the fact that a very large segment of the Canadian population owns guns.
but what you're saying is:
take the gun away from a criminal and they are no longer a criminal.
stats show that more crimes are committed directly or indirectly as a result of alcohol. there is also more stabbings than gun injuries.
but what you're saying is:
take the gun away from a criminal and they are no longer a criminal.
stats show that more crimes are committed directly or indirectly as a result of alcohol. there is also more stabbings than gun injuries.
If one is a criminal prone to violence, yes, take away the gun.
No it doesn't completely deter crime and that's the same for every country in the world (you imply "your (canada) law" only), but our current set of laws allow us to live in a place where crime rates is far lower than it is, just 6 hours drive south from here.
Even with as many gun owners per capita than the USA, many country on this planet have far lower crime rate and prison populations than the USA, therefore it'S in your culture of gun ownership that most of the problem takes places, the fact that gun ownership is encourage by the most important paper in the country after the Bible, is a problem. You don't need to own a gun, as oppose to your need to have a roof, or you need to be fed, the list of those rights that are not written black on white in your constitution could be very long, but guns are in the protected items list, strangely. If you wanna make one items a right, it must be something you need for your human survival, therefore your Constitution makes gun a necessary survival items, and the argument is because you need to protect yourself against other gun owners who are actually evil doers or any other bad person. You won't reduce crimes as long as this amendment is effective.
Again make gun ownership legal under some requirement (hunt, collector, cops, army), not a right over everything elses humans need to survive.
"L'homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers"
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
you can own a tank or fighter jet. demiliterized of course. i once had a neighbor who owned a WWI tank. visit an air show and you'll meet a lot of people that privately own military aircraft.
I remember watching some show on TV about a guy who had like 20+ tanks.
Crazy!
Anyways, how do they demiliterize a fighter jet or tank? Wouldn't THAT go against the constitution? I mean, could they de-militerize a pistol or a rifle? LOL You all can own guns, but you don't get bullets!
how? we have more people killed with other methods then actual gun deaths.
what you're saying is that if a junkie has a gun he will steal to get his next fix; however; if you take the gun away; it will cure his addiction thus removing his need to committ crimes.
i spent yesterday with the tele on while i did chores. there must have been a marathon because there was crime show after crime show. not one depicted a crime involving a gun. these are real case files. there are more crimes committed which DOES NOT involve a gun in any way. the crimes you speak of are crimes committed by those who will have a gun no matter what the law is. illegal guns flow over the border like rivers flow to the sea.
about 10 or 15 years ago the BATF busted a private militia in i believe montana. this group could have taken canada. canadians are not prepared to protect themselves against infiltration. especially since you couldn't identify the enemy and it only takes a small group to "cut off the head" of the military. you can't imagine it but it happens.
seriously; why does what happens in america concern you? if you have your perfect little world; why worry about another country?
how? we have more people killed with other methods then actual gun deaths.
what you're saying is that if a junkie has a gun he will steal to get his next fix; however; if you take the gun away; it will cure his addiction thus removing his need to committ crimes.
i spent yesterday with the tele on while i did chores. there must have been a marathon because there was crime show after crime show. not one depicted a crime involving a gun. these are real case files. there are more crimes committed which DOES NOT involve a gun in any way. the crimes you speak of are crimes committed by those who will have a gun no matter what the law is. illegal guns flow over the border like rivers flow to the sea.
about 10 or 15 years ago the BATF busted a private militia in i believe montana. this group could have taken canada. canadians are not prepared to protect themselves against infiltration. especially since you couldn't identify the enemy and it only takes a small group to "cut off the head" of the military. you can't imagine it but it happens.
seriously; why does what happens in america concern you? if you have your perfect little world; why worry about another country?
You're twisting the argument with your "take away the gun you take away the criminal" implication.
Your arguments are empty to me now. I've stated my viewpoint and have nothing further to say on the matter.
Peace.
how? we have more people killed with other methods then actual gun deaths.
According to the U.S. Justice Department, in 2004 (the last year for which statistics are available), there were 10,624 homicides committed with a gun, and 5,484 committed with all other weapons combined.
No it doesn't completely deter crime and that's the same for every country in the world (you imply "your (canada) law" only), but our current set of laws allow us to live in a place where crime rates is far lower than it is, just 6 hours drive south from here.
Even with as many gun owners per capita than the USA, many country on this planet have far lower crime rate and prison populations than the USA, therefore it'S in your culture of gun ownership that most of the problem takes places, the fact that gun ownership is encourage by the most important paper in the country after the Bible, is a problem. You don't need to own a gun, as oppose to your need to have a roof, or you need to be fed, the list of those rights that are not written black on white in your constitution could be very long, but guns are in the protected items list, strangely. If you wanna make one items a right, it must be something you need for your human survival, therefore your Constitution makes gun a necessary survival items, and the argument is because you need to protect yourself against other gun owners who are actually evil doers or any other bad person. You won't reduce crimes as long as this amendment is effective.
Again make gun ownership legal under some requirement (hunt, collector, cops, army), not a right over everything elses humans need to survive.
give me PER CAPITA stats. if the population "6 hours south" is 10 times your population; then the crime rate "6 hours south" is actually lower. also; the gun laws "6 hours south" are among the strictest in the country. so what does that say about the effectiveness of laws?
According to the U.S. Justice Department, in 2004 (the last year for which statistics are available), there were 10,624 homicides committed with a gun, and 5,484 committed with all other weapons combined.
interesting; drunk driving is a crime and killing someone while drunk driving is a homicide. there was somewhere around 30,000 alcohol related driving deaths so i'd like to see their control group. were these homocides committed by criminals that would have an illegal gun or people that bought their guns legally? this is where the argument comes in.
interesting; drunk driving is a crime and killing someone while drunk driving is a homicide. there was somewhere around 30,000 alcohol related driving deaths so i'd like to see their control group. were these homocides committed by criminals that would have an illegal gun or people that bought their guns legally? this is where the argument comes in.
more people own cars than they do guns... it harks back to your per capita thing...
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
Ah dunkman....I love to see someone using the word "harks" in a sentence. Thanks for that.
no problem.
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
more people own cars than they do guns... it harks back to your per capita thing...
the stat was a national stat; not a per capita. but let's look at it as per capita; 10,624 gun deaths. the us population is 301,368,496. http://www.census.gov/population/www/popclockus.html
do the math. you're more likely to be hit by lightening than killed by a gun in the us. you're more likely to win the lottery.
more people own cars than they do guns... it harks back to your per capita thing...
where did you get this fact from? according to the nra; more than 50% of americans legally own guns. i've never known a gunowner to own less than 2 and i personally own close to 30.
looking to big cities where car ownership is almost impossible; i find it hard to believe that more people own cars than own guns.
the nra estimate didn't factor in illegally owned guns.
you may be right but i doubt it. just wondering where you got this statement.
the stat was a national stat; not a per capita. but let's look at it as per capita; 10,624 gun deaths. the us population is 301,368,496. http://www.census.gov/population/www/popclockus.html
do the math. you're more likely to be hit by lightening than killed by a gun in the us. you're more likely to win the lottery.
but i'm 10 times more likely to be shot in the states than i am in the UK... which means i am even less likely to be struck by lightening than you are
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
where did you get this fact from? according to the nra; more than 50% of americans legally own guns. i've never known a gunowner to own less than 2 and i personally own close to 30.
looking to big cities where car ownership is almost impossible; i find it hard to believe that more people own cars than own guns.
the nra estimate didn't factor in illegally owned guns.
you may be right but i doubt it. just wondering where you got this statement.
In 1994, 44 million Americans owned 192 million firearms, 65
million of which were handguns. Although there were enough guns
to have provided every U.S. adult with one, only 25 percent of adults
actually owned firearms; 74 percent of gun owners possessed two
or more.
looks like on average each american has 3-ish handguns... but the total number of vehicles is about the same but there will be less cars per person... so more road users...
your more likely to be killed by a car purely and simply because there are more of them VISIBLE... thats why its not a good argument... more people were killed by the Boxing Day Tsunami than were killed by guns in america last year... should we ban tsunamis :rolleyes:
just as an aside to highlight the US problem:-
The latest gun crime figures from Scotland show a total of 970 offences in which a firearm was alleged to have been used in 2003, a reduction of over 9% from 2002. A large proportion of the offences (43 percent) involved air weapons, and 37 percent were committed with unidentified weapons (the latter figure has increased significantly in recent years since Strathclyde (after 2001) and Lothian and Borders (after 2002) stopped making assumptions about what type of weapon was used even if it had not been identified - it was usually assumed that this was an air weapon for statistical returns and this is still likely to be the case). Handguns were involved in 29 offences, the lowest number since 1990. No handgun was used in any offence which caused injury or death.
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
but i'm 10 times more likely to be shot in the states than i am in the UK... which means i am even less likely to be struck by lightening than you are
by all means; stay in the uk. but isn't it funny how the uk has been involved in more wars than any other country? and the uk has taken more territory than any other country. you've got a nice bunch of peace loving people there i see.
In 1994, 44 million Americans owned 192 million firearms, 65
million of which were handguns. Although there were enough guns
to have provided every U.S. adult with one, only 25 percent of adults
actually owned firearms; 74 percent of gun owners possessed two
or more.
looks like on average each american has 3-ish handguns... but the total number of vehicles is about the same but there will be less cars per person... so more road users...
your more likely to be killed by a car purely and simply because there are more of them VISIBLE... thats why its not a good argument... more people were killed by the Boxing Day Tsunami than were killed by guns in america last year... should we ban tsunamis :rolleyes:
just as an aside to highlight the US problem:-
The latest gun crime figures from Scotland show a total of 970 offences in which a firearm was alleged to have been used in 2003, a reduction of over 9% from 2002. A large proportion of the offences (43 percent) involved air weapons, and 37 percent were committed with unidentified weapons (the latter figure has increased significantly in recent years since Strathclyde (after 2001) and Lothian and Borders (after 2002) stopped making assumptions about what type of weapon was used even if it had not been identified - it was usually assumed that this was an air weapon for statistical returns and this is still likely to be the case). Handguns were involved in 29 offences, the lowest number since 1990. No handgun was used in any offence which caused injury or death.
why is sunday bloody sunday ringing through my head?
Comments
I've never called it sacred, but I also don't want to open it up and have people start fucking with it. The only proposals for ammendments to the constitution I've seen lately have had to do with restrictions to freedom and liberty. Ban gay marriage, ban flag burning, ban abortion, ban, ban, ban.
You responded to a reply I made to someone who did call it sacred.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
I still laugh at the "RIGHT" to own a gun that is include in the constitution, where is it written in this Constitution that you have a Constitutional right to have a decent place to live in, or a decent roofs to raise your family under? I guess some rights have been forgetten at the profits of corporate rights. But i'm canadian, AND french, so what would i know?
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
then show me the exceptions. if the founding fathers thought that guns would never progress past the point they have; or; if the founding fathers wanted future generations to own/posess weapons inferior to their attackers; please show me the evidence. in addition to the constitution we have letters written between the founding fathers which further express their intent. are you taking these into consideration?
which was the accepted behavior of the time. what's your point?
which is why stats are given "per capita". if i take 10 canadian criminals and 10 american vicars and compare their criminal activities; i could say that 10 out of 10 canadians are criminals yet all americans are not. it's rediculous.
different cities have different crime rates because THERE'S MORE BLOODY PEOPLE! i live in a town of 2000 people. everyone carries guns. we've had no real crime and no gun deaths. following your train of thought; this either proves that an armed society is a polite society; OR; that people here are much better people than those in say NYC.
being on the subject; if you trace back crime rates in cities; cities where you are not allowed to carry a gun have much higher crime rates. search back further and you will see that crime increased when the city banned victims from carrying guns.
a man with a gun is a citizen; a man without a gun is a subject.
There are citizens who are criminals, and your country give these people easy access to every kind of tools they need, then you claim that you have a right to own a gun to protect yourself against other citizens who own guns but are dangerous. It's a never ending circle that makes the whole bullshit that is the NRA alive and very strong,
In other words, every level of society in the USA is allowed and encourage to own guns, to defend themselves against other gun owners. That's why in most civilized nation in the world, we rely on cops to do this job of protection, and still have lower crime rate than in the US. To each their own i guess.
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
the persuit of happiness. you don't have a right to a roof over your head; you have the right to put a roof over your head. you have the right to choose. you can choose to be poor or choose to work and persue your dreams and happiness.
a nuclear missle is a WMD and falls under differnt guidelines.
but as you said; you're canadian and a SUBJECT.
It's pretty lame compare to the clear amendment that calls for the RIGHT to own a weapon, the right to have a decent place to live is include in a blurry paragraph (pursuit of happiness). Let me put it this way, a homeless man wouldn't win anything in court if he'd be calling for his right to have a decent place to live, but someone will win his case for his right to have a decent gun to defend himself (probably against the poor homeless guy), pretty fucked up priorities.
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
so i guess there's a cop following every citizen around to protect them from crime. here; a cop is called AFTER a crime is committed.
i've carried a handgun into canada several times so your laws are worth only the paper they are written on.
I understand what per capita means. That doesn't change the fact that some regions/countries/cities are have more/less crime, per capita, than others. I don't believe that guns have a direct correlation to most of those stats. The anti-gun crowd uses "gun crimes" in their stats, the pro-gun crowd uses arguments like yours.
I'm pro choice, but I think the NRA and the "anti-gun" groups are both off full of shit for the most part. They both miss the bigger picture entirely when they ply their stats. Bowling for Columbine has a good example of this, when Moore cites the relative peace (and relative lack of "gun crime") in that country depsite the fact that a very large segment of the Canadian population owns guns.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
here's some information.
Then democracy and state of law are stupid and shouldn't exist, therefore leading us to the next system that we'Ve never try, anarchy, maybe that's the key, where rights wouldn't be written in a book and choosen to fit the likes of some in powerfull position. Then i agree, anarchy is pretty much the system i'd like to see, but will never happen.
Until then, if you cross the border with your gun and haven't been arrest or had any problems, you're just lucky, just like the bank robber who has never been caught, there are plenty of criminal act commited each and every day who are not intercept or even known of, so your argument about laws on paper is crap, you don't have the right to carry your gun here, it's a criminal offense to carry a gun in public spaces, i wish you good luck in the future trying to do it over and over again, and keep bragging about it.
At least our laws and Constitution, do nothing to encourage gun ownership, it's still a weapon that is seen as a sporting goods or collector items, as oppose to what i understand from you, that you like guns for every unique citizen, for protection against the evil doers.
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
but what you're saying is:
take the gun away from a criminal and they are no longer a criminal.
stats show that more crimes are committed directly or indirectly as a result of alcohol. there is also more stabbings than gun injuries.
so your laws don't deter crime.
If one is a criminal prone to violence, yes, take away the gun.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
No it doesn't completely deter crime and that's the same for every country in the world (you imply "your (canada) law" only), but our current set of laws allow us to live in a place where crime rates is far lower than it is, just 6 hours drive south from here.
Even with as many gun owners per capita than the USA, many country on this planet have far lower crime rate and prison populations than the USA, therefore it'S in your culture of gun ownership that most of the problem takes places, the fact that gun ownership is encourage by the most important paper in the country after the Bible, is a problem. You don't need to own a gun, as oppose to your need to have a roof, or you need to be fed, the list of those rights that are not written black on white in your constitution could be very long, but guns are in the protected items list, strangely. If you wanna make one items a right, it must be something you need for your human survival, therefore your Constitution makes gun a necessary survival items, and the argument is because you need to protect yourself against other gun owners who are actually evil doers or any other bad person. You won't reduce crimes as long as this amendment is effective.
Again make gun ownership legal under some requirement (hunt, collector, cops, army), not a right over everything elses humans need to survive.
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
I remember watching some show on TV about a guy who had like 20+ tanks.
Crazy!
Anyways, how do they demiliterize a fighter jet or tank? Wouldn't THAT go against the constitution? I mean, could they de-militerize a pistol or a rifle? LOL You all can own guns, but you don't get bullets!
how? we have more people killed with other methods then actual gun deaths.
what you're saying is that if a junkie has a gun he will steal to get his next fix; however; if you take the gun away; it will cure his addiction thus removing his need to committ crimes.
i spent yesterday with the tele on while i did chores. there must have been a marathon because there was crime show after crime show. not one depicted a crime involving a gun. these are real case files. there are more crimes committed which DOES NOT involve a gun in any way. the crimes you speak of are crimes committed by those who will have a gun no matter what the law is. illegal guns flow over the border like rivers flow to the sea.
about 10 or 15 years ago the BATF busted a private militia in i believe montana. this group could have taken canada. canadians are not prepared to protect themselves against infiltration. especially since you couldn't identify the enemy and it only takes a small group to "cut off the head" of the military. you can't imagine it but it happens.
seriously; why does what happens in america concern you? if you have your perfect little world; why worry about another country?
You're twisting the argument with your "take away the gun you take away the criminal" implication.
Your arguments are empty to me now. I've stated my viewpoint and have nothing further to say on the matter.
Peace.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/weaponstab.htm
give me PER CAPITA stats. if the population "6 hours south" is 10 times your population; then the crime rate "6 hours south" is actually lower. also; the gun laws "6 hours south" are among the strictest in the country. so what does that say about the effectiveness of laws?
interesting; drunk driving is a crime and killing someone while drunk driving is a homicide. there was somewhere around 30,000 alcohol related driving deaths so i'd like to see their control group. were these homocides committed by criminals that would have an illegal gun or people that bought their guns legally? this is where the argument comes in.
more people own cars than they do guns... it harks back to your per capita thing...
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
no problem.
the stat was a national stat; not a per capita. but let's look at it as per capita; 10,624 gun deaths. the us population is 301,368,496.
http://www.census.gov/population/www/popclockus.html
do the math. you're more likely to be hit by lightening than killed by a gun in the us. you're more likely to win the lottery.
where did you get this fact from? according to the nra; more than 50% of americans legally own guns. i've never known a gunowner to own less than 2 and i personally own close to 30.
looking to big cities where car ownership is almost impossible; i find it hard to believe that more people own cars than own guns.
the nra estimate didn't factor in illegally owned guns.
you may be right but i doubt it. just wondering where you got this statement.
but i'm 10 times more likely to be shot in the states than i am in the UK... which means i am even less likely to be struck by lightening than you are
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/1996/in3.pdf
also
In 1994, 44 million Americans owned 192 million firearms, 65
million of which were handguns. Although there were enough guns
to have provided every U.S. adult with one, only 25 percent of adults
actually owned firearms; 74 percent of gun owners possessed two
or more.
looks like on average each american has 3-ish handguns... but the total number of vehicles is about the same but there will be less cars per person... so more road users...
your more likely to be killed by a car purely and simply because there are more of them VISIBLE... thats why its not a good argument... more people were killed by the Boxing Day Tsunami than were killed by guns in america last year... should we ban tsunamis :rolleyes:
just as an aside to highlight the US problem:-
The latest gun crime figures from Scotland show a total of 970 offences in which a firearm was alleged to have been used in 2003, a reduction of over 9% from 2002. A large proportion of the offences (43 percent) involved air weapons, and 37 percent were committed with unidentified weapons (the latter figure has increased significantly in recent years since Strathclyde (after 2001) and Lothian and Borders (after 2002) stopped making assumptions about what type of weapon was used even if it had not been identified - it was usually assumed that this was an air weapon for statistical returns and this is still likely to be the case). Handguns were involved in 29 offences, the lowest number since 1990. No handgun was used in any offence which caused injury or death.
by all means; stay in the uk. but isn't it funny how the uk has been involved in more wars than any other country? and the uk has taken more territory than any other country. you've got a nice bunch of peace loving people there i see.
why is sunday bloody sunday ringing through my head?