Read Freakanomics. There are some great answers to the crime debate in the US. It's not about the guns... It's about class struggles, education, rich vs poor, equality, cultural hatred, healthcare , frustration, and abortion rates.
Our country is unique in all these aspects so drawing comparisons with counties with strict gun laws is erroneous because the socioeconomic systems are vastly different.
i'll do that. it sounds like the intelligent way to address problems. thank you
New laws will solve nothing as long as there is a gun culture in the US. When I recently travelled through LAX I had a gun pointed at me because I tried repeatedly to ask an immigration officer a question when I'd been told to "STAND IN LINE!!!". (It didn't help that I started to sing "hey fatty boom boom" to the overweight officer in question, Couldn't help it!!)
In NZ and the UK as I've seen it, the police are respected for there positions, not because they carry firearms. This hugely reduces peoples perceived (sp) need for guns. People tend to presume that no one is carrying a gun, thus they themselve don't need a gun. This is what I see anyway. Long story short, when i went through LAX I felt terrified. Anywhere else, I felt "normal".
New laws will solve nothing as long as there is a gun culture in the US. When I recently travelled through LAX I had a gun pointed at me because I tried repeatedly to ask an immigration officer a question when I'd been told to "STAND IN LINE!!!". (It didn't help that I started to sing "hey fatty boom boom" to the overweight officer in question, Couldn't help it!!)
In NZ and the UK as I've seen it, the police are respected for there positions, not because they carry firearms. This hugely reduces peoples perceived (sp) need for guns. People tend to presume that no one is carrying a gun, thus they themselve don't need a gun. This is what I see anyway. Long story short, when i went through LAX I felt terrified. Anywhere else, I felt "normal".
Cheers,
Steve
there's much more to it steve. if you like; i can find a post from last week stating the shootings in south london. we cannot remove guns unless we can remove the technology from the minds of everyone. isn't the problem really about those who abuse them?
those neighbours were reported until someone listened and something was done about it. cities have much more system abuse so what's your point. you'll find much more abuse in NYC yet they have the strictest gunlaws so where does that fits in here?
most of that list includes people from phoenix; but again; where does that fit in here?
if your neighbours wouldn't protect you; i feel sorry for you.
and yes; draw back on me and i'll shoot you dead. it's called self defence. backed by the supreme court. if you can't live by society's rules and be peaceful; you pay the price.
i can throw a knife more accurately than most people can shoot.
as for the rest; i posted a disclaimer at/near the beginning of that thread saying i'm taking the extreme side for the sake of the debate. it also said that some things said are not my belief; but only part of the debate process. remember debate in school? you were given a topic to defend. my thread about the housewife killing an attacker where i defended the attacker; was clear to any idiot that i can defend both sides. you must take the entire debate as a whole. i'm honoured that you think so much of me; that you hang on every word and archive everything i say. unfortunately; i don't feel the same.
...
You must have been the worst lawyer... EVER.
Good call not practicing law anymore.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
there's much more to it steve. if you like; i can find a post from last week stating the shootings in south london.
This is true and unfortunate.
I'd believe that these rules should apply to all countries.
I was more trying to get at the "right to bear arms" part of the US constitution which I personally see as a antiquated part of the constitution. This seems to be where people can defend themselves against having unneccesary firearms instead of sporting firearms.
This is not an attack on the stance of US arms bearers specifically but more on the idea of arms to defend oneself, (which seems more prevalent in the US than elsewhere).
Again, I don't have an intimate knowledge of the US constitution and it's everyday implications, but it seems to me that there is so much damage done through the defence of it than what could be gained from the changing of it.
I'd believe that these rules should apply to all countries.
I was more trying to get at the "right to bear arms" part of the US constitution which I personally see as a antiquated part of the constitution. This seems to be where people can defend themselves against having unneccesary firearms instead of sporting firearms.
This is not an attack on the stance of US arms bearers specifically but more on the idea of arms to defend oneself, (which seems more prevalent in the US than elsewhere).
Again, I don't have an intimate knowledge of the US constitution and it's everyday implications, but it seems to me that there is so much damage done through the defence of it than what could be gained from the changing of it.
Cheers,
Steve
i understand the confusion mate. i had a hard time understanding the UK's stance until jeremy explained it. to be honest; i had to shut my bloody mouth and listen to what he had to say. now i understand.
the problem doesn't lie in the honest people having guns. it has more to do with criminals committing crimes with guns. that's my take on it anyway.
if you're interested in the constitution; primarily the 2nd amendment; i'll post a link below which has quotes from our founding fathers. it's purpose was to protect us from the government. give it a read mate. i think you'll find it interesting.
cheers http://www.trollcave.com/2nd_Amendment.html
Ironically, I believe that the lack of a written constitution in NZ, (I think the UK also although I'm not particularly aware of UK gun law) has helped us avoid such ambiguity.
Although I read the article you posted numerous times, I understood maybe half of it. The Ambiguity makes me understand how it is possible for you (US citizens) to dispute this clause so verociously. There are so many ways to argue any number of points of view that it drives ME insane. I can't imagine what it does to those directly affected. This stilll doesn't move me from my persective of limiting gun ownership but does allow me to somewhat understand the quagmire you're in.
Ironically, I believe that the lack of a written constitution in NZ, (I think the UK also although I'm not particularly aware of UK gun law) has helped us avoid such ambiguity.
Although I read the article you posted numerous times, I understood maybe half of it. The Ambiguity makes me understand how it is possible for you (US citizens) to dispute this clause so verociously. There are so many ways to argue any number of points of view that it drives ME insane. I can't imagine what it does to those directly affected. This stilll doesn't move me from my persective of limiting gun ownership but does allow me to somewhat understand the quagmire you're in.
Cheers,
Steve
my intent wasn't to sway you. but after reading that; do you think the 2nd amendment was meant to protect us from the type of government we have now?
just a friendly question between blokes.
cheers
my intent wasn't to sway you. but after reading that; do you think the 2nd amendment was meant to protect us from the type of government we have now?
just a friendly question between blokes.
cheers
I think that the founding fathers were some of the most enlightened thinkers that western philosophy has ever seen.
I personally believe that the current administration are leaning towards what they (the founding fathers) believed were wrong and deserved to be stood up against. However, I think that people are too comfortable these days to stand up to the administrations infringements of personal liberty and I also believe that the climate in which the constitution was written (that of great fervour and earnest) has evaporated greatly.
I sincerely hope I'm wrong. The one thing I always hope those with any power in hand will remember is that they're acting with more than just their interests in mind, but with those of the entire globe, as selfish as that may sound.
Cheers,
Steve
ps, how do you set up a signature, I'm sick of typing cheers, steve
I think that the founding fathers were some of the most enlightened thinkers that western philosophy has ever seen.
I personally believe that the current administration are leaning towards what they (the founding fathers) believed were wrong and deserved to be stood up against. However, I think that people are too comfortable these days to stand up to the administrations infringements of personal liberty and I also believe that the climate in which the constitution was written (that of great fervour and earnest) has evaporated greatly.
I sincerely hope I'm wrong. The one thing I always hope those with any power in hand will remember is that they're acting with more than just their interests in mind, but with those of the entire globe, as selfish as that may sound.
Cheers,
Steve
ps, how do you set up a signature, I'm sick of typing cheers, steve
cheers,
Steve
i wish you were wrong too steve but you're not. you're "outside looking in" analasis is spot on.
cheers
click on private messages (top right) and on the left hand side you'll see "edit signature". click there; type cheers; and click apply (or submitt. i forget)
1. these ‘random’ shootings aren’t random anymore which means the system needs to be changed.
2. This isn’t a wild, brand new country anymore. We aren’t living in the wild wild west now. Americans confuse ‘the right to bare arms’ with ‘the right to protect oneself’
3. The mental healthcare system is broken. These people who are right on the edge of exploding can’t get the help they need due to redtape BS. Often it’s because of bad insurance companies. Also if a family member or somebody close to the person on edge tries to get that person help they hit a wall. Imagine watching somebody you love have a melt down and there’s nothing you can do about it.
4. (this one is a stretch) There’s no parents at home nowadays to raise their kids. They’re out trying to make enough money to afford things they can’t pay for in the first place. Ex. SUV’s, credit cards bills – which people use to buy things that are beyond their means, but they think they’re entitled to. Meanwhile who suffers? The kids.
*~Pearl Jam will be blasted from speakers until morale improves~*
1. these ‘random’ shootings aren’t random anymore which means the system needs to be changed.
2. This isn’t a wild, brand new country anymore. We aren’t living in the wild wild west now. Americans confuse ‘the right to bare arms’ with ‘the right to protect oneself’
3. The mental healthcare system is broken. These people who are right on the edge of exploding can’t get the help they need due to redtape BS. Often it’s because of bad insurance companies. Also if a family member or somebody close to the person on edge tries to get that person help they hit a wall. Imagine watching somebody you love have a melt down and there’s nothing you can do about it.
4. (this one is a stretch) There’s no parents at home nowadays to raise their kids. They’re out trying to make enough money to afford things they can’t pay for in the first place. Ex. SUV’s, credit cards bills – which people use to buy things that are beyond their means, but they think they’re entitled to. Meanwhile who suffers? The kids.
i agree with the mental healthcare system; but many places are the wild west. we have places in this country man has never seen. we have thousands of ranchers raising your food on the open range.
as far as the second amendment; it's purpose is to protect us from the government; and for the people to be prepared to protect the country in the event of invasion. http://www.trollcave.com/2nd_Amendment.html
do you think that america's incessant(sp?) focus on idividualism has any blame? I personally see this as the major reason that seperates the haves and have nots, in every spectrum(financial and mental especially) possible.
ps, most western countries follow a similar pattern, the us just seems to be on the crest of the wave
If enough of Americans see this as a problem, they will get together and figure out some way to solve it. Thing is, with how regular these things are, it seems like it's become such a routine item on the news that when it does happen, people just think, "oh ok, here's that same news item again", without thinking of it as an actual problem.
I remember when I used to get pissed off at the lack of response to these shootings. I don't anymore. At the end of the day, it's not my problem as a foreigner who won't live in the US any time soon. As long as this idea that random shootings comes along with 'the sanctity of individual liberty' isn't exported to other places, I just don't care anymore.
Comments
i'll do that. it sounds like the intelligent way to address problems. thank you
In NZ and the UK as I've seen it, the police are respected for there positions, not because they carry firearms. This hugely reduces peoples perceived (sp) need for guns. People tend to presume that no one is carrying a gun, thus they themselve don't need a gun. This is what I see anyway. Long story short, when i went through LAX I felt terrified. Anywhere else, I felt "normal".
Cheers,
Steve
there's much more to it steve. if you like; i can find a post from last week stating the shootings in south london. we cannot remove guns unless we can remove the technology from the minds of everyone. isn't the problem really about those who abuse them?
You must have been the worst lawyer... EVER.
Good call not practicing law anymore.
Hail, Hail!!!
This is true and unfortunate.
I'd believe that these rules should apply to all countries.
I was more trying to get at the "right to bear arms" part of the US constitution which I personally see as a antiquated part of the constitution. This seems to be where people can defend themselves against having unneccesary firearms instead of sporting firearms.
This is not an attack on the stance of US arms bearers specifically but more on the idea of arms to defend oneself, (which seems more prevalent in the US than elsewhere).
Again, I don't have an intimate knowledge of the US constitution and it's everyday implications, but it seems to me that there is so much damage done through the defence of it than what could be gained from the changing of it.
Cheers,
Steve
i understand the confusion mate. i had a hard time understanding the UK's stance until jeremy explained it. to be honest; i had to shut my bloody mouth and listen to what he had to say. now i understand.
the problem doesn't lie in the honest people having guns. it has more to do with criminals committing crimes with guns. that's my take on it anyway.
if you're interested in the constitution; primarily the 2nd amendment; i'll post a link below which has quotes from our founding fathers. it's purpose was to protect us from the government. give it a read mate. i think you'll find it interesting.
cheers
http://www.trollcave.com/2nd_Amendment.html
Ironically, I believe that the lack of a written constitution in NZ, (I think the UK also although I'm not particularly aware of UK gun law) has helped us avoid such ambiguity.
Although I read the article you posted numerous times, I understood maybe half of it. The Ambiguity makes me understand how it is possible for you (US citizens) to dispute this clause so verociously. There are so many ways to argue any number of points of view that it drives ME insane. I can't imagine what it does to those directly affected. This stilll doesn't move me from my persective of limiting gun ownership but does allow me to somewhat understand the quagmire you're in.
Cheers,
Steve
my intent wasn't to sway you. but after reading that; do you think the 2nd amendment was meant to protect us from the type of government we have now?
just a friendly question between blokes.
cheers
I think that the founding fathers were some of the most enlightened thinkers that western philosophy has ever seen.
I personally believe that the current administration are leaning towards what they (the founding fathers) believed were wrong and deserved to be stood up against. However, I think that people are too comfortable these days to stand up to the administrations infringements of personal liberty and I also believe that the climate in which the constitution was written (that of great fervour and earnest) has evaporated greatly.
I sincerely hope I'm wrong. The one thing I always hope those with any power in hand will remember is that they're acting with more than just their interests in mind, but with those of the entire globe, as selfish as that may sound.
Cheers,
Steve
ps, how do you set up a signature, I'm sick of typing cheers, steve
cheers,
Steve
i wish you were wrong too steve but you're not. you're "outside looking in" analasis is spot on.
cheers
click on private messages (top right) and on the left hand side you'll see "edit signature". click there; type cheers; and click apply (or submitt. i forget)
1. these ‘random’ shootings aren’t random anymore which means the system needs to be changed.
2. This isn’t a wild, brand new country anymore. We aren’t living in the wild wild west now. Americans confuse ‘the right to bare arms’ with ‘the right to protect oneself’
3. The mental healthcare system is broken. These people who are right on the edge of exploding can’t get the help they need due to redtape BS. Often it’s because of bad insurance companies. Also if a family member or somebody close to the person on edge tries to get that person help they hit a wall. Imagine watching somebody you love have a melt down and there’s nothing you can do about it.
4. (this one is a stretch) There’s no parents at home nowadays to raise their kids. They’re out trying to make enough money to afford things they can’t pay for in the first place. Ex. SUV’s, credit cards bills – which people use to buy things that are beyond their means, but they think they’re entitled to. Meanwhile who suffers? The kids.
i agree with the mental healthcare system; but many places are the wild west. we have places in this country man has never seen. we have thousands of ranchers raising your food on the open range.
as far as the second amendment; it's purpose is to protect us from the government; and for the people to be prepared to protect the country in the event of invasion.
http://www.trollcave.com/2nd_Amendment.html
ps, most western countries follow a similar pattern, the us just seems to be on the crest of the wave
and with every shooting i weep for your country. but i feel you got to do whatever needs to be done yourselves.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I remember when I used to get pissed off at the lack of response to these shootings. I don't anymore. At the end of the day, it's not my problem as a foreigner who won't live in the US any time soon. As long as this idea that random shootings comes along with 'the sanctity of individual liberty' isn't exported to other places, I just don't care anymore.