The wisdom and foresight of Tomfurbs and Trish here on H.A.

[InHouston]

:(

Saturday night, a next door neighbor whom I've known for 3 years was gunned down in a cruel home invasion robbery. Him and his girlfriend were laying in bed watching TV when two black men armed with shotguns first knocked on their bedroom window, then on their front door, and then kicked in the front door, beat him and demanded money. They shot him and he died in his bedroom. They threw his body in the floor, and it landed on his girlfriend while she layed there frozen and terrified. His girlfriend lived only because she curled up in the floor terrified in a white robe in the dark, and I could only surmise that she looked like a blanket in the floor. Myself and the police sat with her while she clutched a Teddy bear barely able to speak. Sunday morning, she was in his front porch screaming his name while a friend restrained her from going inside.

He sported nice suits, nice jewelry, and had a nice Porsche in the driveway. I admonished to him on more than one occasion to get and train with a firearm, because he was a prominent target. He said, "I don’t concern myself with such things." According to his girlfriend, the last thing he said was "Come on man, I haven't done shit to you guys!" … BAM ... BAM! I sat outside the crime scene tape till 3:00 in the morning where just beyond the open door; he laid dead, his home now an eerie crypt.

I can't help but remember the foolish comments and mockery submitted by Tomfurbs and Trish on this very topic of gun ownership here on H.A.


Your weopons will not save you from this dreaded home invasion you all seem to be living in fear of. All it will do is ratch up the violence level of the situation.


What worries me is you getting drunk, deciding to play with your little guns and letting a round off that kills your neighbour's son. But you're 'responsible', and you shoot 10000000000000 rounds a day with your buddies, so that will never happen of course.


Go ejaculate some lead with your toy soldier friends. They're para-masturbating at the target range right now.



And here are just a couple of recent news items:
another murder suicide performed with the home firearm that was to protect the family from armed intruders.



LMAO Well, I hope all your personal firearms make you feel 'safer' :roll:


So Brenda ..is your soon to be purchased handgun gonna make you feel safer?


Thanks again, but I really don't want anyone getting shot because some brainless oaf thinks he's rescuing me. Keep your guns out of other people's business, InHouston, please.

I know you and your toy soldier buddies must have that special bond that develops between men who para-masturbate on the rifle range together. The next time, why don’t all you guys ejaculate in a circle?


I have never had need of a handgun, neither has any of my family, friends, or friends' families.
That is not to say we have never been mugged/robbed, but being armed would not have helped in any way.


All I can say is, I think my neighbor would beg to differ now if he could.

R.I.P.

I was down the street buying milk when another neighbor called me to come back home because he had been killed. All I know, had I witnessed them knocking on his window and door with shotguns in their hands, those bastards wouldn't have made it in his house. I could have helped him, had I been here. :(


And I'd like to extend a gracious "fuck you" to Trish and Tomfurbs. All your bullshit "victimhood mentality" posts confirmed to me further since Saturday night just how deluded and unrealistic the two of you are.

InHouston

[trish]

I can see you're really broken up by this fantasy. So much so, you decided to post it hours AFTER you found the time to post this one:


InHouston
Veteran Poster



Joined: 28 Apr 2005
Posts: 853

Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 9:16 am Post subject:


________________________________________
One night I took my Catholic girlfriend (at the time) for midnight prayer because she missed mass ealier that day. I sat on the bench, and while she was kneeled down praying, I marveled at her beautiful curves and long hair from behind. She turned to me, kissed me sweetly on the cheek and thanked me for taking her to pray and that we could now go home. I walked down the isle, past Jesus and various statues of saints, and out of the chapel with one of the stiffest boners I ever had.

It was great!

Then you found time to comment on a nude and then make a sarcastic comment.

InHouston Veteran Poster



Joined: 28 Apr 2005
Posts: 853

Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 8:55 am Post subject:


________________________________________
indeed wrote:
neither.


Ditto. Such a girl is not relationship material.



http://www.hungangels.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=36203
InHouston
Veteran Poster



Joined: 28 Apr 2005
Posts: 853

Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 9:17 am Post subject:


________________________________________
Wow, her face is adorable.


It took a few more hours for you to remember you were angry and in grief. :roll: There may have been a shooting fitting this description in Houston over the weekend, but I think we've established that if indeed there was one, it probably wasn't in your neighborhood, and certainly your emotional involvement was zero.

Here’s another story that’s not a fantasy. A father shoots his three year old son while cleaning his guns. He thought they were all unloaded. Mockery didn’t kill your fictional neighbor, imaginary bullets did. Fuck you too.

[Needless to say InHouston's quotes of myself and Tomfurbs are out of context. For the complete discussion see

http://www.hungangels.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=34915

]

[Tomfurbs]

Erm, wow. My first thread all about me.Awesome!

Listen, SlowlyGoingCrazyInHouston: If your neighbour had been armed the outcome would have been no different.

You try to convince yourself otherwise. You try to tell yourself that you have nothing to worry about because you own many guns and people won't dare mess with you. And yet you say others suffer from a 'victim mentality!.


Bad shit happens. Arming everyone will not stop bad shit from happening. It will just escalate the violence of the situation.

I am so, so glad you are not my neighbour.

Happy Shooting!

[chefmike]

Some excellent sleuthing on the part of trish...

Myself, the reason I don't own a gun is because I would probably be the one tempted to shoot a neighbor. Neighbors. Who needs 'em? Nosy bastards, most of 'em. That's why I prefer living where I got plenty of space for me and my ornery brood of dogs. We don't have home invasions where I live. I don't even lock my door when I go to sleep.

I edited my remarks re cannabis farming and the deterrence of interlopers. I was just kidding, folks...it was actually only a little poison ivy...

[hippifried]

Oh you horrid commie liberals. Why can't you admit that the only reason this guy got killed is because you refuse to require all Americans to be armed at all times & milk isn't piped directly to homes in Houston? If he hadn't been forced to go to the store, InHouston could have been more vigilant guarding the trailer park. Now the poor baby's lost his pimp, & it's all because of liberals like you. Probably won't be long before we see the headlines about him shooting up a church or a school as those voices in his head (from the AM radio I imagine) keep getting louder. DITTO DITTO BANG BANG BANG!!! You should be ashamed of yourselves!

Bullets for peace. Bombs for prosperity!

Would you be... Could you be... Won't you be my neighbor?

[thx1138]

A Texan without a gun? I find that hard to believe.

[Tomfurbs]

Where is BatshitCrazyInHouston?

I really value what he has to say, y'know!

[El Nino]

Enemies of the republic

[Tomfurbs]

Enemies of the republic


yep


It's the fightin' side a' me.

[trish]

Enemies of the Republic? On the contrary, I'm willing to extend my patriotism to the republic by proudly paying my taxes. This nation was built by people who raised each others barns and came to each others aid in time of disaster. This nation is founded on the value of people being there for each other. This is a government of the people, by the people and FOR the the people.

You never heard me say I'm against the 2nd Amendment. (see http://www.hungangels.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=34915 ).

All constitutional amendments are subject to interpretation and regulation, even the first. To suggest one is the enemy of the republic for favoring gun regulation is to misunderstand the very ideals of the republic.

As for InHouston. They just had a hurricane scare (that fortunately fizzled) down there. Maybe he's practicing some traditional American values and helping people move back into their homes. Maybe not. I don't care. There’re too many people in this country whose manhood is tied to their ability to squeeze a trigger. I went through the online Houston newspapers looking for a shooting that matched his description. Th[e] fact that I haven’t found any doesn’t mean anything though; there was so much gun violence over just that weekend in Houston, I could’ve easily missed it. I did run across this list though. http://www.texansforgunsafety.org/houston.htm I’d like to see a more current one.

[SarahG]

A few relatives of mine have been murdered in recent years (last 15), I won't go into the details because I am sure my family wouldn't want me to talk about the specifics here.

Would gun ownership have helped in their cases one way or another? It is really hard, imho, to say that gun ownership would have helped them, just as it is hard for me to say with any level of accuracy that gun control would have hindered their murderers (who in one of these incidents, were also relatives).

There are other nations with similar guns per capital stats, without the gun related violence that we have- even Moore acknowledged this. If the problem is specific to a society that is merely violence-happy, gun control really is only going to be a bandaid on the bigger issue, just as some countries have shown an increase in knife/blade related violence after engaging in stricter gun control regulations.

I'm not going to pretend to know the answer to violence & crime statistics, but I am not convinced that gun control will end violent crime anymore than the idea of prohibition ending alcoholism.

I do think a good start would be a half way decent public education (not schooling) system. Our schooling system is one that encourages its disillusioned students to drop out, in some American cities this drop out rate can exceed 75%- and that only breeds violent crime.

[trish]

I agree with SarahG in that the effect of gun control on gun violence in the U.S. would be uncertain. Of course predicting the effect would require one to specify the type of controls as well as the type of gun violence the controls are intended to influence.

The greater number of gun related injuries and deaths are due to accidents. What I advocate is laws that parallel those of the road. Gun owners should have licenses. To acquire the license the prospective owner should prove his or her competence to own a firearm via a written and a practical test. The owner should be required to renew the license on a regular basis. Just as cars have plates, firearms should also have tags.

The regulation of drivers probably doesn’t reduce the number of “autocides”. It does to a small degree reduce the number of auto-thefts. But the real point of licensing drivers and cars is to assure that drivers have a practical knowledge of the rules and practices that guarantee their own safety and the safety of others. This sort of regulation does work to reduce accidents.

[Supposing] that such controls [were] in place, I still don’t recommend that everyone go out and get a gun and a license. But they should have the right to do so. If you’re a hunter or a sportsman, then yes, of course you should pursue your hobby. But if you’re buying a gun to throw it loaded in a drawer for the occasion your house it broken into…I personally don’t recommend it. Too many accidents involve just that sort of scenario. If you’re going to toss loaded [gun] into your purse and carry it around, never quite knowing where the gun inside is pointing…I recommend against it.

Whether regulation would have an effect on the number of non-accidental gun deaths in this nation, we’ll probably never know, because it would have to be tested by regulating firearms. But we do already know regulation can reduce accidents.

[hippifried]

There’re too many people in this country whose manhood is tied to their ability to squeeze a trigger.
I wonder how much of that would disappear if the barrels acted like their dicks.

[Justawannabe]

Really enjoyed your last post Trish, a very even take on gun regulation as law, and how to do it. It's about responsible ownership as much as anything else, not just taking the guns away.

As to the home invasion scenario - rarely does someone have time to go get a gun if they are kicking in the doors. Kicking in a door goes really fast, and they tend to shoot you down if you run, as you might have a gun in their minds. Just saying, as protection, the gun usually is best if you know someone is coming, now if they appear unexpectedly.

Sean

[NYBURBS]

Really enjoyed your last post Trish, a very even take on gun regulation as law, and how to do it. It's about responsible ownership as much as anything else, not just taking the guns away.

As to the home invasion scenario - rarely does someone have time to go get a gun if they are kicking in the doors. Kicking in a door goes really fast, and they tend to shoot you down if you run, as you might have a gun in their minds. Just saying, as protection, the gun usually is best if you know someone is coming, now if they appear unexpectedly.

Sean

You ever tried kicking a door in dude? I've had to break a few down and I can tell you that most times it's not as easy as Hollywood would have you believe. That's why big burly firemen carry axes and crowbars bro. Granted it depends on a few things such as deadbolts, type of wood, and how sturdy the frame is but I just figured I'd point this out to you.

[trish]

Of course if the perps have guns they only need to shoot away the locks. Have you ever tried breaking down a door that way, NYBURBS? Entry through sliding glass doors and picture windows is even easier.

[But I digress. The point is regulation can reduce accidental gun related injuries and deaths]

[muhmuh]

I went through the online Houston newspapers looking for a shooting that matched his description. Th[e] fact that I haven’t found any doesn’t mean anything though; there was so much gun violence over just that weekend in Houston, I could’ve easily missed it. I did run across this list though. http://www.texansforgunsafety.org/houston.htm I’d like to see a more current one.

i think i have found a different shooting that involved him and his family
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,378142,00.html

[trish]

OUCH! That's one painful story muhmuh.
You should check out Potter Valley, CA on Google Street View. There's even a place in Potter Valley called Porno!

[muhmuh]

hm do they have to replace their town sign as often as the little village called "fucking" somewhere a few hundred km away from here? (they have recently welded riveted and concreted the sign to the ground)

[Tomfurbs]

Personally I think that firearms should be harder to aquire than narcotics.

But hey, I just want to keep this thread at the top of the page.


Silly gun-lovers with their silly gun-love.

[trish]

Personally I think that firearms should be harder to aquire than narcotics.

Okay Tom, you miserable, commie-pinko, gun-hating wanker. You think you can disagree with me??? Well I got news for you. I agree, firearms should be harder to acquire than narcotics. However, I'm thinking, maybe some narcotics should be legalized :)

[Tomfurbs]

Trish called me a wanker! And it really turned me on! Bad, bad Tom.


And I assume the narcotic you want legalised is the devil weed, you evil enemy of the people, hater of the constitution and general low-life!

[trish]

...I assume the narcotic you want legalised is the devil weed, you ...general low-life!

That would be the one I'm personally interested in. Now wank it slow while you call me a low-life again and again. oooooo :oops:

[Tomfurbs]

Stop it! Just stop it, you low life!

Such Un-American activity cannot go unpunished, I'll have you know.

[NYBURBS]

Personally I think that firearms should be harder to aquire than narcotics.

But hey, I just want to keep this thread at the top of the page.


Silly gun-lovers with their silly gun-love.

I realize people have different takes on issues, and I can respect that; however, because someone sees it differently then you does not make their stance silly. I am personally a big believer in a person's right to keep firearms in their home.

First of all, you have the right to defend yourself and your home. It is (or perhaps sadly was) a fundamental principal of our nation that in forming a government, most freedoms/rights were to be retained by individuals (the People). Certainly your right to defend your own life and property is among those retained.

Second of all, and more importantly, is the notion that a disarmed populace is far more susceptible to takeover by a hostile government (no I am not holed up in my bomb shelter while writing this). However, one need only look to recent actions of our government to realize we are heading down a dangerous path i.e., refusing 5th, 6th, and 8th amendment rights to United States citizens it accuses of terrorist actions; along with the erosion of 4th amendment rights (telecom monitoring for example).

I am well aware that some people will argue that with the advent of modern day military weapons a rifle, pistol, or shotgun will do little in the way of protecting free society from a hostile government. However, the muskets in use by most colonials was laughable compared to the weaponry employed by the British. A more modern day example might be Iraq, where a rag tag bunch of (mainly) uneducated fighters have bogged down the most powerful military in the world with little more than AK-47s and fairly low tech explosives.

Either way, I am not sitting here and advocating that everyone go arm themselves to the teeth, or start planting roadside bombs lol. I just believe that it is vitally important that citizens retain the right to arm themselves for self-defense. Reasonable limitations on that right such as firearms safety classes, and prohibitions on convicted felons or the mentally ill (as in previously committed persons) are fine.

[Tomfurbs]

Personally I think that firearms should be harder to aquire than narcotics.

But hey, I just want to keep this thread at the top of the page.


Silly gun-lovers with their silly gun-love.



Second of all, and more importantly, is the notion that a disarmed populace is far more susceptible to takeover by a hostile government (no I am not holed up in my bomb shelter while writing this). However, one need only look to recent actions of our government to realize we are heading down a dangerous path i.e., refusing 5th, 6th, and 8th amendment rights to United States citizens it accuses of terrorist actions; along with the erosion of 4th amendment rights (telecom monitoring for example).



I don't have the right to carry firearms in my country (with the exception of shotguns, which are very hard to aquire).

Am I scared that Gordon Brown and co will suddenly turn around and order some squaddies to take over my house? Not really.

If he did do so, would me being armed make any difference? Not really.

I don't think guns guarantee anything, especially not freedom. People are volatile and unpredictable, and giving them access to a quick, relatively easy way of killing someone is a bad idea, in my opinion.

And I don't believe anyone who says that training and familiarisation leads to a respect of guns and a respect for human life. In the wake of the 7/7 bombings in London, armed Police from the Met chased down a suspect into the Tube and shot him in the head at point blank range in a crowded tube carriage. Was the perp a terrorist suspect on his way to blow up a train? No, he was a Brazilian student named Jean Charles de Menezes, who was on his way to school.

Anyway, I repect your opinion, NYBurbs. But I reserve the right to call SillyBillyInHouston silly. :lol: :lol:

[BrendaQG]

Wait a second Tom. Don't you live in Great Britan or some part of the commonwealth? It's no wonder that arguments based on the wisdom of our founding fathers would not work on you. After all they kicked the English where it counts.

InHouston may well have been reporting on a story that did not happen to his neighbor. But I assure you all such things do happen. In a home invasion robbery, especially if you are a traswoman you better be armed. When I lived alone I always kept a knife close at hand in case of uninvited guest. Or invited one's who decided they are going to attack me. With a handgun I would be that much safer from attack.

[Tomfurbs]

Wait a second Tom. Don't you live in Great Britan or some part of the commonwealth? It's no wonder that arguments based on the wisdom of our founding fathers would not work on you. After all they kicked the English where it counts.

InHouston may well have been reporting on a story that did not happen to his neighbor. But I assure you all such things do happen. In a home invasion robbery, especially if you are a traswoman you better be armed. When I lived alone I always kept a knife close at hand in case of uninvited guest. Or invited one's who decided they are going to attack me. With a handgun I would be that much safer from attack.

'Or some part of the Commonwealth'. Heh you are quite funny.

Erm...the founding fathers were British, gorgeous. As were the Pilgrim fathers. Britain's rejects, to be exact.

Of course home invasions happen. Will having a gun help you? I doubt it.

Will allowing the populace easy access to firearms make anything safer? Look at the difference in crime between my country and yours. Then waffle on about the 'wisdom' of the founding fathers.


It's no wonder that arguments based on the wisdom of our founding fathers would not work on you.

Were you drunk when you typed this sentence? You have been to University, right?

Tell, me. Since when does someone's country of origin cloud their understanding of abstract concepts. Ae you saying that because I am from the UK I cannot understand a concept (The US Constitution) based on the teachings of three European insitutions: John Locke, Montesquieu, and Plato?

Are you silly?

[NYBURBS]

I don't have the right to carry firearms in my country (with the exception of shotguns, which are very hard to aquire).

Am I scared that Gordon Brown and co will suddenly turn around and order some squaddies to take over my house? Not really.

If he did do so, would me being armed make any difference? Not really.

I don't think guns guarantee anything, especially not freedom. People are volatile and unpredictable, and giving them access to a quick, relatively easy way of killing someone is a bad idea, in my opinion.

And I don't believe anyone who says that training and familiarisation leads to a respect of guns and a respect for human life. In the wake of the 7/7 bombings in London, armed Police from the Met chased down a suspect into the Tube and shot him in the head at point blank range in a crowded tube carriage. Was the perp a terrorist suspect on his way to blow up a train? No, he was a Brazilian student named Jean Charles de Menezes, who was on his way to school.

Anyway, I repect your opinion, NYBurbs. But I reserve the right to call SillyBillyInHouston silly. :lol: :lol:

Fair enough on SillyBilly (I don't know him, so I'm not here to defend him). As to your points, let's look at this not from what a single person can do when armed, instead let's consider a populace. There are approx 300 million Americans, and at any given time let's guesstimate that 1/3 of that are adult citizens whom would be eligible to possess firearms. One person might not be a deterrent to a wayward political figure or group, but 100 million armed people are.

History really is filled with examples of tyrants disarming the populace, and is one of reasons the right to keep and bear arms has been enshrined in various political documents; for instance the Protestants demanded the right to keep arms that was included for them in the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Perhaps we will evolve one day to the point where such fail safes are no longer needed; however, one need only tune into CNN or BBC world news to know we are far from being there at the moment.

As for firearms leading to instances of greater violence, I will not dispute that there are sad examples of this. However, I personally would rather risk such a situation than face the possible alternatives. Society in general would be "safer" if the police could randomly enter homes or stop people on the street to conduct random warrantless searches without cause. I for one would not be willing to trade those rights away either in the name of safety.

I have personally experienced violence in various forms. I know better than to think that calling the police will prevent that violence or save me from it. Nine out of ten times, when the police arrive, whatever was going to happen to you has already taken place. You have an inherent right to defend what is yours, and that includes your life.

At the end of the day, there will always be violent crime. I do not have all the answers to solving or reducing this. However, I suspect that the solutions lie more in wider spread access to quality education and people seeing themselves as having a greater stake in their own futures (and that of society), rather than in disarming people.

[trish]

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcnazimyth.html

[SarahG]

Will allowing the populace easy access to firearms make anything safer? Look at the difference in crime between my country and yours. Then waffle on about the 'wisdom' of the founding fathers.

But if you are going to be that picky, then you have to account for the reason why other nations with similar guns per capital stats lack the American level of gun related violence. This indicates to me that guns are not the problem exclusively the way this sentence of yours implies.

There certainly are other differences between the UK & US outside of gun policy- and any attempt to explain away American violent crime problems on the basis of guns exclusively is, to say the least, grossly oversimplified.

[NYBURBS]

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcnazimyth.html

Yes but what that article fails to adequately point out is that Germany was essentially disarmed through the Treaty of Versailles, causing the government in the 1920's to essentially require that virtually all firearms be surrendered and then destroyed.

The Nazi's once in political control, enacted a firearms licensing program that allowed expanded possession of "trustworthy" persons whom could show a need. Exempt from the requirement to license a firearm were members of the Nazi Party, who were free to carry firearms unfettered by law. One of the groups that were explicitly refused the right to keep or bear arms were the Jews. I'm sure I don't need to enlighten you as to their fate.

It would be like removing all firearms in the United States (minus the government), and then having say the Republicans pass an act that allowed unfettered possession only by members of their party. It leaves everyone else powerless to defend themselves in the face of any type of oppression.

The argument in the article that Jews in Germany were not predisposed to violent resistance may be true, but that doesn't mean we should make that same mistake. For me this simply comes down to my unwillingness to entrust my freedom to the "benevolence" of others that wish to rule.

In a civilized society we should always strive for peaceful resolution of disputes. However, failing that peaceful resolution, I (and many others) prefer to reserve the right to maintain an ability to fight for our rights.

[SarahG]

One of the groups that were explicitly refused the right to keep or bear arms were the Jews. I'm sure I don't need to enlighten you as to their fate.

Not that it would have made a big difference for them.

If you're going to play with the numbers, you'll find that a great many of the Jewish settlements in Nazi Germany were, in some cases up to the end, in denial over the situation. Ever read Night by Wiesel? He mentions in his book that in the settlement he lived in, the people there refused to flea, resist or otherwise act in response to witnesses who warned of the mass murders- witnesses who had happened to flea from such incidents and (for the time) survive.

There were, without a doubt, some that did resist, just as was the case with the French civilian population during occupation, but this wasn't the majority of these groups.

The resistance and survival odds were additionally burdened by the Nazi's data mining & tracking organizations. Most people have no idea just how well tracked people were in Nazi Germany, those IBM punch card machines were used for more than tracking prisoners already in the concentration camp system. They also tracked, using available documents in occupied territories, the non-captured civilian population. The Nazi units responsible for roaming the countryside to capture jews knew precisely how many of a given demographic they were hunting for in a given location, they knew how many were supposed to be in a given town, and had a rough idea on who they were looking for- not in terms of appearance or broad perceptions of demographics- but by names listed in local & regional government records, religious records, and other sources.

I cannot safely say this was the first time computer databases were put together exclusively to know the exact location of its civilians, as a tool for extermination programs, but it very well could have been.

Anyone who is upset over gun control based on this "slippery slope oppression concern" need to also be significantly concerned about the use of data mining operations, and the use of even public-domain public records. Considering the chunk of Bush Admin support that comes from gun control opponents- people who with exceptions seem to give a free pass to domestic spying programs and similar computer database tracking systems when these programs do not have to do with gun ownership- show that they are picking and choosing what tools of oppression to care about. Thus, for many- oppression really isn't anything in this dialog but a foot note argument added for dramatic effect.

[muhmuh]

In the wake of the 7/7 bombings in London, armed Police from the Met chased down a suspect into the Tube and shot him in the head at point blank range in a crowded tube carriage.

not to forget that they shot him 11 times and managed to miss 3 times while shooting him in the head 7 times
certainly that was absolutely necessary and can easily be shown from the mysteriously absent cctv recordings

[NYBURBS]

Anyone who is upset over gun control based on this "slippery slope oppression concern" need to also be significantly concerned about the use of data mining operations, and the use of even public-domain public records. Considering the chunk of Bush Admin support that comes from gun control opponents- people who with exceptions seem to give a free pass to domestic spying programs and similar computer database tracking systems when these programs do not have to do with gun ownership- show that they are picking and choosing what tools of oppression to care about.

From a couple of posts back:


Second of all, and more importantly, is the notion that a disarmed populace is far more susceptible to takeover by a hostile government (no I am not holed up in my bomb shelter while writing this). However, one need only look to recent actions of our government to realize we are heading down a dangerous path i.e., refusing 5th, 6th, and 8th amendment rights to United States citizens it accuses of terrorist actions; along with the erosion of 4th amendment rights (telecom monitoring for example).

So I agree wholeheartedly with your statement that I just quoted. Data mining, both public and private is a serious issue. It probably requires some type of amendment to the Constitution, to forbid the keeping or trading of much of the data out there that companies collect. As it stands, the 4th Amendment is only applicable to the government, and as such data gathered by private entities, and placed in the public domain are free use for the gov't.

As I also spoke to in my earlier post, this arbitrary categorizing of persons or groups as terrorists, and then claiming a right to withhold specific rights from them, is a terrifying concept. Today it is the Islamic Fundamentalists, tomorrow it could be any number of other groups. This is not to say I am a fan of the jihadists (I have little use for them or their religious ideology), but I am certainly not willing to abdicate the rights of persons we accuse of crimes (especially our own citizens).

I am not one to drink the Kool-Aid of political parties nor do I have a loyalty to any one specific group. Political parties require that you be subservient to their entire agenda, whereas I can agree on specific issues with one group, but disagree with them on others.

To be quite frank, I have little use for much of the modern day republican party. It is now dominated by fringe segments that are either bent on an imperialistic foreign policy, or obsessed with applying a religious moral code upon society. Long lost is the idea of smaller government and more individual responsibility for the outcome of their own lives.

[SarahG]

So I agree wholeheartedly with your statement that I just quoted. Data mining, both public and private is a serious issue. It probably requires some type of amendment to the Constitution, to forbid the keeping or trading of much of the data out there that companies collect. As it stands, the 4th Amendment is only applicable to the government, and as such data gathered by private entities, and placed in the public domain are free use for the gov't.

As I also spoke to in my earlier post, this arbitrary categorizing of persons or groups as terrorists, and then claiming a right to withhold specific rights from them, is a terrifying concept. Today it is the Islamic Fundamentalists, tomorrow it could be any number of other groups. This is not to say I am a fan of the jihadists (I have little use for them or their religious ideology), but I am certainly not willing to abdicate the rights of persons we accuse of crimes (especially our own citizens).

I am not one to drink the Kool-Aid of political parties nor do I have a loyalty to any one specific group. Political parties require that you be subservient to their entire agenda, whereas I can agree on specific issues with one group, but disagree with them on others.

To be quite frank, I have little use for much of the modern day republican party. It is now dominated by fringe segments that are either bent on an imperialistic foreign policy, or obsessed with applying a religious moral code upon society. Long lost is the idea of smaller government and more individual responsibility for the outcome of their own lives.

My point wasn't about your positions. My point was referring to the majority of those who are active against gun control in America. Like I said there are exceptions, people who care about tools of oppression regardless who they're being used by, but this does not seem to be characteristic of a great many of the republican gun rights supporters- and most gun control opposition comes from republicans. sure there are gun ownership advocates in the democrat party, libertarian party and other groups- but I doubt they compare in number collectively.

[NYBURBS]

My point wasn't about your positions. My point was referring to the majority of those who are active against gun control in America. Like I said there are exceptions, people who care about tools of oppression regardless who they're being used by, but this does not seem to be characteristic of a great many of the republican gun rights supporters.

No you are right about that, which is why I went off on my little diatribe about political parties. You can see that in the "republicans suck" "democrats are all communists" postings on this and many other boards. It is unfortunate that most people feel the need to tow a party line just because someone else thinks they should.

We were warned long ago by some rather great minds about the dangers of party loyalty. Unfortunately as a society we have largely ignored those warnings.


I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

[SarahG]

My point wasn't about your positions. My point was referring to the majority of those who are active against gun control in America. Like I said there are exceptions, people who care about tools of oppression regardless who they're being used by, but this does not seem to be characteristic of a great many of the republican gun rights supporters.

No you are right about that, which is why I went off on my little diatribe about political parties. You can see that in the "republicans suck" "democrats are all communists" postings on this and many other boards. It is unfortunate that most people feel the need to tow a party line just because someone else thinks they should.

We were warned long ago by some rather great minds about the dangers of party loyalty. Unfortunately as a society we have largely ignored those warnings.


I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

I actually think parties work provided they are polar opposites in practice (not just ads) and there are only two of them with close to a 50/50 split in power. It is difficult for "interests" to get things they shouldn't have, when a majority on most issues is impossible. Our country would be all completely fucked up if constitutional amendments were easily within reach for interests. I am using the vague term interests intentionally because it refers to a desired change in policy- without going into detail on what makes up that interest, it could be anything from parties, lobbyists to large groupings of civilians with no organization but a common craving for the same piece of legislation.

When there are but two parties and they are virtually the same thing in practice (with most issues) then that changes things... especially when the people are sufficiently distracted by the few litmus test issues that separate the two party's maladaptive commonalities.

[NYBURBS]

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on that one 8) I think the two party set-up is the bane of our current political system. It discourages out-of-the-box ideas and solutions. Amendments would still require super majorities of both the Congress and States, so there's no reason to think that would become any easier.

I'm not advocating any type of legislation disallowing them, as that would be an affront to the right to association. I just hope that as we mature as a nation we might move away from this. However, term limits, and perhaps making it easier for people to get on ballots would be a welcome change.

[trish]

As I've stated in the pages above, I'm not against gun ownership or the 2nd Amendment. I am aware that a significant portion of gun related deaths and injuries are due merely to accidents. Consequently I do support gun controls (as described in this thread) that would reduce these needless tragedies. Even though I support the 2nd Amendment, I do not recommend that everyone go out and buy a gun. If you were thinking of buying one, or perhaps getting rid of the one you already have but are having trouble making up your mind, here's a little guide that may be of some service :arrow:

[muhmuh]

what about undoing wheel nuts trish?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/11/13/shotgun_mechanic/

[Tomfurbs]

History really is filled with examples of tyrants disarming the populace, and is one of reasons the right to keep and bear arms has been enshrined in various political documents; for instance the Protestants demanded the right to keep arms that was included for them in the English Bill of Rights of 1689.

This argument gets tossed around a lot, but does it really make sense? I don't have the right to bear arms in my country, but do I feel I have been disarmed by some tyranical govt.? Not really. I would argue that as a citizen of the UK I have more actual rights and freedoms than a citizen of the US, and the ability to carry arms has no bearing on those freedoms.

Also, people who claim that because Hitler disarmed his population gun-control is wrong make as much sense as saying that because he was a vegetarian all veggies are evil.

I cannot think of a single fracas that I or any of my friends have been involved in, where a gun would have helped the situation.

Considering the possibilities of accidents taking place with lawful gun owners, I find people who advocate gun ownership quite incredulous. People are kind of stupid, as a rule, and liable to get drunk and crazy to boot. A populace able to purchase guns relatively freely is a less safe one, IMO.

@ SarahG, I wasn't being exclusive. But looking at the crime situation in the US, it would be blinkered if one ignored the ready availablity of firearms as a factor in the crime situation of that country. Either way, would you want to live next door to someone who owned guns?

[NYBURBS]

History really is filled with examples of tyrants disarming the populace, and is one of reasons the right to keep and bear arms has been enshrined in various political documents; for instance the Protestants demanded the right to keep arms that was included for them in the English Bill of Rights of 1689.

This argument gets tossed around a lot, but does it really make sense? I don't have the right to bear arms in my country, but do I feel I have been disarmed by some tyranical govt.? Not really. I would argue that as a citizen of the UK I have more actual rights and freedoms than a citizen of the US, and the ability to carry arms has no bearing on those freedoms.

Also, people who claim that because Hitler disarmed his population gun-control is wrong make as much sense as saying that because he was a vegetarian all veggies are evil.

I cannot think of a single fracas that I or any of my friends have been involved in, where a gun would have helped the situation.

Considering the possibilities of accidents taking place with lawful gun owners, I find people who advocate gun ownership quite incredulous. People are kind of stupid, as a rule, and liable to get drunk and crazy to boot. A populace able to purchase guns relatively freely is a less safe one, IMO.

@ SarahG, I wasn't being exclusive. But looking at the crime situation in the US, it would be blinkered if one ignored the ready availablity of firearms as a factor in the crime situation of that country. Either way, would you want to live next door to someone who owned guns?

With all due respect, this is a weak argument that gets beat to death. Because there are irresponsible people we should ban possession by everyone. I can drive down the street on any day in the US and see dozens of irresponsible drivers. Do we prevent everyone from driving because of the few? Why not ban cars and only allow government operated Mass Transit. I'm sure this would also cut down dramatically on motor vehicle related fatalities.

I have had firearms all my adult life, from the military to employment. People live next door to me, I've never heard a complaint (possibly because I've never done anything to disturb my neighbors, and certainly not with a weapon).

As for the fact that you don't feel as if you've been disarmed, you really haven't been because you've never owned one to begin with. You were born into a system of essentially no guns and have never known differently. Your entire continent is a millennium (plus) long example of tyrants, wars, etc and perhaps you may feel differently one day.

I understand that you look at this from a practical view, where much of my argument is for the bogeyman in the closet. But just because you have not been molested by it doesn't mean it's not there, or not a dangerous possibility. At the end of the day, what is good for Europe is not necessarily good for America.

[SarahG]

Either way, would you want to live next door to someone who owned guns?

Would I? Honestly I wouldn't give a shit either way. If you're my neighbor and want to own a firearm- sure go ahead, whatever blows your skirt up.

I can't even think of a time where I've lived next door to someone who didn't have a firearm.

The only time I have ever had someone next door to me be a problem, it wasn't due to guns. Of these times- and they were rare (I've lived in more places than I can easily count), the neighbors in question were either drug dealers (small time, either growers or the street's pharmacy), or illegals. The problem with the drug dealers was never with them individually, hell one of my drug dealer neighbors at one address fixed my leaky sink just to be a good neighbor- the problem was with the customers who would show up at all kinds of odd hours, sometimes so intoxicated that they didn't even know how old they were. These customers were a problem, not because the were violent or destructive- because they generally left stuff alone near their supplier, but because they'd be annoyingly loud (if the dealer wasn't home they'd just stand at his front door banging on the door real loud and yelling assuming he was just ignoring them... drug dealers have to go grocery shopping too you know! :lol: ) . In the case of illegals, the problems I've had were mostly annoyance-thefts, like stealing my gasoline out of my car, breaking off my locking gas cap to get gas, lifting packages that are left on my door by shippers- stuff like that.

Next door neighbors aside, most places I've lived were far from being a "high crime area," and I usually don't live in cities or anyplace where you're really close to your next door neighbor. Where I live now is an apartment, which for me is unusual, and it isn't in a high crime area (it is actually pretty isolated, to the point where even pizza delivery guys can't seem to find the place). But because it is isolated I sometimes find that gangs- who don't even live in the area, will use this street and others like it to dump stuff like gutted stolen cars, purses that they've picked apart etc. In either case none of that has been aimed at us, so it isn't a problem for me personally. The police know about it, which maybe why we're left alone the way we are (I really don't know).

I'm a gun owner myself but I don't have any of my guns at this address, and I haven't had any neighbors who knew about it complain to me over it. They were inherited, each piece has been in the family for generations (the one has been in the family for over 150 years). In the "real world" they'd be considered antique firearms for the most part, as in pieces that antique gun specialists and collectors would have, buy, sell etc and half of them are models that I have seen regularly in museums- but the law defines an antique firearm as something so old that it is impossible to supply it with ammunition (the problem here is that just about everything going back beyond revolutionary war flint lock rifles can still get ammunition- there is no such thing as a side or long arm that meets this statute). The guns I don't circulate but I have a lot of weapons, and military artifacts (not firearms) that do regularly get lent out to museums. :shrug

[SarahG]

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcnazimyth.html

I bookmarked this page so I could go back to it and read it, having now read it I have a few comments:

-The facts, evidence it presents I did not see to be obviously flawed, I agreed with most of his conclusions.

-But it appears to be a work aimed specifically at German history in these years. This is to be expected, since he succeeds in, Imo correctly, showing that gun control was not a sequence in the raise of the nazis in Germany.

The nazis certainly met resistance when occupying or trying to annex other lands, some of these resistance groups were more organized than others, some had more international support (like from England) than others, but nonetheless gun ownership & availability in certain areas under Nazi occupiation were tied to civilian resistance movements, and i know there where such examples from France, Italy and what was at the time the Soviet Union. I think they were rare, and I really cannot comment from a historiographical point of view, how historians have since judged the effectiveness of these groups (they could have been nothing more than an annoyance for the local German patrols, I can't say). I also do not know if Germany made any efforts- in the 30s and 40s, to disarm civilians in nations they invaded (France, Poland, parts of Russia, etc).

I do know, that in August of 1914 this was a whole other story. In August 1914 the German invasion force in Belgium conducted gun seizures from civilians, and the Belgium government also went around confiscating firearms from their own civilians.

There were two different reasons for this. WW1 at first was a war of time tables, and the invasion centered on defeating belgium, then france before England could arrive, and then once England arrived this was adapted to mean conquering each nations' military before they could combine (since Germany was grossly outnumbered). Because time was stressed so much, the Germans were afraid angry belgium civilians would put up an armed resistance, slowing down the invasion. This was the reason behind the Belgium atrocities; Germany explained their atrocities were only a responses to insurgency risks- and would post notices saying they'd kill the whole town if they find they've been shot at, and there are reported instances where towns in 14 were partially rounded up for this as a response to being shot at by non-civilian snipers.

The Belgium gov took this in an other direction, they knew how the Germans would react to civilian insurgency so they collected guns from shopkeepers, villagers etc hoping that it would decrease the odds of an angry civilian with a death wish taking pop shots at the Germans as they passed through.

So the question I have is two part, first did the Nazis engage in weapon seizures in occupied or enemy territories, and second how effective were the armed civilian resistors in these same lands (i.e. France, Russia, Poland etc)? In 14 they must have anticipated it to be an effective problem hence the over-kill response executing towns worth of women & children, burning that one archive, and making sure the civilians knew not to try to resist... alternatively it is possible that if nazi gun confiscation in these lands occurred while there were not any effective civilian resistance groups (without international aid) then perhaps this could be "fighting the last war syndrome."

[Tomfurbs]

As for the fact that you don't feel as if you've been disarmed, you really haven't been because you've never owned one to begin with. You were born into a system of essentially no guns and have never known differently. Your entire continent is a millennium (plus) long example of tyrants, wars, etc and perhaps you may feel differently one day.

What? The UK hasn't been invaded since 1066. And we've had a universal franchise for a good few years more than the US. So that paragraph makes pretty much no sense at all.

Smallarms were outlawed in my country in my lifetime, after the Dunblane massacre in 1996. It was one of New Labour's key election issues. Do your research pal.

Cars are designed to drive people from A to B. Guns are designed to kill things. Yes there is a difference.

@ SarahG: you have a lot of faith in human nature. I once lived next door to some guy who collected snakes. Was he a responsible adult? Hell no. Did I feel safe living next door to him? Hell no. Would I feel safe if he owned firearms? Hell no.

There is a massive difference between US attitude towards gun-ownership and European attitude. What you both need to aknowledge ( and Uncle Sam needs to acknowledge) is that Europe is a lot older than the US. Therefore we just might have a better handle on how a civilised country should conduct itself. You never know... one day America might learn from it's neighbours instead of assume it is better than them. :shrug

[chefmike]

Enemies of the republic

The number 23.

It's coming for you, Nino.

[chefmike]

As for the fact that you don't feel as if you've been disarmed, you really haven't been because you've never owned one to begin with. You were born into a system of essentially no guns and have never known differently. Your entire continent is a millennium (plus) long example of tyrants, wars, etc and perhaps you may feel differently one day.

What? The UK hasn't been invaded since 1066. And we've had a universal franchise for a good few years more than the US. So that paragraph makes pretty much no sense at all.

Smallarms were outlawed in my country in my lifetime, after the Dunblane massacre in 1996. It was one of New Labour's key election issues. Do your research pal.

Cars are designed to drive people from A to B. Guns are designed to kill things. Yes there is a difference.

@ SarahG: you have a lot of faith in human nature. I once lived next door to some guy who collected snakes. Was he a responsible adult? Hell no. Did I feel safe living next door to him? Hell no. Would I feel safe if he owned firearms? Hell no.

There is a massive difference between US attitude towards gun-ownership and European attitude. What you both need to aknowledge ( and Uncle Sam needs to acknowledge) is that Europe is a lot older than the US. Therefore we just might have a better handle on how a civilised country should conduct itself. You never know... one day America might learn from it's neighbours instead of assume it is better than them. :shrug

You gotta admit one thing, Tom. The Brits don't need guns. They have kidney pie.

[Tomfurbs]

You gotta admit one thing, Tom. The Brits don't need guns. They have kidney pie.

Trust Chefmike to home straight onto my one weakness! I have no argument against steak-and-kidney-pie! None whatsoever.

You win everything, chef!

Incidentally, I present my Sunday afternoon hangover cure:

[muhmuh]

The UK hasn't been invaded since 1066.

it is my continental european duty to point out that you conveniently forgot to mention that it was invaded by the french

as for the germans disarming the belchans... have they ever even once noticed that the english and the germans fought out their differences on belgian soil before the war was over?

[Tomfurbs]

The UK hasn't been invaded since 1066.

it is my continental european duty to point out that you conveniently forgot to mention that it was invaded by the french




Invaded by the Normans in 1066, yes. What of it?

[muhmuh]

well... not too bad for cheese eating surrendermonkeys is it?

[Tomfurbs]

Yes...or no. I dunno.

[SarahG]

There is a massive difference between US attitude towards gun-ownership and European attitude. What you both need to aknowledge ( and Uncle Sam needs to acknowledge) is that Europe is a lot older than the US. Therefore we just might have a better handle on how a civilised country should conduct itself. You never know... one day America might learn from it's neighbours instead of assume it is better than them. :shrug

History on both sides of the Atlantic has no shortages of instances illustrating "how a civilized country should conduct itself"- but failed to do so. I fail to see how the age of a nation-state has an influence on this.

Europe is certainly older, as far as modern societies are concerned but this hardly translated into an advantage in "being civilized" through the end of the 19th century. Just as Americans were going around exterminating and detaining our native populations, a great number of not-so pretty things went on in the European-controlled colonies. Least we forget the terrorism that went around disrupting the operation of govs & societies in the later half of the 19th century were a European problem far before becoming an American one. How many European leaders were assassinated by radicals before McKinley in those 3-4 last decades?

Since we are talking about gun confiscation followed by atrocities, there is an example from British history which has been mysteriously silent in this thread. I realize nobody ever cares about Africa, so perhaps the Second Boer War is more of a footnote than anything else... but here we do have an effective armed civilian resistance, followed by an aggressive British response attempting to pacify them through a combination of disarmament, resource destruction, and detention camps.



The UK hasn't been invaded since 1066.

it is my continental european duty to point out that you conveniently forgot to mention that it was invaded by the french

as for the germans disarming the belchans... have they ever even once noticed that the english and the germans fought out their differences on belgian soil before the war was over?

If you're referring to the 1066 invasion, I am not completely sure I agree with you calling the invasion force french. The Normans -at the time- were a separate ethnic group, no?

If you consider an invasion to be a group of armed forces moving into another country that doesn't want them there, I suppose in a vague sense England was unsuccessfully invaded in WW1 & WW2 by German aviation. An invasion counts as an invasion even when the invading force is defeated. It was not an occupiation in any case.

Depending how you draw up boarders, England also had a lot of boarder clashes over the years hence the baron/noble families on the boarder with yet to be assimilated nations like Scotland. I don't know enough pre-enlightenment history to say if any of these were successful enough to get past these boarder fortifications, but if they did it could count as a small invasion as well.

[SarahG]

I don't want to give the illusion that my view of European history is unfairly harsh, it is worth pointing out that in America in the 19th century civilian disarmament was a major factor in conquering the natives.

There is no coincidence that the reservation here system involved;
-disarmament
-In some cases losing dual-purpose technology (horses)
-Detainment
-Forced assimilation through federally funded re-education programs (i.e. Pratt's schools as a single example).

[NYBURBS]

What? The UK hasn't been invaded since 1066. And we've had a universal franchise for a good few years more than the US. So that paragraph makes pretty much no sense at all.

Smallarms were outlawed in my country in my lifetime, after the Dunblane massacre in 1996. It was one of New Labour's key election issues. Do your research pal.

Cars are designed to drive people from A to B. Guns are designed to kill things. Yes there is a difference.

There is a massive difference between US attitude towards gun-ownership and European attitude. What you both need to aknowledge ( and Uncle Sam needs to acknowledge) is that Europe is a lot older than the US. Therefore we just might have a better handle on how a civilised country should conduct itself. You never know... one day America might learn from it's neighbours instead of assume it is better than them. :shrug

I stand corrected on my time line with the gun laws, so +1 to you on pointing it out. However, as for speaking about a continent full of tyrants, invasions, and other problems, I think you're trying to dodge that bullet with your response. From your history of Monarchs, to the Nazi's, and countless other regimes, Europe has a nasty track record. People would do well not to forget it.

Yes cars are used for transportation, a legitimate purpose. However, they can be misused by drunks and other reckless people. Firearms have legitimate uses, the most important being self-defense.

As for Europe having more experience in the affairs of running a society this is true. What I think you (and many other Europeans) need to acknowledge is that the U.S. is a distinctly different nation in many respects. Many of the people that have come here over the centuries have done so to get away from the more intrusive ways and traditions of Europe.

For me it is not a matter of thinking that there is nothing to learn from Europe. I just seem to have a different perspective than you and many others. I believe that people should be free to live their lives as they see fit, so long as they do not encroach upon the rights of others. To do this effectively, it requires as little government interference as possible.

[trish]

All in all, I agree and have nothing at the moment to add to the historical observations made here. I do have a quibble:


Firearms have legitimate uses, the most important being self-defense.



I agree that firearms have legitimate uses, and when they are in fact used for self-defense that is a use of ultimate importance. However, that does not make it a legitimate reason for acquiring a firearm in the first place. Buying a firearm solely for self-defense is a bit like getting a leopard in case a mouse wanders into your apartment. You have to weigh the danger it presents to you, your family and your friends against the probability that you will actually use it to successfully defend the same. The danger of having a gun rises with each child that habituates your home. It rises if you or anyone in your family has anger issues, substance abuse issues, or just even just occasionally drinks too much. The danger rises if you’re going to keep the weapon loaded and unlocked. The danger rises if there are family members who are not versed in the uses, rules, practices and dangers of using a gun. These dangers must be weighed against the likelihood that you will ever need to use it in self-defense. This likelihood will be higher in some neighborhoods and lower in others. It can be high for your specific family if you have any known and dangerous enemies. Most people don’t have assassins seeking to kill them, and most people live in neighborhoods that are safe enough to mitigate against having a gun for the sole purpose of self-defense.

There are other legitimate reasons for acquiring a gun that can tip the scales in favor of ownership. These are the benefits of gun ownership that sportsman and collectors enjoy. So if your own enjoyment (or the enjoyment of others in your family) is such that it outweighs the dangers to your family, you may have a justifiable reason to own firearms.

[NYBURBS]

Yea you're right that there are other concerns involved; however, my stance is simply that at the end of the day it should left to the individual to weigh those concerns and benefits.

[trish]

Yea you're right that there are other concerns involved; however, my stance is simply that at the end of the day it should left to the individual to weigh those concerns and benefits.

I can agree with that modulo a licensing program to insure owners are appropriately educated. [Edit: ...and perhaps a restriction on the type of firearm].

[muhmuh]

it is my continental european duty to point out that you conveniently forgot to mention that it was invaded by the french

i guess youre american so you might not know this but for europeans (the english and germans especially) the french are a bit of a joke when it comes to war... sort of like canada but with much much better food

[hippifried]

I agree that firearms have legitimate uses
Gotta have a gun to stalk & kill the mighty beer can.

[SarahG]

I can agree with that modulo a licensing program to insure owners are appropriately educated. [Edit: ...and perhaps a restriction on the type of firearm].

There are dangers with licensing systems which I find worrysome, but there are ways around them.

There are a few states in the US that make gun ownership a class issue- intentionally making the licensing system too costly and legally difficult for the lower SEC's to use. This, in addition to unfairly burdening the poorer gun collectors, competition shooters etc also encourages them to bypass the licensing system by acquiring guns not known to exist by the system. There is simply no reason for a licensing system to be a lengthy 9+ month long process, costing in some cases thousands of dollars, most especially if the reason behind the process is simply to ensure people know how to safely & legally manage gun ownership. Licensing is to know about competency, not how much cash they carry in their bank accounts.

Some states in the US also intentionally create the licensing system in a way that leads to gun confiscation. If you inherit a sidearm and do not have a side arm license many states require the gun be turned over to the police who will hold it for a few months before selling it, scrapping it or (more often the case) keeping it themselves individually. The time it takes in these states to get the license, even if you meet all the requirements the first time you file- is usually no less than twice the time the police are required to keep your gun on hand. This may seem trivial but it isn't if your family resides in such a state with firearms of historical significance (let's say you're ancestor participated in a famous duel and kept the firearm after the fact).

I am also concerned about the trend in recent decades with states using licensing systems (not as a gun issue persay but on general terms) to demand things from their citizens unethically. To get a marriage license in some states requires a battery of std tests, it is no business of my state if i have an std, and there certainly is a tradition of medical records being confidential in our society. I don't even want my state to know rather I have had std tests.

Laws regarding licenses of any kind need to be very specific as to what these systems can require, what they can & can't do, and why they're there. There is a difference between a licensing fee (to cover the operational expenses of a licensing system) and a licensing tax (used to raise money for the state). Thus it is unethical IMO for a gov to require a marriage license for basic fundamental things like cohabitation (living with someone of the opposite sex), and then price that license in a way that gives the state a big fund to use for unrelated expenses (like politicians' raises).

Sin taxes are different. If ATF's are taxed heavily to discourage their purchase, that is different from putting the sin tax on the license (or legal ability to use them) itself. Access to the courts should never be based on SEC standing (I say courts because gun licensing is typically run by courts, not some gun-version of the dmv).

That is to say, I am conditionally agreeing with you in concept- it is the application that worries me.





it is my continental european duty to point out that you conveniently forgot to mention that it was invaded by the french

i guess youre american so you might not know this but for europeans (the english and germans especially) the french are a bit of a joke when it comes to war... sort of like canada but with much much better food

Ah, but Canada at least took Juno beach...

[hippifried]

Ah, but Canada at least took Juno beach...
Well yeah... Coming from the frozen tundra, they just didn't want to leave any beach they could find that didn't have icebergs in the surf.

Thank God for Quebec, so you don't have to go all the way to France to be treated rudely.

[trish]

I agree that it’s unfair to price gun licenses outside the average person’s range of affordability.

I also agree that the waiting period shouldn’t be nine months. However, in a sense the “waiting period” for one’s very first car license is measured in months, i.e. if one counts the time required to learn the rules of the road and time required to acquire the skills to drive competently and safely. Some states ask that student drivers submit a log of their driving hours. The tests that you take to acquire your first firearm license should be comprehensive. It’s not asking too much that the applicant spend some time acquiring the appropriate knowledge and skills. On the other hand, one should expect subsequent license renewals to be relatively easy and routine.

I’ve been unaware of the affect of licensing on inheritance. Thanks for bring that to our attention.

You mentioned in passing the issue of requiring std tests for obtaining marriage licenses. The blood test requirement for marriage licenses (i.e. testing for stds) is as old as the hills. I don’t think of it as a recent trend. The only thing recent about it is the newer forms of stds for which one can test. I never looked into issue how these tests might affect public health.

All and all we have a basis for a great deal of agreement. Have your legislators call my legislators and we’ll get them to draw up a bill.

[muhmuh]

However, in a sense the “waiting period” for one’s very first car license is measured in months

interesting that you mentioned that... compared to a lot of european countries the drivers education in the us is a complete joke
even on german roads where drivers are educated and tested to deal with a lot including autobahns with speed differentials of 100+kmh you see a lot of idiots on the roads
do you really think a licencing system for guns would enforce hard enough tests to change anything in the us?

[trish]

muhmuh,

On gun safety we can expect our citizens to do no better than our vice president. Dick Cheney is where we set the bar.

As far as driving goes, Robert Novak sets the bar.

It's a dark, dark world over here. 8)

[SarahG]

However, in a sense the “waiting period” for one’s very first car license is measured in months, i.e. if one counts the time required to learn the rules of the road and time required to acquire the skills to drive competently and safely.

Right, but I was not referring to any process by which people arrive at the requirements for a gun license. There might be a minimum age like 16 (random # pulled out of thin air- don't read into it). Sure they can't get the license before that, but that doesn't mean the license system, for obtaining the license, takes 16 years from start to completion.

A gun license could require a competency course, like drivers ed is required for drivers- I don't consider that as the same as the wait that the system imposes just for the court stage of obtaining that license. It is a long, drawn out, costly system regardless the individual's status in terms of license requirements.

By comparison, if you meet the requirements (tests, age, training) for a DL the most "wait" for the process of filing your application and getting a response- is the line in the DMV.

[trish]

A gun license could require a competency course, like drivers ed is required for drivers- I don't consider that as the same as the wait that the system imposes just for the court stage of obtaining that license.

Neither do I technically. That's why I used the phrase, "in a sense". I see no reason (other than poorly thought out logistics) why your test can't be graded immediately and why you shouldn't be able to go out hunting afterward.

[Tomfurbs]

What? The UK hasn't been invaded since 1066. And we've had a universal franchise for a good few years more than the US. So that paragraph makes pretty much no sense at all.

Smallarms were outlawed in my country in my lifetime, after the Dunblane massacre in 1996. It was one of New Labour's key election issues. Do your research pal.

Cars are designed to drive people from A to B. Guns are designed to kill things. Yes there is a difference.

There is a massive difference between US attitude towards gun-ownership and European attitude. What you both need to aknowledge ( and Uncle Sam needs to acknowledge) is that Europe is a lot older than the US. Therefore we just might have a better handle on how a civilised country should conduct itself. You never know... one day America might learn from it's neighbours instead of assume it is better than them. :shrug

I stand corrected on my time line with the gun laws, so +1 to you on pointing it out. However, as for speaking about a continent full of tyrants, invasions, and other problems, I think you're trying to dodge that bullet with your response. From your history of Monarchs, to the Nazi's, and countless other regimes, Europe has a nasty track record. People would do well not to forget it.

Yes cars are used for transportation, a legitimate purpose. However, they can be misused by drunks and other reckless people. Firearms have legitimate uses, the most important being self-defense.

As for Europe having more experience in the affairs of running a society this is true. What I think you (and many other Europeans) need to acknowledge is that the U.S. is a distinctly different nation in many respects. Many of the people that have come here over the centuries have done so to get away from the more intrusive ways and traditions of Europe.

For me it is not a matter of thinking that there is nothing to learn from Europe. I just seem to have a different perspective than you and many others. I believe that people should be free to live their lives as they see fit, so long as they do not encroach upon the rights of others. To do this effectively, it requires as little government interference as possible.

Man, the US has only been around for 200 years, and in that time it has had Civil War, genocide, major political corruption, numerous abortive foreign conflicts and is the only nation to drop Atomic arms in anger and use chemical weapons continuously throughout a war. You also have some of the most crime-filled cities in the world, and some of the worst literacy rates. And enough of its citizens believe the most reductive and literal interpretaion of Christianity to make religious fundamentalism a powerful lobby. It also has a primitive health care system and very ineffective means of coping with its poor.

I would argue that a country like that needs a few less guns and a little more govt. supervision, personally.

You bet Europe has made mistakes. Hell, my country is among the worst. Why does America insist on repeating them?

[NYBURBS]

Man, the US has only been around for 200 years, and in that time it has had Civil War, genocide, major political corruption, numerous abortive foreign conflicts and is the only nation to drop Atomic arms in anger and use chemical weapons continuously throughout a war. You also have some of the most crime-filled cities in the world, and some of the worst literacy rates. And enough of its citizens believe the most reductive and literal interpretaion of Christianity to make religious fundamentalism a powerful lobby. It also has a primitive health care system and very ineffective means of coping with its poor.

I would argue that a country like that needs a few less guns and a little more govt. supervision, personally.

You bet Europe has made mistakes. Hell, my country is among the worst. Why does America insist on repeating them?

I agree we have had our share of bad history; much of that sordid past also involved government officials abusing their power. See that is where you and I seem to diverge in our philosophy. You believe in increased government supervision in order to solve social ills. I see it as a fundamental evil that concentrates too much authority into a small group of people. I'm not going to deny that one can make a forceful and sincere argument for your viewpoint, it's just something I disagree with on a very root level.

Btw, just so you understand... I'm not a fan of neo-cons, Bush, religious zealots, so on and so forth. I simply want to live my life as I see best, so long as it doesn't conflict with the rights of others, and with as little interference from the government as possible.

[hippifried]

I think this whole argument gets too convoluted.

The stupidity of nations toward each other is not caused by private ownership of weaponry, but that private ownership is necessary because of said stupidity. For the most part, guns are about defense.

Now comes some historical context:

At the end of the 18th century, crime as we think of it today wasn't a big problem. The threat was invasion by foreign powers. It was a real threat that came to fruition in 1812 (the first & last foreign invasion of the of the contiguous United States). All the Europeans were doing it. That was how the colonies/states came to be. The whole idea of an armed populace was protection against despots, both foreign & domestic. The reason for the "well regulated militia" is that the US isn't supposed to have a standing army.

The only purpose of an army is to make war. Whether whatever war is justifiable is irrelevant to my point. The point being that without a war, an army has nothing to do. The immense appropriations necessary to keep a standing army tend to create a need to justify their existence. Hence the perpetual state of war & the constant search for newer & more ambiguous enemies.

Meanwhile, the idea of the militia that can be mobilized in times of emergency has been shunted aside, & now we have a populace that's still armed & has nothing to do. Well, they have their lives, but they have no use for the weapons in their homes. So now we have more justifying to do.

We're not an agrarian society anymore. We hunt for our food at the grocery store. An uzi's useless for blasting Bambi or Thumper, & most gun owners never set foot off the pavement. We have a standing army & most people don't even know what a militia is. There's the problem of urban crime, but we've created a standing army for that too. So now what? The only justification left is that the armed populace keeps the government scared.

It's the last defense against domestic despotism. The problem is that fear generates response, & the populace is outgunned by the standing armies. There's an "us v the world" attitude that permeates the entire confrontation industry & a large portion of the rest of the bureaucracy. A siege mentality promotes despotism, so the defense becomes a tool against itself.

I think this whole argument over guns is just a diversion, whether contrived or accidental. The real problem is our attitudes. We need a change in mindset. This paranoia has to stop. People's similarities far outweigh their differences, but we can't see that because we're too busy terrorizing ourselves over every perceived difference we can find or trump up.

[BrendaQG]

@ Hippie that makes allot of sense. Just one thing. We are not necessarily out gunned by the armed forces. First point is that I am not certain that the whole of the armed forces would obey orders from a D.C. gone mad (i.e. Prez. orders the captain of a boomer to fire his missiles at a rebellious US city or state.)

There is also the fact that an army of armed citizens, the Mahdi Army in Iraq, has been able to pin down and make life hell for ours. There are other examples, the last Israel V Lebanon-HizbAllah war. The Viet Nam war is another one. It's call an asymmetric war. Our army is very afraid of such wars because it knows it is ill equipped to handle them. I could go on but I have made the point. A citizen army with Ak's and plastique and guts can beat a much more technologically advanced force.

[SarahG]

I think this whole argument gets too convoluted.
At the end of the 18th century, crime as we think of it today wasn't a big problem. .

What do you mean by "crime as we think of it today?"

Sure we have a lot of crime in a lot of our cities, we a lot of gang violence, sex crimes, murders, and all that -but the same was true in our history. Depending how you view it this did get worse over time, but our population is also so much larger, and so much more urbanized.

It didn't even take the mayflower passengers a year to have to execute someone for murder. But since there were so few European-descendant humans around here at the time, that one murder also represents a huge chunk of the population. I haven't done the math, but I am sure if someone added up all the murder victims we have annually in the US in recent years, along with executed murders- both figures will represent a far smaller % of the total population when talking about today's society.

It is my personal opinion that population growth and urbanization are one of the larger factors (but not the only factors) in America's crime history. The idea that "crime didn't exist in history in the US in a significant level" (I am not accusing you of having this belief, just sayin' here) is wholly inaccurate when taking into consideration the 19th century (especially the victorian era).

There are probably a great many factors that are separately at work in America's past crime problems, but I find the idea that a strong government presence in high crime areas will "cure" such societal ailments as laughable. Do you know how many communities even today have tried merely "throwing more cops on the street" to try to resolve crime problems? has it ever cured a community in America of its crime problems when those problems were extreme before hand? Back then, it were the cities that first enacted reforms along the lines of arms regulations, law enforcement, crime response etc. but did that "fix" America's cities in the decades before WW1? No, if anything the crime continued to get worse as America's population not only increased, but became even more urban.



The whole idea of an armed populace was protection against despots, both foreign & domestic. The reason for the "well regulated militia" is that the US isn't supposed to have a standing army.


You say this like an armed populace was an intentional design component. The reason why the population was armed was because they had always been armed. This wasn't really a giant issue because it was so common, so normal- and I am using this word armed truly generically here as to include all historically known to exist arms from this era. There really was no such thing back then as a "military grade weapon", what determined what people or institutions had was a matter of logistics (cost, practicality etc). Sure, a civilian could go out and buy a cannon... but what would they do with it exactly? There are exceptions but I don't want to go way too OT here.



The only purpose of an army is to make war. Whether whatever war is justifiable is irrelevant to my point. The point being that without a war, an army has nothing to do. The immense appropriations necessary to keep a standing army tend to create a need to justify their existence. Hence the perpetual state of war & the constant search for newer & more ambiguous enemies.


Appropriations for a standing military really didn't balloon for most nations until the 2nd half of the 19th century. The militaries themselves were fairly cheap for quite a while, you have the personnel costs (pay, food, clothing and all that), equipment, facility expenses but not a lot else really.

The real costly part of standing militaries was the military tech revolution of the 19th century. Once industrialization were applied to military tech the rapid rate of progress made R&D costs, as well as manufacturing costs literally explode. Warships would become outdated before they could be constructed, artillery would be outdated by the time the design concept was finalized. By 1914 a lot of global powers were spending up to 20% of their GNP on military contracting of some kind (btw the most the US has ever spent in this fashion was 6%, and that was during the Cold War). In the 19th century the way the US got out of this, for the most part, is they kept most of their military tech R&D and manufacturing in the private sector, and let the American companies make whatever they wanted, for whoever they wanted (Germans, British, Japanese, Chinese). You'd be surprised how much in WW1 ordnance was American designed, and how much was used by both sides. The idea was "let the europeans go crazy over paying for developing this stuff, we'll buy what we need, when we need it and it'll be their pay covering the dev."

In Europe the arms contractors played this game of "indestructible armor one year, something to destroy it the next, repeat"- which required nations to stay on top with this insanity, not because of some war-fetish but because if they lapsed they'd find themselves wholly obsolete and, as a result, unable to face another nation. Most people really have no comprehension how much of a difference a years' worth of equipment made in combat, so effectively this was MAD (mutually assured destruction) in a pre-nuclear world, and the widespread belief, in the industry, in these governments, even in the general public was that the more deadly war is- the less likely it will occur (Maxim, Krupp, Bloch all privately believed this). Russia proved the theories on the subject were true, when the Russians and Japanese navies fought in 1905 they had nearly identical fleets, the Japanese were grossly out numbered, and the one defining difference was that the Russians' shells were not high tech enough to do the job. The Russians were totally extinguished, the Japanese lost not a single ship. So many Russians drowned (something like 16,000 of them) that even Russian civilians, to this day a hundred+ years later, lay reefs in the water when passing over where the battle occurred.

So why didn't MAD work after Russia proved the logic behind it? Was as simple as Germany thinking they had an advantage in 1914. Had nothing to do with some "lets find a way to use our army" logic, although that argument seems, to say the least, plausible in many American actions of the 20th century ('nam for instance).



Meanwhile, the idea of the militia that can be mobilized in times of emergency has been shunted aside,


That's why the Vietcong handed our asses to us on a platter? The Vietcong were MILITIA. Militia forces still work, but require the civilian population being entirely committed to dying for whatever cause it is, in sufficient numbers. Since we're talking about America the question is whether the American populus today would be complicit if invaded by, say, Canada (randomly selected for this example- do not read into it). I really have no idea if a militia resistance would form, using either their own guns or governmentally distributed ones in such a scenario. I think most Americans would be fine with an invasion as long as fast food chains didn't close and nascar & American idol continued without interruption.<sarcasm>



Man, the US has only been around for 200 years, and in that time it has had Civil War, genocide, major political corruption, numerous abortive foreign conflicts and is the only nation to drop Atomic arms in anger and use chemical weapons continuously throughout a war. You also have some of the most crime-filled cities in the world, and some of the worst literacy rates. And enough of its citizens believe the most reductive and literal interpretaion of Christianity to make religious fundamentalism a powerful lobby. It also has a primitive health care system and very ineffective means of coping with its poor.

I would argue that a country like that needs a few less guns and a little more govt. supervision, personally.

I could go on with a lot of this but I will say, if America is exactly the way you say it is, having European style health care here will be a disaster.

Think about it for a moment, with such a powerful religious faction would you honestly expect contraceptive, fertility treatments, reproductive rights, std treatments, trans related medical treatments, and other socially volatile issues to be properly covered?

Using trans med issues as a single example, given what forum we're on, haven't we heard a great deal of horror stories regarding NHS's attempt to deal with trans patients ...in a nation without a strong fundamentalist christian faction?

We've had the gender clinic approach to treatment here before, it was a complete fucking disaster. The few asshats I've met who worked in America's gender clinics of the 60s-70s have far from impressed me.

We can't even get the VA operating right, and veterans are the only group in American healthcare that approach getting respect & priority. Maybe some day euro style healthcare will work here, but that sure as hell isn't today, next week, next month, or next year.

[hippifried]

@ Hippie that makes allot of sense. Just one thing. We are not necessarily out gunned by the armed forces. First point is that I am not certain that the whole of the armed forces would obey orders from a D.C. gone mad (i.e. Prez. orders the captain of a boomer to fire his missiles at a rebellious US city or state.)

There is also the fact that an army of armed citizens, the Mahdi Army in Iraq, has been able to pin down and make life hell for ours. There are other examples, the last Israel V Lebanon-HizbAllah war. The Viet Nam war is another one. It's call an asymmetric war. Our army is very afraid of such wars because it knows it is ill equipped to handle them. I could go on but I have made the point. A citizen army with Ak's and plastique and guts can beat a much more technologically advanced force.
You're only thinking of the federal standing army being directed by the Pentagon. When it comes to domestic strife, there's all the other departments that are armed to the teeth & the local official paramilitary units too. The city cops, constables, sheriff's offices, state police, national guard, etc... Then you have the vast alphabet soup of the feds who are all armed enforcers. Hell, even fish cops & tree counters are packin' nowadays. If you look at the rules of engagement for domestic enforcement, just about everybody who draws a government paycheck can be considered a cop under certain circumstances. Most agencies maintain their own SWAT teams & other "special forces". there's a war mentality throughout the domestic enforcement & confrontation industry, & it keeps getting reinforced by fools in the domestic terrorism biz. They feed off each other.

As to the gangs turned militias in the middle east, that's all there is. Everybody with any power at all has consistently gone out of their way to make sure there's no organized state military or police force in either Lebanon or Palistine. The first thing we did in Iraq was disband the only thing that passed for a professional army. Same with the police force/s. The pros just moved to the militias. They end up with experienced troops with a purpose against a bunch of non-Arabic-speakers who haven't got the slightest clue what they're trying to accomplish or exactly who the "enemy" is.

We really need to get out of the war biz. We're not that good at it. We just have a lot of fire power. We can kick anybody's ass on the planet, as long as we know who & where they are. Then what? It's like a dog chasing a car. What's he gonna do if he catches it? It's all kinds of fun I guess while it's going on. Lots of glory & honor & flag waving & all. Then comes the military occupation, & the military has no idea how to do anything but make war. They don't make peace. They don't do diplomacy. We can't base our foreign policy on our ability to blow things up. When anybody else takes that approach, we call them terrorists. It's nonsense, & it should be obvious to all by now that it doesn't work. You can't win the peace unless yu win the hearts & minds of the people involved. You can't win hearts & minds without being polite. Physical assault is rude.

[Tomfurbs]

Man, the US has only been around for 200 years, and in that time it has had Civil War, genocide, major political corruption, numerous abortive foreign conflicts and is the only nation to drop Atomic arms in anger and use chemical weapons continuously throughout a war. You also have some of the most crime-filled cities in the world, and some of the worst literacy rates. And enough of its citizens believe the most reductive and literal interpretaion of Christianity to make religious fundamentalism a powerful lobby. It also has a primitive health care system and very ineffective means of coping with its poor.

I would argue that a country like that needs a few less guns and a little more govt. supervision, personally.

You bet Europe has made mistakes. Hell, my country is among the worst. Why does America insist on repeating them?
I agree we have had our share of bad history; much of that sordid past also involved government officials abusing their power. See that is where you and I seem to diverge in our philosophy. You believe in increased government supervision in order to solve social ills. I see it as a fundamental evil that concentrates too much authority into a small group of people. I'm not going to deny that one can make a forceful and sincere argument for your viewpoint, it's just something I disagree with on a very root level.

Btw, just so you understand... I'm not a fan of neo-cons, Bush, religious zealots, so on and so forth. I simply want to live my life as I see best, so long as it doesn't conflict with the rights of others, and with as little interference from the government as possible.


Fair enough boss. You have made a reasoned case. Anyway, hope I didn't sound like a dick. My way seems to make sense to me. Your way seems to make sense to you. On we go.

[Tomfurbs]

I could go on with a lot of this but I will say, if America is exactly the way you say it is, having European style health care here will be a disaster.


What? Why? A Universal (European) health care and welfare system would overturn your country. (I am speaking, of course, from a nation that has been enjoying these things since the end of WW2).


Please explain to me how America is exactly not like the way I said it is?

You deny your awful literacy rates? You deny your shite health care and welfare system. You deny your terrible foreign policy since WW2?

Which bits do you not agree with, I am all ears.

(edited to compensate for my terrible spelling)

[Tomfurbs]

A citizen army with Ak's and plastique and guts can beat a much more technologically advanced force.

Respectfully, that has nowt to do with allowing citizens of a free country access to arms.

Edit: I'll say this again, because you might not have heard it the last time:

People who like to slam people's heads in car doors when they get their psych on should not be allowed anywhere near a loaded weapon.

I cannot think of a more prescient example of my case than that.

[SarahG]

I could go on with a lot of this but I will say, if America is exactly the way you say it is, having European style health care here will be a disaster.


What? Why? A Universal (European) health care and welfare system would overturn your country. (I am speaking, of course, from a nation that has been enjoying these things since the end of WW2).


Please explain to me how America is exactly not like the way I said it is?

You deny your awful literacy rates? You deny your shite health care and welfare system. You deny your terrible foreign policy since WW2?

Which bits do you not agree with, I am all ears.

(edited to compensate for my terrible spelling)

You seem to be confused with my post?

What I was saying was even if for arguments shake, all of your observations were spot on, it would show the great lengths to which NHS style health care would- as things in America stand today, be a huge mistake.

Like you said, the extremist Christians are here in such numbers that it constitutes a major political faction. That said, there really isn't any short term hope for socially volatile issues to get proper coverage in a NHS-style approach to health care here.

Do you honestly expect std patients, trans patients, gay patients, and reproduction rights issues to be properly cared for in an American NHS system?

Look at it this way, the UK is seen (rightly or not) as being more progressive when dealing with these social situations, and yet NHS has had one hell of a hard time properly caring for trans patients -in the UK- and that is without bringing into the mix the abortion issue in places such as Ireland (you must be familiar with abortion ships, they've visited Ireland in recent years because of the difficulty reproductive rights' patients have in that part of your system).

[Tomfurbs]

I could go on with a lot of this but I will say, if America is exactly the way you say it is, having European style health care here will be a disaster.


What? Why? A Universal (European) health care and welfare system would overturn your country. (I am speaking, of course, from a nation that has been enjoying these things since the end of WW2).


Please explain to me how America is exactly not like the way I said it is?

You deny your awful literacy rates? You deny your shite health care and welfare system. You deny your terrible foreign policy since WW2?

Which bits do you not agree with, I am all ears.

(edited to compensate for my terrible spelling)

You seem to be confused with my post?

What I was saying was even if for arguments shake, all of your observations were spot on, it would show the great lengths to which NHS style health care would- as things in America stand today, be a huge mistake.

Like you said, the extremist Christians are here in such numbers that it constitutes a major political faction. That said, there really isn't any short term hope for socially volatile issues to get proper coverage in a NHS-style approach to health care here.

Do you honestly expect std patients, trans patients, gay patients, and reproduction rights issues to be properly cared for in an American NHS system?

Look at it this way, the UK is seen (rightly or not) as being more progressive when dealing with these social situations, and yet NHS has had one hell of a hard time properly caring for trans patients -in the UK- and that is without bringing into the mix the abortion issue in places such as Ireland (you must be familiar with abortion ships, they've visited Ireland in recent years because of the difficulty reproductive rights' patients have in that part of your system).


If fundamentalist christians acted the way you suggest in a Government-funded health-care system (a secular, state system) they would be in breach of all manner of ethical codes and liable for prosecution. An NHS doctor who refuses to treat a patient is commiting a crime.
As far as treating transsexuals in the NHS, GRS is free. I don't know to what extent they offer other services (psych care, hormones) gratis. Hormones wouldn't be free anyway because you have to pay for you prescription of any medication in the UK. All I can say is, despite the horror stories about the NHS the British media likes to run every now and then, the three times I have had need of it, I have received excellent care from NHS staff, and left the hospital/ GP's surgery without a whopping great bill.

Abortion is totally legal in Northern Ireland, which is part of the UK. As for the situation in Eire, I am afraid I couldn't tell you.

[SarahG]

If fundamentalist christians acted the way you suggest in a Government-funded health-care system (a secular, state system) they would be in breach of all manner of ethical codes and liable for prosecution. An NHS doctor who refuses to treat a patient is commiting a crime.


I am sure you're aware then that, under our current system doctors, pharmacists and other health industry workers can in many situations refuse to take part in any treatment, including prescription distribution, if they feel it is violating their personal belief system? This isn't about to go away anytime soon, if we had NHS tomorrow we'd still have large groups of radicals independently going "I'm not gonna be filling this slip for _fillintheblank_ (estrogen, contraceptive, whatever), it would violate my personal beliefs, go find another pharmacy." The systematic assumption is that if you go to the other pharmacies in your area, you'll eventually find one that doesn't care if you're gay, trans, or want to remove the chances of getting preg from the guy who raped you 12 hrs ago. This assumption also ignores that in some of these situations you have a race against the clock to get proper treatment before the situation gets worse. This is true for the rape victim wanting emergency contraceptive, this is true for the young transistioner who wants to get on HRT before T prevents their body from passing w/out FFS (obviously the later has a longer time table to work with, but it is nonetheless an ignored element of the equation).

Even if people are somehow forced to play by the rules, and the rules eliminate this refusal-to-treat clause in the situations that presently have them- you have another problem.

There is what I call selective-incompetence (like selective hearing) where medical professionals for whatever personal or institutional reason, treat certain patients improperly without violating any specific rules. To use an American example if you are a trans inmate, in most states you have to get hrt treatment if you've been getting it the normal institutional way on the outside (threw doctors, with a GID diagnosis, blood tests etc). But the prison can require inmates to go through the prison doctor to determine what specific drugs & dosages you get, and then that doctor could say "in their professional opinion you should be on 2mg a day estroidal and 50mg a day spiro" (when the patient requires 8mg of the first, and 200mg of the 2nd in order to keep from masculating). Thus you're getting hrt still, but it is such a trivial amount you might as well not be... its not gonna maintain whereever you are in hrt's work on your body, and if your testes are intact it for this patient in the example, start to reverse (aka de-transition) the inmate. This is done for discriminatory reasons, but it is also done to save money for the jail. There are a whole host of medical conditions that get short changed in prison because- in doing so, it saves the prison money and it is done with conditions where such malpractice will not result in direct death (as refusing insoline for a diabetic could).

Canada has NHS, and there, for the trans patient, you HAVE to pretty much go threw the NHS hoops & games because they are the only game in town, unless you are close enough to commute into the United States to use private medical care out of pocket (if you can afford it). Their customs are fairly good at blocking out internet hormones, so DIY is fairly limited. To get HRT in Canada you have to play a series of games with gender clinics, essentially the same way it is done in the UK with various minor differences. Sure, if you play by their games they will pay for srs (tho there are some rules on where you can go and who you can use for a surgeon). Why is this clinic system such a problem? These gate keeping games draw out the time it takes to transition, and sets the patient up to have problems... basically the system is designed to screw you, delay your progress, and hope that it will convince you to go away and put off your transition attempt. This may be insignificant if you're some middle aged transitioner with assets to pay for surgeries, but for someone who is young every year that is put off by gate keeping games of this nature, is a year where T does irreversible things to the body. Someone who transitions early enough will NEVER need FFS to pass. Say it is a two year wait, even two years will make a noticeable difference if it means transitioning at 18 instead of 16, or 22 instead of 20. Although it pays for SRS, few of these programs pay for the lengthy cosmetic procedures required to try to reverse a T-altered skull, and even if there was full range to have whatever surgery you want these procedures can only do so much.

The US, with its faults- and there are way too many, at least has enough leeway that a trans patient can, if their first doctor refuses to give them sufficient HRT dosages, go DIY or, seek out another doctor (or another, another, and another until a tolerant & competent one is found). This is not the case with the clinic system, and there have been cases in the last ten years where hospitals in Canada, under NHS, have kicked out trans patients strictly because they were trans. Unethical? Sure. Illegal? Probably (I would bet on it). Did anything happen over it? Not that I ever heard of, no one was fired, trans patients in question never got a settlement over it.

This brings me to my main point: mindsets. When a country is, within the medical community itself, tolerant and understanding of patients with unique needs then universal health care can go to great lengths to help the patient. There are countries in Europe with health care at great lengths better than anything the United States has ever had... and in these countries, because it is not stigmatized, because discrimination is not so widespread, trans patients can transistion -before- puberty where the situation merits it.

For NHS to work in America there needs to be drastic changes- changes eliminating these discriminatory practices in not just theory, but practice. Especially if NHS re-institutes systems we DID have before.

In our history in the states, in the 1950s-early 1980s, America's medical community only had gender clinics to deal with trans patients (the ones using the health care systems, not talking about people doing hrt with black market drugs or stolen birth control pills, back when BC pills had enough E to feminize). It was the only true game in town, so you had to play their games- and here, these "clinics" would look at trans patients and distribute treatments (therapy, hrt, surgeries) based on the information gathered on the patient.

They'd test you to see what your concept is of gender roles, relationships, etc. Essentially you had to embody, ideologically speaking, the stereotypical straight 50s housewife in order to have a hope of treatment (that is to say, you had to be straight, you had to be into girly interests like sewing, cooking, cleaning etc).

Then they'd put you before a board of "specialists" who would look you over and determine if you should transistion based on shoe size, height, weight, age, passability, mannerisms, and a whole host of other things. You could be denied hrt or surgeries simply by having feet "too big."

Then they'd require you to do RLE, before you get anything in treatment... but this RLE was not RLE in the modern sense. They required a twisted sense of "what being female is." If your therapist caught you wearing jeans, even if they were normal girl specific jeans, in public your RLE just got reset and you'd be lectured... if it continued to happen you'd be ejected from this system.

I have met and discussed with doctors who used to be apart of this system, they believe in such absurdities as the barbie defense (you're not trans if you never played with barbies when you were little), and even think giving hrt to a patient under 30-35 should be illegal. There are no shortage of gender clinic horror stories from this era of American health care history. Hell there are still random therapists who buy into this notion of trans care in this country, but at least now you can go somewhere, anywhere else when that happens. Going back to gender clinics would be a disastrous mistake in today's America, unnecessarily so.

I realize the general every day citizen is not trans. The general every day citizen isn't going to care or ever need to know about trans health care. It simply does not effect them or anyone they know. In America our health care crisis, and it is a crisis, is the cause of a disturbing statistic: medical problems are the leading cause for bankruptcy in the United States (not adjustable rate mortgages like the 4th estate would lead you to believe... even if mortgage is french for "death grip").

Someone can save everything (reasonably) they make, be as careful in spending as even the most die hard christian conservative may advocate for, and because they worked blue collar all their life w/out health insurance with an income just above the poverty line, lose every penny of it and whatever assets they've compiled just by needing some emergency surgery, cancer treatment, or other critical, unexpected, unavoidable medical situation.

But there are exceptions, specific types of patients with unique needs, and if NHS were to be instituted here -tomorrow- without first accomplishing major reforms of American health care ethics & society in practice (not just theory) then these patients with unique situations will be the trade off cost. Look at all the things we cannot get here to date for trans patients in our country that would be, arguably, less volatile. Nationally speaking: Job discrimination? Legal. Housing? Also. As is adoption law, probate law, marriage law. There are even problems as simple as sex recognition for postops. Sure some states are better than others, but that's cold comfort by someone who, for reasons out of their control, gets born as a trans citizen in Ohio where your BC can never be amended or replaced (even if the dr is drunk and clearly put down erroneous information- a GG whose doctor puts them down as male in ohio has to live with that BC for life as things currently stand, even if they are not trans, IS, or otherwise unique in their mental, physical, or dna existance).

[Tomfurbs]

I am sure you're aware then that, under our current system doctors, pharmacists and other health industry workers can in many situations refuse to take part in any treatment, including prescription distribution, if they feel it is violating their personal belief system?

I agree. Your system is fucked. Make it state-run and secular, and you can weed out the religious nutjobs, like we have done. :shrug

[InHouston]

Wait a second Tom. Don't you live in Great Britan or some part of the commonwealth? It's no wonder that arguments based on the wisdom of our founding fathers would not work on you. After all they kicked the English where it counts.

InHouston may well have been reporting on a story that did not happen to his neighbor. But I assure you all such things do happen. In a home invasion robbery, especially if you are a traswoman you better be armed. When I lived alone I always kept a knife close at hand in case of uninvited guest. Or invited one's who decided they are going to attack me. With a handgun I would be that much safer from attack.

It happened. I'm not revealing the link to the story, although I've been tempted to, simply because I don't want to 'out' myself here. Trish is the one who promoted the theory that my post on this incident was fabricated, and that she is unable to find anything on the web that closely resembles what happens. Great research skills there Trish!

An update to the story is that the perpetrators were caught, and lived just down the street. Two young black males armed with 12 gauge shotguns. They shot him directly in the face nearly blowing his head completely off. His family decided it best to have his body cremated. Turns out some youths around the neighborhood, who knew the perpetrators, reported to police the two had been planning this robbery for a week. None of them thought they were serious and just blew it off as bravado. It was rumored that a chest in his bedroom contained a stash of cash and jewelry. All that was in the chest was a collection of Elvis memorabilia.

[trish]

An anecdote, let alone one that’s likely fabricated, has little to no relevance on the estimation of probabilities. I’m merely recommending against buying a firearm and keeping it loaded and unlocked in your home. The possibility that you or someone you love will get shot by that firearm is much more likely than the possibility that an armed stranger will attempt to break into your home. The probability that 1) your home is invaded and 2) your firearm is in reach and 3) you actually manage to successfully defend yourself with it is even smaller.

In our discussion in another thread on the 2nd Amendment, InHouston saw his efforts to construct a logical argument collapse before his eyes. As usual, he rested his case and left in a huff. So now he attempts to win, not by logic, but by raising the emotional stakes. What I’ve suggested in this thread is that (judging by his posts after the alleged incident) InHouston was feigning grief and anger in lieu of real human emotion.

[hippifried]

An anecdote, let alone one that’s likely fabricated, has little to no relevance on the estimation of probabilities. I’m merely recommending against buying a firearm and keeping it loaded and unlocked in your home. The possibility that you or someone you love will get shot by that firearm is much more likely than the possibility that an armed stranger will attempt to break into your home. The probability that 1) your home is invaded and 2) your firearm is in reach and 3) you actually manage to successfully defend yourself with it is even smaller.
Actually, the most likely scenario is that you'll go to work (if you have a job) or down to the grease pit or bar, & come home to find that somebody already broke in & stole your gun. Shortly thereafter, the cops will be at your door wondering why your gun was used to shoot the 7/11 clerk or in that driveby across town.

[jamesb121]

Sorry to interject here, but am i the only person who looks at the Swiss and goes, 'Hmmmm, they have lots of guns but dont go about shooting each other?'

Lets look at some statistics:

1.3-3million firearms in private homes in Switzerland (of these 420000 are registered assault rifles!)

In 2006 there were 34 killings/ attempted killings involving firearms.

Proof if it were needed, Guns don't kill people- People kill people.

I have not long moved back to the UK from southern california, and good god i feel so much safer walking the streets of london, and that is really saying something!

[trish]

Almost all Swiss males enter the military and are exhaustively TRAINED in firearm safety. When leaving active service, most men remain in the reserves. The reserves are allowed to keep their government issued weapon at home. Military law is very strict in Switzerland, the active military and the reserves are expected to treat their weapons with the utmost respect (e.g. the typical reserve doesn’t keep his weapon in the truck when he goes out drinking, just in case he might need it in a bar fight). To carry a gun in Switzerland, one must have a permit. Such permits are usually issued only to private citizens whose jobs are related to security. This same permit is required for the purchase of a firearm. There are laws (that apply to the military and private citizens) restricting the transport of firearms within Switzerland.

It’s true, Switzerland demonstrates that it’s possible, with proper controls and education, to have an armed populace and a low crime rate. It’s also true that the U.S. demonstrates that without proper regulation and education, people (accidentally or otherwise) will kill people with guns.

[muhmuh]

When leaving active service, most men remain in the reserves.

afaik they automatically become reservists for 10 years and the military service is compulsory (with the exception of opting for civillian service instead)
point is the reason so many swiss have a gun is not becuase they want to but because they have to

and you can be certain that citizens of a country whos only use of military force in the last whatever years was when a group of swiss accidentially marched through liechtenstein during training in a dark rainy night wont store their guns under their pillows

[SarahG]

The reserves are allowed to keep their government issued weapon at home.

Unless things have changed, and I admit they often do- the swiss were required by law to keep their gov issued fiearm after their service.

[chefmike]

Sorry to interject here, but am i the only person who looks at the Swiss and goes, 'Hmmmm, they have lots of guns but dont go about shooting each other?'

Lets look at some statistics:

1.3-3million firearms in private homes in Switzerland (of these 420000 are registered assault rifles!)

In 2006 there were 34 killings/ attempted killings involving firearms.

Proof if it were needed, Guns don't kill people- People kill people.

I have not long moved back to the UK from southern california, and good god i feel so much safer walking the streets of london, and that is really saying something!

Maybe that just means that Americans are crazier. Many people in the US seem to be under the impression that they are still living in Dodge City...so they keep their six-gun at the ready...

[trish]

SarahG and muhmuh both point out (in different ways) that I've understated my case. Thanks to you both.

[InHouston]

An anecdote, let alone one that’s likely fabricated, has little to no relevance on the estimation of probabilities. I’m merely recommending against buying a firearm and keeping it loaded and unlocked in your home. The possibility that you or someone you love will get shot by that firearm is much more likely than the possibility that an armed stranger will attempt to break into your home. The probability that 1) your home is invaded and 2) your firearm is in reach and 3) you actually manage to successfully defend yourself with it is even smaller.


You're right. My anecdote has absolutely no relevance to your "estimation of probabilities". That's all you're good for is estimates, and theories, and useless rhetoric that all stem from data trolled from Google, and based on zero personal experience on your part. Your rhetoric is simply an elaborate foist to conceal the fact that you (and others who staunchly agree with you) are simply cowards. You flame every single response I post here simply because you hate and/or fear what you lack within yourself. The more you post, the more you reveal how insubstantial and vacuous you are as a human being.

[muhmuh]

you hate and/or fear what you lack within yourself

what might that be? paranoia maybe?

[InHouston]

you hate and/or fear what you lack within yourself

what might that be? paranoia maybe?

Amazing. No use discussing self-defense with a bunch of weenies.

[trish]

Cowards? You're the one, InHouston, who thinks he needs a gun for protection. You're the one who's shivering from fear and telling everyone else they need to be afraid too. Lions, Tigers and Black Men with Shotguns....OH MY!!!

[InHouston]

Cowards? You're the one, InHouston, who thinks he needs a gun for protection. You're the one who's shivering from fear and telling everyone else they need to be afraid too. Lions, Tigers and Black Men with Shotguns....OH MY!!!

You are a coward. It's wrought in every post you've submitted on this topic. I've known 100 people like you that come and go. So confident, so informed, so resolute. Then when some "Black Man with a Shotgun ... OH MY!!!" breaks into your home you shiver under the bed like a helpless little rat, and will die like one too. Given your attitude on this subject, that is almost comical to me.

[trish]

Oh so you now KNOW a HUNDRED people who have disagreed with you on this issue, and then proved themselves to be cowards after being forced to look down the business end of a gun barrel. Either that or you're just CONJECTURING they would behave like cowards in such a circumstance. Or maybe you're just projecting your own fear onto others. You're afraid of how you might behave if "they" caught you without your guns. Me, I'm not afraid of my fellow man. It's just as you said: I'm confident, informed and resolute.

[SarahG]

Cowards? You're the one, InHouston, who thinks he needs a gun for protection. You're the one who's shivering from fear and telling everyone else they need to be afraid too. Lions, Tigers and Black Men with Shotguns....OH MY!!!

You are a coward. It's wrought in every post you've submitted on this topic. I've known 100 people like you that come and go. So confident, so informed, so resolute. Then when some "Black Man with a Shotgun ... OH MY!!!" breaks into your home you shiver under the bed like a helpless little rat, and will die like one too. Given your attitude on this subject, that is almost comical to me.

As a gun owner I have to concede she makes a strong case about most people not having a chance in hell of getting to their firearm in time in the event of a home invasion. I know I would be hard pressed to get to and load my firearms in time if someone broke into my apartment, even if they weren't safely locked away in a secure locker or display case.

In order to get passed that element of surprise you'd in many situations have to either have intruders who take a while to come across you (happens) or have the weapon loaded & on your person.... which may or may not be the case (with longarms I consider that at best being unlikely... who honestly walks around all day at home with their rifle slung over their shoulder?). A sidearm on the other hand, ok sure- I am sure some people walk around on their private property all day with a holster and would not have difficulty getting to their firearm quickly. This does not inherently make the defense argument moot in all scenarios, all cases.

There are people for which there is a reasonable expectation that they will need to rely on a firearm for self defense purposes. The example that easily comes to mind here is dealing with known abusive, violent stalkers- especially in areas where police will not be quick to respond. Your order of protection isn't going to mean shit when dealing with someone who has been documented to be violent towards you, and you simply cannot rely on law enforcement to arrive in time if these incidents are cyclical (expected), and the more rural you are the more this becomes of a concern (but I think it would be false to use rural as the only gauge of this issue, a girl was attacked in my apartment complex in an urban environment and it took almost 40 minutes for police to respond- like usual, YMMV).

However even here training is essential. Just getting a gun without training, and leaving it unsecured where kids etc can get to it may look bad (I kinda flinch when anyone plays the 'for the children' lines in making cases- but that's just my person opinion- not meant to be pointed), but the concern I would point out along those lines is different (I am not going to debate accident statistics because they IMO can be quite unreliable due to the misinformation -from both sides- that have muddied the water). My concern is that for someone who needs a firearm for reasonable defensive purposes, if they don't have training on that firearm for that scenario they risk making their situation WORSE, not better. If your attacker is unarmed and you lose your weapon in a struggle- now you're the one unarmed facing an armed opponent.

I cannot see blanketly disallowing self defense as an argument for gun ownership in all cases, but I do see training as being a reasonable requirement for that ownership -DEPENDING on how it is is done in theory, as well as in practice.

[Tomfurbs]

SoonToBeArrested/CommitedInHouston is back!

Shoot any 'black men with shotguns' lately, old top?

edit: about the 'coward' quip. I walk the streets of my city without fear. I sleep soundly at night. I don't put my trust in a gun.

How is that cowardly?

[hippifried]

Home invasions are extremely rare, & most are pulled off using the guns stolen from those who were arming themselves in fear of home invasions.

[InHouston]

Cowards? You're the one, InHouston, who thinks he needs a gun for protection. You're the one who's shivering from fear and telling everyone else they need to be afraid too. Lions, Tigers and Black Men with Shotguns....OH MY!!!

You are a coward. It's wrought in every post you've submitted on this topic. I've known 100 people like you that come and go. So confident, so informed, so resolute. Then when some "Black Man with a Shotgun ... OH MY!!!" breaks into your home you shiver under the bed like a helpless little rat, and will die like one too. Given your attitude on this subject, that is almost comical to me.

As a gun owner I have to concede she makes a strong case about most people not having a chance in hell of getting to their firearm in time in the event of a home invasion. I know I would be hard pressed to get to and load my firearms in time if someone broke into my apartment, even if they weren't safely locked away in a secure locker or display case.

In order to get passed that element of surprise you'd in many situations have to either have intruders who take a while to come across you (happens) or have the weapon loaded & on your person.... which may or may not be the case (with longarms I consider that at best being unlikely... who honestly walks around all day at home with their rifle slung over their shoulder?). A sidearm on the other hand, ok sure- I am sure some people walk around on their private property all day with a holster and would not have difficulty getting to their firearm quickly. This does not inherently make the defense argument moot in all scenarios, all cases.

There are people for which there is a reasonable expectation that they will need to rely on a firearm for self defense purposes. The example that easily comes to mind here is dealing with known abusive, violent stalkers- especially in areas where police will not be quick to respond. Your order of protection isn't going to mean shit when dealing with someone who has been documented to be violent towards you, and you simply cannot rely on law enforcement to arrive in time if these incidents are cyclical (expected), and the more rural you are the more this becomes of a concern (but I think it would be false to use rural as the only gauge of this issue, a girl was attacked in my apartment complex in an urban environment and it took almost 40 minutes for police to respond- like usual, YMMV).

However even here training is essential. Just getting a gun without training, and leaving it unsecured where kids etc can get to it may look bad (I kinda flinch when anyone plays the 'for the children' lines in making cases- but that's just my person opinion- not meant to be pointed), but the concern I would point out along those lines is different (I am not going to debate accident statistics because they IMO can be quite unreliable due to the misinformation -from both sides- that have muddied the water). My concern is that for someone who needs a firearm for reasonable defensive purposes, if they don't have training on that firearm for that scenario they risk making their situation WORSE, not better. If your attacker is unarmed and you lose your weapon in a struggle- now you're the one unarmed facing an armed opponent.

I cannot see blanketly disallowing self defense as an argument for gun ownership in all cases, but I do see training as being a reasonable requirement for that ownership -DEPENDING on how it is is done in theory, as well as in practice.

My compliments on your reasoning and insight SarahG, and very well said. And you did emphasize the point that is critical in all of this; training. I attend a tactical handgun defense class once a week. Before we enter the range we have to sit through the same safety briefing every time. I've heard the briefing dozens and dozens of times and its importance and impact has never diminished. There are people in there from many walks of life; young, old, male, female, timid, agile, aggressive, passive. There is even a pastor of a local church in there now since the church shooting in Knoxville Tennessee. What is stressed to everyone is proper and safe concealment, handling, and operation of the firearm, and most importantly to not injure innocent bystanders when defending yourself. They regularly address questions on how to safely stow loaded weapons in the home where children cannot access them, yet adults can get to them quickly should an intruder break in.

I do not buy the argument that your chances of getting to your weapon during an intrusion in your home are low. That is a matter of addressing the perimeter defense of your home. There is now a plethora of indoor and outdoor motion sensors that can be discreetly installed anywhere in and around your home. Because I woke up one morning to a burglar in my backyard, I now have four birdhouses inconspicuously perched in strategic paths along my back yard. Inside each one is a motion sensor that triggers an audible signal inside the house when someone is lurking around the yard. They even have doormats now with a pressure sensor and a hidden transmitter that will sound an audible signal in your home when someone merely steps on the mat. That is an excellent first line of defense to a kick-in robbery. If the mat is beeping, and there is no knock or ring of the doorbell, you now have a valid warning that something is awry outside your door. I have burglar bars as well, so I don’t even worry about a home invasion in spite of what some knuckleheads on this subject think I sit around worrying about. They’d have to make quite a ruckus to enter my home and will seek out another house to intrude upon. The bars serve as both an obstacle and a deterrent, and I sleep well at night.

Thanks again for your well thought out words, and was a breath of fresh air. First intelligent response I’ve seen to this post from a mind capable of sound reasoning.

[InHouston]

SoonToBeArrested/CommitedInHouston is back!

Shoot any 'black men with shotguns' lately, old top?

edit: about the 'coward' quip. I walk the streets of my city without fear. I sleep soundly at night. I don't put my trust in a gun.

How is that cowardly?

In that context, I wouldn't neccessarily call you cowardly. I'd call you an 'easy target'.

[InHouston]

Home invasions are extremely rare, & most are pulled off using the guns stolen from those who were arming themselves in fear of home invasions.

Extremely rare huh? They occur here an average of one to three times a week on the morning news.

Case in point, here's another one that happened last night in my area:

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=6351213

Wednesday, August 27, 2008 | 8:12 AM

MISSOURI CITY, TX (KTRK) -- A man inside a Missouri City home was shot by armed intruders.

Pedro Escalante, 31, three adult females and a one-year-old baby were home at the time. One of the suspects shot Escalante in the neck or head. He was airlifted to the hospital and is listed as stable.
There's no word if the suspects took anything from the home. Investigators are trying to determine a motive.

[SarahG]

My compliments on your reasoning and insight SarahG, and very well said. And you did emphasize the point that is critical in all of this; training. I attend a tactical handgun defense class once a week. Before we enter the range we have to sit through the same safety briefing every time. I've heard the briefing dozens and dozens of times and its importance and impact has never diminished. There are people in there from many walks of life; young, old, male, female, timid, agile, aggressive, passive. There is even a pastor of a local church in there now since the church shooting in Knoxville Tennessee. What is stressed to everyone is proper and safe concealment, handling, and operation of the firearm, and most importantly to not injure innocent bystanders when defending yourself. They regularly address questions on how to safely stow loaded weapons in the home where children cannot access them, yet adults can get to them quickly should an intruder break in.

I do not buy the argument that your chances of getting to your weapon during an intrusion in your home are low. That is a matter of addressing the perimeter defense of your home. There is now a plethora of indoor and outdoor motion sensors that can be discreetly installed anywhere in and around your home. Because I woke up one morning to a burglar in my backyard, I now have four birdhouses inconspicuously perched in strategic paths along my back yard. Inside each one is a motion sensor that triggers an audible signal inside the house when someone is lurking around the yard. They even have doormats now with a pressure sensor and a hidden transmitter that will sound an audible signal in your home when someone merely steps on the mat. That is an excellent first line of defense to a kick-in robbery. If the mat is beeping, and there is no knock or ring of the doorbell, you now have a valid warning that something is awry outside your door. I have burglar bars as well, so I don’t even worry about a home invasion in spite of what some knuckleheads on this subject think I sit around worrying about. They’d have to make quite a ruckus to enter my home and will seek out another house to intrude upon. The bars serve as both an obstacle and a deterrent, and I sleep well at night.

Thanks again for your well thought out words, and was a breath of fresh air. First intelligent response I’ve seen to this post from a mind capable of sound reasoning.

None of that really counters what I said, in a surprise scenario you're going to have difficulty getting to your firearms in time in most cases- especially when dealing with long arms.

What you've done is merely an attempt to mitigate the possibility of an intruder surprising you. If that surprise manages to happen (through whatever means), or happens where your mitigation techniques aren't there- then you bet you're still gonna have a hard time getting to your firearms in time.

Mitigation techniques help but they're not flawless, there's always the chance you're going to somehow miss a buzzer from motion detectors, leave the property allowing someone in the meantime to successfully hide behind the bushes next to you for when you come home to gain entrance, whatever.

Which is where the importance of training comes in- for when you DO have to deal with surprise attacks- the paramount issue is not making things worse for yourself, either in leaving loaded firearms around the house for people to break in and acquire for use against you.... or acquiring your carried weapon (most likely a sidearm) during a surprise struggle.

I don't think very many posts in this thread have called for a flat out ban, at the very least training seems to be the only point that seems to have universal agreement.

But for myself, I can see cases where it would not be unreasonable for someone to have a firearm for protection.

As to why America has a "gun problem" in comparison to other societies with a greater guns per capita rate? I would only be able to speculate on that point. It would probably be reasonable to suspect that these other societies advocate gun ownership for similar reasons (Swiss law requiring gun ownership after conscription service sounds, if anything, like an armed militia force in case of foreign invasion- but again not being swiss I am just speculating here). It would be difficult for me to pinpoint what differences exist to create the differences in gun violence statistics. I kinda doubt it is as simple as mainstream belief in gun ownership for protection purposes (either PvP or PvNation), just as I seriously doubt it is childhood use of 1st person shooter video games (which are just as popular over there). Movies, music? Come on now, American culture (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4w9EksAo5hY) is found just about everywhere- Coca cola is the most commonly known word in the entire planet.

If I were to venture a guess it would simply be a byproduct of a bad combination of factors such as urban poverty, a completely kaput "school system" in our cities, a drop out rate so bad that people really have nothing but min wage OR crime to turn to, and a min wage that is so far below reasonable living standards as to make crime seem as the better of the evils, widespread consumer fundamentalism to the point where people are kept in the hole, unaffordable medical care, and entire industries existing solely to scam those in the impoverished portions of our cities (have you seen the housing foreclosure stats breaking it down based on SEC or race?).

Such situations have been known historically to cause violent crimes on general terms... I would have no difficulty identifying districts in NYC, Chicago, and others that were flat out avoided by self respecting bourgeoisie in the late 19th century America, simply because of the violent crime that came with the poverty.

I am curious what theories there are here regarding the knife/blade crime stats involving countries that had tried to curb gun violence through gun ownership restrictions. I don't particularly see these problems as being separate issues simply because in one case a gun was used, and in another it was something else. :shrug

[Tomfurbs]

The Swiss gun law is to do with National security. The gun each house has is in effect 'government property', to be used in time of invasion (pretty handy if your nation is bordered on all sides by warring countries).

It is not meant for personal defence. The Swiss go a bundle on national security, with compulsory National Service and huge air-raid shelters carved into the Alps. Their gun law is deeply rooted in a sense of 'collective responsibility'.

Here's an article by the pinko limey press all about it:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1566715.stm



LivingInFearInHouston, the only people who view other people as 'targets' are cross-eyed gun-fetishists like yourself.


It is very simple :

When the UK had our 'Columbine' (Dunblane 1996), we outlawed handguns (automatic weapons were already illegal). We haven't had a similar incident since. We have our fair share of crazies, but when they're armed with axes or kitchen knives they don't inflict as much damage.

The US has had countless 'Columbines', and every time it happens you hum and harr, scratch your buzz-cuts, jerk-off about the 2nd and the 'way of the west', and do nothing. Hell, you even overturn bans, like in Washington.

Tell me, which way is the more realistic, pragmatic, and caring?

[InHouston]

None of that really counters what I said, in a surprise scenario you're going to have difficulty getting to your firearms in time in most cases- especially when dealing with long arms.


If your home has adequate perimeter defense, then there should be no reason why you’d be caught in a surprise scenario.



What you've done is merely an attempt to mitigate the possibility of an intruder surprising you. If that surprise manages to happen (through whatever means), or happens where your mitigation techniques aren't there- then you bet you're still gonna have a hard time getting to your firearms in time.




Mitigation techniques help but they're not flawless, there's always the chance you're going to somehow miss a buzzer from motion detectors, leave the property allowing someone in the meantime to successfully hide behind the bushes next to you for when you come home to gain entrance, whatever.


Situational awareness solves these problems as well. Never leave or return home without your weapon on your person. If someone were to come lurching out of the bushes at you, you have your weapon to defend yourself. Even if the person were to absolutely surprise you, and take you hostage to gain entry into your home, you need only discreetly draw your weapon from your waist (which is where I carry), turn into the intruder and fire. Your hands are right there at your weapon. Most people when robbed were not paying attention to their immediate surroundings, nor do they rehearse situations like this in their head. As in the case of a friend of mine who was robbed in a parking lot at night. He stated, “He was right on me before I knew it.” I asked, “Were you paying attention to your surroundings while walking to your car?” He said, “Well now that I think about it I really wasn’t paying any attention at all.”



Which is where the importance of training comes in- for when you DO have to deal with surprise attacks- the paramount issue is not making things worse for yourself, either in leaving loaded firearms around the house for people to break in and acquire for use against you.... or acquiring your carried weapon (most likely a sidearm) during a surprise struggle.


Never leave loaded firearms accessible in your home when you’re not there. Invest in a safe, have it bolted to the floor, and be vigilant about storing weapons in there while you’re gone. When I run to the store, I put extraneous weapons in there and spin the dial to lock it. That way I know should I come home and someone had gained entry, my weapons are safely secured. And this just isn’t for intruders only. Should a tornado just happen to drop on your neighborhood and scatter your house around the block, at least you know your weapons won’t be.



I don't think very many posts in this thread have called for a flat out ban, at the very least training seems to be the only point that seems to have universal agreement.


Seems to me the majority of people in here would favor a ban on firearms or overly strict regulation.



As to why America has a "gun problem" in comparison to other societies with a greater guns per capita rate?


My overall concern with the “gun problem” in America is simply the attitude of the youth in this nation now. There is a prevalent “thug culture” in this nation now and West Coast style street gang mentality is running rampant in this nation. The attitudes are horrible and downright dangerous. Criminals in this country now will pull a gun and use it on you simply if they feel they’ve been disrespected. I didn’t see this phenomenon 10 years ago. Yes America still had guns and its inherent problems with that, but a decade ago the senseless violence just wasn’t at the level it is today. I’ve been to Canada before on business, and the people there seem to be much more civil and the youth in that country strike me as being much more mature. Welfare in this country has encouraged single mothers to raise many children with no father in the home. Coupled with drugs and the lure of easy money, young people in this country are easily seduced and intoxicated into a lifestyle of gangs, drugs, and crime. And most of the dangerous youth now are not even affiliated with street gangs, they have a gang mentality and emulate them to be cool and to feel empowered. Again 10 years ago these were isolated pockets of problems in various communities. But now, the problem has spread into mainstream America and has taken root in communities all over the nation. If that wasn’t bad enough, then Katrina rolled into New Orleans and the city of Houston bused the dregs of New Orleans into Houston. The crime rate in this area has skyrocketed since. Just a mile down the road Katrina Evacuees are openly dealing drugs on the street corner at various low income apartment complexes, they venture in and out of my neighborhood walking up and down the street smoking tweeds and you can see black and white residents of this neighborhood alike standing in their driveways with grave looks of consternation on their faces, or in other words thinking “Great there goes the neighborhood.” One day I even had to flag a constable down because two of them were walking down the street and openly fumbling with a large semi-automatic weapon while casually walking through the neighborhood. I left some roofers at my house one day who were simply eating their lunch on my yard, and when I returned they said two black guys came up onto my yard and said “What you lookin at you punk ass Mexican bitches?” One day I was pulling out of the neighborhood, and shouted from a car to my right “Hurry up you punk ass mother fucker!”

You know, and it offends me how some people on this board will simply dismiss valid concerns that people have who just want to be safe. I would respect some people’s opinions here more if they would at least inquire something to the effect of “Is it really that bad over there?” Yes it is. I went to the store yesterday, and just down the street on the back of a local business spray painted in big letters looms “CRIPS”.

I mean come on man.



I am curious what theories there are here regarding the knife/blade crime stats involving countries that had tried to curb gun violence through gun ownership restrictions. I don't particularly see these problems as being separate issues simply because in one case a gun was used, and in another it was something else. :shrug


Hooligans in England are running rampant and openly robbing people with bats and knives. Hell, they even now congregate on street corners and beat people up for the fun of it on a Saturday night. Just look on YouTube. I even saw a video where two English policeman got beat up by a gang of 10 hooligans openly fighting them because the police weren’t armed.

Again, guns have always been a problem in this nation, but there is now a bad shift in the attitudes of young people here now thanks to the proliferation of West Coast style gangs. They are this generation's rock stars and they’re emulated everywhere.

[InHouston]

The Swiss gun law is to do with National security. The gun each house has is in effect 'government property', to be used in time of invasion (pretty handy if your nation is bordered on all sides by warring countries).

It is not meant for personal defence. The Swiss go a bundle on national security, with compulsory National Service and huge air-raid shelters carved into the Alps. Their gun law is deeply rooted in a sense of 'collective responsibility'.

Here's an article by the pinko limey press all about it:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1566715.stm



LivingInFearInHouston, the only people who view other people as 'targets' are cross-eyed gun-fetishists like yourself.


It is very simple :

When the UK had our 'Columbine' (Dunblane 1996), we outlawed handguns (automatic weapons were already illegal). We haven't had a similar incident since. We have our fair share of crazies, but when they're armed with axes or kitchen knives they don't inflict as much damage.

The US has had countless 'Columbines', and every time it happens you hum and harr, scratch your buzz-cuts, jerk-off about the 2nd and the 'way of the west', and do nothing. Hell, you even overturn bans, like in Washington.

Tell me, which way is the more realistic, pragmatic, and caring?


Look around the outskirts of Washington D.C., and you'll find that it is a veritable slum. To take guns from armed citizens is not pragmatic, realistic, nor caring. You seem to always miss the simple point that criminals don't care about a gun ban. THEY DON’T CARE NOR DO THEY OBEY IT. In fact, they would welcome it. You have this childish way of humoring yourself by accusing people like me as viewing other human beings as ‘targets’. People like you always impugn and vilify the good people for having guns, and I never see you posting any opinions about the criminals. I often wonder if you’re not a criminal yourself. Criminals would agree with your position on gun control. Hell, maybe you’re their advocate incognito.

[Tomfurbs]

Boss, criminals will always be there. Criminals having access to firearms has little to do with discussing a gun-ban, because if they want to they will always find ways to get them, gun-ban or not.

The argument against having firearms easily available is more to do with stopping the general idiot public shooting at each other, either through accidents or rage etc. The dude who did Dunblane and all the other insane scumbags who carry out those kind of attacks were 'respectable', 'law-abiding' citizens before they turned wierd.

Since you are such a fan of youtube, and view it as an accurate depiction of human behaviour, may I suggest you look up the myriad videos of untrained, often drunk, 'citizens' playing with their Desert Eagles, .44's and shotguns. That kind of reckless behaviour would be a lot more worrying to me, if I was a citizen of your country, than shitting myself in fear over some home invasion that will never come.

Guns don't make anything safer. They just escalate the level of violence. You pull a knife on someone, someone will get stabbed, whether it be you or your opponent. The same thing applies with guns. As I wrote in the other thread; I cannot think of a single fracas I have been involved in where guns, even in the hands of the Police, would have been a help.

About whether I am a criminal or not well, you can rest easy. I won't be attempting to breach your 'perimeter defence' any time soon.

It's nice to see you replying with fully-formed coherent sentences, though, instead of your usual monosyllabic grunting.

[hippifried]

The number one crime in America is burglary.

The number one gun crime in America is theft of guns.

Home invasion is waaaaaay down the list, & most of them are committed by someone who's known to the victim. It's never random. The victims are always vetted by the perpetrators. Unless revenge or criminal competition factors into the action, and that's likely, the priority list of things to be siezed is:
cash
drugs
GUNS!
jewelry
identity & financial documents
other stuff depending on time constraints & ability to haul it out of there
It's the same priority list, in the same order, for any thief in someone's home, whether the victim is there or not.

This is all just so much paranoia. I don't have a problem with the private ownership of guns. I do have a problem with guns in the hands of crazies as well as criminals. It's a bit scary to think that there's people who are armed to the teeth, too scared to leave their homes, & peeking out the windows looking for anybody they don't recognize.

It'd be nice if there was some kind of reliable sanity test that could be given while doing the background check. Actually, it'd be nice if there was any kind of reliable sanity test at all. We always seem to find out too late.

[InHouston]

Boss, criminals will always be there. Criminals having access to firearms has little to do with discussing a gun-ban, because if they want to they will always find ways to get them, gun-ban or not.

I concede that point



The argument against having firearms easily available is more to do with stopping the general idiot public shooting at each other, either through accidents or rage etc.

I concede that point too.


The dude who did Dunblane and all the other insane scumbags who carry out those kind of attacks were 'respectable', 'law-abiding' citizens before they turned wierd.


I concede that point too.

All criminals before they commit their first crime have been law-abiding citizens up to that point. The Dunblane perpetrator had to have been ‘weird’ long before. The problem I have with Columbine is the parent’s of the two boys Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. How is it that a young boy can have a stock pile of weapons, ammunition, pipe bombs, and pages of incriminating journals and the parents not know this? You have A.D.D., and you have what I call P.D.D. Parental Deficit Disorder; plain and simple.



Since you are such a fan of youtube, and view it as an accurate depiction of human behaviour, may I suggest you look up the myriad videos of untrained, often drunk, 'citizens' playing with their Desert Eagles, .44's and shotguns. That kind of reckless behaviour would be a lot more worrying to me, if I was a citizen of your country, than shitting myself in fear over some home invasion that will never come.


YouTube has accurate as well as inaccurate (mostly) depictions of human behavior, and I never said I was a big fan of YouTube. YouTube does provide video from ordinary people without the corporate media spin on things. You simply have to weed out the personal spin, bias, and full-on fiction that is wrought in much of the media up there. But, a positive change in America is the recent niche market of indoor gun ranges popping up all over the place offering professional training once only available to military and law enforcement; and people in this country damn well need it. I once saw a security guard at a bus stop holding a guy at gun point for breaking into cars until the police came. She was yelling at him and waving her gun around in all directions with her finger on the trigger. For my safety I left the area.



Guns don't make anything safer. They just escalate the level of violence. You pull a knife on someone, someone will get stabbed, whether it be you or your opponent. The same thing applies with guns. As I wrote in the other thread; I cannot think of a single fracas I have been involved in where guns, even in the hands of the Police, would have been a help.


I’ll concede your point in the first sentence, but I have to lean towards the context of the criminal. The criminals escalate the violence with guns. If someone pulls a knife on me, there is a clear 99% probability in my head that I can pull a gun and he will back off. In such a scenario, guns are safer and defuse the violence. Should that person exhibit the 1% scenario and keep advancing, then a couple of warning shots high over his head will probably startle him into a retreat. Should he keep coming, then the guy probably just has a death wish anyway, at which point I can only allow the person to advance so far until the knife is getting within striking range and I have nowhere to continue a retreat on my part. Now if someone pulls a gun, they’ve given me no choice. I don’t want to shoot someone, but I don’t want to die either. They made the choice for me at that point.

And another thing Tomfurbs, I’m not this kneejerk gun fanatic with an itchy trigger finger just waiting to pop someone. I am very aware of the fact that I could continue to go to training for the rest of my life, and may never ever have to use my gun in self-defense. You could cut me some slack here. I have encountered people who own firearms that are just simply not trainable, and I aspire to not be in that group of gun owners.


About whether I am a criminal or not well, you can rest easy. I won't be attempting to breach your 'perimeter defence' any time soon.


That was just fodder on my part that you’ve been lobbing at me as well.



It's nice to see you replying with fully-formed coherent sentences, though, instead of your usual monosyllabic grunting.


I never claimed to be a diplomat, yet I can have a civil discussion as long as my points are considered and not just smashed at every turn with no intellectual convincing on my part as to why those points were smashed. If we don’t agree in the end, then we agree to disagree in the end. Here’s my take on things. If someone were to tell me, “There are criminals everywhere doing home invasions, robberies, and this and that …” and it was my first time being exposed to such information, I don’t lash back, I’m naturally curious as to whether it’s true or not. If there is something that is a potential danger to me, than I compel myself to explore that claim for my own good. I’m convinced that there are criminals out there in Houston every day, and it’s a good idea to be prepared. There are also millions and millions of Americans who will tell me that I will go to hell unless I except Jesus into my life. I immediately tell them, “I don’t believe in your God, any gods, deities, souls, spirits, angels, demons, heaven or hell. I exist, and one day I will cease to exist, and I will simply return to that void from which I came.”

And with that TomFurbs, I am especially concerned about my physical safety, because in my mind I am merely a mortal man. Should someone kill me, that’s it. There’s nothing else beyond the grave, and as an Atheist I want to die on my own terms and not on the whims of some criminal who values my personal property more than my life.

Does this make sense now?

And I appreciate you referring to me as Boss for a change instead of the derogatory aliases you’ve been throwing in here. Perhaps we could continue down this civil path and learn something from each other. The ball is in your court.

[Tomfurbs]

Perhaps we could continue down this civil path and learn something from each other. The ball is in your court.

I don't think so. Pissing you off is too much fun. Plus, you started this lame bogus thread in an attempt to call me and trish out, so the gloves are off.

Dude, you can't really expect to suddenly turn yourself into the voice of reason after the completely mad shit you've been spewing in both gun-law threads. I'm an agnostic, and equally aware of the finality of death, and no, I don't want to be killed by someone with a gun. Whether that someone is a 'black man with a shotgun' as you so charmingly put it, or your own arsenal-owning ass, is pretty much academic. (p.s white people commit crimes too y'know, sometimes even with shotguns)

America is a country that has problems, as all countries do, but what that country doesn't need is more guns. Getting bent out of shape over you're right to bare arms, while so many other rights of yours are getting roughshod over, seems kind of mental. Allowing someone a quick and easy and relatively guilt-free means of killing people isn't a good idea, even if their nation is a peaceful as Canada. People get drunk and crazy and do stupid things. Even the best of us do.

I think of gun bans as damage limitation. And all I can say is, from personal experience, I am fucking glad I don't live in a country where any old twat can walk into a supermarket and buy some heavy artillery.

As for all that rubbish about 'firing warning shots'...who are you kidding? You come across as a pretty prejudiced and paranoid individual, so I imagine your 'warning' shots will probably depend on who you've got in your sights.


Also, why do you need so many? You've only got two hands. Are you in active service in the military or Law Enforcement? Is your house (I bet you call it a 'compound', right?) constantly under siege by all these 'black men with shotguns'?

[InHouston]

Perhaps we could continue down this civil path and learn something from each other. The ball is in your court.

I don't think so. Pissing you off is too much fun. Plus, you started this lame bogus thread in an attempt to call me and trish out, so the gloves are off.

Dude, you can't really expect to suddenly turn yourself into the voice of reason after the completely mad shit you've been spewing in both gun-law threads. I'm an agnostic, and equally aware of the finality of death, and no, I don't want to be killed by someone with a gun. Whether that someone is a 'black man with a shotgun' as you so charmingly put it, or your own arsenal-owning ass, is pretty much academic. (p.s white people commit crimes too y'know, sometimes even with shotguns)

America is a country that has problems, as all countries do, but what that country doesn't need is more guns. Getting bent out of shape over you're right to bare arms, while so many other rights of yours are getting roughshod over, seems kind of mental. Allowing someone a quick and easy and relatively guilt-free means of killing people isn't a good idea, even if their nation is a peaceful as Canada. People get drunk and crazy and do stupid things. Even the best of us do.

I think of gun bans as damage limitation. And all I can say is, from personal experience, I am fucking glad I don't live in a country where any old twat can walk into a supermarket and buy some heavy artillery.

As for all that rubbish about 'firing warning shots'...who are you kidding? You come across as a pretty prejudiced and paranoid individual, so I imagine your 'warning' shots will probably depend on who you've got in your sights.


Also, why do you need so many? You've only got two hands. Are you in active service in the military or Law Enforcement? Is your house (I bet you call it a 'compound', right?) constantly under siege by all these 'black men with shotguns'?

So be it.

[SarahG]

My overall concern with the “gun problem” in America is simply the attitude of the youth in this nation now. There is a prevalent “thug culture” in this nation now and West Coast style street gang mentality is running rampant in this nation. The attitudes are horrible and downright dangerous.

Right, I which is basically what I was saying.



Welfare in this country has encouraged single mothers to raise many children with no father in the home. Coupled with drugs and the lure of easy money, young people in this country are easily seduced and intoxicated into a lifestyle of gangs, drugs, and crime. .

When all else fails, blame the "degradation of the American family." Sorry, not buying that argument. Disillusionment, inescapable poverty, ruined education facilities, and other such problems I'd argue have had a far larger role.

If it is as simple as divorce and welfare programs, we'd have seen utopias in our urban slums in the eras where divorce was unobtainable for the lower SECs. Crime then, in these areas were no more or less different from today- serial killers, murders, rapes, thefts- violence was a major component in impoverished urban life long before social welfare programs existed.

If anything it was easier for men back then to just disappear and abandon their families, its not like you could easily track someone down and make them pay child support in the 1870s.

Violence and militant radicalism cannot as easily thrive where people feel optimistic about their future IMHO.



People get drunk and crazy and do stupid things. Even the best of us do.


Which is where accountability comes in. If you get reckless with something while you're drunk and kill someone, your ass should be dealt with by the justice system for it.

I don't care if its a gun, knife, car, or a hammer. More cops here die from car chases than gun violence, but you don't see people (other than Nadar) pushing for a prohibition of automobiles.



I think of gun bans as damage limitation.

Damage limitation? That argument is kaput if, in response to gun bans:
1) people just turn to other ways of hurting people (sticks, stones, knives, bats, skateboards, etc)
2) criminals get their hands on firearms anyway.


Boss, criminals will always be there. Criminals having access to firearms has little to do with discussing a gun-ban, because if they want to they will always find ways to get them, gun-ban or not.

[Tomfurbs]

I think of gun bans as damage limitation.

Damage limitation? That argument is kaput if, in response to gun bans:
1) people just turn to other ways of hurting people (sticks, stones, knives, bats, skateboards, etc)
2) criminals get their hands on firearms anyway.


Kaput? Not really. At Dunblane, Tom Hamilton killed sixteen children and a teacher. He was able to kill that number because he was firing a gun.
The columbine killers where able to continue their spree because they were ar,ed with fireamrs

Shortly after the UK ban was passed the year after Dunblane, a maniac attacked a church with an axe in Surrey (I can't remember his name, I was a teen at the time). The fact that he was armed with an axe and not a gun meant that he was able to inflict a lot less damage, even though, of course, every death is tragic.

Americans always say that their country has such awful social problems, and this is why they have the gun crime they do, as opposed to other gun-owning nations like Canada or France. Firstly, what an embarrasing admission. Secondly, Americans are people just they same as everyone else. No more crazy or violent then the rest of the world. Therefore, when a country with a ban, like the UK, shows such proportionally lower crime stats than the US, it is irresponsible for Americans to say 'Oh, we have more sever social problems...the fact that guns are readily avaiable has nothing to do with it'. It is always easier to blame it on the poor and the blacks, though :roll:

Sarah said :

Which is where accountability comes in. If you get reckless with something while you're drunk and kill someone, your ass should be dealt with by the justice system for it.

I don't care if its a gun, knife, car, or a hammer. More cops here die from car chases than gun violence, but you don't see people (other than Nadar) pushing for a prohibition of automobiles.

1) Of course everyone is accountable for their actions. I never said otherwise. Not allowing people access to a simple and easy way of killing someone is a pragmatic social safeguard. In a country with a ban, even owning a gun is a crime and people who do so should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. That in itself is a good counter-measure against crime.

2) A car is designed to get people from A to B. A gun is designed to kill people. If someone kills someone with a car, they are misusing it. If someone kills someone with a gun, even if it is an accident, the gun itself has performed the task it has been created for.

That is why there is no place for guns domestically during peace-time.

[InHouston]

That is why there is no place for guns domestically during peace-time.

Ummm Hmmm ....

http://www.criminalsgonewilddvd.com/driveby-shooting-caught-on-tape.htm

[SarahG]

At Dunblane, Tom Hamilton killed sixteen children and a teacher. He was able to kill that number because he was firing a gun.
The columbine killers where able to continue their spree because they were ar,ed with fireamrs

But these incidents are largely extremely rare. I am sure more people (including children) die in your country, as is the case in ours, from other means.

Ok sure, a crazy guy went and shot up a bunch of kids and 16 were dead, I am sure this tragic event was extremely hard on their families, their community, maybe even their country.... but it means nothing if in the grand scheme of things, removing those guns caused a surge in violence where other implements were used (such as knives).



Shortly after the UK ban was passed the year after Dunblane, a maniac attacked a church with an axe in Surrey (I can't remember his name, I was a teen at the time). The fact that he was armed with an axe and not a gun meant that he was able to inflict a lot less damage, even though, of course, every death is tragic.

Expect you have no idea if he would have had access to a gun without Dublane, and you have no idea if he'd have used one if he had that access.

As you said, it was shortly after the event- even extreme gun regulatory measures aren't going to make an IMMEDIATE change to such a point that someone cannot access a gun when they want to. How do you think the criminals gain access to guns (you've said yourself they can today, and that's years after gun "reforms" were put in place in your country). It is a single event, all we can do is speculate.



Americans always say that their country has such awful social problems, and this is why they have the gun crime they do, as opposed to other gun-owning nations like Canada or France. Firstly, what an embarrasing admission.

We have the VIOLENCE that we do because of a combination of painfully obvious problems, economically, and socially. If you HONESTLY think that our cities' crime will just go and evaporate if guns were magically removed from our entire society, you're insane (or just really really out of touch with what it is like in the impoverished urban districts). That crime problem doesn't go away by controlling what weapon they have to use in committing it... and that is assuming that gun regulations would be able to remove enough guns from our society to actually prohibit criminals from accessing them. Given that you've said your own country can't achieve that end, then that's a pretty damning observation for any reform whose justification is precisely that (removing guns from criminals).



Secondly, Americans are people just they same as everyone else. No more crazy or violent then the rest of the world.


That's being intellectually dishonest if you at the same time acknowledge that other societies with the same (or higher) guns per capital stats have no where near the same stats involving violent crimes, or crimes involving guns.

Believe it or not violence DOES vary from society to society. So does crime.



It is always easier to blame it on the poor and the blacks, though...


It is absolutely linked to poverty, and all the stats our country has involving crime will show that poverty is the single most important factor in dictating how much crime a given district will have. This is true rurally, and urbanly... furthermore take a look at the cities that have the HIGHEST rate of violent crime and tell me what their economies are like.



2) A car is designed to get people from A to B. A gun is designed to kill people. If someone kills someone with a car, they are misusing it. If someone kills someone with a gun, even if it is an accident, the gun itself has performed the task it has been created for.


Knives are designed to cut things, but I don't see your country banning them under that logic, and if they did I would seriously question the logic behind it.

[Tomfurbs]

With all your points taken on board, I still cannot understand the need for such an unnecessary and lethal item being easily accessed by the general public.

Large knives are being phased out in this country, and you have to be over 18 before you can purchase any blade, even a kitchen paring knife.

The difference between knives and guns is that 1) a gun can inflict more damage and 2) it is very difficult to kill someone with a blade, whereas
shooting someone is pretty basic and does not require the same level of emotional envolvement.

Politics is supposed to be one part ideals and one part pragmatism. Just as harmful chemicals and food additives are banned for the good of the nation, it is the same with guns.

I cannot belive you really think that guns make anything safer. A we have heard from other posters, gun-owners are actually attractive targets for criminals, and most home-weopons get turned on their owners.

Guns only escalate the level of violence of a situation, which is one of the reasons Brit cops don't carry them.

TOPICAL ASIDE:

Right now the UK news outlets are full of a story of Millionnaire Chris Foster who has gone missing after (they suspect) he shot his wife and her lover with his legally owned shotgun. This dude owned a gun why? Oh yeah..for self-defence. When was it ever used in anger? By the owner himself against his own wife. Of course he could have killed them with a knife of otgher instrument, but would he have been so successful?

EDIT:

US is averaging about a 'columbine' a year. How many more incidents like that are you as a nation going to accept before you actually take sokme kind of action, rather than just pass the buck and blame the lastest scapegoat?

[SarahG]

US is averaging about a 'columbine' a year. How many more incidents like that are you as a nation going to accept before you actually take sokme kind of action, rather than just pass the buck and blame the lastest scapegoat?

I don't believe guns are the cause of that problem.

I completely understand why kids shoot up schools (understand, that doesn't mean I endorse shooting up schools, encourage shooting up schools, etc etc) having had a bad k-12 experience myself.

I don't see it as being a byproduct of guns, marilyn manson, doom2, rap music or any of that nonesense (hell after Columbine they were even trying to use "what clothes the shooters wore when they were in preschool" to escape goat what caused columbine)- what I believed caused columbine was the tendency of our schools to not give a shit when people repeatedly cross the line in terms of violence, abuse, harassment, and insults. Speaking to my own person experience, it was bad enough that the police had to step in on a regular basis because of the bodily injury I was receiving from bullies. Did the school care, do anything about it, or even pretend to stop it? Fuck no, in some cases the teachers themselves encouraged the behavior simply because I was different. And I'm not even talking about trans issues here, I was a target simply because of how different I looked in early k-12. That got me labeled as a target, and once that happened it stuck, moving, everything short of home schooling failed to make a difference.

I'm sure more students in our country die from suicides than ever have collectively from school shootings, even if the causes are often the same. Instead of trying to fix the problem, people escape goat it on guns thinking "ah, that's the reason why it happens..." That maybe the means in which students decide to react violent, but it isn't why they decide to do so.

Ever think about why people actually consider school shootings? It isn't just because "their family has guns laying around."

[muhmuh]

what I believed caused columbine was the tendency of our schools to not give a shit when people repeatedly cross the line in terms of violence, abuse, harassment, and insults.

its all the same... in a every man for himself evironment where everyone is afraid of everyone else these problems will automatically arise and the widespread gun ownership caused by that fear will amplify the effects 11-fold


Deputies are searching for two gunmen behind a deadly home invasion at a north Harris County mobile home park.

as expected from inhouston

[SarahG]

what I believed caused columbine was the tendency of our schools to not give a shit when people repeatedly cross the line in terms of violence, abuse, harassment, and insults.

its all the same... in a every man for himself evironment where everyone is afraid of everyone else these problems will automatically arise and the widespread gun ownership caused by that fear will amplify the effects 11-fold


Then why are they such a modern occurrence in our society? Why do societies with more guns per capital lack the school shooting stats that we have?

[SarahG]

Deputies are searching for two gunmen behind a deadly home invasion at a north Harris County mobile home park.

as expected from inhouston

LOL. But really, there is no way for us to know if InHouston really is a neighbor of the victim. InHouston may have, like most residents in Houston, read or heard about the crime. What cracks me up is that he did not want to post a link to the story, as if it would have been impossible to find. Ya gotta love the "internets."

Would anyone have honestly believed him if he did post a link at they very start?

[muhmuh]

Then why are they such a modern occurrence in our society?

are they really?
and what would you expect to happen if you put 2 million people who like in houston are still stuck in the wild west into a space a tight as a modern city


Why do societies with more guns per capital lack the school shooting stats that we have?

hard to say but the only one i really know a bit about is switzerland which has excellent social security low unemployment rates and is in many parts made up of small communities where people know each other far too well to be afraid of their neighbours

[SarahG]

Then why are they such a modern occurrence in our society?

are they really?
and what would you expect to happen if you put 2 million people who like in houston are still stuck in the wild west into a space a tight as a modern city


Most of our school shootings were not in urban environments. Columbine sure as hell isn't.




hard to say but the only one i really know a bit about is switzerland which has excellent social security low unemployment rates and is in many parts made up of small communities where people know each other far too well to be afraid of their neighbours

Swiss aren't even the only ones in Europe to have more citizens with guns. (Edited for clarification).

But like you said, these countries have greatly smaller problems in terms of crime, urban poverty, and the other things I mentioned... kinda strengthens my argument as to what is causing America's gun violence.

Added: Since we're talking about violent crime rates it is worth pointing out that the homicide rates do not seem to be related globally to gun distribution, America is known for its gun violence problem but if we ignore what implement is employed our murder rates aren't that bad on a global scale... the worst nations for violent crime are overwhelmingly undeveloped ones (3rd world) again linking poverty & quality of life to violence problems.... Europe tends to have a low murder rate across the board but that is probably at least partially a reflection on fairly stable economies, societies, governments etc... I would hope most people here would expect homicides to be more of a problem in, say, Haiti than Scotland (which is what the stats show).

[muhmuh]

Most of our school shootings were not in urban environments. Columbine sure as hell isn't.

from looking at a map littleton is very much part of the denver metro area which has over 2 million people living in it


Swiss aren't even the only ones in Europe to have more guns per capita.

wiki seems to disagree there
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_countries_by_gun_ownership
so that leaves only finland which incidentially had a school shooting recently


But like you said, these countries have greatly smaller problems in terms of crime, urban poverty, and the other things I mentioned... kinda strengthens my argument as to what is causing America's gun violence.

i never tried to imply that it doesnt cause the gun violence i just think that the reason for the rubbish social security in the us which causes the poverty and likely the crime rates is a result of the same attitude that makes the us so obsessed with guns

[SarahG]

from looking at a map littleton is very much part of the denver metro area which has over 2 million people living in it

According to this site Columbine has a mere 24,000 people to it.

http://www.city-data.com/city/Columbine-Colorado.html

I've lived in suburbs with a denser population. I wouldn't call it a tight urban environment, not in the sense (as example) NYC is.



i just think that the reason for the rubbish social security in the us which causes the poverty and likely the crime rates is a result of the same attitude that makes the us so obsessed with guns

I am kinda confused by what you mean with this BUT i have a migraine so help me out here.

I will look at that wiki article and respond to that part later.

[SarahG]

Ok I just looked at your wiki article, - that's far from a comprehensive list so I find it troubling to use it in deciding which countries have more or less gun owners than others.

It also fails to break it up based on gun ownership prevalence. I could have 10 bolt action rifles but I can only ever use one at a time, so it would kinda skew the statistics.

[muhmuh]

Added: Since we're talking about violent crime rates it is worth pointing out that the homicide rates do not seem to be related globally to gun distribution, America is known for its gun violence problem but if we ignore what implement is employed our murder rates aren't that bad on a global scale... the worst nations for violent crime are overwhelmingly undeveloped ones (3rd world) again linking poverty & quality of life to violence problems....

thats like saying america is the safest of the undeveloped contries or i may be ugly but i can still pull a lot more than quasimodo or ill shoot meself in that leg because ill still be better off than the paraplegic down the road


It also fails to break it up based on gun ownership prevalence. I could have 10 bolt action rifles but I can only ever use one at a time, so it would kinda skew the statistics.

its guns per capita which was the original argument


According to this site Columbine has a mere 24,000 people to it.

http://www.city-data.com/city/Columbine-Colorado.html

not that it matters, but the school is in littleton, which has 40000 inhabitants. more importantly though, its part of a large metropolitan area with lots of smaller cities merged into one.
even more importantly, according to that site the columbine high school has ~1700 students, which is bloody gigantic by european standards, especially considering it only houses grades 9-12.


I've lived in suburbs with a denser population. I wouldn't call it a tight urban environment, not in the sense (as example) NYC is.

well most places pale in comparison to the population density of nyc. still the density of littleton is easily high enough to not know anybody around you, very much unlike the swiss or finnish back country.


I am kinda confused by what you mean with this BUT i have a migraine so help me out here.

ill be needlessly placative here, mostly because i enjoy that particular style of writing.
the point is, that the idea of heroism, that you get when you look at what makes it across the pond, is a loner with a revolver riding his horse (more recently his hummer) walking over everybody else, while smelling of hummer aftershave, which comes in a big jerrcan of repressed homosexuality.
to be a bit more serious: the idea of being on your own, while surrounded by 300million others, seems to manifest itself in lots of ways, ranging from the way you like to handle the economy, which has led to ceos making more than 500 times as much as anybody else. furthermore theres the american idea of social security, which can be summed up more or less as "if you cant make it bugger off", and lastly there is of course the justified fear that those who make 500 times less than you will be pissed off and plot to shoot at you.

to bring the point home, its very much social darwinism, which has been conclusively shown not to work and is as far removed from a society as it gets, which by reflection on the root of the word requires a certain degree of social security and socialism (GASP), to exist in the first place.
and without a functioning society what you end up with is a lot of really pissed people, with nowhere else but crime to turn to, and a lot of wannabe john waynes looking to protect, what they have thanks to somehow ending up on the good side of the widening social divide

we have a prime example of that kind right here. the guy with the ridiculous cock centric avatar whos afraid that obama (who he always spells wrong, because he thinks it makes him look smart and witty, when in reality all it does is make him look like a tosser), whos petrified of the idea that obama might take some of his money to give it to losers. id guess, that what he could save by not buying an arsenal large enough to invade iran and by not having to pay psychiatrists to treat his paranoia of black males with shotguns, would more than make up for the loss.

[SarahG]

thats like saying america is the safest of the undeveloped contries...

I don't believe it is, but I can see how you could take it that way. My point is that violence is not a universal constant, and is influenced by variables such as disillusionment, and wealth distribution among other things (however I feel on these points we somewhat agree).



its guns per capita which was the original argument

One of the arguments, correct. But it has been very hard to find meaningful comprehensive data on this, so I am willing to propose that I could have been wrong here (happens), but it is hard for me to see one way or another given just how hard it is to find recent global stats on this.


the columbine high school has ~1700 students, which is bloody gigantic by european standards, especially considering it only houses grades 9-12.

But that's the thing... in America the gov doesn't take public schooling seriously. Fuck IDK if anyone does, and here our poorly funded, poorly run, even poorly taught schools really tend not to care about education, class sizes, performance, or any of those (important) issues.

The high school I graduated from was bigger than that and it was a wealthy suburb, I almost never had a class with less than 40 students in it (45 was typical) unless it was some very specialized elective.

One of the reasons why I link our public schooling disaster to our society's violent crime problems is because it helps perpetuate the urban poverty, crime, and disillusionment that I have mentioned with frequency. Our cities regularly have 50-75+ % drop out rates which is a complete national disgrace. I don't know, but I HOPE it is different in this regard in Europe. In some states the politicians have made the situation worse by encouraging people to drop out, I wouldn't go so far as to say that's intentional- but it appears that in America the assumption is if you're "gonna stick with it to graduation" you're college bound, and if you're not- you should probably drop out and start working a min wage (NOT living wage) fast food job. Yet at the same time, you're not gonna get an employer to take you seriously without a high school diploma, everyone knocks fast food employment but even they care about having finished k-12. These "drop outs" that everyone seems to ignore have to end up supporting themselves some how... and it certainly isn't going to be min wage employment, or failed social welfare programs.

As to density, I was just making a point. Obviously NYC is going to be towards the more extreme side but the stats I could find on Columbine just didn't show it to be that dense as far as America goes, at least not to the point of me considering it to be a dense urban environment.

But since we're talking about wealth distribution changes, and people resorting to violence 1- to protect what they have, 2- to get what they need/want but otherwise wouldn't have access to.... why do you think American wealth distribution is becoming more polar? What do you attribute to being the major causes?

Education (not schooling) is probably the more fundamental one that I can think of, then there is that consumer fanaticism, and the tendency of our government (presently or historically) to use tax dollars for advancing corporate special interests. Even before we got into social welfare programs like social security, big business came first to our "statesmen", and it really wouldn't be hard to show that for any era (ever read Warhogs btw?). Reaganomics, that Reagan himself failed to follow, is based on a failed concept of trickle down economics that has never been proven to even exist in practice... we did have a balanced budget in the last 20 years, it wasn't social welfare programs that "broke the bank"... but these are somewhat preliferal concerns when talking about wealth distribution when we have a population of people who can't even manage to graduate from K-12 in a world where their intelligence & education determines their market potential in a global world.

If we stop producing engineers, all that will happen is big American businesses will go to places like Europe, Japan, China and India to find them.

But I am side tracking this thread somewhat.

Since Europe has been mentioned so frequently in this thread, when have European societies had (in recent centuries) the most violence & social unrest? Usually when the people are disillusioned and impoverished. And that is when dealing with countries that at the time were considered developed (even if the standards on that have changed since). When France, Germany and the UK were considered major developed powers in the 19th century, they certainly had a lot of violence and terrorism to contend with.... and not because of the cultures they may have offended through Imperialism. The black hand was domestic terrorism, as was the Tsar's assassinations. How many attempts were there on the lives of British royalty in that century? And that's with a society that was somewhat ok with the argument that industrialization would create a utopia (crystal palace anyone?).

[muhmuh]

My point is that violence is not a universal constant, and is influenced by variables such as disillusionment, and wealth distribution among other things.

oh absolutely, but south africa is hardly a yardstick for the home of the brave (and i say that with as much sarcasm as i can muster at this early hour).


but it is hard for me to see one way or another given just how hard it is to find recent global stats on this.

either way any data you can find leads inevitably to:
1) theres a hell of a lot of guns in the us
2) guns arent what makes people want to kill each other
3) giving people an easy and relatively impersonal way of killing others isnt a good idea in a country, where the populations favourite pasttime is hunting human


Fuck IDK if anyone does

considering the us is a democracy the answer is probably no. either that, or the ruling in a democracy are as ignorant to the real issues, the average citizen faces, as monarchs used to be.


The high school I graduated from was bigger than that and it was a wealthy suburb, I almost never had a class with less than 40 students in it (45 was typical) unless it was some very specialized elective.

by comparison the gymnasium (yes i know it sounds funny to americans) i graduated from had ~800 students but covered 9 years from grade 5-13 (more recently 12) with the bulk being in the lower classes (10 year olds rarely do school shootings), where many turn out to be unsuitable for the highest tier in the educational system and drop down to lower level schools.
and we think we have a major school crisis, which gets discussed on tv a lot without politicians ever doing anything about it.


I don't know, but I HOPE it is different in this regard in Europe.

it is but its gradually and contiunously getting worse with examns becoming easier all the time and the lowest tier of schooling being turned into a place, where you might as well drop out of as graduation doesnt really offer and job opportunities anyway.


why do you think American wealth distribution is becoming more polar? What do you attribute to being the major causes?

hard to say really but one of the facts is that the gap in income between the employees on the lowest level in the pecking order and those at the top had widened dramatically. since its quite obvious that its impossible to run a business without employees at either end its hard to ignore greed as the most apparent possible driving force behind this.
personally i rather doubt its a good idea to employ ceos, who, unlike people that actually own a business themself, arent liable with their own assets, but instead, to add insult to injury, recieve large severance packets as an incentive to fail at what theyre paid to do. shift all accountability from the top to the bottom and youll end up with the mess were in.


ever read Warhogs btw?

cant say that i have but it sounds like something that might be worth reading


but these are somewhat preliferal concerns when talking about wealth distribution when we have a population of people who can't even manage to graduate from K-12 in a world where their intelligence & education determines their market potential in a global world.

although in all fairness as long as the drop out rate doesnt reach 100% the students are as responsible as is the failing of the school system.


If we stop producing engineers, all that will happen is big American businesses will go to places like Europe, Japan, China and India to find them.

its not like germany a country famous for engineering has a surplus of them. and its easy to see why when, like myself, youve seen a company such a siemens from the inside and experienced what its like to live life in a dilbert comic.
being an engineer is becoming increasingly unappealing in a corporate world run by lawyers and businessmen who from the engineers perspective are mostly seen as a fairly efficient way of wasting oxygen and producing green house gases.

[SarahG]

either way any data you can find leads inevitably to:
1) theres a hell of a lot of guns in the us
2) guns arent what makes people want to kill each other
3) giving people an easy and relatively impersonal way of killing others isnt a good idea in a country, where the populations favourite pasttime is hunting human


#2 was my main point (whether or not I expressed it well is another issue entirely), if we agree on that then our positions really aren't that different after all! ;)

As to #3, I consider the bigger issue is this violent crime. To me our country's problem with violence and violent crime is far more troubling than how those crimes are being committed.



considering the us is a democracy the answer is probably no. either that, or the ruling in a democracy are as ignorant to the real issues, the average citizen faces, as monarchs used to be.


Why can't it be both?



and we think we have a major school crisis, which gets discussed on tv a lot without politicians ever doing anything about it.


No one does anything about it here other than making standardized tests. Out side of impoverished areas, it isn't really funding that is to blame. The games the suburbs are playing these days is, since Americans have this tax-phobia, is asking for whatever they want in the budget- and if the budget is passed (the local communities vote on budgets in most areas here), then that's what the funding is.

If the budget fails to pass the ballot however, then the school will usually do one of a few things. They may run off of a contingency budget (where they cut out a lot of stuff that barely costs anything like afterschool sports, causing kids to get all sad- hoping it will guilt trip the parents into approving the new budget "for the children"), they may just blanketly raise school taxes (say 25% increase in a year, stuff like that), or- and this is the new thing that's getting popular, the towns in the district will just magically over-appraise everyone's property.

School taxes here are done via a tax on the appraised value of your real estate. Say I buy a house for a dollar, I don't pay taxes on it as if it were worth a dollar- but what they will do is have a tax appraiser in each town whose sole job it is to "adjust" what the gov says your house is worth, and you pay a % based off of that. In the district I graduated from it was roughly 10% of your property value IIRC (which is on the high side). If the tax appraiser is taking some meth and thinks your beat to shit shack is worth $800,000, there are protocols to fight it which usually involve saying "all these other shacks that are like mine are appraised much lower so I should be paying as if it were worth $28,000, not $800,000"-> but you can't fight it this way if (and this is the new trick) EVERYONE is over appraised. Better yet, now since your house is "worth" more than real market value, now you can take out a 2nd or 3rd mortgage based on that appraisal and have more debt than your assets SHOULD allow (and we wonder why we're having a housing crisis!?).

Then the school's get money from the state (like the poverty/math illiteracy tax... I mean lotto), and the feds. A lot of the gov funding is dictated based on how many students the school has per day, which is why a school will get so bent out of shape when you skip a day.

But they spend like the gov, and no matter how well funded a school is its "never enough."



it is but its gradually and contiunously getting worse with examns becoming easier all the time and the lowest tier of schooling being turned into a place, where you might as well drop out of as graduation doesnt really offer and job opportunities anyway.

Why do you think that is? Complusitory education seems to be the easy issue to blame it on, with everyone going into college to "get an edge in their careers" suddenly a single college degree isn't so special and masters is more career decisive, but even that is fading away as not "being good enough"

In theory it would make it sound like, since you have to be college educated to have decent earning potential (yes I know there are exceptions), it would generate more college graduates... and it does, but it seems that the colleges are getting the same "diploma-mill" push'em threw syndromes that k-12s have. I'd say a quarter of my college courses have been abso-fuckinglutely a waste of time (like "how to use microsoft office" or "how to research in a library"). Fuck, if you don't know how to research in a library you shouldn't be in college! I'm sure you could find a school that would accept a random person off the street, no matter how dumb, uneducated, or clueless that person is. Again I am not sure this is a funding issue, Prop13 shows that taking a way funding can do a number on schools' performance, but at the same time having easy access to college via aid & loans has only shown that they'll lower their standards to make more money.




personally i rather doubt its a good idea to employ ceos, who, unlike people that actually own a business themself, arent liable with their own assets, but instead, to add insult to injury, recieve large severance packets as an incentive to fail at what theyre paid to do. shift all accountability from the top to the bottom and youll end up with the mess were in.

Guess that means you're not a big fan of the Dilbert Principle.



although in all fairness as long as the drop out rate doesnt reach 100% the students are as responsible as is the failing of the school system.


I disagree. Students don't just magically "stop learning", that comes from being raised in an environment that encourages it through indifference, incompetence, and other major institutional problems.

The authoritarian mindset our schools have developed isn't helping any. The reason why our standardized tests tell you to pick the "best" answer and not the "correct" answer is because its not about education, it is about schooling (saying what they want you to say). I actually had a state test pose a question to me on "why slavery was necessary to the success of Georgia [in its colonial history]?" Well the question is totally kaput, by selecting any answer I am stating that Georgia required slavery in order to be successful... the way I put it to Europeans is when the progressives wanted to give us institutional, compulsory, gov run, gov mandated/required schooling.... they decided to look to Europe and ended up picking the worst characteristics from every country they looked at, and the modern American schooling system was born.



its not like germany a country famous for engineering has a surplus of them. and its easy to see why when, like myself, youve seen a company such a siemens from the inside and experienced what its like to live life in a dilbert comic.
being an engineer is becoming increasingly unappealing in a corporate world run by lawyers and businessmen who from the engineers perspective are mostly seen as a fairly efficient way of wasting oxygen and producing green house gases.

Well yea, you have to think harder not smarter...

[muhmuh]

major bumpage


As to #3, I consider the bigger issue is this violent crime. To me our country's problem with violence and violent crime is far more troubling than how those crimes are being committed.

Certainly but what I was trying to get to is that killing someone with a gun is comparably unviolent. It's not quite the same as going in close sticking a knife in and having someone elses blood on your hands afterwards. IMHO it's easier to be detached from the reality of killing a person if there's a fair bit of air between both of you


Why can't it be both?

Good point.


Why do you think that is? Complusitory education seems to be the easy issue to blame it on, with everyone going into college to "get an edge in their careers" suddenly a single college degree isn't so special and masters is more career decisive, but even that is fading away as not "being good enough"

Hard to say really, probably the usual joint problem of pupils gradually getting more and more uninterested in schooling and businesses having unrealistic expectations (18 years old with a doctorate, 10 years work experience and willing to work for less than 3k a month).


I'd say a quarter of my college courses have been abso-fuckinglutely a waste of time (like "how to use microsoft office" or "how to research in a library").

Luckily those kind of courses are still voluntary round here (at lest at uni level), but I'm very pessimistic of what will happen to universities now that they have been degraded to the same level as FHs (technical colleges) and forced to graduate Bachelors instead of the prior Diplomas that were equivalent to Masters and the lowest degree you could achieve at universities.


but at the same time having easy access to college via aid & loans has only shown that they'll lower their standards to make more money.

One of the many reasons why I'm against the relatively recent introduction of tuition fees, that luckily are very low compared to the US.


Guess that means you're not a big fan of the Dilbert Principle.

Depends on your definition of fan i suppose.


The reason why our standardized tests tell you to pick the "best" answer and not the "correct" answer is because its not about education, it is about schooling (saying what they want you to say).

I suppose things are a little different across the pond but for me school has always been about learning and the correct answer as much as it has been about social engineering to find the right answers and presentation that will strike points with the teacher grading you (not that it ever worked for me during german classes but still).
Getting a peppermint patty type grade for correct answers but presented in a itemize fashion instead of as a small novel in a history exam somehow taught me more than the content of the exam ever could.