Well maybe you guys can stick to melee weapons then. I would much prefer to live in a society without guns.
I'm not in the N.R.A., I'm not a joiner...
but...I reckon having access to weaponry should be my perogative. All the a&@~%!#s seem to.
Well maybe you guys can stick to melee weapons then. I would much prefer to live in a society without guns.
I'm not in the N.R.A., I'm not a joiner...
but...I reckon having access to weaponry should be my perogative. All the a&@~%!#s seem to.
~sneaks up behind you and ***WHAM***~ You mean that melee weapon? ~I comment as you slump to the floor~ I wonder what he has in his pickettsssss.
I'm not in the N.R.A., I'm not a joiner...
but...I reckon having access to weaponry should be my perogative. All the a#~!!%%s seem to.
All I know is that we have way less guns in Canada, and way less murders, and way less crime. I'm not in the social sciences, but *sniff*, I think I smell a correlation.
It's 2 am on a Friday night, and I'm about to walk home, alone, downtown, past all the bars and clubs, in a city of 4 million people, and I'm not scared at all. And that is pretty f&*#ing sweet.
I would much prefer to live in a society without guns.
Me too....I'm not kidding. I would gladly turn all mine to scrap metal if there was a 100% guarantee that the s%+%heads of the world wouldn't have them either. But there isn't and since I'm painfully and personally very closely aware of how long it takes police to respond to 911 calls sometimes, I don't want my family to be without protection against the predators of the world.
I didn't want this thread to turn into a discussion on gun control again--I'm sorry...that's why I was joking around about Texas and NRA and all that stuff after PH Dungeon's comments about the whacko NRA nuts. I wasn't offended, my Canadian friend....not at all..there are some very scary individuals in the NRA. Some of us are in it because of other benefits. I get to attend some very good armorer and shooting classes because I'm a LEO and in the NRA and they provide insurance benefits and a nifty monthly magazine for a nominal annual fee. Not every NRA member fits the stereotype and I was just poking fun back at you.
Let's go back to talking about wanting OBL dead or something? Yes?
|
I'm not in the N.R.A., I'm not a joiner...
but...I reckon having access to weaponry should be my perogative. All the a#~!!%%s seem to.All I know is that we have way less guns in Canada, and way less murders, and way less crime. I'm not in the social sciences, but *sniff*, I think I smell a correlation.
One thing I dont think you know - in America areas that have higher levels of gun control have MUCH higher levels of crime (i.e., DC, NYC, etc) and states with open carry or concealed carry laws have much lower crime rates - I think I smell a correlation. I unfortantly live near one of the former areas - Baltimore, Md. and I can tell you crime in that city is appalling.
My wife is from Manchester in the UK and her family still live there - this is area with almost total gun control - using the ratinale that less guns is good, should mean that this would be a utopia. However, nothing could be further from the truth. For example, my elderly (70+) father-in-law has had his home broken into 3 times in the last year or so; twice while he was at home once resulting in violence against his person - this is just one example of many I can site.
What I am trying to say with my long winded post is this: Canada is much smaller (poplation wise) then the US, with (I believe) a much less diverse population - the crime you talk about does happen, but for the most part it is confined to certain areas of the USA. Most folks in American suburbia have never known anyone who was the victim of a gun crime.
Also, I to would like to live in a VIOLENCE free world - however, thats not the nature of man.
Never. I put way too many ranks into spot and listen for that. I'm a teacher I have to.
~sneaks up behind you and ***WHAM***~ You mean that melee weapon? ~I comment as you slump to the floor~ I wonder what he has in his pickettsssss.Well maybe you guys can stick to melee weapons then. I would much prefer to live in a society without guns.
I'm not in the N.R.A., I'm not a joiner...
but...I reckon having access to weaponry should be my perogative. All the a&@~%!#s seem to.
I was just kidding around about the NRA stuff. Well sort of... Socio economic conditions are a much bigger factor contributing to violence than having guns. When you're poor and starving you tend to be angry and frustrated and this often leads to violence. This is one of the main reasons behind terrorism in the first place. The people of Afganastan are poor as hell. They are the have nots and we are the haves. We have done a good job a keeping the have nots suppressed so that they won't bother us, but they are still pissed off and bitter about the whole situation. Once in a whie they get in a lucky shot at us. 911 was one of those times.
I would much prefer to live in a society without guns.Me too....I'm not kidding. I would gladly turn all mine to scrap metal if there was a 100% guarantee that the s!%@heads of the world wouldn't have them either. But there isn't and since I'm painfully and personally very closely aware of how long it takes police to respond to 911 calls sometimes, I don't want my family to be without protection against the predators of the world.
I didn't want this thread to turn into a discussion on gun control again--I'm sorry...that's why I was joking around about Texas and NRA and all that stuff after PH Dungeon's comments about the whacko NRA nuts. I wasn't offended, my Canadian friend....not at all..there are some very scary individuals in the NRA. Some of us are in it because of other benefits. I get to attend some very good armorer and shooting classes because I'm a LEO and in the NRA and they provide insurance benefits and a nifty monthly magazine for a nominal annual fee. Not every NRA member fits the stereotype and I was just poking fun back at you.
Let's go back to talking about wanting OBL dead or something? Yes?
Let's not get into a war of unverifiable statistics, but I would say that the reason places like Baltimore and NYC have higher crime than other areas with less gun control has more to do with economics and population density than with the gun control laws. I would suggest that more gun control would reduce crime in both high and low-risk areas. If there is so little crime in some areas that gun control wouldn't help, why do you need guns in the first place?
I do not know enough about the UK to talk intelligently about the reasons for crime in Manchester. Nor can I comment about the specific crimes against your father-in-law which, as you stated, is only one specific example. Without gun control, would his house have been broken into less? Would he have been able to defend himself? Most likely, the fact that he could be armed would have resulted in the robbers being armed as well, out of necessity. And he might be dead today instead of just victimized. Of course, I don't know that, but I don't think your example makes a useful point.
I don't think you have an accurate picture of diversity in Canada if you think it is much less diverse than the US. Obviously rural areas in both countries tend to be fairly homogeneous, but Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver are very diverse and, for the most part, tolerant. I lived in Florida (Fort Lauderdale) and Philadelphia over the past year, so I do have something to compare it to.
What I am trying to say with my long winded post is this: Canada is much smaller (poplation wise) then the US, with (I believe) a much less diverse population - the crime you talk about does happen, but for the most part it is confined to certain areas of the USA. Most folks in American suburbia have never known anyone who was the victim of a gun crime.
If crime in these areas is not a big problem, why do people need guns for protection? Don't get me wrong, if I lived in the US in an area where I feared for the safety of my family, I would at least consider owning a gun. I don't know. But I would not join the NRA, and I would not lobby or argue for less gun control using fallacy and propaganda. I would not ardently defend constitutional rights that were defined in another time for reasons that are no longer valid. And I would recognize that, while gun control won't eliminate crime completely, it would reduce both the quantity and severity of it significantly.
Look at it this way. If you leave a $20 bill on the counter, someone who needs it will eventually take it. Yes, it's "stealing", but that person would not necessarily mug you for that same $20. If guns are available, someone desperate will eventually try to use that gun to improve their lot in life. If it's too difficult or impossible for that person to get a gun, they will try other means. Maybe they would try to get a job. You can't control human nature, but you can improve the options people have.
I agree with pretty much all your points. Soci Economic issues are one of the main reason for criminal activiity of all kinds, and probably why Manchester is no Utopia despite strict gun control laws. A society with extensive soci-economic issues that lead to a high rate of violent blue collar crime is more dangerous when there is easy access to firearms. Big deal if I can buy a gun to protect myself, so can everybody else, which means the other guy will have a gun to. Knowing that doesn't make me feel safer. I would rather neither of us have a gun than both of us.
As a side note, though blue collar crime is more talked about and gets all the headlines because of its direct and violent nature, white collar crime to me is much more insidious and has a much greater impact on our lives. There plenty of people in the business community commiting terrible acts of white collar crime everyday that have an adverse impact on hundreds of lives and for many of these people it is just part of their day to day business. It's more subtle and easier to conceal and get away with. We need as a society to take a greater stand against such crime.
To reduce incidents of violent blue collar crime there are a few things that need to happen. First of all, taking away access to fire arms does help. More importantly, areas with poverty need assistance. People need access to proper education, proper jobs, and social programs. Finally people need to be raised in stable and loving families. If people have access to the education, jobs and social programs the chances of them having a stable family greatly increases, so one can lead to the other. Building more prisons, having more police and laws with stiffer penalties is not as effective as having more community centres and better schools and services for neighbourhoods with high crime rates. If you want to reduce crime you need to be proactive and not reactive. More policing and harsher laws is a reactive strategy that tries to deal with crime after the fact. Some may see it as a deterrant that will prevent crime, but it is not as effective of a detterant as solving the problems that lead people into situations where they find themselves desperate enough to engage in criminal behaviour.
A good teacher prevents discipline problems by having a classroom that features rich and engaging programs for its students and builds an atomosphere of compassion and community, not a classroom that has strict and extensive rules with harsh punishments for those who break them. The same philosophy that work well in the modern classroom needs to be applied to society as a whole. It depresses me that more people can't see this.
Let's not get into a war of unverifiable statistics, but I would say that the reason places like Baltimore and NYC have higher crime than other areas with less gun control has more to do with economics and population density than with the gun control laws. I would suggest that more gun control would reduce crime in both high and low-risk areas. If there is so little crime in some areas that gun control wouldn't help, why do you need guns in the first place?
I do not know enough about the UK to talk intelligently about the reasons for crime in Manchester. Nor can I comment about the specific crimes against your father-in-law which, as you stated, is only one specific example. Without gun control, would his house have been broken into less? Would he have been able to defend himself? Most likely, the fact that he could be armed would have resulted in the robbers being armed as well, out of necessity. And he might be dead today instead of just victimized. Of course, I don't know that, but I don't think your example makes a useful point.
I don't think you have an accurate picture of diversity in Canada if you think it is much less diverse than the US. Obviously rural areas in both countries tend to be fairly homogeneous, but Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver are very diverse and, for the most part, tolerant. I lived in Florida (Fort Lauderdale) and Philadelphia over the past year, so I do have something to compare it to.
What I am trying to say with my long winded post is this: Canada is much smaller (poplation wise) then the US, with (I believe) a much less diverse population - the crime you talk about does happen, but for the most part it is confined to certain areas of the USA. Most folks in American suburbia have never known anyone who was the victim of a gun crime.If crime in these areas is not a big problem, why do people need guns for protection? Don't get me wrong, if I lived in the US in an area where I feared for the safety of my family, I would at least consider owning a gun. I...
By the way the same issues I talked about in my above post are also completly relevant to the threat of terrorism. If your country implements foreign policy that is designed to strip nations of their resources and keep their people living in poverty so that your nation can have vast ammounts of wealth those countries will be filled with desperate and frustrated people. They have the same mentality as those who live in the poorer neighbourhoods of our own society. However, their situation and suffering is even worse. For this reason violence is often an outlet for their frustration. Joining an organization that is bent on destroying those who from your perspective have taken the riches of your nation for themselves and left you with nothing becomes an attractive option, especially if this organization is willing to provide you with food. Let's face it we aren't as innocent as we'd like to believe.
That may be true, but the average Al Queda guy training in one of their camps doesn't. I'm not sure about the specifics of the indiviuals who flew the planes into the WYC.
Bin Laden came from a background of affluence.
|
|
Let's not get into a war of unverifiable statistics, but I would say that the reason places like Baltimore and NYC have higher crime than other areas with less gun control has more to do with economics and population density than with the gun control laws. I would suggest that more gun control would reduce crime in both high and low-risk areas. If there is so little crime in some areas that gun control wouldn't help, why do you need guns in the first place?
I do not know enough about the UK to talk intelligently about the reasons for crime in Manchester. Nor can I comment about the specific crimes against your father-in-law which, as you stated, is only one specific example. Without gun control, would his house have been broken into less? Would he have been able to defend himself? Most likely, the fact that he could be armed would have resulted in the robbers being armed as well, out of necessity. And he might be dead today instead of just victimized. Of course, I don't know that, but I don't think your example makes a useful point.
I don't think you have an accurate picture of diversity in Canada if you think it is much less diverse than the US. Obviously rural areas in both countries tend to be fairly homogeneous, but Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver are very diverse and, for the most part, tolerant. I lived in Florida (Fort Lauderdale) and Philadelphia over the past year, so I do have something to compare it to.
What I am trying to say with my long winded post is this: Canada is much smaller (poplation wise) then the US, with (I believe) a much less diverse population - the crime you talk about does happen, but for the most part it is confined to certain areas of the USA. Most folks in American suburbia have never known anyone who was the victim of a gun crime.If crime in these areas is not a big problem, why do people need guns for protection? Don't get me wrong, if I lived in the US in an area where I feared for the safety of my family, I would at least consider owning a gun. I...
The only reason I bring up my father in law at all is this: lots of folks spout stats they read here or there; I just wanted to put a 'face' on this. Also, many folks assume and state that areas with gun control are safer then areas with out it - that is simply not true, I can give you other examples but I wont - but my point with the home invasions is this: most home invasions in the USA are done when someone is not home, most in the UK are done when someone is. I submit that the danger to British burglars is less than the danger to American ones, after all granny may be packing.
As to 'more gun control would reduce crime in both high and low-risk areas' - I dont buy that, criminals by their nature dont obey laws - there are 21,000+ gun laws in the USA today - so one more gun law, while making some politican look 'tough on crime' would be an empty gesture at best. Law abiding citizens would then be disarmed and unable to defend themselves.
'If crime in these areas is not a big problem, why do people need guns for protection?' - Honestly, from the folks I know - not many of them do and most dont own guns - myself included. But it is nice to have the option.
One thing I am forced to concede to you is this: I have not been to Canada in 32 years and I dont know the composition of its population.
As to:
'I would not ardently defend constitutional rights that were defined in another time for reasons that are no longer valid.' - This is something that I must disagree with you heavily on - the 2nd ammendment was not put there to protect hunters, sportsmen or 'injun fighters'. It is there to protect us (the people) from 'them' (a possibly tyrannical central govt) and that makes it expecially valid.
As to: If you leave a $20 bill on the counter, someone who needs it will eventually take it. I submit - perhaps cynically - that plenty of folks who dont NEED it will take it to.
'If guns are available, someone desperate will eventually try to use that gun to improve their lot in life.'
I cant see anyone being so desperate that they can justify being a drug pusher, or a pimp or a legg breaker working for one the above mentioned types - using guns (and other methods) to murder and maim. thats simply human greed and a lack of character - to be mild.
Well its late, my sinus meds are kicking in and I have got something important to do tomorrow - play Epic level D&D! So we will have to agree to disagree - I'm just glad that we were able to so agreeibly.
|
That may be true, but the average Al Queda guy training in one of their camps doesn't. I'm not sure about the specifics of the indiviuals who flew the planes into the WYC.
Bin Laden came from a background of affluence.
So how does Bin Laden fit into your simple explanation of the root cause of world terrorism? And how do we solve the problems of the have nots in....say, Saudi Arabia?
Hey even a grass roots terrorist organization needs captial to get it going. I'm not saying the reasons I presented above were the be all and end all reason for the terrorist activity around us; it is obviously not near that simple, but I think they are factors that should be considered. All I'm saying is there are reasons people in other parts of the world hate america. It's not merely because they are crazy "evil doers". Some of their reasons are legitimate, but that doesn't make their actions right. If we really are concerned about terrorism then we need to take a close look at those reasons and stop trying to brush them off by simplifying things and saying that they are merely immoral and monstrous evil doers who hate freedom and want to destroy democracy. I just hate that we are always thinking of ourselves as the good guys and them as the bad guys. The governments and corporations of the free world have implemented many policies that have exploited millions and caused extensive suffering, and until we start to acknowledge some of the suffering and pain we have caused to others the world will continue to be hateful and violent place.
[
QUOTE="Heathansson"]
So how does Bin Laden fit into your simple explanation of the root cause of world terrorism? And how do we solve the problems of the have nots in....say, Saudi Arabia?That may be true, but the average Al Queda guy training in one of their camps doesn't. I'm not sure about the specifics of the indiviuals who flew the planes into the WYC.
Bin Laden came from a background of affluence.
A good teacher prevents discipline problems by having a classroom that features rich and engaging programs for its students and builds an atomosphere of compassion and community, not a classroom that has strict and extensive rules with harsh punishments for those who break them.
As a former high school teacher, I can point out that your post, like most assertions, contains some good truth but is also slightly misleading. I did exactly as you stated above my first year, and there was bedlam. People, teens especially, NEED to know that there are boundaries; otherwise they become uneasy, almost paranoid. The trick was to have (a) very few, very clear rules; (b) consistent and absolutely inevitable application of penalties; and (c) eveything else you mention: compassion, community, and engaging programs once (a) and (b) are already in place. Following that model, discipline problems were quite rare indeed.
To apply this model to a legal system, you'd need to remove most of the laws from the books. The ones you kept (no stealing, no rape, no murder, no assault; that would be about the max) would have to result in execution immediately upon delivery of a guilty verdict with no exceptions. With that in place, you could focus the rest of your resources on community and social programs, and you might be able to pull it off. But probably not. Your average teenager is easier to control than a meth addict, I'd reckon. And life is a lot bigger than a classroom. Start throwing in other countries, cultures, and religions, and we're back to the thread.
A good teacher prevents discipline problems by having a classroom that features rich and engaging programs for its students and builds an atomosphere of compassion and community, not a classroom that has strict and extensive rules with harsh punishments for those who break them. The same philosophy that work well in the modern classroom needs to be applied to society as a whole. It depresses me that more people can't see this.
lol
What Kirth said. As a teacher I would also like to add that a lot of us are given so many students that creating this NICE LOVING classroom environment eventually becomes impossible, and the same goes for the society, I reckon.
That was an analogy that obviously can't be competley transferrable to the real world, but the classroom is still a microcosm of the real world. You were a first year teacher, that explains your problem right there. Certainly for the things I mentioned to work well you still need good classroom management skills and consistency is a huge factor in classroom management. But bedlam does not equate to a safe and caring classroom community, so if you have bedlam then by definition you haven't succeeded in creating an atomosphere of compassion or community. Of course a classroom needs rules, but it is better when these rules are developed in partnership with the students than just created by and enforced by the teacher.
Society needs laws. I'm not suggesting otherwise. Furthermore I agree that laws need to be enforced with consistency. However, I'm saying that society needs a lot more than well enforced laws to make it a safe and desirable place to live. In response to your comment regarding meth addicts- If you put money into social programs and improving the opportunities available for people in poorer neighbourhoods you will have far fewer meth addicts to worry about, since those people that might otherwise be meth addicts could be out working a job that they can sustain themselves on and go home feeling a sense of self respect instead of the hopelessness and depression that lead them to meth, so already that issue starts to solve itself.
The point is that there shold be laws and they should be enforced, but when the quality of a peoples' lives is higher (through jobs, education, caring families and communities and constructive recreation) there will be far fewer incidences of laws being broken in the first place, which leads to a lesser demmand for law enforcement personelle and a lesser demmand for things like prisons, with those savings you can put even more money into these programs, so that it becomes cyclical.
A good teacher prevents discipline problems by having a classroom that features rich and engaging programs for its students and builds an atomosphere of compassion and community, not a classroom that has strict and extensive rules with harsh punishments for those who break them.As a former high school teacher, I can point out that your post, like most assertions, contains some good truth but is also slightly misleading. I did exactly as you stated above my first year, and there was bedlam. People, teens especially, NEED to know that there are boundaries; otherwise they become uneasy, almost paranoid. The trick was to have (a) very few, very clear rules; (b) consistent and absolutely inevitable application of penalties; and (c) eveything else you mention: compassion, community, and engaging programs once (a) and (b) are already in place. Following that model, discipline problems were quite rare indeed.
To apply this model to a legal system, you'd need to remove most of the laws from the books. The ones you kept (no stealing, no rape, no murder, no assault; that would be about the max) would have to result in execution immediately upon delivery of a guilty verdict with no exceptions. With that in place, you could focus the rest of your resources on community and social programs, and you might be able to pull it off. But probably not. Your average teenager is easier to control than a meth addict, I'd reckon. And life is a lot bigger than a classroom. Start throwing in other countries, cultures, and religions, and we're back to the thread.
|
|
Hey even a grass roots terrorist organization needs captial to get it going. I'm not saying the reasons I presented above were the be all and end all reason for the terrorist activity around us; it is obviously not near that simple, but I think they are factors that should be considered. All I'm saying is there are reasons people in other parts of the world hate america. It's not merely because they are crazy "evil doers". Some of their reasons are legitimate, but that doesn't make their actions right. If we really are concerned about terrorism then we need to take a close look at those reasons and stop trying to brush them off by simplifying things and saying that they are merely immoral and monstrous evil doers who hate freedom and want to destroy democracy. I just hate that we are always thinking of ourselves as the good guys and them as the bad guys. The governments and corporations of the free world have implemented many policies that have exploited millions and caused extensive suffering, and until we start to acknowledge some of the suffering and pain we have caused to others the world will continue to be hateful and violent place.
That's all well and good, but it doesn't really answer my question. If anything, it just seems to obliquely reiterate the somewhat fallacious opinion that U.S. foreign policy, operating in a vacuum that totally negates the importance of the last century of world history, is responsible for all the poverty in the world, and hence, terrorism.
So, again, how do we address the plight of the have nots in Saudi Arabia? And while you're at it, how do we address the plight of the have nots in the rest of the middle east? If the evil, greedy corporations just left them alone, would that make it all go away?
I wouldn't say it becomes impossible, but it does become more challenging (I know I have a grade 4 class with 50 students, but I am team teaching, so there are two teachers, which obviously helps a lot). The same is true in the real world. Having a huge and dense population does make solving these various problems much more challenging, which is probably one of the main reasons why we haven't succeeded. Though I am more inclinded to say that it because not enough people have taking the right approach. Furhtermore the approach I'm talking about doesn't takes time to implement and won't always show results right away. Voters want quick and fast solutions they aren't patient enough to wait, so if they don't feel like they are seeing results right away they tend vote in a new leadership that wil take a different approach. This leads to the whole consistency problem. One year your community has an afterschool rec program that is starting to pull kids off the street, but the next year it gets cut.
A good teacher prevents discipline problems by
having a classroom that features rich and engaging programs for its students and builds an atomosphere of compassion and community, not a classroom that has strict and extensive rules with harsh punishments for those who break them. The same philosophy that work well in the modern classroom needs to be applied to society as a whole. It depresses me that more people can't see this.lol
What Kirth said. As a teacher I would also like to add that a lot of us are given so many students that creating this NICE LOVING classroom environment eventually becomes impossible, and the same goes for the society, I reckon.
I wasn't trying to suggest that these problems are all a direct result of US foreign policy. I think it is but one of hundreds of other contributing factors, religious conflicts being another huge one. And there is no easy answer to solving any of these problems. Society has always been full of problems (obviously) and life itself is just one big exercise in problem solving. We will never live in a utopian society, but that doesn't mean we should examine our current society closely and try to come up with ways to make it better for us and the people around us. I realize none of that is especially profound and we all know all this.
In response to your last point, I doubt that if the evil and greedy coroprations of the middle east left the region alone would the violence in the region be solved. Certainly it wouldn't. If those corporations filterd some of their profits towards building a stronger infrastructure for these people that might help, tough to say. It might not make them hate us so much and restrict the violence to among eachother. The region has always been a harsh and violent place. I don't see that changing anytime soon.
The real answer/solution is don't try to build a soceity in a dessert in the fist place. It just doens't work, and will only cause you pain and suffering.
Hey even a grass roots terrorist organization needs captial to get it going. I'm not saying the reasons I presented above were the be all and end all reason for the terrorist activity around us; it is obviously not near that simple, but I think they are factors that should be considered. All I'm saying is there are reasons people in other parts of the world hate america. It's not merely because they are crazy "evil doers". Some of their reasons are legitimate, but that doesn't make their actions right. If we really are concerned about terrorism then we need to take a close look at those reasons and stop trying to brush them off by simplifying things and saying that they are merely immoral and monstrous evil doers who hate freedom and want to destroy democracy. I just hate that we are always thinking of ourselves as the good guys and them as the bad guys. The governments and corporations of the free world have implemented many policies that have exploited millions and caused extensive suffering, and until we start to acknowledge some of the suffering and pain we have caused to others the world will continue to be hateful and violent place.
That's all well and good, but it doesn't really answer my question. If anything, it just seems to obliquely reiterate the somewhat fallacious opinion that U.S. foreign policy, operating in a vacuum that totally negates the importance of the last century of world history, is responsible for all the poverty in the world, and hence, terrorism.
So, again, how do we address the plight of the have nots in Saudi Arabia? And while you're at it, how do we address the plight of the have nots in the rest of the middle east? If the evil, greedy corporations just left them alone, would that make it all go away?
Instead of blaming this east-west problem on America (don't get me wrong, I WANT to do this) I think we need to look at EVERYTHING that has happened in the middle east in the last 1-2 thousand years. Americans are hardly the first to go over there and makes asses out of themselves.
I'm not sure why I'm getting into this, since I don't usually debate things like this on messageboards, but...
I can give you other examples but I wont - but my point with the home invasions is this: most home invasions in the USA are done when someone is not home, most in the UK are done when someone is.
What could you give, 10 examples? 50? Examples like that are meaningless data points. I understand that you wanted a story instead of a statistic, but what you are really doing is trying to garner sympathy with a statistic of 1. That's exactly what I mean by propaganda and it feels a lot like an ad for an election campaign.
I'm not doubting that it's a true story. I'm trying to say that we have no way of knowing why the robbers broke in, how much gun legislation played a part, and what would have happened if your father-in-law had a gun.
I do not have stats to verify or reject the claim that most break-ins in the UK are done with people at home. I suspect you don't either.
As to 'more gun control would reduce crime in both high and low-risk areas' - I dont buy that, criminals by their nature dont obey laws - there are 21,000+ gun laws in the USA today - so one more gun law, while making some politican look 'tough on crime' would be an empty gesture at best. Law abiding citizens would then be disarmed and unable to defend themselves.
1. Criminals are not criminals until they break a law. So, to say that they are, by nature, criminals is kind of silly. Are certain people pre-disposed to disobey laws? I'd say it's much more a factor of economics and circumstance. But regardless, a would-be criminal lacking opportunity (ie guns) would be less likely to commit a violent crime with guns.
2. 21,000+ gun laws, eh. Um, in case it wasn't clear, I'm not advocating a certain number of laws. One good one would be plenty. If anything, more laws make things less clear, make enforcement more expensive and difficult, and give more opportunity for people to find loopholes. I'm also not suggesting we make more feel-good laws for politicians to look good.
My view: ban guns -> save lives.
Yes, there will be exceptions. Police will probably have to carry guns. So will various armed forces. But I think a reasonable line can be drawn, and, imo, it should probably be drawn in front of Dick Cheney.
not many of them do and most dont own guns - myself included. But it is nice to have the option.
I don't understand this. If you and most of your friends don't have guns, then doesn't it scare you more that criminals can get guns so easily? How much are you willing to sacrifice to protect this right to bear arms?
the 2nd ammendment was not put there to protect hunters, sportsmen or 'injun fighters'. It is there to protect us (the people) from 'them' (a possibly tyrannical central govt) and that makes it expecially valid.
Owning a gun will not protect you from the government.
'If guns are available, someone desperate will eventually try to use that gun to improve their lot in life.'
I cant see anyone being so desperate that they can justify being a drug pusher, or a pimp or a legg breaker working for one the above mentioned types - using guns (and other methods) to murder and maim. thats simply human greed and a lack of character - to be mild.
I'm glad for you that you haven't known people who are that desperate. I will say with complete conviction that desperation will motivate people to do unthinkable things.
What it comes down to is options. People will consider their options and choose whichever one they think is best. For many of us, breaking the law is a bad option. We have better choices. Choices with less downside. Guns provide options that would not exist otherwise. And, as a society, I don't think we want these options to be readily available.
As an aside, it also gives "options" to non-criminal types who suddenly find themselves in traumatic situations. Lost your job? Caught your significant other cheating? Got lied to by a salesman? Got cut off in traffic? It's hard to know how people will react in different situations. Some people will go "temporarily insane" and stop thinking about the consequences of their actions. Personally, I prefer that these people get arrested for punching or disturbing the peace, rather than murder.
So how does Bin Laden fit into your simple explanation of the root cause of world terrorism? And how do we solve the problems of the have nots in....say, Saudi Arabia?That may be true, but the average Al Queda guy training in one of their camps doesn't. I'm not sure about the specifics of the indiviuals who flew the planes into the WYC.
Bin Laden came from a background of affluence.
You can't look at Bin Laden as "the cause". He's not just a random yahoo that decided to kill as many Americans as possible. Without knowing him personally, I would say he was probably reacting to situations in his own life, and among his own people. There are reasons why he chose to target the United States and their allies rather than China. Maybe, like Bush, he's just propagating a climate of fear and the idea of a common enemy in order to cement his own power and status. Bin Laden is not the problem, and terrorism won't be eliminated by killing him.
You can't solve the problem of poverty in Saudi Arabia. As a single person, you probably can't solve the problem of a poor person in your home town. You also can't solve the problem of Bin Laden. As a single person, though, you can champion just causes, think critically of what the government and media try to stuff down your throat, and look deeper into why things are the way they are rather than just lashing out at an easy target.
|
That may be true, but the average Al Queda guy training in one of their camps doesn't. I'm not sure about the specifics of the indiviuals who flew the planes into the WYC.
Bin Laden came from a background of affluence.
I think you will find that a lot of the al Qaeda types are actually affluent, middle class arabs. Certainly, the 9/11 terrorists were - they were studying at university in Germany before the attacks. Our home-grown terrorist on 7/7 were not manual laborers but youth workers (yeah, great) and such like - ironically, mostly in jobs directly funded by the government they wish to overthrow.
|
|
I do not know enough about the UK to talk intelligently about the reasons for crime in Manchester.
There are pockets of violence across the UK. Mosside is one, but there are others. The main cause is criminality, mostly connected with the drug trade. Manchester (or more specifically, Mosside) has a large black population, and connections with criminal gangs in the Carribean. These gangs have a violent ethos, and generally carry guns and like using them against those who have shown "disrespect". This has infiltrated to some degree in the the culture of the local youth, and gun violence is increasing.
I am sure it would be quite difficult to a get an impoverished afgani on a plane in the first place, so it make sense that the guys who were involved in 911 had some kind of affluence and education. Just because you have wealth doesn't mean you can't be pissed off about how the world is functioning. There were any number of targets these people could have chose. They could have tried to do this to France or Russia or Brazil or Canada... the list goes on and on. In the end they picked America. I'm pretty sure it wasn't a random choice. I won't try to oversimplify the reasons they attacked america this time, as I think they had more than one, but it is more complicated than merely "they are evil doers who hate freedom". The point is that regardless of their motives their actions are still horrific and wrong, but we aren't as innocent as we'd like to think we are.
I think you will find that a lot of the al Qaeda types are actually affluent, middle class arabs. Certainly, the 9/11 terrorists were - they were studying at university in Germany before the attacks. Our home-grown terrorist on 7/7 were not manual laborers but youth workers (yeah, great) and such like - ironically, mostly in jobs directly funded by the government they wish to overthrow.That may be true, but the average Al Queda guy training in one of their camps doesn't. I'm not sure about the specifics of the indiviuals who flew the planes into the WYC.
Bin Laden came from a background of affluence.
I agree with what you said, and one other point that I would add that concerns me is I have heard people say they would feel more comfortable if they had a gun around the home to protect them and their family. I don't have any stats on this, but I know there have been many instances where a member of the family they wanted to protect has been killed by that very gun (ie kids fooling around with the gun daddy keeps in the side table or a depressed teen finding daddy's gun and shooting himself etc.). Just up the road from me that happened when two kids where playing in the basement with their Dad's shotgun. If I came home and found my kid dead on the floor because he was playing with the handgun I bought to protect my family I would feel positively sick. Sure you can lock your gun up in a safe or something to keep your kid from being able to fool around with it, but then will it be much use if an intruder does break into your home. Not likely.
I'm not sure why I'm getting into this, since I don't usually debate things like this on messageboards, but...
I can give you other examples but I wont - but my point with the home invasions is this: most home invasions in the USA are done when someone is not home, most in the UK are done when someone is.What could you give, 10 examples? 50? Examples like that are meaningless data points. I understand that you wanted a story instead of a statistic, but what you are really doing is trying to garner sympathy with a statistic of 1. That's exactly what I mean by propaganda and it feels a lot like an ad for an election campaign.
I'm not doubting that it's a true story. I'm trying to say that we have no way of knowing why the robbers broke in, how much gun legislation played a part, and what would have happened if your father-in-law had a gun.
I do not have stats to verify or reject the claim that most break-ins in the UK are done with people at home. I suspect you don't either.
As to 'more gun control would reduce crime in both high and low-risk areas' - I dont buy that, criminals by their nature dont obey laws - there are 21,000+ gun laws in the USA today - so one more gun law, while making some politican look 'tough on crime' would be an empty gesture at best. Law abiding citizens would then be disarmed and unable to defend themselves.1. Criminals are not criminals until they break a law. So, to say that they are, by nature, criminals is kind of silly. Are certain people pre-disposed to disobey laws? I'd say it's much more a factor of economics and circumstance. But regardless, a would-be criminal lacking opportunity (ie guns) would be less likely to commit a violent crime with guns.
2. 21,000+ gun laws, eh. Um, in case it wasn't clear, I'm not advocating a certain number of laws. One good one would be plenty. If anything, more laws make things less clear, make enforcement more expensive and difficult, and give more opportunity for people to find...
Well enough posts from me for now. It's game day. Time to go kill some PCs with my own brand of terrorism!
|
|
(Quoting PH Dungeon)I am sure it would be quite difficult to a get an impoverished afgani on a plane in the first place, so it make sense that the guys who were involved in 911 had some kind of affluence and education. Just because you have wealth doesn't mean you can't be pissed off about how the world is functioning. There were any number of targets these people could have chose. They could have tried to do this to France or Russia or Brazil or Canada... the list goes on and on. In the end they picked America. I'm pretty sure it wasn't a random choice. I won't try to oversimplify the reasons they attacked america this time, as I think they had more than one, but it is more complicated than merely "they are evil doers who hate freedom". The point is that regardless of their motives their actions are still horrific and wrong, but we aren't as innocent as we'd like to think we are. (/quote)
A bit of special pleading, if you don't mind me saying. Most revolutionaries tend to be middle or upper class - they have the time to devote to the revolution, as opposed the ordinary folk who have to get on with their lives. And it doesn't really explain the UK jihaadis as being victims of US economic oppression, as they had decent lives in the UK. The real problem is they feel somehow oppressed by the US (or UK), but the blaming of the US for everything (and Israel) in the arab world has much more to do with the shifting of the blame by the governments in those places for their poor economic (and oppressive) policies than anything the US has actually done.
Prior to 9/11, what had America actually done? I can't think of anything much. Support for Israel, but their had been attempts to broker a peace in Palestine until Arafat walked away from it. Iraq? Sure, life was grim there, but that had a lot to do with the UN and the oil blockade. If Saddam had been removed at the first attempt, that might never have been necessary. Afghanistan - ignored, mostly. Sudan, likewise. Somalia - brief intervention rapidly abandoned. And hadn't America had a key role in ending the oppressive rule by Serbia over an effectively muslim province, namely Kosovo?
And when we condemn the US for looking after Saddam, remember a number of things conveniently forgotten. Saddam was our man against Iran during the Cold War. Iran was then, and is now (with a brief period where they seemed inclined to be reasonable) an aggressive, touchy country that has supported terrorists and probably still does (depending on how you choose to define it, Hamas and Hizbollah), that commands huge natural resources and sits in an extremely volatile and strategically significant part of the world. Following the Islamic Revolution there, they took a load of American embassy staff hostage in violation of all diplomatic treaties. As such, Iran needed to be contained. Iraq was, for the region, relatively progressive with a well-educated populace and generally modern outlook (the Baath party was a secular organisation - Saddam only "got religion" as a political move to bolster his position after the first Gulf War). Sure, Saddam was never a nice guy, but can you actually point to a nice guy who runs a Middle East country. They are all either dictatorships (with vague attempts to make things look democratic) or authoritarian monarchies. Saddam was pretty par for the course, rather than the most evil guy they could find - he ran the nearest country inclined to be friendly that the US could use to counter Iran, and it would have been pretty remiss of them not to do so. His mistake was to assume he could do anything and get US approval.
All said, I can't think of what might have actually kicked this whole thing off in 9/11, other than bin Laden disliking American culture and what it stood for. As has been pointed out, he had much to thank the US for, since he was trained by the CIA to help kick out the Russians from Afghanistan. He had no real economic issues himself - he was the son of a billionaire. He might choose to portray the causes he espouses as being due to economic factors (though, to date, I'm not sure he has) and he might gain some recruits from the economic failures actually inflicted by arab governments (though I don't see much evidence of that - they all seem to be highly educated nutters from well-off families as far as I am aware).
But the US didn't pick any of this fight - before 9/11, everone was too busy making money and having a pretty good time. We can also look at the dismal failure of the response to 9/11t, but let's not confuse the two.
I agree with what you said, and one other point that I would add that concerns me is I have heard people say they would feel more comfortable if they had a gun around the home to protect them and their family. I don't have any stats on this, but I know there have been many instances where a member of the family they wanted to protect has been killed by that very gun (ie kids fooling around with the gun daddy keeps in the side table or a depressed teen finding daddy's gun and shooting himself etc.). Just up the road from me that happened when two kids where playing in the basement with their Dad's shotgun. If I came home and found my kid dead on the floor because he was playing with the handgun I bought to protect my family I would feel positively sick. Sure you can lock your gun up in a safe or something to keep your kid from being able to fool around with it, but then will it be much use if an intruder does break into your home. Not likely.
That's certainly a legitimate rationale and a major concern. It's also one of the reasons (among many) that I personally wouldn't own a gun. However, most (if not all) states in the U.S. require firearm owners to use trigger locks and safes to prevent young children from gaining access, along with just making sure the thing isn't loaded and keeping it in a locked safe. Doesn't keep anyone from taking it or making a problem for someone else, but it's usually enough to give pause to any rash action. The guys I know that own firearms are super conscientious about it, but, of course, those are just the people I know.
Also, depending on where you live, you can still get in a lot of trouble for shooting someone even in self defense. In Connecticut, where I live, pleading self-defense is no guarantee of getting out of a murder or manslaughter charge after killing someone that came after you. You would have to prove that you were legitimately backed into a corner about to get snuffed, with no other recourse, before self-defense would be admissable to keep you out of prison. It differs by region, though, and population density.
Just playing Devil's Advocate. As much as I would like to be really progressive and peacniking, here in the U.S., the cat is out of the bag and there doesn't seem much that can legally be done about the firearms debate.
In response to your comment regarding meth addicts- If you put money into social programs and improving the opportunities available for people in poorer neighbourhoods you will have far fewer meth addicts to worry about, since those people that might otherwise be meth addicts could be out working a job that they can sustain themselves on and go home feeling a sense of self respect instead of the hopelessness and depression that lead them to meth, so already that issue starts to solve itself.
True for some of them, but others do it because they like it. Some people with good jobs nevertheless stop at the bar and get sloshed after work every day. Some people, there's no making happy. In a larger sense, even if the U.S. spent half of its annual budget in improving conditions in the Middle East (or any other region of your choice), there would always be a bunch of yahoos who said, "They got so much money they can GIVE it away to us! Let's teach 'em a lesson!"
|
|
With the gun thing, I don't have guns in my house right now. I have too many small children. They get into everything. The older they get, the more likely a "gun safe" is to be compromised. For me, the decision to not have guns seems statistically to be the safest route.
I have also lived in a place where NOT owning a gun would have been sheer folly. The people who SHOULD NOT have had guns had all too easy access to them.
The real answer/solution is don't try to build a soceity in a dessert in the fist place. It just doens't work, and will only cause you pain and suffering.
I'm assuming you meant "desert."
The Navajo had a great society, built in a desert, that worked just fine.
The Lollypop King built a fantastic civilization in a dessert. But you never hear about it, since the gum drop proletariat made their "final push forward" to shatter the monarchy and forge a worker's state, serving as a beacon of hope to the opressed Oompa Loompas.
|
|
The Lollypop King built a fantastic civilization in a dessert. But you never hear about it, since the gum drop proletariat made their "final push forward" to shatter the monarchy and forge a worker's state, serving as a beacon of hope to the opressed Oompa Loompas.
The real answer/solution is don't try to build a soceity in a dessert in the fist place. It just doens't work, and will only cause you pain and suffering.
I'm assuming you meant "desert."
The Navajo had a great society, built in a desert, that worked just fine.
I want pictures, James. ;)
Yes drowing in cake and ice cream can really suck.
\
I want pictures, James. ;)The Lollypop King built a fantastic civilization in a dessert. But you never hear about it, since the gum drop proletariat made their "final push forward" to shatter the monarchy and forge a worker's state, serving as a beacon of hope to the opressed Oompa Loompas.
The real answer/solution is don't try to build a soceity in a dessert in the fist place. It just doens't work, and will only cause you pain and suffering.
I'm assuming you meant "desert."
The Navajo had a great society, built in a desert, that worked just fine.
Thoughts after reading this whole thread:
To whomever posted the prayer of St. Francis: Amen, bro.
Terrorists: While I agree that the US has some rather large equity issues with the third world, calling the US "the biggest terrorist of all" messes with definitions to the point where the word just plain doesn't mean as much. It isn't the wisest label to toss around, because the only people who are going to take you seriously are those that already agree with you. It therefore turns the serious issue of global equity into a farce.
Guns: I don't have one, because I'd rather believe I can live in a world wherein I don't need one. Anyone who wants an arugment in favor of owning guns only needs to hear Ted Kennedy ask "We're allowed to bear arms to defend us against a tyrannical government ... tyrannical government? OURS?!?" I almost signed up for gun ownership that very morning.
Bombing Japan: We're very far removed from that situation and that decision, so condemning it rings a little hollow. If anything, it demonstrated exactly what we were dealing with, and more-or-less convincingly persuaded the entire planet never to do it again. Dresden was just as destroyed by conventional weapons - and nobody cared.
On not paying people after you've beat them up: On the global stage, this is what happened after The Great War. This is why it was quickly followed up by another, bloodier war, and re-named World War I. American foreign (and domestic) policy is at its best whenever we completely beat the heck out of somebody out of line, dismantle the problem, then pour in money and investment to rebuild a more desirable Germany/Japan/Deep South/Whatever. Had President Bush the first flouted the UN and gone into Iraq after the gulf war and done this, who knows where we'd be now? Instead, we wait until we lose popular support, go in with a bad plan, ruin the place, and yell at the underfunded, infant government because it can't solve its own problems yet. If that comes back at us, can we wonder why?
ice cream pie > ice cream cake > ice cream > pie > cake > OBL > lawyers
ice cream pie > ice cream cake > ice cream > pie with ice cream > cake with ice cream > pie > cake > mechanics > lawyers > OBL
As much as I detest your kind, Sebatian, I would not cross the street to cut your throat. Osama on the other hand…
|
|
For gun ownership, I came from a family where guns were always around. Never propped up in the corner or anything, but they were there. By the time I was of a decent age, probably 5 or 6, I knew that guns were not toys.
Guns are not for playing with.
I was taught an appreciation for the danger and power conveyed by a gun, and never once given the illusion that they were toys. My children will be raised the same way.
(Along the same lines are knives, swords, bows, crossbows, brass knuckles, etc etc etc, weapons are weapons, toys are toys.)
It wasn't that long ago when the majoirity of young boys would bring a rifle to school with them every day, and try to shoot dinner on the way home. Now, as a society, we are so bound up about gun laws that the thought of teaching children about guns in school is taboo.
Meanwhile, we turn a blind eye to the continuing growth of evidence that gun control only disarms the law abiding citezen. Criminals will always have guns if they want them. Criminals, by deffinition, are willing to break laws. Therefore, gun control lwas don't work for criminals.
Source legislature (or the current buzzword) where they try to make laws about guns that can be made only result in existing guns becoming more valuable and therefore more worth stealing. Or as an alternative, they result in a few well paid engineers/inventors/machine operators figuring out how to make guns.
---
Anyway, back to why Osama hates the US, and such. Want a good example? Look at Hitler.
It is possible for a charismatic leader to whip up a frenzy of emotion (usually hate, though pride works too) and use that to attract more followers, and to accomplish impressive tasks. Those tasks may be disgusting, but they are still impressive.
Leaving aside techniques and collaterals, Hitler took a broke and near starving country and almost conquered the world. This is impressive. How he did it scares the pantaloons of any sane person.
No matter, in order to maintain that emotional context, there needs to be a "lense". For Hitler, it was eventually the Jews, though along the way there were a lot of others.
With the focus provided by the "lense" you can keep people bitter and angry for years, especially if you let them vent their frustrations through the lens.
For a fictional example, lets assume we all hate non-gamers. By hating non-gamers we gain camraderie with each other. And hey, those non-gamers are why we are called geeks, and why some of us live in our parents basement, etc etc etc. Obviously it is easier to keep people "interested" this way.
So Osama cultivates a hatred of the Western culture, by focusing on the US. But really what he is using is a hatred that is born in the womb of religion. The belief that Islam is the one true faith, and that it needs to be spread to all the world is part of the religion. The interpretation of "spreading" varies from 'be a good example, and teach the teachings of the prophet', through 'thunk people on the head until they listen', all the way to 'kill the infidel!!!'. Meanwhile, many many of the teachings of Islam have not aged well.
I don't want to knock the religion in general, but for example, the treatment of women does not hold up now as well as it did when first written.
The result is a sub culture with a superiority complex (my religion is the only true religion) and tragic circumstance (I am 16 and my religion won't let me look at girls) breeding anger and frustration. (Wow. Angry, frustrated, emotionallly confused teenagers, well duh)
Left alone, most of them would filter off into protest groups grow out of the phase. But enter the charismatic leader.
HATE THESE PEOPLE BECAUSE IT IS THEIR FAULT!
Now with the "lense" the leader can hold onto the anger of the people, focus it channel it, and use it to manipulate the followers. It doesn't even matter if the "lense" has a logical connection to the rest of reality.
So whether or not bin Laden hates the US personally is a unanswerable question. But there is no doubt that he gains power and prestige by focusing the hatred of others onto the US, and being recognized as an enemy of the west.
Meanwhile, in the US we have no such lense, and no charismatic leader. So who do we hate, well some of us hate al qaeda, others the muslims, others hate bin laden himself, others hate the afghanis, or the taliban, or Iraqis, or the conspirators, or the french or the...
Without the lense, the collective anger of the Americans has faded away.
I want pictures, James. ;)The Lollypop King built a fantastic civilization in a dessert. But you never hear about it, since the gum drop proletariat made their "final push forward" to shatter the monarchy and forge a worker's state, serving as a beacon of hope to the opressed Oompa Loompas.
The real answer/solution is don't try to build a soceity in a dessert in the fist place. It just doens't work, and will only cause you pain and suffering.
I'm assuming you meant "desert."
The Navajo had a great society, built in a desert, that worked just fine.
I think the Perry Bible Fellowship did it better than I ever could.
The Gingerbread Man EscapesColonel Sweeto Unmasked
The Fragile Idols of Laissez-Faire Capitalism Are Shattered by the United Masses
Nunez
Instead of blaming this east-west problem on America (don't get me wrong, I WANT to do this) I think we need to look at EVERYTHING that has happened in the middle east in the last 1-2 thousand years. Americans are hardly the first to go over there and makes asses out of themselves.
Bloody Romans!
On the gun thing, I just have one counterpoint to an argument commonly put forward by pro-gun folks. The argument usually goes something like: If guns are illegal, criminals will still get hold of them, and they are exactly the wrong sort of people you want with guns. I'm frightened they'll use their guns on me, therefore I should be allowed a gun too to protect myself/family.
The problem I see with this is that it is essentially a statement of distrust in the rule of law. Anyone who argues it is basically saying that they don't think gun laws prevent general gun ownership, and so we might as well not have them. If you truly believe this, then shouldn't you attempt to get hold of a gun whether there are laws against it or not? This would be the logical way to protect yourself and family if you don't think the law can.
That makes YOU one of the criminals who wants a gun despite the law saying no. Just because murder will always happen doesn't mean it should be made legal. You have a choice: Trust the law to protect you and obey it, which is what law-abiding citizens do, or don't trust the law to protect you and ignore it, which is what criminals do.
Also this is awesome:
Owning a gun will not protect you from the government.
|
|
The problem I see with this is that it is essentially a statement of distrust in the rule of law. Anyone who argues it is basically saying that they don't think gun laws prevent general gun ownership, and so we might as well not have them. If you truly believe this, then shouldn't you attempt to get hold of a gun whether there are laws against it or not? This would be the logical way to protect yourself and family if you don't think the law can.
I grew up in a town where it was a known fact that the police officers were dealing the best and cheapest drugs in town. The Rule of Law didn't really apply.
As a result, what I am specifically saying is that the only person I have 100% confidence will be looking out for me and mine, and our best interests is me. I have 99% confidence in my wife, and it goes down hill from there.
So as long as the travel time for a bullet from the gun to my chest is shorter than the travel time for trusted government empoloyees to a point between me and the gun, I would rather have my own.
[shoots everyone on this thread]
“Guns don’t kill people, people kill people, and monkeys do, too (if they have a gun).” - Eddie Izzard
|
|
The problem I see with this is that it is essentially a statement of distrust in the rule of law. Anyone who argues it is basically saying that they don't think gun laws prevent general gun ownership, and so we might as well not have them. If you truly believe this, then shouldn't you attempt to get hold of a gun whether there are laws against it or not? This would be the logical way to protect yourself and family if you don't think the law can.I grew up in a town where it was a known fact that the police officers were dealing the best and cheapest drugs in town. The Rule of Law didn't really apply.
As a result, what I am specifically saying is that the only person I have 100% confidence will be looking out for me and mine, and our best interests is me. I have 99% confidence in my wife, and it goes down hill from there.
So as long as the travel time for a bullet from the gun to my chest is shorter than the travel time for trusted government empoloyees to a point between me and the gun, I would rather have my own.
Only 99%? Man, don't let her see this thread.
Oh boy. Don't get me started on significant others now.
Codependent anyone?