Guns - a topic from the 911 Board...

[tabs52]

As one of the Black comedains said, All the brothers had a sigh of relief when the WTC went down, cause they ain't it anymore."

Point being if your Muslim or of MidEastern descent that your the new target.

[island911]

Cam, many in the US have excess, even in guns. The interesting thing is that "screwy Switzerland" Every household has a gun. The immediate big gun availability is highest there. (by design)

Go figure.

[CamB]

Milu - yeah, I have never been in those violent situations, so I find it hard to understand. That is the obvious weakness in my ability to argue my point of view... I don't know the other side.

Todd - "If I get serious I'll be hitting you up for sponsorship...that was the one thing my application seemed to lack."

You're in academia right? You should try contacting the universities if you really are keen to come live here - if they have a position for you then you should get the requisite (sp?) sponsorship.

Me? I'm leaving my job on the 13th and will be unemployed for a while. Not sure if I want to stick with banking. Might do a PhD while I think about it. I really can't decide.

[island911]

Great stats, Cam.



It's interesting that Japan takes in so much US movie culture, and yet their rates are so low. Maybe we can't blame it on LA.

Even with all the guns here, Americans still top the chart in finding other ways to go homocidal. My guess is knives and big blunt objects.

[nostatic]

well the general skills passmark is 30 right now, and I score 25...but that is without an employment offer. If I had a job offer, that would give me the 5 points necessary.

hmmm...

[tabs52]

Look at the ratio of homicides guns or no guns in the USA vs the other countries.......it proves my point we are the culture of violence.

[island911]

What ? . .it doesn't prove we are the culture of violence.

Violence has many forms. Killing people is just one of them.

Perhaps we have a culture of finallity in our violence.

[tabs52]

Your right there are alot of other acts of violence. Spousal abuse, child abuse, Assualts, etc. I believe the ratio of violent acts across the boards would hold the same ratio or even higher. So get real Island.....stop living in denial...........U really wana eat that steak raw and bloody don't U......

[island911]

yeah, with a pinch a sault.

[cegerer]

Cam,

You might want to read this from the Washington Times. It illustrates the way the anti-gunners selectively choose their data to embelish their position.

http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20021201-5316652.htm

Beyond that, the rate of violent crime has increased in the UK since firearms were banned. In the US, the violent crime rate has decreased over the past 20 years as gun ownership has soared. The tables - of course - don't show these trends.

"- everyone carries a gun - no-one gets shot
- no-one carries a gun - no-one gets shot

Which is going to be the case?"

I've never heard of anyone in the US promoting gun ownership by everyone!!!!!!!!! What is being promoted is gun ownership by mentally competent law-abiding citizens and no guns for law-breaking scumbags - that would be the ideal situation. "No-one carries a gun" is simply not a possibility. And even if it were, consider this: 200 years ago an English researcher found, "Even without guns, New Yorkers still managed to outstab and outkick ... Londoners by a multiple of 5.6!" Yikes. -- Curt

[pwd73S]

A proffessor at a Eastern University whose name escapes me now wrote a book whose premise is that Early Americans owned fewer guns than previously thought.

He has been discredited and suspended from his teaching position because his research was called into question. The Gun Control Lobby doesn't rely on the facts or reality simply because their case goes down the drain.

[CamB]

Curt - I see what you (and the guy in the article) are saying.

I agree - for instance the stats I found above are only a (small) partial picture, and can give a skewed view of the situation. They certainly don't show the impact over time, and it is hard when different countries measure and report statistics differently.

But IMO the article you link to is equally guilty ---> for instance he refers to higher gun ownership but lower crime in Switzerland vs Germany. As I pointed out above, all Swiss males have a gun. I think I can assume many would not have chosen to or have paid for one, but military service requires it.

I would be interested to see those stats which suggest gun control has caused an increase in crime in the UK and/or Australia. I see reference to it but I am not seeing too many numbers.

I find it odd - I guess I would technically be a "gun control zealot" in the eyes of the writer of that article.

Finally, I think this thread has reached a consensus view that people in the US like to kill and maim one another to a greater extent than other developed countries. That is weird!

[pwd72s]

Cam? Hope you didn't confuse the posting names here. Tabbydoll gets furious once he's been discovered. Remember the "pvvd72S" posts? Or, how about "John Walker's workshop"? Without the apostrophe? Gay porn was was posted...under both names...and more. Tabs52/two-oh/harvey, and many others...it's Ted Byryla's game.

[CamB]

Don't worry Paul - I am employing a mental "Tabs-filter".

It is pretty easy to tell the difference, even with the written word... and he can't magic up 4000 posts either.

Interesting you guys figured out who he is. Remember, play nice now. The world would be a better place if we all just got along sometimes.

[tabs]

I thought I was back under the T52 logo...but wasn't.

[Leland Pate]

Cam, I like you so please don't take this the wrong way.

Honestly, why do you care what we do over here?

It seems to rub me the wrong way when people who live in different hemispheres question the way we choose to live.

I get so frustrated by this whole debate.
First point. Some people will always do bad things. Whether it be with a knife, gun, bow and arrow, spoon or other utencil people will find ways to do bad things.

Second point. Gun control only applies to those who OBEY THE LAWS.
Criminals don't care if there is a ban on 15 round magazines or if there's a five day waiting period on gun sales.

I personally don't have a problem with these types of laws. But I can see why some do. they see it as a slow stranglulation of their rights to own fire arms.

Third point. I also believe that education is the key to safe gun ownership.

And finally, what really burns my ass is watching some of these liberal actors talking about wiping the country clean of weapons because the "founding fathers" didn't intend on having people toting semi auto rifles 'round town... they don't care too much about protecting those particular rights... but... when it comes to protecting their right to free press/speech, they get their panties in a wad when people talk about having the gov't put controls on film material... sex, violence, what have you... Because they are "guaranteed" that right.



... like the founding fathers ever imagined freedom of assembly would be used to allow hate groups to march on the capitol, or freedom of speech to allow pornography to run rampant or people to sell albums describing the murder of police officers.


"I cannot and will not be my brothers keeper."

Of course, the best solution to this problem would be to wall off California from the rest of the country and let them have at each other.


Rant over, I feel better now.

Cam, you hippee...

[CamB]

Leland, you would understand if you had an early car. The, ummm, founding fathers of, ummm delicate lightweight bumpers, errr....

Nah, I'm not that funny

Seriously, this whole thing has at least partially assisted me in understanding the different mentality towards guns in the US. I would probably still be a hippy if I lived in the US too.

Yeah, I fully know I shouldn't make it my business as to how you guys sort out your own business, but on this one particular topic it is sort of morbid curiosity. I knew when I started it that this would be a hotly contended topic, but I started it anyway not because I like the conflict and definitely not because I have an axe to grind, but rather because it really is quite interesting to me. (OK, I admit once I get going I like to debate (ok, ok, argue)).

Why do I care? Well, I don't really. Just curious. People have a tendency to assume that the way they do stuff (or a variation of it) is the best way. It is hard to break out of this narrow perspective, and sometimes you have to see how the other half (or other 260m people in the case of the US) live.

If you want a good laugh about New Zealand, we just came almost top in a new UN crime survey. Unfortunately, top = most crime. It was all over the newspapers here...

We (apparently) have around 20 times the crime rate of Columbia. I would have never known... One suspects they didn't adjust for the different methods each country uses for measuring crime.

A better example that NZ really is just a statistical anomoly? Yesterday's newspaper article was about the semi-derelict state of our main Airforce cargo planes - Hercules. How 1960s. The fighter pilots use Skyhawks.

There are only 4 million people here - probably 1/10 the size of California in a land area that is about as big. It can be hard getting a world view.

And Leland - I laughed my ass off at this:

when it comes to protecting their right to free press/speech, they get their panties in a wad when people talk about having the gov't put controls on film material... sex, violence, what have you

You're right - hypocrisy of the highest order...

Congrats on the wedding . I'll be joining the married fold in July next year and am looking forward to it (not the organising though )

[CamB]

Replying to myself, a sure sign of being a megalomaniac...

I just reread much of the thread, and my (relatively inflamatory) posts. Looking at what I just wrote (about not really caring about the outcome) in response to what Leland posted, I look like an *********!!!

I apologise for pretty much inciting dissent etc for curiosity sake. I'm not a troll. I was/am curious. I think I could have gone about it better, that's all.

[island911]

Originally posted by CamB
. . .Looking at what I just wrote (about not really caring about the outcome) in response to what Leland posted, I look like an *********!!!
. . .

Not to worry, that response didn't make you look like an *********; *that* happend way back.

I'm kidding. I think you have gained much respect here. So don't beat yourself up . . .you guys have enough violence as it is. (couldn't resist the last part)

For an OT thread on guns, I thought it fairly reasonable.

[dd74]

Originally posted by Leland Pate
And finally, what really burns my ass is watching some of these liberal actors talking about wiping the country clean of weapons because the "founding fathers" didn't intend on having people toting semi auto rifles 'round town... they don't care too much about protecting those particular rights... but... when it comes to protecting their right to free press/speech, they get their panties in a wad when people talk about having the gov't put controls on film material... sex, violence, what have you... Because they are "guaranteed" that right.

The last actor I saw talking about gun rights was Charlton Heston; he held a rifle above his head, and said something about his cold dead hands. The next entertainer I can think of who communicates the message of all things "gun" is Ted Nugent, though I don't think he's making H-ville's A-list these days. Neither is Charlie, for that matter.

I assume you're lumping all of Hollywood in your statement: well Hollywood is not entirely liberal, and certainly not comprised of just actors. A lot of conservatism runs through Hollywood. And a lot of guns. They aren't plastic replicas either; they don't fire blanks.

As for this statement:

Originally posted by Leland Pate
Of course, the best solution to this problem would be to wall off California from the rest of the country and let them have at each other.

Why is that? Not that I'm some great defender of CA with our drive-by shootings, SLA bombings (the '70s) and those perilous hippie movements in San Francisco, but I'm also not about to lump Idaho as a state of nutcases because of Ruby Ridge. Sure, I'm sometimes at my wit's end with CA, if not L.A., but we're not all tofu-eating Lenin followers. In fact, if your argument comes from one of a state gone haywire with violence because of its main product -- Hollywood -- remember California also exports a huge amount of weaponry just down the freeway from Hollywood -- right near Pelican Parts as a matter of fact. So sure, we're "having at each other," but at the same time, we're also having at everyone else beyond our state borders. Now, if your argument is political, here's another point: aside from L.A. and San Francisco, much of California is really quite conservative.

Lastly, accusing film, TV, and even porn as something which hides behind the 1st Amendment is just too low-hanging a "target." Most already know the drill regarding distasteful aspects of popular culture: don't buy it if you don't want to see it. And if it's on TV, turn the channel.

Problem solved.