PDA

View Full Version : Gun Ownership



ilw
07-14-2003, 01:23 PM
It got brought up here (http://www.klboard.ath.cx/bb/index.php?showtopic=52684&st=0&#entry377534) and i thought it might be worth discussing. I apologise to all the americans cos this thread will probably be directed at them.
My personal opinion is that there is no good argument for having a handgun and personally would never want to live somewhere where they are commonplace.
I found this article here (http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993920) which has a few stats :

Douglas Wiebe of the Firearm Injury Center at Penn (FICAP) at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia agrees. Last month, Wiebe and colleagues found that people who keep guns at home have a 72 per cent greater chance of being killed by firearms compared with those who do not, and are 3.44 times as likely to commit suicide (Annals of Emergency Medicine, vol 41, p 771). A 1997 survey by the CDC that compared the US with 25 other industrialised countries, including the UK and Australia, showed that the number of gun-related homicides in the US per 100,00 children below the age of 15 was 16 times that of all the other countries combined. The proportion of children below 15 who use guns to kill themselves was 11 times higher.

Theres some other interesting info in the article and it goes on to talk about various stuff that could be done for gun safety.
16 times more, than 25 other industrialised countries, children either killing or being killed (the article isn't clear) with guns seems a rather excessive amount and the news reports that make it across to the UK about childred either succeeding or being caught before they go on killing sprees isn't all that encouraging. Also although not a handgun, what about that sniper, i thought that for an american that must have been a very worrying precedent.

lynx
07-14-2003, 01:47 PM
One of the prime arguments put up by the NRA is 'Guns don't kill people, people kill people'.

Whilst there may be some truth in the argument that people will still kill people even if they don't have guns, remove the gun and it becomes a lot harder, and above 10 feet away almost impossible except for the really determined.

And if someone is really determined, do we really want to make things easy for them ?

No doubt someone will come up with the argument that a gun held by the person being attacked may prevent the attack in the first place. But most guns falling into this category are kept in a drawer or a cupboard, so that as a weapon against a prepared (armed) attacker they are virtually useless, and an unarmed attacker can often get to the weapon first in any case (which is why so many people are shot with their own guns).

So yes, people kill people, but we should not be making it so easy.

j2k4
07-14-2003, 02:52 PM
Gun ownership, or gun control?

Here are some interesting facts:

Britain and Germany have much more restrictive gun control/ownership laws than the U.S., and also enjoy a much lower murder rate.

Russia and Brazil have much more restrictive gun control/ownership laws than the U.S., and suffer a much higher murder rate.

Gun ownership is much more widespread in Israel and Switzerland (where it is mandatory) than it is in the U.S., yet their murder rates are much lower than the U.S.'s.

The current "favorite theory" of the anti-gun crowd is that more gun control is the key to lowering the murder rate.

The facts stated above indicate something else is afoot.

Those who are pro gun-control are entitled to their theories as to the effectiveness of same; they are not, however, entitled to ignore or filter facts that belie these theories.

ilw
07-14-2003, 03:32 PM
yeah but comparisons between countries with different economic statuses can be misleading. Both russia and Brazil have huge economic problems and poverty/unemployment add to that the much higher crime rate and the levels of corruption in certain areas of those countries and theres ur explanation of the figures.
In switzerland owning a gun is not mandatory, training to use a gun is (for men) and even switzerland has occasional problems with guns, i dont know if anyone remembers a couple of years ago when a guy ran into a canton's (like a borough) council and started shooting people. Lets not forget that Switzerland is an extremely stable and rich place to live, I was reading the paper here today and a gas explosion which knocked down 1and 1/2 houses was the biggest explosion they've had in 5 years I rather doubt that would be the case in 99% of countries around teh world.

j2k4
07-14-2003, 04:35 PM
Originally posted by ilw@14 July 2003 - 10:32
yeah but comparisons between countries with different economic statuses can be misleading. Both russia and  Brazil have huge economic problems and poverty/unemployment add to that the much higher crime rate and the levels of corruption in certain areas of those countries and theres ur explanation of the figures.

ilw-

Your post refers to "crime rate", which could be higher, as you say, due to societal circumstances; I was referring specifically to their murder rates.

Although economic ills always indicate higher crime rates, there is no similarly specific indicator as to murder rate.

None of this serves to protect even the safest countries, i.e. Switzerland, from the occasional "crazy".

As to the situation in Switzerland:

To refine my point, every adult male in Switzerland is, after training, required to keep and maintain a firearm.

This can be verified here: http://www.asa-training.com/switzerland.html

Ron
07-14-2003, 04:57 PM
Well, forbidding people to hold guns, isn't the answer.
It would only help the criminals to get what they want easier.
If only cops and criminals would have them, how would normal people defend themselves and their family/property?
Recently, we've had a few jewelry shop keepers who fired at criminals robbing their store. In two or three cases, they killed one of the robbers. These shopkeepers had a hard time defending themselves in court.
One of them has to pay the family of the criminal €100.000!!!

If you were a criminal, and you had a choice to rob a shop of which the owner had a gun, or one were the owner didn't, which one wold you choose?

Rat Faced
07-14-2003, 05:03 PM
j2k4,

we come again to a "Cultural" thing.

Ive said before, the USA is a collection of 50 different "Cultures"..and I dont see it as one country.

Im sure some of the States (and im betting they are the States with the LOWEST number of guns available per capita) pull the average down quite significantly.


So how about this?

YOU pick the US State/City with the highest murder rate...and use the Stats from this State (or Culture), instead of watering the figures down...(Guns per capita, population, Murder Rate etc)

Then ( to give balance) bring up the Stats of the US State (Culture) with the lowest murder rate.

Lets then compare the two extremes of the USA against Russia and Brazil...lets see if Gun Ownership actually does come into the figures.

;)

lynx
07-14-2003, 05:19 PM
I notice the 'Switzerland' page proudly quotes gun accidents as less that 2% of the US annual 92000 accidental deaths.
Less than 1840 deaths.
Is this something to be proud of ?
Get rid of the guns and most of those people will still be alive.

It quotes that gun availability has no apparent effect on suicide rates - well who thought it would - to (mis)quote the NRA - people kill people (themselves), guns don't kill people(themselves).

It does not make clear that the majority of Swiss held armaments are rifles, not handguns, which are a lot more difficult to conceal and harder to use in confined places.

If you are going to quote sources, please quote rational unbiased ones.

j2k4
07-14-2003, 06:16 PM
Originally posted by Rat Faced@14 July 2003 - 12:03
j2k4,

we come again to a "Cultural" thing.

Ive said before, the USA is a collection of 50 different "Cultures"..and I dont see it as one country.

Im sure some of the States (and im betting they are the States with the LOWEST number of guns available per capita) pull the average down quite significantly.


So how about this?

YOU pick the US State/City with the highest murder rate...and use the Stats from this State (or Culture), instead of watering the figures down...(Guns per capita, population, Murder Rate etc)

Then ( to give balance) bring up the Stats of the US State (Culture) with the lowest murder rate.

Lets then compare the two extremes of the USA against Russia and Brazil...lets see if Gun Ownership actually does come into the figures.

;)
Wow, Rat, you don't want much, do you?

Let me try this instead, for now:

New York City's murder rate has fallen continuously for approximately ten years, after having been amongst the national leaders for decades. This trend seems to have begun under a law-and-order mayor, Rudy Guiliani. It continues under democrat-cum-republican Michael Bloomberg. Make sense?
There has been a mini-cultural enlightenment in NYC over the same period, but nobody is trying to link the two.

In any case, my point was this:

Lots of guns+relative wealth=high murder rate in the case of the U.S.

Fewer guns+relative wealth=low murder rate in the cases of Germany and Britain.

Fewer guns+relative poverty=high murder rate: Russia, Brazil.

Lots of guns+relative wealth=low murder rate: Israel, Switzerland.

When viewed logically, these facts countenance no circumstance which allows a conclusion other than that something apart from the presence of convenient weaponry is responsible for a high or low murder rate.

Culture weighs in, but how, exactly?

We need a thread entitled "Why do people kill one another?"

Your request for a geographical comparison wouldn't yield anything really useful. I fear.

Off the top of my head, I see two reasons for high murder rates, geographically:

1) Poverty in asset-stricken areas in close proximity to areas of extreme wealth, i.e., Washington, D.C.

2) A large illegal immigrant population in areas which function as centers of population for specific non-indigenous peoples, such as Miami (Cubans) or Houston (Mexicans).

I'm sure I'm missing many pertinent facts, but, as always, work beckens.

j2k4
07-14-2003, 06:25 PM
Originally posted by lynx@14 July 2003 - 12:19
I notice the 'Switzerland' page proudly quotes gun accidents as less that 2% of the US annual 92000 accidental deaths.
Less than 1840 deaths.
Is this something to be proud of ?
Get rid of the guns and most of those people will still be alive.

It quotes that gun availability has no apparent effect on suicide rates - well who thought it would - to (mis)quote the NRA - people kill people (themselves), guns don't kill people(themselves).

It does not make clear that the majority of Swiss held armaments are rifles, not handguns, which are a lot more difficult to conceal and harder to use in confined places.

If you are going to quote sources, please quote rational unbiased ones.
lynx-

I provided the link merely to backstop my point about thw Swiss requirement of an armed male citizenry. If I agreed with the entire content of the page, or sought to use the information contained therein to prove something else I would have cut-and-pasted the entire page.

While you obviously disagree with the content of the page in question, do you aver it fails for my purposes?

In the future, I will devote more time to the search for "non-objectionable" web-pages, just for you. ;)

ilw
07-14-2003, 06:47 PM
Originally posted by j2k4@14 July 2003 - 18:35
Although economic ills always indicate higher crime rates, there is no similarly specific indicator as to murder rate.

I would hazard a guess that a high crime rate (specifically in a country with lax gun control) would have a definite and obvious link to a higher murder rate. albeit that premeditated murder would probably not rise substantially.

THe statistics i mentioned do bear thinking about ie 3.4 times higher suicide rate and 72% greater chance of being shot & killed if you own a gun in your house. Admittedly the obvious defence to this is that u know the stats so u can make your own decision. But i would argue that maybe this is a case where it would be better to protect people from themselves, I'm thinking that the argument follows along hte lines of legal requirements for wearing seatbelts and crash helmets.

Ron
07-14-2003, 06:49 PM
When linking the murder rate to wealth and poverty, you could also think about WHY the killings happened.
Could it be that poor people try to defend what little they have, and therefore get killed, while wealthy ones have insurance, and don't give a f*ck?
I don't think you usually get shot if you don't struggle.
Just a thought.....

lynx
07-14-2003, 07:02 PM
Originally posted by j2k4@14 July 2003 - 19:25
lynx-

I provided the link merely to backstop my point about thw Swiss requirement of an armed male citizenry. If I agreed with the entire content of the page, or sought to use the information contained therein to prove something else I would have cut-and-pasted the entire page.

While you obviously disagree with the content of the page in question, do you aver it fails for my purposes?

In the future, I will devote more time to the search for "non-objectionable" web-pages, just for you. ;)
My point is that the article has so many distortions and inaccuracies, how are we to believe much of what is said, yet I would suggest you presented it in the hope that some people would accept it's statements without question.

Whilst I accept that it is a requirement on Swiss citizens to keep their rifle (or whatever), I doubt whether the statements about other weapons being sold off without any form of registration would stand up to examination and as such this undermines your argument.

Ron
07-14-2003, 07:28 PM
Well, I don't think cops should have guns either!!
This (http://media.ebaumsworld.com/negligence.mpg) video explains why. Keep your eye on the lady cop on the left.


OK, maybe this is not so serious, but it is/was an actual event.
And if it was you o the ground, you would take it pretty serious, I imagine. :o

Ron
07-14-2003, 07:32 PM
Damn, doesn't work like that.
Maybe going to http://www.ebaumsworld.com/emovies.shtml will.
It's on the second row, called "negligence".

ilw
07-14-2003, 07:43 PM
:lol: :lol: I bet he shat himself, i think i would have. But seriously i agree, I personally love the fact that the UK police aren't armed (though in the future i think they're getting more and more non-lethal weaponry)

jii_m
07-15-2003, 02:08 AM
In any case, my point was this:

Lots of guns+relative wealth=high murder rate in the case of the U.S.

Fewer guns+relative wealth=low murder rate in the cases of Germany and Britain.

Fewer guns+relative poverty=high murder rate: Russia, Brazil.

Lots of guns+relative wealth=low murder rate: Israel, Switzerland.

When viewed logically, these facts countenance no circumstance which allows a conclusion other than that something apart from the presence of convenient weaponry is responsible for a high or low murder rate.

Hmm... it would seem so but hey read this:

http://www.wfsa.net/adobe_documents/Cross_...ional_Study.PDF (http://www.wfsa.net/adobe_documents/Cross_Sectional_Study.PDF)

and then this:

http://www.ippnw.org/HelsinkiCukier.pdf

and tell me what you think?

Cukier makes some interesting points in her paper. IMO


Btw. I'm NOT totally against gun ownership. I'm finnish and we have lot's of guns
around here but not much gun violence. (Axe or a knife are still considered
traditional tools for dispatching your drinking buddy ... :lol: )
But if the number of gun related deaths starts to grow seriously in the future...

We had an interesting case just recently when member of parliament
Tony Halme accidently discharged a handgun in his apartment in Helsinki
while being very much under the influence of alcohol. Luckily nobody got
hurt though. (he didn't even have a permit for it...) Check his website for
laughs. (sorry in finnish only but just look at the pictures, not your average politician ;) )

http://www.tonyhalme.net

In the mean while I think we have good enough system right now.
(getting a firearms permit is not a trivial matter)

j2k4
07-15-2003, 03:39 AM
Originally posted by lynx@14 July 2003 - 14:02
My point is that the article has so many distortions and inaccuracies, how are we to believe much of what is said, yet I would suggest you presented it in the hope that some people would accept it's statements without question.

Whilst I accept that it is a requirement on Swiss citizens to keep their rifle (or whatever), I doubt whether the statements about other weapons being sold off without any form of registration would stand up to examination and as such this undermines your argument.
Lynx-

Please read the following very carefully.

I was challenged on the validity of my claim as to the Swiss/mandatory arms issue.

I sought to find confirmation of my supposition, and in so doing, selected the very first site I googled, and lo and behold, the very first sentence was exactly what I was looking for.

I scanned the rest of the page and noted it's content, but used it anyway, as, for my purposes, it fit the bill, and I was a bit pressed for time.

There you have the sum total of my intent.

To attribute other motivation to that which I have clearly stated is, or at least should be, beneath you; however I can't be sure as I don't know if you are physically as short as your urge to avoid the nit-pick.

myfiles3000
07-15-2003, 03:46 AM
Originally posted by j2k4+15 July 2003 - 04:39--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 15 July 2003 - 04:39)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-lynx@14 July 2003 - 14:02
My point is that the article has so many distortions and inaccuracies, how are we to believe much of what is said, yet I would suggest you presented it in the hope that some people would accept it&#39;s statements without question.

Whilst I accept that it is a requirement on Swiss citizens to keep their rifle (or whatever), I doubt whether the statements about other weapons being sold off without any form of registration would stand up to examination and as such this undermines your argument.
Lynx-

Please read the following very carefully.

I was challenged on the validity of my claim as to the Swiss/mandatory arms issue.

I sought to find confirmation of my supposition, in in so doing, selected the very first site I googled, and lo and behold, the very first sentence was exactly what I was looking for.

I scanned the rest of the page and noted it&#39;s content, but used it anyway, as, for my purposes, it fit the bill, and I was a bit pressed for time.

There you have the sum total of my intent.

To attribute other motivation to that which I have clearly stated is, or at least should be, beneath you; however I can&#39;t be sure as I don&#39;t know if you are physically as short as your urge to avoid the nit-pick. [/b][/quote]
beware anyone who uses "whilst" in his posts, thats what i say

j2k4
07-15-2003, 03:59 AM
Yes; I&#39;ll have to also mention same to Clocker. :D

lynx
07-15-2003, 10:16 AM
@j2k4 - Are you trying to make an issue of something to avoid the true topic ? Well I&#39;m not going to let you drag me down that sidestreet.

@myfiles3000 - maybe you should learn English properly.


Hmm... it would seem so but hey read this:

http://www.wfsa.net/adobe_documents/Cross_...ional_Study.PDF (http://www.wfsa.net/adobe_documents/Cross_Sectional_Study.PDF)

Why is it that those who find no correlation between gun ownership and gun deaths always want to include ALL weapons rather than just handguns. Most of the countries included in the high and very high ownership groups have firearms for pest control in rural areas or have a long tradition of hunting. Few of the firearms in these cases would be handguns.


and then this:

http://www.ippnw.org/HelsinkiCukier.pdf
I agree that there are some interesting points, but without some correlating figures it is hard to see how this sort of paper can avoid being brushed aside.

Gun death - there was a gun, it was discharged, someone died.
No gun death - there was no gun.

ilw
07-15-2003, 10:51 AM
I&#39;ve been thinking about the switzerland thing and talking to some people and i think the fundamental difference between swiss gun ownership and american is not only the type of gun (as it seems quite a few swiss people here have handguns), but also the purpose of having the gun. Here as j2k4 pointed out its a legal requirement and I haven&#39;t met any swiss people who would even consider having a gun for home defence. All the swiss guns are carefully locked away making them unsuitable to protect anyone from an intruder, but this makes the gun very hard for children to get at and the incidence of &#39;gun death&#39; is much lower. I personally reckon there probably wasn&#39;t really a need for having a gun to protect your home until people did start protecting their homes with guns and now its a vicious circle. More people with guns to protect themselves leads to more people getting killed by guns (as shown by stats) as well as leading to more guns on the street (higher availability of guns) and this all leads to more people wanting a gun to protect themselves

myfiles3000
07-15-2003, 12:05 PM
Originally posted by lynx@15 July 2003 - 11:16
@myfiles3000 - maybe you should learn English properly.
thank you lynx, i don&#39;t ever want to live in a world without irony

j2k4
07-15-2003, 12:26 PM
Originally posted by lynx@15 July 2003 - 05:16
@j2k4 - Are you trying to make an issue of something to avoid the true topic ? Well I&#39;m not going to let you drag me down that sidestreet.


Lynx-

It seems to me (and I&#39;m sure it would seem so to anybody who reads the thread) you were the one planning the sidetrip.

Have you been placed in exclusive custody of "true topics?"

I&#39;ve been accused of using big words and arcane reasoning in my posts, but I don&#39;t resort to the type of smug, intellectual snobbery you practice.

j2k4
07-15-2003, 12:35 PM
Originally posted by ilw@15 July 2003 - 05:51
I&#39;ve been thinking about the switzerland thing and talking to some people and i think the fundamental difference between swiss gun ownership and american is not only the type of gun (as it seems quite a few swiss people here have handguns), but also the purpose of having the gun. Here as j2k4 pointed out its a legal requirement and I haven&#39;t met any swiss people who would even consider having a gun for home defence. All the swiss guns are carefully locked away making them unsuitable to protect anyone from an intruder, but this makes the gun very hard for children to get at and the incidence of &#39;gun death&#39; is much lower. I personally reckon there probably wasn&#39;t really a need for having a gun to protect your home until people did start protecting their homes with guns and now its a vicious circle. More people with guns to protect themselves leads to more people getting killed by guns (as shown by stats) as well as leading to more guns on the street (higher availability of guns) and this all leads to more people wanting a gun to protect themselves
Okay-

If you reject the example of Switzerland, please attempt a similar disection of the Israeli situation.

In Israel, the variety of weaponry is certainly greater, and they are likely to be kept situated in a much more convenient fashion. I&#39;m also sure adequate training in the use of guns in Israel is not a strict requirement.

What say you?

ilw
07-15-2003, 12:38 PM
attempt a similar disection of the Israeli situation
U got me there, i don&#39;t have a scooby about Israel

j2k4
07-15-2003, 12:48 PM
Originally posted by ilw@15 July 2003 - 07:38

attempt a similar disection of the Israeli situation
U got me there, i don&#39;t have a scooby about Israel
If we trip over Tralalala, I bet he would know; if I remember correctly, he&#39;s from Haifa.

Infested Cats
07-15-2003, 12:56 PM
Israel, with a higher gun ownership rate than the U.S., has a murder rate 40% below Canada&#39;s.

lynx
07-15-2003, 12:59 PM
Originally posted by j2k4+15 July 2003 - 13:26--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 15 July 2003 - 13:26)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-lynx@15 July 2003 - 05:16
@j2k4 - Are you trying to make an issue of something to avoid the true topic ? Well I&#39;m not going to let you drag me down that sidestreet.


Lynx-

It seems to me (and I&#39;m sure it would seem so to anybody who reads the thread) you were the one planning the sidetrip.

Have you been placed in exclusive custody of "true topics?"

I&#39;ve been accused of using big words and arcane reasoning in my posts, but I don&#39;t resort to the type of smug, intellectual snobbery you practice. [/b][/quote]
No, you seem to lower yourself to the level of personal insults and jibes.

lynx
07-15-2003, 01:01 PM
If I remember correctly, tralalala wanted to get rid of all the guns.
But I&#39;ll let him comment further himself, if he&#39;s around.

myfiles3000
07-15-2003, 01:02 PM
Originally posted by Infested Cats@15 July 2003 - 13:56
Israel, with a higher gun ownership rate than the U.S., has a murder rate 40% below Canada&#39;s.
per-capita or absolute?

ilw
07-15-2003, 01:03 PM
Originally posted by Infested Cats@15 July 2003 - 14:56
Israel, with a higher gun ownership rate than the U.S., has a murder rate 40% below Canada&#39;s.
I&#39;m assuming a lot of things aren&#39;t being counted in that murder rate and IMO it would be very difficult to pick out relevant stats in a country as troubled as israel.

lynx
07-15-2003, 01:04 PM
Originally posted by Infested Cats@15 July 2003 - 13:56
Israel, with a higher gun ownership rate than the U.S., has a murder rate 40% below Canada&#39;s.
IC, does that include terrorist attacks ?

Either way, it seems that with so many armed militia around, you would have to be pretty serious about it before you started brandishing a gun about, they don&#39;t mess about when they see one.

myfiles3000
07-15-2003, 01:07 PM
it seems we all agree that comparing israel with the us, and especially canada, is not very helpful.

j2k4
07-15-2003, 01:46 PM
Originally posted by lynx@15 July 2003 - 07:59
No, you seem to lower yourself to the level of personal insults and jibes.
Only when I&#39;m begged to do so.

You begged.

j2k4
07-15-2003, 01:50 PM
Originally posted by lynx@15 July 2003 - 08:01
If I remember correctly, tralalala wanted to get rid of all the guns.
But I&#39;ll let him comment further himself, if he&#39;s around.
I would hope Tralalala&#39;s wish to be rid of guns wouldn&#39;t impede his rendering of an opinion as to the question at hand.

He seems plenty capable of stepping outside any personally-held beliefs in order to be objective.

myfiles3000
07-15-2003, 01:51 PM
j2, lynx, whoever else, lets move on

lynx
07-15-2003, 02:00 PM
My apologies for my earlier comment to you, myfiles3000, you stepped in front of a stray bullet.

However, when I comment on someones post and get personally attacked for it, comment again and get yet another personal attack, I will defend myself.

I have seen j2&#39;s methods in this respect before, and it is nothing short of an attempt at verbal bullying. But he isn&#39;t in the playground now and I for one won&#39;t let him get away with it.

I&#39;ve said my piece and will leave it at that.

j2k4
07-15-2003, 02:10 PM
Originally posted by myfiles3000@15 July 2003 - 08:07
it seems we all agree that comparing israel with the us, and especially canada, is not very helpful.
I will forego my pique at the lack of personal recognition afforded by your use of the word all, myfiles.

It may not be too helpful to use Israel for purposes of comparison, but it is very useful.

It seems that those here who wish to question U.S. policy as to gun control are discomfitted at being asked to explain the obvious co-existence of circumstances (many guns/few murders) in Israel which would damage their presumption that "many guns" just has to equal a high murder-rate, because if it is proven otherwise, their case, vis a vis the U.S., goes down the drain.

As I said earlier in this thread:

You can&#39;t ignore inconvenient facts just because they hurt your case.

You may insist on the validity of an opinion, but not to the point of undisguised intellectual dishonesty.

ilw
07-15-2003, 02:10 PM
Originally posted by lynx@15 July 2003 - 16:00
you stepped in front of a stray bullet.

lol
was that meant to be ironic?

j2k4
07-15-2003, 02:12 PM
Originally posted by myfiles3000@15 July 2003 - 08:51
j2, lynx, whoever else, lets move on
Yes--Let&#39;s do.

j2k4
07-15-2003, 02:14 PM
Originally posted by ilw+15 July 2003 - 09:10--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ilw @ 15 July 2003 - 09:10)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-lynx@15 July 2003 - 16:00
you stepped in front of a stray bullet.

lol
was that meant to be ironic? [/b][/quote]
I&#39;m sure any irony was unintentional.

lynx
07-15-2003, 02:14 PM
Originally posted by ilw+15 July 2003 - 15:10--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ilw @ 15 July 2003 - 15:10)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-lynx@15 July 2003 - 16:00
you stepped in front of a stray bullet.

lol
was that meant to be ironic? [/b][/quote]
It seemed appropriate given the context :)

Rat Faced
07-15-2003, 07:31 PM
Originally posted by j2k4+15 July 2003 - 12:35--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 15 July 2003 - 12:35)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-ilw@15 July 2003 - 05:51
I&#39;ve been thinking about the switzerland thing and talking to some people and i think the fundamental difference between swiss gun ownership and american is not only the type of gun (as it seems quite a few swiss people here have handguns), but also the purpose of having the gun. Here as j2k4 pointed out its a legal requirement and I haven&#39;t met any&nbsp; swiss people who would even consider having a gun for home defence. All the swiss guns are carefully locked away making them unsuitable to protect anyone from an intruder, but this makes the gun very hard for children to get at and the incidence of &#39;gun death&#39; is much lower. I personally reckon there probably wasn&#39;t really a need for having a gun to protect your home until people did start protecting their homes with guns and now its a vicious circle. More people with guns to protect themselves leads to more people getting killed by guns (as shown by stats)&nbsp; as well as leading to more guns on the street (higher availability of guns)&nbsp; and this all leads to more people wanting a gun to protect themselves
Okay-

If you reject the example of Switzerland, please attempt a similar disection of the Israeli situation.

In Israel, the variety of weaponry is certainly greater, and they are likely to be kept situated in a much more convenient fashion. I&#39;m also sure adequate training in the use of guns in Israel is not a strict requirement.

What say you? [/b][/quote]
Hasnt Israel got full conscription? (Men and Women)

Im not 100% sure, but i heard that somewhere.

If so, then Israeli&#39;s in General will be much more fully conversant with Fire Arms safety than the US citizens in General.

In addition, as someone said earlier....In Israel, the last thing someone is going to do is brandish a Gun.


Sorry, but i hadnt given an opinion...and needed to get my twopennyworth in ;)


This is what i was saying earlier j2k4.

In order to compare (for example) Main, you need to find a country matching Main in terms of Guns per Capita/relative wealth/culture.

Its unfair on Main (and i dont know if this State has a low Crime rate or not..its just off the top of my head) to include New Yorks murder rate in there....it pulls the average up.

Its also not fair in the debate, as New Yorks rate is lowered...

To get valid data you must compare like with like.


Lets start a different way.

Not all States are gun toting cowboys....which has the lowest number of Handguns per capita?

One where the State makes it difficult to get them?

Lets look at ITS gun related murder rate in isolation.

myfiles3000
07-15-2003, 07:36 PM
here&#39;s a claim i&#39;ve heard: there are 17 firearms for every man woman and child in texas. can anyone confirm whether or not this is BS?

hobbes
07-15-2003, 09:42 PM
Originally posted by myfiles3000@15 July 2003 - 20:36
here&#39;s a claim i&#39;ve heard: there are 17 firearms for every man woman and child in texas. can anyone confirm whether or not this is BS?
Myfiles,

To even make such a post really solidifies my belief that you are not in touch with America and should visit Clocker.

I live in Texas, I do not own a handgun, I have never owned a gun. None of my college graduate collegues owns one, except for the occassional shotgun, for hunting.

I have never been threatened by a gun toting maniac, and I can only recall 1 gun related incident in my life. A case of a friend of a friend, who was drunk and in the a bad part of town at 3:00am (He got shot in the leg for insulting his mugger).

There are no random drive by shootings in the suburbs, we don&#39;t cower at home fearing gun assaults. Sure, we have the occasional crazy, who makes big headlines, but why the hell a citizen needs an automatic weapon is beyond me.

What I am trying to paint for you is a picture of reality for the middle and upper middle class. Guns just aren&#39;t an issue. I don&#39;t live in fear of being shot. When you go to the local convenience store be prepared that someone is much more likely to hold the door open for you than hold you up. I will admit that I know where not to be, and that is the secret. Don&#39;t take the short cut through the ghetto at 3:00am. You will still, more than likely, get knifed, as it is so much quieter.

For the lower class, walk quickly and keep your head down. Poverty and drugs make for desperate times and are handled in the like.



I have not addressed the issue of handgun control (which I strongly favor), I just wanted to dispel this caricature of the "Texan". I do, however; live in a town filled with tumbleweeds, own a sassy old mule named, "Miss Daisy" and walk around with a hayseed sticking from between my teeth.

myfiles3000
07-15-2003, 11:09 PM
Originally posted by hobbes+15 July 2003 - 22:42--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes @ 15 July 2003 - 22:42)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-myfiles3000@15 July 2003 - 20:36
here&#39;s a claim i&#39;ve heard: there are 17 firearms for every man woman and child in texas. can anyone confirm whether or not this is BS?
Myfiles,

To even make such a post really solidifies my belief that you are not in touch with America and should visit Clocker.

I live in Texas, I do not own a handgun, I have never owned a gun. None of my college graduate collegues owns one, except for the occassional shotgun, for hunting.

I have never been threatened by a gun toting maniac, and I can only recall 1 gun related incident in my life. A case of a friend of a friend, who was drunk and in the a bad part of town at 3:00am (He got shot in the leg for insulting his mugger).

There are no random drive by shootings in the suburbs, we don&#39;t cower at home fearing gun assaults. Sure, we have the occasional crazy, who makes big headlines, but why the hell a citizen needs an automatic weapon is beyond me.

What I am trying to paint for you is a picture of reality for the middle and upper middle class. Guns just aren&#39;t an issue. I don&#39;t live in fear of being shot. When you go to the local convenience store be prepared that someone is much more likely to hold the door open for you than hold you up. I will admit that I know where not to be, and that is the secret. Don&#39;t take the short cut through the ghetto at 3:00am. You will still, more than likely, get knifed, as it is so much quieter.

For the lower class, walk quickly and keep your head down. Poverty and drugs make for desperate times and are handled in the like.



I have not addressed the issue of handgun control (which I strongly favor), I just wanted to dispel this caricature of the "Texan". I do, however; live in a town filled with tumbleweeds, own a sassy old mule named, "Miss Daisy" and walk around with a hayseed sticking from between my teeth. [/b][/quote]
thanks hobbes, for all the anecdotal evidence, but as they were often fond of saying in first year, "you&#39;re friends are not representative of the general population." I might add, "especially your college graduate, non-lower-class friends."

please note that I made no comment on life in texas or in the usa, i simply repeated a statistic that i have heard more than once, to see whether anyone had hard data. A quick search of the ATF did not yield an answer.

However, 2 sources have been provided for the following stats: Texas&#39; 17 million residents own a total of 68 million guns, for an average of four guns apiece, while 16,600 Texans legally own machine guns.

The Forward (Jewish Weekly of New York City) (May 14, 1993).
Houston Post, March 9, 1993, p. A8:

I have not been able to confirm these numbers with government stats, but it seems sensible that the original stat of 17 million guns morphed into 17 guns per person.

there, i answered my own question.

lynx
07-16-2003, 02:14 AM
Originally posted by j2k4+15 July 2003 - 15:14--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 15 July 2003 - 15:14)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by ilw@15 July 2003 - 09:10
<!--QuoteBegin-lynx@15 July 2003 - 16:00
you stepped in front of a stray bullet.

lol
was that meant to be ironic?
I&#39;m sure any irony was unintentional. [/b][/quote]
Was that 45 years old ?
More likely got hit with a .45

hobbes
07-16-2003, 02:43 AM
Yeah, but my point was this: we&#39;ve posted lots of "statistics" on this thread. What we have found is that you cannot simply take "gun ownership" and correlate it with "murder rate". There are too many other variables involved, many being unique to a particular country. Switzerland was a good example as poster earlier.

So, more importantly, how do guns actually effect people in a given country and who exactly is getting shot.

I was just pointing out that for people like you and me, guns aren&#39;t a real issue. As I have said before, it&#39;s basically blacks killing blacks and whites killing whites for gangs, for "territory", for drugs. I think if guns were illegal, these groups would still have guns- desperate situations are handled in the like(from prior post).

So, I knew full well, that my post was anecdotal, but it seemed to cut through all the numbers crap and at least give a glimpse into how they play out in real life.

What does 14 guns per person mean? That is an average, with no standard deviation and no mode. Maybe we just have alot of gun collectors or dealers.

I took not offense at your post, I just wondered if you might be suprised if you were to actually walk around here, numbers on charts and graphs are just that, sometimes.

Anyway, the tone of my post was casual, with a rather obvious wink (since you don&#39;t like emoticons and such)with the closing paragraph. No need for "in the first year" comments. That is called a "playground" shot. You may need an injection of a sense of humor and a break from charts and graphs. Look at the number of posts I have made, humor, albiet subtle at times, is a key element in most, and should be taken into account when reading my replies.

My overall point to you was that it is difficult to construct how a society functions based on press clippings and statistics. Like in other thread about anglos being threatened by the fast growing latin american communities, I clarified what this really means and how it is no threat to me. I tried to take it from a number you read somewhere to how it plays out in reality. So it all goes back to: Go visit Clocker, walk around and see how your statistics look when you fold them into a little real life context.

In regard to this thread as a whole, statistics can be used to prove anything, if you hide the pertinent variables well enough. That is why I find a topic, which really relates to human nature, discussed in terms of statistics to be a lost cause. No way it can be solved this way, as both sides have plenty of wonderful numbers to throw around.

Sorry, this got a little loose, but I need to leave about 30 minutes ago.

j2k4
07-16-2003, 04:29 AM
Originally posted by myfiles3000@15 July 2003 - 14:36
here&#39;s a claim i&#39;ve heard: there are 17 firearms for every man woman and child in texas. can anyone confirm whether or not this is BS?
I&#39;ve heard that, but doubt that it is true, even lacking empirical proof.

I&#39;m also pretty sure whoever concocted that figure admittedly includes gun collections, which is statistically specious.

Rat-

I&#39;m not trying to be lazy (yes I am), but for purposes of this thread, which, I think the thrust of which was, "why doesn&#39;t the U.S. have gun control to an extent it&#39;s murder rate reflects that of an actual civilized country"; the question of regional trends (which run the gamut from very high, statistically, to virtually nil) are of little consequence when discussing a "national" problem.

As far as permissiveness of gun laws on a state-to-state basis, there may be a legal disparity relative to rules and regs re: gun purchases, but ultimately the availablility is there in all cases.

Illegal gun possession is also a problem, but the relevant laws have little impact there unless you have the illegal possessor in hand, as well as the illegal weapon.

There are however several easy-to-spot trends, as I&#39;m sure you can deduce:

Urban areas are, by comparison to rural areas, relative "kill-zones" although to say this is a uniform condition would be untrue.

Certain cities are much worse, per capita, than they should be: Washington, D.C., Miami, Florida, and Houston, Texas, to name a few.

New York City is an interesting case in that, while it was among the per capita leaders in the &#39;70s, it&#39;s rate has fallen gradually since then, much more drastically during Guiliani&#39;s terms as mayor, and continues even now under the leadership of a relative softy on law-and-order, Michael Bloomberg.

There is a school of thought that says one of the reasons for this is that New Yorkers got tired of being known as inhabiting one of the American "Murder Capitals", and this "change of attitude" did the rest.

Stranger things have happened.

Gang activity is a huge contributor, statistically, also; as yet, there seems to be no real answer for this, though.

In any case, all the the real aggravating factors appear to be cultural/societal/economic in nature, and it is also true that the overwhelming number of murders are commited by the criminal element, who obtain their weapons illegally, and truly accidental shootings are, by comparison, extremely rare.

I am aware that any accidental firearm deaths are regretful situations, but until someone can suss a way to eliminate accidents of all types, we will, as in the case of abortion, have to settle for the continuation of educational efforts as a means of dealing with this.

clocker
07-16-2003, 04:30 AM
Jeez, four pages of worthwhile discussion and I just find it. This is what I get for working on my computer rather than with it.

Anyway, I agree with Hobbes about the relative uselessness of hurling statistics in defense of what is (at least in America) a very emotional issue.

Personally, I dislike guns and have no use for them in any form. But that&#39;s a purely emotional stance and I can&#39;t justify it with any numbers or even personal anecdotes. Just don&#39;t like &#39;em.

What I do find odd however, is the unwavering position of gun fans re: licensing and ownership requirements.
In the US we require more training to operate a moped than to own a gun.
Why is this?

myfiles3000
07-16-2003, 04:35 AM
Originally posted by hobbes@16 July 2003 - 03:43
In regard to this thread as a whole, statistics can be used to prove anything, if you hide the pertinent variables well enough. That is why I find a topic, which really relates to human nature, discussed in terms of statistics to be a lost cause. No way it can be solved this way, as both sides have plenty of wonderful numbers to throw around.
hobbes, you raise very good points. But you&#39;ll have to tear from my cold rigor-mortisized hands my faith in proper statistics. While i agree that stats can be marshalled in almost any direction, a critical thinker with a decent level of numeracy can see through the crap 99 times out of 100. I keep hearing this summer how "stats can prove anything", and it bothers me that people seem to think there&#39;s no room for absolutism, that its all one big relativistic slippery slope. its just not true for the majority of issues out there, and if you look carefully enough, I would say you&#39;ll find differences in ideology, not perception of reality.

And perception of reality is really what it boils down to for me -- individual human consciousness is about as encompassing and objective as a late night infomercial. Statistics are our friends, as long as we treat them like ladies and gentlemen.

hobbes
07-16-2003, 05:05 AM
Amen to intellectual honesty, but so often people with an "agenda" violate this enhance their stance. The trick with statistics is in figuring out what they are NOT telling you.

I also want to clarify that sometimes people don&#39;t intentionally misuse them, they are just unaware of certain relevant cultural issues from which they gleaned their numbers.

The example here was the high ownership of guns in Switzerland, but low murder rate. The enlightment was that although many people own guns, they are not in physical possession of them. This is a relevant and enlighting fact that I would not have been aware of if the numbers had been posted as part of a table comparing gun ownership and murder rate among different countries.

Anyway, I know the subject of appropriate data analysis and usage piques you a little, as this relates to your area of expertise,and we, I, am just just an amatuer here. I know I bristle a little when people start babbling about something I am well versed in.

ilw
07-16-2003, 07:33 AM
OK before we descend into statistical analysis and levels of significance etc (i&#39;m so glad I have no more stats maths classes) . heres a question for the americans:
Would you prefer it if your country was almost entirely clear of guns (ie gun control like in Britain) or the situation as it is now? (Basically if u could remove all the guns from peoples houses and the vast majority of guns from the criminal element, would u?)

junkyardking
07-16-2003, 08:28 AM
If you havn&#39;t seen The movie Bowling for Columbine i suggest you do, in the later half it compares the US with Canada, now Canada has alot of guns and gun ownership but it is relativly a safe place to live with people even leaving there doors unlocked, the conclusion that Michael Moore came to was that the US had a culture largly based on fear and if you look at it from an outside view that&#39;s what you see.


In Australia we have Gun Control but years ago a massacar of about 20 people happened at Port Arthur, Tasmania, the federal government really cracked down and banned semi-automatic rifles and what not, and now there doing it for semi auto hand guns after a couple of people got killed at a uni in Melbourne, Victoria.

It&#39;s real sad the US government does&#39;nt do the same, as shootings at workplaces and schools have become a regular ocurrence over there.

3RA1N1AC
07-16-2003, 08:58 AM
if you&#39;ve never seen a movie called "Red Dawn," it&#39;s worth a viewing just to see the sort of paranoid fantasy that inspires pro-gun people in america to devote so much time & energy to their cause.

MagicNakor
07-16-2003, 09:54 AM
Originally posted by junkyardking@16 July 2003 - 09:28
If you havn&#39;t seen The movie Bowling for Columbine i suggest you do, in the later half it compares the US with Canada, now Canada has alot of guns and gun ownership but it is relativly a safe place to live with people even leaving there doors unlocked...
Perhaps you ought not to believe everything you watch. :rolleyes:

:ninja:

junkyardking
07-16-2003, 10:35 AM
Originally posted by MagicNakor+16 July 2003 - 09:54--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (MagicNakor @ 16 July 2003 - 09:54)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-junkyardking@16 July 2003 - 09:28
If you havn&#39;t seen The movie Bowling for Columbine i suggest you do, in the later half it compares the US with Canada, now Canada has alot of guns and gun ownership but it is relativly a safe place to live with people even leaving there doors unlocked...
Perhaps you ought not to believe everything you watch. :rolleyes:

:ninja: [/b][/quote]
I never said i did, but the people seemed sincere.

lynx
07-16-2003, 11:44 AM
I just tried to get some &#39;stats&#39; from the ATF, but it was rather a waste of time.

(OT for a moment, the ATF site doesn&#39;t work with Netscape, maybe the Justice department should look into that).

The sort of thing I was looking for was numbers of firearms sold etc, but although I found something along those lines (number manufactured and number exported), it was unclear if this included military use.

One of the interesting items was the number of machine guns. The excess of manufactured over exported (and therefore presumably for &#39;home&#39; use) for the last 4 reported years is as follows:

1998 >20000
1999 235 (wtf?)
2000 >35000
2001 >46000

Unfortunately, without knowing whether this includes military acquirements the figures are useless, but if they do not then this should be very worrying to everyone.

But the really interesting fact is that you can find out who manufactured and exported all those firearms with the exception of machine guns.
So when your loved ones are mown down by a crazed lunatic with a machine gun, you can&#39;t find out who manufactured it and released it onto the general public.

I think someone has a guilty conscience.

lynx
07-16-2003, 11:46 AM
Originally posted by junkyardking+16 July 2003 - 11:35--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (junkyardking @ 16 July 2003 - 11:35)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by MagicNakor@16 July 2003 - 09:54
<!--QuoteBegin-junkyardking@16 July 2003 - 09:28
If you havn&#39;t seen The movie Bowling for Columbine i suggest you do, in the later half it compares the US with Canada, now Canada has alot of guns and gun ownership but it is relativly a safe place to live with people even leaving there doors unlocked...
Perhaps you ought not to believe everything you watch. :rolleyes:

:ninja:
I never said i did, but the people seemed sincere. [/b][/quote]
They are actors, they are acting sincere, it isn&#39;t real. :rolleyes:

clocker
07-16-2003, 11:48 AM
Originally posted by junkyardking@16 July 2003 - 02:28
If you havn&#39;t seen The movie Bowling for Columbine i suggest you do, in the later half it compares the US with Canada, now Canada has alot of guns and gun ownership but it is relativly a safe place to live with people even leaving there doors unlocked, the conclusion that Michael Moore came to was that the US had a culture largly based on fear and if you look at it from an outside view that&#39;s what you see.



JYK,

You see that glow on the horizon?
That&#39;s j2, preparing to go ballistic with another Michael Moore/Bowling for Columbine rant.

You brought it upon yourself, I&#39;m afraid.... :P

myfiles3000
07-16-2003, 12:04 PM
i can keep my nationality a secret no more, the pride is welling up inside: i am canadian. but i can assure you that moore&#39;s portrayal of canadians was absurd: we really do lock our doors. American society is more violent, but he made us look positively SCANDINAVIAN for chrissakes.

I really like moore and the work he does, but BFC is an anecdotal, highly personal rant, and cannot be depended on as a reliable sociological source. Above all, its political entertainment.

I remember one brief scene where he compares the number of gun related deaths in canada v usa, using the old "ticking number technique", and by george the US numbers just kept piling up, but mostly because the population is 10x higher. This is just silly, the kind of numbers manipulation that the innumerate fall for (come to think of it, i think the stat adjusted for pop. was still 4x the canadian rate...exactly why I&#39;ll never trade in a beaver for a bald eagle).

j2k4
07-16-2003, 02:14 PM
Originally posted by clocker@16 July 2003 - 06:48
JYK,

You see that glow on the horizon?
That&#39;s j2, preparing to go ballistic with another Michael Moore/Bowling for Columbine rant.

You brought it upon yourself, I&#39;m afraid.... :P
I can&#39;t be responsible for this ongoing Michael Moore enlightenment effort, Clocker.

He and his fans deserve each other, cut, as they are, from the same bolt of defective cloth.

myfiles3000
07-16-2003, 02:41 PM
Originally posted by j2k4@16 July 2003 - 15:14
I can&#39;t be responsible for this ongoing Michael Moore enlightenment effort, Clocker. He and his fans deserve each other, cut, as they are, from the same bolt of defective cloth.
just to clarify j2, is your beef with MM in general or with BFC? The contentiousness of his latest is obvious, but have you ever seen Roger and Me? Thats good, down-home folk hero stuff, thar.

j2k4
07-16-2003, 04:00 PM
Originally posted by myfiles3000+16 July 2003 - 09:41--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (myfiles3000 &#064; 16 July 2003 - 09:41)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@16 July 2003 - 15:14
I can&#39;t be responsible for this ongoing Michael Moore enlightenment effort, Clocker. He and his fans deserve each other, cut, as they are, from the same bolt of defective cloth.
just to clarify j2, is your beef with MM in general or with BFC? The contentiousness of his latest is obvious, but have you ever seen Roger and Me? Thats good, down-home folk hero stuff, thar.[/b][/quote]
"Roger and Me" was Moore&#39;s best effort, as it was reasonably funny, but someone, in an incredible fit of "cart before horse" syndrome, conferred upon Mr. Moore the status of "counterculture genius"-it&#39;s been all downhill from there.


Since I&#39;m sure Clocker is waiting with &#39;bated breath, I will use the trusty K-lite forum "search" function to satisfy him cheaply, by quoting all I have ever said here re: Mr. Moore, with apologies for lack of a clean edit; it is my birthday, and I&#39;m committed therefore to sloth and laziness:


Michael Moore has nothing to offer of any consequence, he writes to provoke reactions. His first attempt at comedy, entitled "Roger and Me" (what it&#39;s about is, believe me, of no import) attracted the attention of some stupid people who knew many other stupid people. They, in turn, deified Mr. Moore (who is himself a stupid person), and convinced him (it wasn&#39;t difficult) that he could be the leader of the stupid people if he would write more tripe. This he consented to do. He has enjoyed modest success as a provacateur, and is so enamored of himself he has several more books in the hopper, among them:

"I&#39;m Stupid-You&#39;re Stupid"

"Ego and Stupidity: Managing Your Assets"

"Stupidity and Logic-A User&#39;s Guide"




Monday, March 17, 2003
A Letter from Michael Moore to George W. Bush on the Eve of War


George W. Bush
1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Washington, DC


Dear Governor Bush:

So today is what you call "the moment of truth," the day that "France and the rest of world have to show their cards on the table." I&#39;m glad to hear that this day has finally arrived. Because, I gotta tell ya, having survived 440 days of your lying and conniving, I wasn&#39;t sure if I could take much more. So I&#39;m glad to hear that today is Truth Day, &#39;cause I got a few truths I would like to share with you:


Michael Moore possesses the truth: He IS the oracle.


1. There is virtually NO ONE in America (talk radio nutters and Fox News aside) who is gung-ho to go to war. Trust me on this one. Walk out of the White House and on to any street in America and try to find five people who are PASSIONATE about wanting to kill Iraqis. YOU WON&#39;T FIND THEM&#33; Why? &#39;Cause NO Iraqis have ever come here and killed any of us&#33; No Iraqi has even threatened to do that. You see, this is how we average Americans think: If a certain so-and-so is not perceived as a threat to our lives, then, believe it or not, we don&#39;t want to kill him&#33; Funny how that works&#33;


There is "virtually no one" INCLUDING those on Fox News and talk radio, who is "gung ho" for war. The fact a MAJORITY of Americans SUPPORT the war does not impress Mr. Moore. His supposition proves nothing other than that he knows where the anti-war crowd hangs out.


2. The majority of Americans -- the ones who never elected you -- are not fooled by your weapons of mass distraction. We know what the real issues are that affect our daily lives -- and none of them begin with I or end in Q. Here&#39;s what threatens us: two and a half million jobs lost since you took office, the stock market having become a cruel joke, no one knowing if their retirement funds are going to be there, gas now costs almost two dollars -- the list goes on and on. Bombing Iraq will not make any of this go away. Only you need to go away for things to improve.


This is sOOOOOOO tired. Even the liberal press (WHO, IN 2000, COMPLETED THE COUNT SO AS TO BE ABLE TO PUBLISH THE "FACTS", CONCLUDED BUSH DID INDEED WIN, EVEN INCREASING HIS FINAL WINNING MARGIN) admitted (albeit on page 20, in most cases) Bush won, and any legal challenge mounted by Gore would have failed.


3. As Bill Maher said last week, how bad do you have to suck to lose a popularity contest with Saddam Hussein? The whole world is against you, Mr. Bush. Count your fellow Americans among them.


Bill Maher-another oracle, even more clever than Mr. Moore-who proclaims himself a "libertarian", then leaves his ass hanging out for any reasoned debate. If he didn&#39;t control the microphone and the agenda, his points would blunt themselves.
Mr. Moore does not "live" in the "world" and has no claim to speak for anyone. He reminds me of a "white" Jesse Jackson in this regard.


4. The Pope has said this war is wrong, that it is a SIN. The Pope&#33; But even worse, the Dixie Chicks have now come out against you&#33; How bad does it have to get before you realize that you are an army of one on this war? Of course, this is a war you personally won&#39;t have to fight. Just like when you went AWOL while the poor were shipped to Vietnam in your place.


The Pope should deal with (as Mr. Moore says) the issues which beg his attention: PEDARIST PREISTS. When would the Pope EVER speak in favor of a war? I predict Mr. Moore will soon be blasting Papal interest in some other "Moore" cause.


5. Of the 535 members of Congress, only ONE (Sen. Johnson of South Dakota) has an enlisted son or daughter in the armed forces&#33; If you really want to stand up for America, please send your twin daughters over to Kuwait right now and let them don their chemical warfare suits. And let&#39;s see every member of Congress with a child of military age also sacrifice their kids for this war effort. What&#39;s that you say? You don&#39;t THINK so? Well, hey, guess what -- we don&#39;t think so either&#33;


Mr Moore finally makes a marginal point.


6. Finally, we love France. Yes, they have pulled some royal screw-ups. Yes, some of them can be pretty damn annoying. But have you forgotten we wouldn&#39;t even have this country known as America if it weren&#39;t for the French? That it was their help in the Revolutionary War that won it for us? That our greatest thinkers and founding fathers -- Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, etc. -- spent many years in Paris where they refined the concepts that lead to our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution? That it was France who gave us our Statue of Liberty, a Frenchman who built the Chevrolet, and a pair of French brothers who invented the movies? And now they are doing what only a good friend can do -- tell you the truth about yourself, straight, no b.s. Quit pissing on the French and thank them for getting it right for once. You know, you really should have traveled more (like once) before you took over. Your ignorance of the world has not only made you look stupid, it has painted you into a corner you can&#39;t get out of.

Yes, we DO love the French-just not right now.

Well, cheer up -- there IS good news. If you do go through with this war, more than likely it will be over soon because I&#39;m guessing there aren&#39;t a lot of Iraqis willing to lay down their lives to protect Saddam Hussein. After you "win" the war, you will enjoy a huge bump in the popularity polls as everyone loves a winner -- and who doesn&#39;t like to see a good ass-whoopin&#39; every now and then (especially when it &#39;s some third world ass&#33;). So try your best to ride this victory all the way to next year&#39;s election. Of course, that&#39;s still a long ways away, so we&#39;ll all get to have a good hardy-har-har while we watch the economy sink even further down the toilet&#33;


Among other things in this paragraph, Mr. Moore mis-spells "ass-whuppin&#39;".


But, hey, who knows -- maybe you&#39;ll find Osama a few days before the election&#33; See, start thinking like THAT&#33; Keep hope alive&#33; Kill Iraqis -- they got our oil&#33;&#33;


No, Mr. Moore, it&#39;s THEIR oil, and we know it.


Yours,

Michael Moore
www.michaelmoore.com


And your contention would therefore be this letter "proves" Mr. Moore is right and Bush is wrong?


I&#39;m sorry, I don&#39;t like the guy. :angry:

Edit: Hi-lite-j2

ilw
07-16-2003, 04:36 PM
Originally posted by j2k4@16 July 2003 - 18:00
it is my birthday, and I&#39;m committed therefore to sloth and laziness:

HAPPY BIRTHDAY :)

j2k4
07-16-2003, 04:39 PM
Originally posted by ilw+16 July 2003 - 11:36--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ilw @ 16 July 2003 - 11:36)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@16 July 2003 - 18:00
it is my birthday, and I&#39;m committed therefore to sloth and laziness:

HAPPY BIRTHDAY :) [/b][/quote]
Thank you kindly, ilw. :)

clocker
07-16-2003, 07:22 PM
Happy birthday, j2.

Hoist a Zima for me. :lol:

Rat Faced
07-16-2003, 08:59 PM
Happy Wrinkle Day j2k4 ;)

sArA
07-16-2003, 09:36 PM
Happy Pissup day J2k&#33;&#33;&#33; :lol:

j2k4
07-17-2003, 04:03 AM
A hearty and heartfelt thanks to y&#39;all.

Clocker-do they still make Zima? the day I drink one of those, you better be on the barstool next to me, bud.

Sara-where the hell have you been? And how the hell are you?

Rat-I am actually reasonably wrinkle-free for one of my particular antiquity; however, I still get my youthful ration of one pimple per week, so I guess it all evens out, huh?

:D :D :D :D :) B)

Ardor
07-17-2003, 12:10 PM
I&#39;m not that interested in fuelling the fire here, but I don&#39;t think gun-ownership is the issue here. I don&#39;t think it is illegal to possess a gun anywhere in the world (with some exceptions, I&#39;m sure) , as long as you have a licence. However it is the ease at which people can get their hands on a gun, which is really worrying. Little or no training, indicates that most likely the gun-owner will have little or no safety-instruction on its use, storage, and whatever involved. I am reminded of a case of a 4-year old who took a gun from home to school and shot another 4-year old (bowling for columbine?). Now is that parent really someone you want as your neighbour?*

I draw a parallel with getting a drivers-licence. Comming from Holland, which as far as I know is one of the hardest places to get a licence, I know it is also one of the safest to be on the road. Other countries, like Italy or Portugal, where the license-testing is not quite as rigid, are much unsafer. I do acknowledge the fact that Italy&#39;s mountain roads are relatively difficult to drive on.

So the point I make is that with a realistic training, license and registration requirement a country can be safe, even without impeding gun-ownership. Like any sane person, I would get nervous if someone shoved a gun under my nose, either with the intent of robbing or killing me, or only showing off. Either way, I am convinced that such a person is either unaware of the danger, psycho, or very stupid, all this being related to how well trained they are. Remember that training in a professional institution, can even help filter out the psychos.

Of course, more training would mean that Americans would have to pay more taxes, which I believe is where the essential conflict lies. :lol: Just think on how much money would be saved on jails**... :rolleyes:

(*: I believe in this case, the parent was a single mother, whose spouse was in jail or dead, and was forced to work full-time in another city, while often leaving her 4 year old unguarded. That&#39;s a whole different issue, but single mothers and their children are the biggest casualties of not having a welfare-state.)
(**: between 1990-2001, the state of California built 20 prisons versus 1 public University. The union of prison-guards in California, is the 2nd biggest contributor to political parties, after the Doctors-Association.)

ilw
07-17-2003, 12:20 PM
I think most here would agree that there should be some training required before getting a gun, and i think the consensus was that the use to which the gun was put was also important, ie home defence in America which means the gun must be rapidly accessible (ie insecure).
I asked a question a page or so back which was mostly directed at Americans, but it got passed over in the Michael Moore fiasco, but which i am curious about peoples opinions

Would you prefer it if your country was almost entirely clear of guns (ie high gun control like in Britain) or the situation as it is now? (Basically if u could remove 99% of the guns from peoples houses and the majority of guns from the criminal element, would u?)

lynx
07-17-2003, 12:44 PM
Originally posted by Ardor@17 July 2003 - 13:10
(**: between 1990-2001, the state of California built 20 prisons versus 1 public University. The union of prison-guards in California, is the 2nd biggest contributor to political parties, after the Doctors-Association.)
We should be careful when quoting statistics like these; they are easily manipulated, and are often given out of context to support a particular argument.

We cannot tell from this what constitutes a prison, how many prisons were decommisioned, etc.
More meaningful would be the percentage increase (decrease ?) in prison capacity, we may find it is in direct proportion to the increase in crime.
A new university - built in proportion to the increase in student intelligence - unlikely.

But that is an aside, I think you are right in your assertion that more training is required. It may even be that if training were mandatory, many people would not bother to get guns, and possibly that having had training they would realise just how dangerous it can be to have easily accessible weapons around and get rid of their guns.

On the down side, I can see that it could become a status symbol (Look at me, I&#39;ve got an MA in sub-machine guns), and people would go and buy weapons to match their certification. Still at least the training would have taken place.

Edit: clarity

myfiles3000
07-17-2003, 02:47 PM
Originally posted by ilw@17 July 2003 - 13:20
Would you prefer it if your country was almost entirely clear of guns (ie high gun control like in Britain) or the situation as it is now? (Basically if u could remove 99% of the guns from peoples houses and the majority of guns from the criminal element, would u?)
I think this question hits the heart of the matter. I don&#39;t see any reason why there should be so many guns in the hands of private citizens, in a country as advanced and politically stable as the USA...its like frickin afghanistan, after all.

If i could wave a magic wand, I would make the US like the UK as far as guns are concerned -- the problem is a vicious cycle of baddies getting guns, and goodies buying guns to protect themselves from baddies who get more guns, etc. So unfortunately, there is a certain logic to arming yourself to the teeth.

Americans have a peculiar notion of private firearm ownership, inextricably linked to the idea that the citizenry may one day have to launch a revolution against their own government. The war of independance with the brits is central to the mentality, but unfortunately its anachronistic in modern society imho. It may also constitute clinical paranoia en masse....

(but then again, in the 1960s the joint chiefs of staff planned to bomb and kill americans on american soil, blame it on cuban terrorists, and thereby justify ousting Castro. See "body of secrets" by james bamford; books webiste is at: http://www.randomhouse.com/features/bamford/home.html)

things are very rarely black and white....

clocker
07-17-2003, 11:22 PM
Originally posted by ilw@17 July 2003 - 06:20


Would you prefer it if your country was almost entirely clear of guns (ie high gun control like in Britain) or the situation as it is now? (Basically if u could remove 99% of the guns from peoples houses and the majority of guns from the criminal element, would u?)
In general- yes.

As this is clearly a blue sky question however, I would suggest a more reasonable method of couching it might be; " Would I prefer to see non-sporting weaponry disappear?"

Again yes.
The ban on assault weapons in the US is due to expire next year and the Bush administration is working mightily to delay discussion on the subject until after the election. It&#39;s basically a no-win situation for him as either way he alienates a significant bloc of voters.
My guess is that (should Bush win reelection- please Jesus, no&#33;) Dubya would once again allow citizens access to high powered assault rifles and the like.
I am not a hunter, but if folks want to Ted Nugent their way through the forest, then fine with me. Why people insist on carrying concealed weapons ( currently a very hot topic here in Denver) is completely beyond me. Most of the people I know (and there aren&#39;t many ) who carry weapons are far more likely to shoot themselves.
On second thought, perhaps just another instance of Darwinian selection?