Now I know what it feels like to be a Microsoft Employee

Christian Graus

So we agree the *reason* so often stated for bearing arms is largely moot ? In this context it should mean you have the right to *own* a gun, not carry it. What happened with England was a very different time, it would not occur today, simply because of globalisation. Such things cannot be done in secret anymore, and the global economy makes upsetting the rest of the world a *bad* thing. England gave back most of it's territories peacefully, they gave *us* independance a hundred years ago, which only serves to prove my point. Either way, the idea is a throwback to a different time, and it is for most gun toting Americans simply an excuse to defend their right to pack heat. If it were not, you'd have overthrown any number of corrupt governments, and conversely the gun lobby appears to play the corruption game as well as anyone. Christian The content of this post is not necessarily the opinion of my yadda yadda yadda. To understand recursion, we must first understand recursion.

Christian Graus

So we agree the *reason* so often stated for bearing arms is largely moot ? In this context it should mean you have the right to *own* a gun, not carry it. What happened with England was a very different time, it would not occur today, simply because of globalisation. Such things cannot be done in secret anymore, and the global economy makes upsetting the rest of the world a *bad* thing. England gave back most of it's territories peacefully, they gave *us* independance a hundred years ago, which only serves to prove my point. Either way, the idea is a throwback to a different time, and it is for most gun toting Americans simply an excuse to defend their right to pack heat. If it were not, you'd have overthrown any number of corrupt governments, and conversely the gun lobby appears to play the corruption game as well as anyone. Christian The content of this post is not necessarily the opinion of my yadda yadda yadda. To understand recursion, we must first understand recursion.

Christian Graus

That's easy. 1/ If automatic rifles, etc. are illegal, then there is no legal means for people to aquire them, making it harder to get one or find a chain of supply. 2/ If such weapons are illegal, the police can take them from you, just because you have one. 3/ As a result there will be less guns in the community. I *know* this works, because in Australia we have had three mass shootings in my lifetime ( that I am aware of, all occured where I lived at the time, so I'm open for correction on the exact number, but it's a pimple on the backside of the high score the US racks up ). The solution is not just get rid of the guns, but the math is simple. Less guns = less people armed. Someone who is not armed cannot shoot at me. Christian The content of this post is not necessarily the opinion of my yadda yadda yadda. To understand recursion, we must first understand recursion.

Russell Morris

>> They tell me its illegal for them to carry firearms, and that if they did so, they'd be arrested for it. << These types of laws, commonly called "Carry and Conceal" laws, vary from state to state in the US. Here in Georgia you must apply for a Carry/Conceal permit, take a test, and prove you know how to handle a gun. Then you may carry certain types of loaded handguns concealed on your person in certain areas. You still can't carry them in certain places (I'm not sure which ones, but its usually in high-density crowd situations like ballgames or government buildings). Other states don't allow you, at all, under any circumstances, to carry a loaded and/or concealed weapon. Russ -- Russell Morris Georgia Institute of Technology "Lisa, just because I don't care doesn't mean I'm not listening..." - Homer

Russell Morris

>> 1/ If automatic rifles, etc. are illegal, then there is no legal means for people to aquire them, making it harder to get one or find a chain of supply. << They're about as close to illegal as you can get. The US hasn't made or imported fully automatic weapons for civilian consumption for quite some time (at least a decade). There is an absurb amount of red-tape you have to jump through to get one (a friend of mine just did). You've got to pay a $400 federal tax, apply to get one (from federal authorities), have your local sheriff OK the deal personally in writing after doing lots of background checks, etc.. etc... . After all is said and done, the govt (federal and state) knows more about you than your parents do. And it ends up costing at least 2000 USD, minimum (automatic weapons are quite expensive, because the only ones left are the ones that existed before the ban on automatic weapons I mentioned earlier). >> 3/ As a result there will be less guns in the community. << Criminals can find ways to get them. Period. Maybe its a particularly American occurrence, but if you want something bad enough, there's a way to get it. Guns, Pot, Heroine, Cocaine, whatever. Removing all guns from gun-owners who are legal simply means that for quite awhile the only people with guns will be criminals. Would you wear a T-Shirt, or maybe put a sign out in your yard that says "UNARMED - PLEASE DO NOT ASSAULT ME" ? I think that's the way many Americans think about calls for complete illegalization of gun ownership. It'll be the people who follow the laws - the ones who own guns for defensive purposes - who have their guns taken away. Criminals will be unaffected for a long time. Russ -- Russell Morris Georgia Institute of Technology "Lisa, just because I don't care doesn't mean I'm not listening..." - Homer

Christian Graus

>> 1/ If automatic rifles, etc. are illegal, then there is no legal means for people to aquire them, making it harder to get one or find a chain of supply. << >They're about as close to illegal as you can get. The US hasn't made or imported fully automatic weapons for civilian >consumption for quite some time (at least a decade). There is an absurb amount of red-tape you have to jump through to >get one (a friend of mine just did). You've got to pay a $400 federal tax, apply to get one (from federal authorities), >have your local sheriff OK the deal personally in writing after doing lots of background checks, etc.. etc... . After >all is said and done, the govt (federal and state) knows more about you than your parents do. And it ends up costing at >least 2000 USD, minimum (automatic weapons are quite expensive, because the only ones left are the ones that existed >before the ban on automatic weapons I mentioned earlier). Well, good. Is this the same for *semi* automatic ( I seem to recall this was the problem here, and the weapon of choice among our few mass murderers ) ? If so, then the whole 'guns in the hands of the people' argument seems to fall apart regardless of the other issues it raises, as have been mentioned by others on this thread. Can I ask *why* your friend needs a weapon designed solely to kill lots of people quickly ? >> 3/ As a result there will be less guns in the community. << >Criminals can find ways to get them. Period. Maybe its a particularly American occurrence, but if you want something >bad enough, there's a way to get it. Guns, Pot, Heroine, Cocaine, whatever. Removing all guns from gun-owners who are >legal simply means that for quite awhile the only people with guns will be criminals. Oh, no - don't be fooled. Criminals everywhere will find a way. But it will be made a lot harder if there are no gun shops to roll, houses with guns to rob, etc. It also makes it easier for law enforcement to do something about a gun toting people *before* they kill someone. >Would you wear a T-Shirt, or maybe put a sign out in your yard that says "UNARMED - PLEASE DO NOT ASSAULT ME" ? I think >that's the way many Americans think about calls for complete illegalization of gun ownership. It'll be the people who >follow the laws - the ones who own guns for defensive purposes - who have their guns taken away. Criminals will be >unaffected for a long time. In fact, I essentially do that every day. Where I live, people being unarmed is a given. Funny thing is, I am yet to be assa

Christian Graus

You're wrong. Look at the students in Tienimen (sp?) Square, look at the Indians peacefully resisting the British, if Mississippi Burning was historically accurate, you have examples in your own history of people with guns trying to stop people without. These people fought on because they were right, and the injustice itself gave them the will to fight. And history upholds not only their right, but their moral stand in opposing injustice without resorting to it. Christian The content of this post is not necessarily the opinion of my yadda yadda yadda. To understand recursion, we must first understand recursion.

Erik Funkenbusch

Not at all. I don't think it's a moot point at all. Despite the fact that the common people don't generally have missle launchers or tanks, they are still many viable ways to defend against such attacks. Look at vietnam. When people are fighting in their own backyards they have many advantages over people unfamiliar with the area. Further, one of the reasons the US has never been invaded is that any country would be insane to do so. When the population can defend themselves nearly as well as the military, plus the advantage of known ground, there is no way they could win. We haven't overthrown our government because, until recently, it's worked very well. Again, I'm not advocating revolution here, but it wouldn't surprise me to see a major uprising within 25 years.

Christian Graus

Actually, Britain and Australia have never been invaded either. I'd suggest that if I was Saddam and I was contemplating an invasion, I'd be more worried about your Army, Navy and Air Force, than the thought that if I got through them, they'd also be some hicks with rifles to contend with. This has become silly, and it's only made me realise that just because people are obviously intelligent does not mean they will not be irrational about things they have strong feelings over. I'd suggest this discussion became silly a while ago and certainly is unlikely to result in any agreement. Which makes it a bit pointless to continue, doncha think ? Christian The content of this post is not necessarily the opinion of my yadda yadda yadda. To understand recursion, we must first understand recursion.

Erik Funkenbusch

Self protection should *ALWAYS* be at the forefront of everyones mind. When you offload your own self-preservation to your government, you are making yourself dependant upon them. What happens when someone comes into power that destroys the trust you've put in their hands? Governments change their minds. They change their policies. They go back on what they've promised. You can't trust people in power to put the peoples needs ahead of their own. You can only trust yourself in this world, sad but true. History is littered with examples of countries where the people gave their government absolute control over their lives, and more often than not, it has lead to ruin for the people eventually. Sure, life may be nice initially, but things change, and if you can no longer take control of your own destiny because you've allowed your government to take away that right, you have nothing left.

Erik Funkenbusch

What history do you live in? Britian has been invaded *HUNDREDS* of times, as recently as WWII. Australian territory has been occupied by Japanese, but even so, it's generally safe because it has so little strategic or economic value to invaders during the major wars. It's not a silly argument at all. It seems your so closed minded about warfare that you think just because someone has tanks and guns, they win. That's not true at all. I did make a mistake though, we were invaded once. Pearl Harber. And while that was a very bloody affair, I think it was chosen specifically because it was mainly a military target with very little in the way of population at the time. Do discussions like this Ever result in agreement? Does that make them pointless to discuss? Are you going to tell me you didn't learn anything from it?

Erik Funkenbusch

As the old saying goes, the winner writes the history books. History may uphold the morality of a peacful people that get slaughtered, but they don't live on to reproduce. Instead, the winners do and those are the people that take over the world. I may respect the Tibetan peoples choices to not resort to violence, but in so doing, they've chosen to die, and therefore allow their oppressors to wipe them out of existance. This is all irrelevant. We have reasons for the way we believe. You may not agree with them, that's fine. But to sit there and tell me that I'm wrong to believe such is just as arrogant as you claim we are.

Ammar

"President Bush is a member of the Republican party, while the environmentalists are almost always in the opposite party, the Democrats. No matter what he does he is not going to make this group happy." Who the hell is talking about US political parties!!! I am talking about world environment! Not the US'. What you do in your (if you are a US citizen, that is) country is your problem. But when you pollute, you dont only pollute your country's environment but world's as well. Being one of the biggest pollution producer, US has the responsibility to help others in solving the problem. "there is finally a president that means what he says, and does exactly what he says he will do. And it scares the hell out of the countries that are receiving the funds." Nobody is scared of US or US President. They are scared because due to US policies their life is also being affected. And its their right, being a citizen of the world, to protest!

Christian Graus

Britain was *NOT* invaded during WWII, unless you count the Battle of Britain to be invasion, and crashing planes do not an invasion force make. The Japs came to our coast in subs in WWII, but did not land. They also bombed Darwin. An invasion means people LAND, not fly over and drop bombs. Actually, I'd suggest the days of the winners writing history are over. Too many observers for that now. I guess I've learned not to bother speaking logically to Yanks about guns. :) Christian The content of this post is not necessarily the opinion of my yadda yadda yadda. To understand recursion, we must first understand recursion.

Peter Pearson

"You take away the right to own guns, and you take away all hope. And hope is what wins revolutions, not the guns themselves. The people could overturn the government with sticks and stones if they believed in it strongly enough, but when faced with an opponent with guns and you don't have any, you lose your will to fight" That's complete and utter rubbish. Look what happened in Belgrade in October. The only "weapon" used by the opposition there was a bulldozer. They managed to get a few flash bangs off the anti-terrorist police, but they DID NOT NEED GUNS. And they won. Cheers, Peter Pearson

Lost User

You make a lot of presumptions about what I'm thinking. The fact is that a gun doesn't require you to be next to the person you are trying to harm. That will make it a very useful tool for such people that know they can't get away with using the knife/baseball bat. As for me being a cowed sheep, or propoganda from the UK government about guns, keep your insults to yourself and come over hear and you'll realise there is no propoganda about guns over here. Stephen Kellett

Ranjith I

Yes.Whatever you have said is absolutely true,but at the same time you need to keep in mind that America is land of immigrants.Due to the brain drain from other coutries like western Europeans(intellectual's made a bee-line since early 18th century),and this brain drain still continues from other countries like China,India,Korea,Russia etc .So,credit has to go for these nationalities,who made a significant contributions to United States. Visual Basic programmer. -------------------------------------------------- Share your thoughts..

Erik Funkenbusch

You are again totally ignoring the fact that medical statistics disagree with your theory that guns are "easier" to harm someone with than stabbing weapons. If you're going to continue to press this belief, you should at least try to explain why there are 3x as many violent stabbings as there are violent gunshot related injuries. Until you choose to adress the facts presented rather than ignore them, you're just talking at someone rather than having a discussion with them.

Erik Funkenbusch

That's funny. So, because a number of brilliant scientists escaped tyranny of their home countries, we should thank those countries for their opression? Think about it. People like Albert Einstein left germany because they were being opressed, as were many of the great minds of the 19th and early 20th centuries that came to the US. India's poor econic condition drives intellectuals to the US, China's opression does the same thing, as does the former soviet unions. The fact that we are a better country for them to live in should make us thank those countries for some reason?

Paul Wolfensberger

I lived in Germany for well over a year while attending a german university in the late '80. While I was there, many people at my rowing club told me how very different I was from the american image they had in their minds....then they would recount how while in the US or Canada, they were taken to german restaurants and how amazing old fashioned and non-German they were....The images that people create for themselves in the vacuum of real knowledge is alway amazing.