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

Andrew Torrance

Sorry Wayne , I really cannot get my head around people carrying guns for protection in a civilised society . It seems a contradiction in terms . Society in the UK has its own problems , we don't have a panacea . You got any answers ? Its your problem after all . From this side you seem to be on the way to ostracising public smoking because of the health risks , yet appear to be complacent in the face of , what appears to be , a terrible blight on your society.

Scott

I am not one of them... it think(I do not support, or defend their, at times, extremely innappropriate tactics), I'm little iffy on the "moral majority" part... because I don't know what you mean there, I would like to call myself a moral person. Also, why do you use the terms un-american, anti-christian agendas? Scott! Put the big rocks in the glass jar first!

Andrew Torrance

There must be more reasonable arguments in favour of owning a gun than not liking speeding tickets .;) Go on , give me a convincing argument . You simply are not going to use force to overthrow the Government , if all you have is personal weapons. I hate to point this out but you are up against the only military superpower in the world. So if you are to win , you will have to get the military on your side , in which case , why bother with a few piffling little sidearms when the big boys have a few thousand tanks to use ?The argument about a militia comes from a different age , an age when force was a more reasonable way to settle differences . You needed the militia in the early days because it was far from certain if there would be an attempt to retake the colonies , then you had a justifiable threat to gaurd against , but this threatening the government is not really a starter when you think it through. You have an excellent written constitution , something we do not have , but it was designed to be flexible , as is ours . To hang onto the arms bit seems illogical from that point of view. But I accept , I am not American , I therefore cannot understand all the nuances of American culture , so please , tell me why you should want to carry a gun if you are , lets say , going out for a drink?

Russell Morris

>> I think the problem is that Americans have this image that they feel superior than every other country. << I think the problem is that many people in other countries think that all "Americans have this image that they feel superior than every other country". I for one don't feel implicitly 'superior'- as I'm sure most thoughtful Americans don't. America has quite alot to learn from other countries - on matters from foreign policy all the way down to public school systems. However, America has also done quite a bit of good for the world as a whole, especially in the last century or so, and has taught the rest of the world some things. So it's not arrogant for Americans to have alot of pride in their country and its accomplishments. That doesn't mean that Americans think other people shouldn't have pride in their country, or its accomplishments; or more generally that we are somehow 'superior' to other countries. >> When someone threatens or goes against what they say or believe they try to flex their muscle to get what they want. << ... Sounds like foreign policy to me. America doesn't exactly have a monopoly on foreign policies like this. I _SERIOUSLY_ doubt the US is the only country in the world today playing James Bond (hmm... where was he from? :) ) - this is of course in reference to the recent China situation. >> It's only natural that USA is dis-liked and their actions are examined more closely. << Yeah - the top-dog (or whoever is considered top-dog) is always closest to the microscope lens. Sort of a global peer-review process I guess. The bigger you are, the more other people worry about your influence over them, and the more they'll watch out defensively and critically. >> It's the only way to keep the top dog in check :) << I realize your post was made light-heartedly (i.e. no harm was intended), but I just get so sick of all you commie pink-o fer'ners talkin' bad 'bout America! ;) Cheers, Russ -- Russell Morris Georgia Institute of Technology "Lisa, just because I don't care doesn't mean I'm not listening..." - Homer

Russell Morris

>> the religious dogooders i speak of are not the truly pious followers of the golden rule, but the jerry falwell, moral majority, ralph reed, jim bakkers of the country who leech their living off of poor saps so they can pay for their un-american, anti-christian agendas. << i.e. the 'Church-ians'. I grew up in Southern Baptist country (just north of Atlanta). (BTW: For those not familiar, the 'Bible Belt' is roughly the south-eastern US, where there is a heavy concentration of Christian fundamentalist sects). I agree with your distinction between the 'pious followers of the golden rule' and the rest that use religion for gain or just as another excuse to be angry at a bunch of people they've never met. To me at least, a Christian is someone who truly beleives in the 'golden rules' of their faith, and is concerned primarily with their own adherance to them in their daily lives and dealings with others. Church-ians are the people that go to church every Sunday to gossip and compare clothes. Cheers, Russ -- Russell Morris Georgia Institute of Technology "Lisa, just because I don't care doesn't mean I'm not listening..." - Homer

Lost User

Just a little pick me up for my fellow Americans...

Russell Morris

>> There must be more reasonable arguments in favour of owning a gun than not liking speeding tickets .;) << The most convincing argument to me is a pragmatic one. Americans REALLY don't want to give up their guns. And I mean REALLY REALLY don't want to give up their guns. Implementing a sweeping anti-gun law that makes it illegal to own guns has quite a cost. Tracking down gun owners (well, only the ones that actually own them legally) Tracking down people who didn't tell the government when they bought the gun Collecting the guns Destroying them Prosecuting violators (hey, why not put an even bigger % of minorities behind bars?) Making guns taboo - but this would create a bigger black-market for them! And after all this, after all the billions of dollars that would need to be spent to rid a country of 300,000,000 people of guns, after putting all violators behind bars, after ensuring that the ONLY people who will have guns are those that don't have a problem with breaking the law: WE'D SUCCEED IN MAKING GUNS AS ILLEGAL AS MARIJUANA IS TODAY Unfortunately, today guns and gun ownership are as interwoven in mainstream American society as they were 200 years ago. Attitudes won't change overnight. They won't change in a generation or two. While the original reason for gun ownership rights (ie second amendment) was to ensure that Americans could always protect themselves from the British (circa 1787), guns played an immeasurable role in American expansion westward and in other areas. They've become part of what defines America. >> I therefore cannot understand all the nuances of American culture , so please , tell me why you should want to carry a gun if you are , lets say , going out for a drink? << I have friends that would - well, not to a bar (guns + beer = BAD) - but in general they always carry a firearm. I don't. But I'm not going to wear a T-Shirt that says "I AM UNARMED - PLEASE DO NOT ROB ME" either :) Cheers, Russ -- Russell Morris Georgia Institute of Technology "Lisa, just because I don't care doesn't mean I'm not listening..." - Homer

Christian Graus

I have already commented that it seems your society has a culture of violence that goes way deeper than the fact that you're allowed to carry guns around with you. I can only agree with the other poster that the idea of civilised people defending their *right* to carry a GUN is totally abhorent to me. Here in Australia, our response to the Port Arthur massacre ( and a couple of other incidents ) was to tighten what guns were legal to own. Basically we disallowed guns that plainly had the sole purpose of allowing someone to kill a lot of people quickly. A lot of rednecks got up in arms, and even recently they suggested that the government killed some people at Port Arthur and then blamed Martin Bryant as a patsy. Why ? To disarm the public. I am DAMN glad that people this stupid no longer have automatic weapons, or if they do, they can be arrested for it. The possibility of misunderstanding in my eyes negates any percieved benefit of vigilante justice, of a bunch of middle aged men in mid life crisis imagining they are Dirty Harry. But, as has been said, there is a cultural difference at work here, and Americans are raised to think that owning a gun is part of their freedom ( it's actually not even a right in your contitution, not in the way it is claimed ), so what hope would someone with a different world view have of putting it across ? As much as you'd have of convincing me that an armed population is a good idea. 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

You misunderstand the reason many americans are so protective of their right to bear arms. The US is only a little over 200 years old, and we won our independance from England through the use of average citizens with guns. One of our founding fathers (I think it was Thomas Jefferson) said something to the effect of "The best reason to insure the right to bear arms is to keep the government honest". Any government that fears that their citizens can rise up and overthrow them tends to do what's best for its people rather than what's best for its politicians. Now, I agree that despite the fact that we can bear arms, the government has begun to no longer fear its constituents, and are therefore doing things which are not in their best interests. I'm not advocating revolution, but this is precisely why it was so important to us in the first place. When a populace becomes placid and allows their government to take away their right to defend themselves, the government can do whatever it wishes, as we've seen so many times in other countries. Look at what England has done to Ireland, or South Africa.

Erik Funkenbusch

It's not illegal to carry firearms unless you are a convicted felon. What is illegal is to carry a concealed firearm. You are also not allowed to carry any kind of firearm into a place that serves alcohol. Tell me, if it were illegal to carry a firearm, how could you transport one? You "laughed" at statistics from the CDC and the state of MA? Why? Because they don't agree with your beliefs? The fact of the matter is, there are 3x as many violent stabbings as there are violent gunshot wounds (fatal or otherwise), and your 'theory' that guns make people more brave than knives is simply false. If that were the case, gunshot wounds would far outnumber stabbings, and stabbings would be so rare as to be nearly non-existant. Don't fall prey to propoganda from your government which is trying to keep you a cowed sheep, willing to put up with any violation of your personal freedoms.

Wayne Fuller

In a utopian world then I would totally agree with you. The problem is many fold, there is not one solution. Do you at least understand that a criminal is a person who breaks laws? So how is the legislature going to write a law to stop criminals. :confused: Wayne

Erik Funkenbusch

You may find the idea of overthrowing a government to be impractical, but tell that to people fighting for their rights. First off, a military is going to be loathe to fire on their own people. Second, it's been proven that low-tech can defeat hi-tech. No, we can't outrun a nuclear bomb, but it's highly unlikely that the government would use nuclear arms against itself. 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.

Wayne Fuller

You simply are not going to use force to overthrow the Government , if all you have is personal weapons. You keep looking at a gun as an offensive weapon. In war times, you are right. I, as many Americans, look at a gun as a defensive weapon. I don't know if you took American history or not, but during the American Revolution they used guns to protect themselves from the British government. They did not just run in and try to overthrow the government. Wayne

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.