I just don't understand! (generations, serial killers, invasion, Somali)

[freightshaker]

I would suggest that you read the federalist papers. I think they will help you grasp an understanding of our constitution and the second ammendment.. Incidently, I know you were there too... So was I... Thank you for giving us a hand in a insane situation.

[KickAssArmyChick]

Originally Posted by imcurious

Thank you for having the courage to post this. First of all, your opinion is especially well qualified because of your personal experience.

America is very gun-loving and Michael Moore has highlight this in his film (can't recall the name -senior moment!) . . . I do expect you will get a lot of flack from right-winged "patriots" - many of whom support the 2nd Amendment, come Hell or High water . . . and that is what they are waiting for . . .if a few dozen, hundred, or thousand are killed in the process, so be it (I would imagine they would think) . . .

You aren't going to get the Charleton Heston crowd to change their fervent stance any time soon, so indeed, the bullets will fly and the innocent people be damned!

The document that gives you the right to post nonsense like this also gives me the right to own guns....in case you don't know that.

[TrapperJohn]

How's that ban working out in Australia?

Did the murder rate drop dramatically?

Did the total homicide rate drop dramatically?

How about suicide? One bullet will kill ya; banning an semi-auto rifle won't reduce that rate.

That's a rhetorical question - we already know the answer. It didn't do a damn thing.

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by lifelongMOgal

So the above poster is endorsing a federal tax upon the practice of a Constitutionally affirmed right, is that correct?

Well, I'm certainly looking forward to a tax on Free Speech. I wonder how'd they do that? Tax the vowels? Consonants? Vowels and Consonants? I'm sure the Democrats will come up with some convoluted scheme that uses a multiplier based on the number of syllables as well.

Also astounded...

Mircea

Originally Posted by ThatSwissGuy

While I absolutly agree that guns don't kill people, it seems like American society isn't responisble enough to own guns. America has a serious violence problem.

100,000 / 312,000,000 = 0.0325%

Perspective.

You're focusing solely on the number 100,000. Put that into perspective with the total population and you have less than 1/2 of 1/100th.

In 2009, 33,808 people were killed and 2,217,000 people injured in vehicle accidents due to "distraction or inattention."

33,808 + 2,217,000 / 312,000,000 = 0.72%

0.72% / 0.0325% = 22

Clearly, your risk of being killed or injured by an idiot driver who was "distracted" is 22 times greater than being shot and killed by a weapon.

Using your logic, we can conclude that vehicle operators are not less than 22x more irresponsible than gun owners.

Originally Posted by ThatSwissGuy

I have no idea why abortion would lead to more homicides.

Then you might want to study anatomy, biology and physiology.

Abortion after the 1st Trimester is murder, according to the US Supreme Court.

Originally Posted by ThatSwissGuy

And I'm a 100% sure that removing god from society isn't the reason for your violence problem.

Did you know that the very first school shooting in North America took place in Canada?

And that based on the number of school shootings per capita, a child is more likely to be shot and killed in a Canadian school than an American school?

And then look at Canada's gun control laws.

Originally Posted by ThatSwissGuy

Out of all developed nations America is the most religious and the most violent one.

Fail. America is not a nation. Neither is Switzerland by the way.

Nations are homogenous. Countries are heterogeneous.

A nation is a people of common ancestry who:

1] have the same culture;
2] culture
3] speak the same language;
4] use the same alphabet;
5] worship the same god(s);
6] revere the same heroes;
7] cherish the same history;
8] celebrate the same holidays; and
9] share the same music, poetry, art and literature

Please use the correct political science terminology, or I'll have to accuse you of spreading propaganda and disinformation.

There is a correlating relationship between homogeneity and peace, and heterogeneity and violence or conflict.

Another way of looking at it, in a nation, you have "birds of a feather (who flock together)."

In a country, you also have birds, but then you have lions and tigers and bear, plus armadillos, wolverines, orang-u-tans, and apparently unicorns (at least in the US).

Homogeneity leads to cohesiveness in society, heterogeneity does not.

I hope we have that straightened out.

Anyway, comparing nation-States to countries is, well, totally stupid.

Originally Posted by ThatSwissGuy

And Europeans watch American movies and tv shows and play American video games as well. So this can't be the reason either.

Figure that out by yourself did you?

I just explained why the reason why. It's an issue of homogeneity vs heterogeneity.

In a nation-State, for all intents and practical purposes, everyone thinks the same, because everyone is cut from the same mold.

Originally Posted by ThatSwissGuy

You also have the highest rate of incarcerated people in the whole world (!) and are the only western country that still executes criminals! You don't coddle them at all!

So?

Such claims are irrelevant, immaterial and meaningless unless there is a standardized means of comparison.

A great example is rape. In many countries rape is not a "crime"; it is often not reported or under-reported, or reported as an alternate (like assault) or not investigated or prosecuted.

Originally Posted by ThatSwissGuy

Violence just seems to be a part of American culture. We in Switzerland have one of the highest rates of gun ownership in the world (just like the US) and we have a real militia army. Every Swiss male has to undergo military training and most of us keep their service rifle/pistol after completion of military service.

I already pointed out your lack of critical thinking skills and ignorance on the subject matter, but going back to the vast differences between nation-States and countries, size and population are also relevant.

Mobility, which all European nation-States lack, is an important element of societal control.

A Brit cannot go to Germany to live and work, unless they speak German, or are willing to learn German. Likewise, a Spaniard cannot go to Denmark and work, unless they speak Danish.

Not so in the US. You can pick up and move hundreds, even thousands of miles through a language continuum.

I'm presently staying in Ohio, and Luxembourg, Belgium and the Netherlands are dinky nation-States half the size of Ohio, fitting nicely in the area between I-70 and the Ohio River. Luxembourg? I got bored after I had eaten at every single restaurant in Luxembourg City and started driving to Belgium to have a nice dinner. And why was I able to do that? Because driving through Luxembourg would be like driving from Clermont County to Butler County via Hamilton County.

In the United States, there are States with counties larger than European countries.

Figure it out yet?

The issue here is anonymity.

Before the advent of the automobile, there was very little crime. Why? No anonymity; you cannot be anonymous. Your whole life revolved around your tenement building, the block it was situated in, and maybe one or two blocks around. That was your neighborhood and everyone knew you.

The fact that you were known was a controlling factor in limiting crime. There was also the fear of embarrassment to your family, in part because your actions could bring negative consequences on your family, like shame.

Enter the automobile. Now people can drive to other towns and cities to commit crimes where they are not known. Enter the Interstate Highway System, and now you have people moving from one city to a distant city, or to a distant State where they are anonymous.

In addition to that, mobility results in the loss of familial support. In the teeny-tiny European countries, you have the hyper-extended family of parents, both sets of grandparents, aunts, uncles, great aunts, great uncles, and dozens and dozens of cousins and nephews and nieces.

Not so in the US. The American family is dysfunctional and broken, with no support. Relatives are scattered at great distances.

Originally Posted by ThatSwissGuy

But we have a different mindset than Americans.

And who many single-parent "families" are in Switzerland? And the other teeny-tiny Euro nation-States?

You're going to ignore that? But, of course, you are! Because it totally debunks your own arguments.

Originally Posted by ThatSwissGuy

For example: Swiss people would never use their gun to threaten or even kill a burglar or thief. Instead we would lock our door, call the police and maybe keep our gun ready (just in case).

And you have 3-5 drug crazed men trying to beat down the door to get in?

No, you don't. That goes back to what I said previously. Come here to the US and live, and I guarantee you that you'll shoot a burglar coming into your home.

Originally Posted by ThatSwissGuy

Why risk your life for something like a car or a computer if insurance pays for it anyway?

That has to be one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. Your life is at risk no matter what. You do not know the intentions of the people entering your home, and I seriously doubt they have the credibility to be believed no matter what they claimed their intentions were.

Removing those people from Planet Earth permanently is the right thing to do all the time, and everybody wins.

Culturally...

Mircea

[freightshaker]

Originally Posted by imcurious

Thank you for having the courage to post this. First of all, your opinion is especially well qualified because of your personal experience.

America is very gun-loving and Michael Moore has highlight this in his film (can't recall the name -senior moment!) . . . I do expect you will get a lot of flack from right-winged "patriots" - many of whom support the 2nd Amendment, come Hell or High water . . . and that is what they are waiting for . . .if a few dozen, hundred, or thousand are killed in the process, so be it (I would imagine they would think) . . .

You aren't going to get the Charleton Heston crowd to change their fervent stance any time soon, so indeed, the bullets will fly and the innocent people be damned!

I know this will go over your head, but, my right to own a firearm, protects your right to say I shouldn't.

[lifelongMOgal]

Originally Posted by hotair2

A lot of Americans agree with you. Unfortunately, we have the paranoid wannabe rambo section of the population the cry the loudest.

Well no. I've not seen an armed citizen cry. However, the panty-wetting hoplophobes do it constantly.

No one forces you to practice the RKBA. You may practice the default fetal position instead if it makes you feel safer.

[hotair2]

Originally Posted by lifelongMOgal

Well no. I've not seen an armed citizen cry. However, the panty-wetting hoplophobes do it constantly.

No one forces you to practice the RKBA. You may practice the default fetal position instead if it makes you feel safer.

People who need to carry a gun around at all time to feel safe are just scared of life. I feel sorry for them.

[Greatday]

Originally Posted by hotair2

People who need to carry a gun around at all time to feel safe are just scared of life. I feel sorry for them.

Don't feel sorry for them. Just respect them. Facts are facts, it is a somewhat dangerous world we live in with muggings, car jackings, home invasions, robberies etc. Carrying a firearm, if you want, can be a good means of protection.

My wife carries a handgun as she if going into neighborhoods that can be questionable and she often does it at night. I carry my firearm ... "just in case". Mind you, my wife and I are not "scared of life" - quite the opposite as a matter of fact. But, we also recognize that bad things can, and do, happen when you least expect it.

[ChicagoGolfer]

Originally Posted by Spudee

I know that I wil cop varying degrees of flack over this posting but I feel so strongly about the subject that I will just have to take what comes on the chin.

First up, I would like it known that I am a retired Aussie bloke with 25 years experience in most aspects of law enforcement including uniform patrol and supervision, criminal investigation, undercover narcotics, organised crime, police college instructor etc. I am also a military veteran having served n the Australlian Army in South East Asia during the 1960s (Yes, we were also there.). Bottom line - I know a bit about firearms and am not some 'pinko Commie' and am in fact a right-wing conservative.

What I don't get is how citizens of the USA (which I have thoroughly enjoyed visiting on several occasions) can continue to tolerate the rising numbers of firearm related deaths and injuries each year, which I think it is somewhere around 100,000 at present. Surely if these were casulaties sustained in some sort of military action, US citizens would want to know why!

And I also don't understand why your law makers haven't had a serious look at the Constitutional right of Americans to bare arms. I have only a basic understanding of the Second Ammendment to your Constitution but 2 things in this stand out to me - "militia" and "well-regulated". "Militia" I get as being an organised body of civilians as opposed to a permanent military force. And when your founding fathers drafted the Constitution, this ammendment was quite justified; not so much need for a 'militia' now days though I would think. But surely the term "well-regulated" is self-explanatory and seems today to be wide of the mark in the USA. I have read that is some US States, firearms can be purechased at gun shows without adequate background checks being carried out on the prospective buyer. That seems crazy!

Some of you may be aware that in April 1996 36 people were killed and 23 wounded in the massacre at Port Arthur here in the State of Tasmania. This horrific event was a watershed for gun ownership in Australia. Under federal government co-ordination all Australian States and Territories banned and heavily restricted the legal ownership and use of self-loading rifles, self-loading and pump-action shotguns, and heavy controls on their legal use. The governmenyt initiated a "buy-back" scheme with the owners paid according to a table of valuations. Some 643,000 firearms were handed in at a cost of AUS $350 million which was funded by a temporary increase in the Medicare levy which raised AUS $500 million.

Perhaps it is time that some of your politicians at federal and state level showed some intestinal fortitude and had a good look at firearm ownership in the USA.

Okay, let the bullets fly!

So do you understand now, or was this just another post and run?

[hotair2]

Originally Posted by Greatday

Don't feel sorry for them. Just respect them. Facts are facts, it is a somewhat dangerous world we live in with muggings, car jackings, home invasions, robberies etc. Carrying a firearm, if you want, can be a good means of protection.

My wife carries a handgun as she if going into neighborhoods that can be questionable and she often does it at night. I carry my firearm ... "just in case". Mind you, my wife and I are not "scared of life" - quite the opposite as a matter of fact. But, we also recognize that bad things can, and do, happen when you least expect it.

Respect people who can only feel safe when carrying a gun all of the time? No, that is just sad. I feel sorry for them.