Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

guns in the US

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>
Author
eaglecap View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 15-Feb-2005
Location: ArizonaUSA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3959
  Quote eaglecap Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: guns in the US
    Posted: 23-May-2005 at 02:40
I'm not sure, but let me have three guesses, okay?

Was it Martin Luther King, as he fought a mere 40 years ago for the human rights of the black population in the USA?
Yes and it was a good thing for America so what does this have to do with the gun issue.
Was it one of the detainees in Guantanamo Bay, who are held prisoners by the US in contravention of any internationally accepted law or human right?

They were potential terrorist and it is a time of war- oh well get over it!!! History shows the radical Muslims do not respect weakness.


Or was it one the prisoners in Bagram Airbase or Abu Ghraib prison, just before they died being tortured by American army personnel?

One it was humiliation and not toture, two military personnel was punished(sadly the little people and not the one who gave the commands) and three what about the radical Islamic terrorist who really are torturing people and cutting their heads off.
Am I anywhere close? Please enlighten me!
You hate America!!! Is that a good guess?
Komnenos or whoever you are I am curious! You have a Byzantine user name but I have the feeling you are not Greek, you are in Germany but I have the feeling you are not an ethnic German, like me. What is your nationality if not German?
I respect your views hut what you posted has nothing to do with the issue of guns in America and frankly it is an internal affair.


Back to Top
Komnenos View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Retired AE Administrator

Joined: 20-Dec-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4361
  Quote Komnenos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-May-2005 at 06:06
Originally posted by eaglecap


You hate America!!! Is that a good guess?
Komnenos or whoever you are I am curious! You have a Byzantine user name but I have the feeling you are not Greek, you are in Germany but I have the feeling you are not an ethnic German, like me. What is your nationality if not German?
I respect your views hut what you posted has nothing to do with the issue of guns in America and frankly it is an internal affair.


I was aware that my post had little to do with the Gun Issue, it was simply an attempt to answer your question about the origin of the quote you mentioned.


If you honestly believe that I will undergo a discussion about who is more German or not, you have another thing coming. For me, nationality is of very little importance, unless it comes to Football
( or Soccer, as you call it). Then I support Germany. Enough said?

I wish people with a multi-national background would stop picking and choosing their ancestry whenever it suits them.

And I do not hate America, not its people, not its culture etc., what I hate is the US Foreign Policy, if you want to call it that, that since WW2 has been the greatest danger for world peace and stability.

And lastly, as it has been pointed out already, although the right to wear guns or not and the 2nd amendment are indeed, and thank God for that, an internal issue of the US, the rest of World surely has right to form an opinion about this.
And my opinion is, that between the high number of weapons in circulation and the high murder rates in your country there is undoubtedly a connection, and that the unwillingness of a large section of the population to disarm themselves and the country is indicative for the current state of mind of the US.
( My educated guess would be, that the majority of gun-touting wonna-be frontiers in the Mid-West voted for George W. Correct me if I'm wrong! )
And that, alas, has some repercussions on the rest of the world.


Edited by Komnenos
[IMG]http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i137/komnenos/crosses1.jpg">
Back to Top
eaglecap View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 15-Feb-2005
Location: ArizonaUSA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3959
  Quote eaglecap Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-May-2005 at 13:51
I respect your opinion but politically it does not count for much here because you have no say in our government. I do not agree with everything Bush is doing, including the Iraq war but like I said the gun issue is internal. Now, the fact is that states with stricter gun laws have more crime and states with less strict gun laws have less crime. Why??? I do believe in background checks!   Read this and then tell me gun ownership is bad!! Oh, I do not pick and choose my ancestry but I am 1/2 Greek and 1/4 German so it is very much part of who I am, especially the Greek. The other 1/4 is a mixture since I have deep roots in America. Frankly, I enjoy being multi national!!!

An interview with
John R. Lott, Jr.
author of More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws

Question: What does the title mean: More Guns, Less Crime?

John R. Lott, Jr.: States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crimes. Thirty-one states now have such lawscalled "shall-issue" laws. These laws allow adults the right to carry concealed handguns if they do not have a criminal record or a history of significant mental illness.

Question: It just seems to defy common sense that crimes likely to involve guns would be reduced by allowing more people to carry guns. How do you explain the results?

     John R. Lott, Jr.
John R. Lott, Jr. is a resident scholar at American Enterprise Institute. He was previously the John M. Olin Visiting Law and Economics Fellow at the University of Chicago Law School.


Lott: Criminals are deterred by higher penalties. Just as higher arrest and conviction rates deter crime, so does the risk that someone committing a crime will confront someone able to defend him or herself. There is a strong negative relationship between the number of law-abiding citizens with permits and the crime rateas more people obtain permits there is a greater decline in violent crime rates. For each additional year that a concealed handgun law is in effect the murder rate declines by 3 percent, rape by 2 percent, and robberies by over 2 percent.

Concealed handgun laws reduce violent crime for two reasons. First, they reduce the number of attempted crimes because criminals are uncertain which potential victims can defend themselves. Second, victims who have guns are in a much better position to defend themselves.

Question: What is the basis for these numbers?

Lott: The analysis is based on data for all 3,054 counties in the United States during 18 years from 1977 to 1994.

Question: Your argument about criminals and deterrence doesn't tell the whole story. Don't statistics show that most people are killed by someone they know?

Lott: You are referring to the often-cited statistic that 58 percent of murder victims are killed by either relatives or acquaintances. However, what most people don't understand is that this "acquaintance murder" number also includes gang members killing other gang members, drug buyers killing drug pushers, cabdrivers killed by customers they picked up for the first time, prostitutes and their clients, and so on. "Acquaintance" covers a wide range of relationships. The vast majority of murders are not committed by previously law-abiding citizens. Ninety percent of adult murderers have had criminal records as adults.

Question: But how about children? In March of this year [1998] four children and a teacher were killed by two school boys in Jonesboro, Arkansas. Won't tragedies like this increase if more people are allowed to carry guns? Shouldn't this be taken into consideration before making gun ownership laws more lenient?

Lott: The horrific shooting in Arkansas occurred in one of the few places where having guns was already illegal. These laws risk creating situations in which the good guys cannot defend themselves from the bad ones. I have studied multiple victim public shootings in the United States from 1977 to 1995. These were incidents in which at least two or more people were killed and or injured in a public place; in order to focus on the type of shooting seen in Arkansas, shootings that were the byproduct of another crime, such as robbery, were excluded. The effect of "shall-issue" laws on these crimes has been dramatic. When states passed these laws, the number of multiple-victim shootings declined by 84 percent. Deaths from these shootings plummeted on average by 90 percent, and injuries by 82 percent.

For other types of crimes, I find that both children as well as adults are protected when law-abiding adults are allowed to carry concealed handguns.

Finally, after extensively studying the number of accidental shootings, there is no evidence that increasing the number of concealed handguns increases accidental shootings. We know that the type of person who obtains a permit is extremely law-abiding and possibly they are extremely careful in how they take care of their guns. The total number of accidental gun deaths each year is about 1,300 and each year such accidents take the lives of 200 children 14 years of age and under. However, these regrettable numbers of lives lost need to be put into some perspective with the other risks children face. Despite over 200 million guns owned by between 76 to 85 million people, the children killed is much smaller than the number lost through bicycle accidents, drowning, and fires. Children are 14.5 times more likely to die from car accidents than from accidents involving guns.

Question: Wouldn't allowing concealed weapons increase the incidents of citizens attacking each other in tense situations? For instance, sometimes in traffic jams or accidents people become very hostilescreaming and shoving at one another. If armed, might people shoot each other in the heat of the moment?

Lott: During state legislative hearings on concealed-handgun laws, possibly the most commonly raised concern involved fears that armed citizens would attack each other in the heat of the moment following car accidents. The evidence shows that such fears are unfounded. Despite millions of people licensed to carry concealed handguns and many states having these laws for decades, there has only been one case where a person with a permit used a gun after a traffic accident and even in that one case it was in self-defense.

Question: Violence is often directed at women. Won't more guns put more women at risk?

Lott: Murder rates decline when either more women or more men carry concealed handguns, but a gun represents a much larger change in a woman's ability to defend herself than it does for a man. An additional woman carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for women by about 3 to 4 times more than an additional man carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for men.

Question: Aren't you playing into people's fears and prejudices though? Don't politicians pass these shall-issue laws to mollify middle-class white suburbanites anxious about the encroachment of urban minority crime?

Lott: I won't speculate about motives, but the results tell a different story. High crime urban areas and neighborhoods with large minority populations have the greatest reductions in violent crime when citizens are legally allowed to carry concealed handguns.

Question: What about other countries? It's often argued that Britain, for instance, has a lower violent crime rate than the USA because guns are much harder to obtain and own.

Lott: The data analyzed in this book is from the USA. Many countries, such as Switzerland, New Zealand, Finland, and Israel have high gun-ownership rates and low crime rates, while other countries have low gun ownership rates and either low or high crime rates. It is difficult to obtain comparable data on crime rates both over time and across countries, and to control for all the other differences across the legal systems and cultures across countries. Even the cross country polling data on gun ownership is difficult to assess, because ownership is underreported in countries where gun ownership is illegal and the same polls are never used across countries.

Question: This is certainly controversial and there are certain to be counter-arguments from those who disagree with you. How will you respond to them?

Lott: Some people do use guns in horrible ways, but other people use guns to prevent horrible things from happening to them. The ultimate question that concerns us all is: Will allowing law-abiding citizens to own guns save lives? While there are many anecdotal stories illustrating both good and bad uses of guns, this question can only be answered by looking at data to find out what the net effect is.

All of chapter seven of the book is devoted to answering objections that people have raised to my analysis. There are of course strong feelings on both sides about the issue of gun ownership and gun control laws. The best we can do is to try to discover and understand the facts. If you agree, or especially if you disagree with my conclusions I hope you'll read the book carefully and develop an informed opinion.

     

    Copyright notice: 1998 by the University of Chicago. All rights reserved. This text may be used and shared in accordance with the fair-use provisions of U.S. copyright law, and it may be archived and redistributed in electronic form, provided that this entire notice, including copyright information, is carried and provided that the University of Chicago Press is notified and no fee is charged for access. Archiving, redistribution, or republication of this text on other terms, in any medium, requires the consent of both the author and the University of Chicago Press.

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html

Back to Top
Komnenos View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Retired AE Administrator

Joined: 20-Dec-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4361
  Quote Komnenos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-May-2005 at 14:25
Originally posted by eaglecap



John R. Lott, Jr.
author of More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws


To ensure a balanced discussion:

From The New England Journal of Medicine, December 31, 1998

An economist, John Lott, has cited Archie Bunker's solution approvingly as he weighs in on the pro-gun side of the debate. The title of this new book, More Guns, Less Crime, aptly describes his conclusions. The core of the book is a large statistical study of state "right-to-carry" laws.

Between 1985 and 1992, 10 states, primarily in the gun-dense southern and Rocky Mountain regions, moved from "may-issue" laws for carrying a concealed gun (police retain discretion about who gets a permit to carry a gun) to "shall-issue" laws (police must provide a permit to virtually anyone who is not a criminal). Comparing crime trends in states that did and did not change their laws, Lott concludes that shall-issue laws reduce violent crime.

In at least six articles published elsewhere, 10 academics found enough serious flaws in Lott's analysis to discount his findings completely. These critiques are consistent with my own experience in formulating models to assess whether state-level changes in the legal drinking age affected youth crime, which convinced me that Lott's statistical approach can sometimes yield invalid results.

The central problem is that crime moves in waves, yet Lott's analysis does not include variables that can explain these cycles. For example, he uses no variables on gangs, drug consumption, or community policing. As a result, many of Lott's findings make no sense. He finds, for example, that both increasing the rate of unemployment and reducing income reduces the rate of violent crimes and that reducing the number of black women 40 years old or older (who are rarely either perpetrators or victims of murder) substantially reduces murder rates. Indeed, according to Lott's results, getting rid of older black women will lead to a more dramatic reduction in homicide rates than increasing arrest rates or enacting shall-issue laws.

One would have expected that, given the problems with Lott's model, it would have gone back to the drawing board. Instead, Lott decided to go public, writing this book, holding press conferences, and presenting his results as if they proved that permissive gun-carrying laws actually save lives.

Sometimes it is not the model that Lott uses but the data that are just plain wrong. For example, in the one analysis not involving carrying laws, Lott takes data on gun ownership from 1988 and 1996 voter exit polls and purports to show that higher levels of gun ownership mean less crime. According to the polling source, Voter News Service, these data cannot be used as Lott has used them -- either to determine state-level gun ownership or changes in gun ownership. For example, the data from the exit polls indicate that gun ownership rates in the United States increased an incredible 50 percent during those eight years, yet all other surveys show either no change or a decrease in the percentage of Americans who personally own firearms.

Overall, Lott deserves high marks for attempting to study an important and difficult issue and for assembling and sharing his data; he deserves failing marks for pressing policy makers to use his results despite the substantial questions that have been raised about his research. Permissive gun-carrying laws may increase or decrease crime, and knowing the effect is critical for determining appropriate policy. Unfortunately, Lott's results do not provide credible evidence one way or the other.



[IMG]http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i137/komnenos/crosses1.jpg">
Back to Top
eaglecap View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 15-Feb-2005
Location: ArizonaUSA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3959
  Quote eaglecap Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-May-2005 at 14:46
The vast majority of gun owners are responsible and even if there was a ban on private gun ownership the criminals would still have the guns. Remember, there is still the black market!!! There was an article, in the L.A. Times, about our good trading buddy China illegally selling guns to L.A. gang member.
I am glad you have no political say in our country. I support the NRA and the gun to bear arms.
You have a right to your view but I will not change mine either. We can agree to disagree!!
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-May-2005 at 14:48
The vast majority of gun owners are responsible and even if there was a ban on private gun ownership the criminals would still have the guns.

true. But still there is less crime in Europe (with very strict gun laws) than in the USA. So gun ban or gun control won't take all guns away, it will significantly decrease the crime rite.
Back to Top
Genghis View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2656
  Quote Genghis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-May-2005 at 16:10

Originally posted by Mixcoatl

The vast majority of gun owners are responsible and even if there was a ban on private gun ownership the criminals would still have the guns.

true. But still there is less crime in Europe (with very strict gun laws) than in the USA. So gun ban or gun control won't take all guns away, it will significantly decrease the crime rite.

That's a very unfair comparison, America is full of poor immigrants and disparate socioeconomic groups unlike the relatively more homogenous Europe.

As for the Lott study I have read many reports praising its methodology as very thorough yet this is the first time I've seen an article attacking it, not surprisingly from the traditionally antigun New England Journal of Medicine which only mentions "ten other academics" without any analysis of their bias at all.

And again, as Eaglecap said, the American states with the most crime are traditionally those with a lot of gun control.  I live in relatively safe Virginia which has pretty lax gun control laws but across the Potomac in Maryland and Washington DC crime is much worse and their gun laws are pretty Draconian.

Member of IAEA
Back to Top
Kentuckian View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 16-May-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 115
  Quote Kentuckian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-May-2005 at 16:36
Originally posted by Genghis

 

That's a very unfair comparison, America is full of poor immigrants and disparate socioeconomic groups unlike the relatively more homogenous Europe.

As for the Lott study I have read many reports praising its methodology as very thorough yet this is the first time I've seen an article attacking it, not surprisingly from the traditionally antigun New England Journal of Medicine which only mentions "ten other academics" without any analysis of their bias at all.

And again, as Eaglecap said, the American states with the most crime are traditionally those with a lot of gun control.  I live in relatively safe Virginia which has pretty lax gun control laws but across the Potomac in Maryland and Washington DC crime is much worse and their gun laws are pretty Draconian.

it's the same way here in western kentucky, everybody's got guns (some have enough to equip a small army), but there is almost no crime here (at least in the rural areas where most of the guns are). 

"I have not yet begun to fight." - John Paul Jones

"America will win through absolute victory" - President Franklin Roosevelt

"This was our finest hour." - Winston Churchill
Back to Top
Tobodai View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Antarctica
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4310
  Quote Tobodai Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-May-2005 at 16:49

Originally posted by Mixcoatl

The vast majority of gun owners are responsible and even if there was a ban on private gun ownership the criminals would still have the guns.

true. But still there is less crime in Europe (with very strict gun laws) than in the USA. So gun ban or gun control won't take all guns away, it will significantly decrease the crime rite.

 

despite what I said I have to intervene here.  This is a common argument but there are reasons it doesnt work. 

1.  banning guns will be like banning drugs, you just create a black market and enrich the mafia, needing more violent police actions to combat them, hence making more violence.

2.  US culture, not gun policies are at fault for higher crime.  This is incredibly local.  According the FBI the US would have the same crime rate as Europe if you cut off the South from the rest of the country.  The state with the lowest gun crime is vermont, which has th eleast gun control laws and no registered hate groups.  A record no one else in the entire nation can match.  New Hampshire is similar, less laws about guns, less crime.  These coincidentaly are the states with the best budgets and least problems.  They should rule the country.

3.  The idiotic mistakes and violent frenzys of rednecks and gangsters should be used to punish responsible people.

"the people are nothing but a great beast...
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value."
-Alexander Hamilton
Back to Top
Kentuckian View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 16-May-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 115
  Quote Kentuckian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-May-2005 at 17:52
Originally posted by Tobodai

 

  According the FBI the US would have the same crime rate as Europe if you cut off the South from the rest of the country. 

please point to where you found this.  I live in the south, and the hate groups I'm assuming you mean those like the KKK have very little power or following like they did in the past.

If you're looking for crime, look to the big cities with all the ethnic diversity like New York, Chicago, and New Orleans.  The rednecks talk a lot, but rarely do they commit gun crimes...take it from me half my friends are rednecks.

"I have not yet begun to fight." - John Paul Jones

"America will win through absolute victory" - President Franklin Roosevelt

"This was our finest hour." - Winston Churchill
Back to Top
Tobodai View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Antarctica
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4310
  Quote Tobodai Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-May-2005 at 18:13

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1355/is_n12_v94/a i_21020057

 

The south is like a leech on America, the nationalists from the south who seem not to realize our revolution started in Masachusettes when the south was full of pro-British loyalists seem to enjoy domestic violence so much our whole nation looks bad.

"the people are nothing but a great beast...
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value."
-Alexander Hamilton
Back to Top
eaglecap View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 15-Feb-2005
Location: ArizonaUSA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3959
  Quote eaglecap Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-May-2005 at 19:23
Originally posted by Mixcoatl

The vast majority of gun owners are responsible and even if there was a
ban on private gun ownership the criminals would still have the guns.

true. But still there is less crime in Europe (with very strict gun
laws) than in the USA. So gun ban or gun control won't take all guns
away, it will significantly decrease the crime rite.



It is still an American issue and all you can do is give an opinion but I have the constitutional right to fight for gun ownership rights. The scary thought is when the radical judges look to world opinion and override the 2nd amendment. At this point, in history, a ruling like that could result in revolt. I am not saying I would support a revolt, I want unity in our nation. But, that is a possibility, so like the frog in the hot water the government will slowly take our rights away. When it is too late there will be nothing we can do about it but look to the founding fathers for advice.


________

I live on the red side of a blue state- Eastern Washington is very conservative compared to Seattle on the west side of the state. But, most of the state's population is on the west side of the state, largely liberal in the Seattle/Tacoma area.
Back to Top
Tobodai View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Antarctica
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4310
  Quote Tobodai Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-May-2005 at 20:00

has it ever occured to anyone the irony of this argument?  There are 2 primary purposes to gun ownership, protection from foreign invasion and protection from the abuses of the state.

Have you ever noticed that most of the people that support the second amendment are very pro-government?  They tend to like government meddling in social affairs and trust the government alot.  Kinda hypocritical dont you think.  In my opinion you are a hypocrite if you say, against gun control but for the patriot act or vice versa.

Am I the only person against welfare and gun control who is actually consistent and against government intervention in general? Am I the only person that would use my second amendment rights not only on a foreign invader but against the abusive forces of my own goverment?

"the people are nothing but a great beast...
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value."
-Alexander Hamilton
Back to Top
Kentuckian View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 16-May-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 115
  Quote Kentuckian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-May-2005 at 20:24
Originally posted by Tobodai

has it ever occured to anyone the irony of this argument?  There are 2 primary purposes to gun ownership, protection from foreign invasion and protection from the abuses of the state.

Have you ever noticed that most of the people that support the second amendment are very pro-government?  They tend to like government meddling in social affairs and trust the government alot.  Kinda hypocritical dont you think.  In my opinion you are a hypocrite if you say, against gun control but for the patriot act or vice versa.

Am I the only person against welfare and gun control who is actually consistent and against government intervention in general? Am I the only person that would use my second amendment rights not only on a foreign invader but against the abusive forces of my own goverment?

sure if the forces were abusive, however, anyone saying that they are at this time is crazy.  But the present American government being abusive LOL LOL LOL. The United States government is not the problem in America. 

"I have not yet begun to fight." - John Paul Jones

"America will win through absolute victory" - President Franklin Roosevelt

"This was our finest hour." - Winston Churchill
Back to Top
JanusRook View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2419
  Quote JanusRook Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-May-2005 at 03:36

First of all I believe that all the second amendment should be adhered to.

As a result of that gun ownership should only be given to those who train monthly in a public area for militia duty.

Then again I believe that the US military should also patrol the streets of crime-ridden major cities in an effort to stamp out crime.

------------------------------

To Tobodai:

I believe we are the most opposing forces in the AE Forums, its a shame that we don't converse more on topics. Actually most of the time we agree on things but for totally different reasons. Also, I believe that if you were a turk, chinese or macedonian and Kentuckian was an armenian, mongolian or greek, this thread would be closed. 

-----------------------------

To our non-american friends:

You will never convince (like that was your goal, though *rolls eyes*) eaglecap or kentuckian that banning guns is a good idea. Eaglecap lives out west where the gun replaced the dog as man's best friend. And Kentuckian lives in the south...and not texas south either...this is where nascar dad's are born.

Sorry if I've overgeneralized you two, if you'd like to elaborate on the gun culture in your area then have at it. As for me I'm a city kid who only saw guns as tools used by violent criminals, and cops so my views are a bit different.

Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative.

Unless otherwise noted source is wiki.
Back to Top
Tobodai View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Antarctica
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4310
  Quote Tobodai Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-May-2005 at 07:01
Originally posted by Kentuckian

Originally posted by Tobodai

has it ever occured to anyone the irony of this argument?  There are 2 primary purposes to gun ownership, protection from foreign invasion and protection from the abuses of the state.

Have you ever noticed that most of the people that support the second amendment are very pro-government?  They tend to like government meddling in social affairs and trust the government alot.  Kinda hypocritical dont you think.  In my opinion you are a hypocrite if you say, against gun control but for the patriot act or vice versa.

Am I the only person against welfare and gun control who is actually consistent and against government intervention in general? Am I the only person that would use my second amendment rights not only on a foreign invader but against the abusive forces of my own goverment?

sure if the forces were abusive, however, anyone saying that they are at this time is crazy.  But the present American government being abusive LOL LOL LOL. The United States government is not the problem in America. 

 

from your perspective.  If you agree with America's government you have nothing to fear, but our government is now more powerful now than even some totalitarian empires have been.  If you are indipendant of American society in mind, the US government is a larger threat than any incredibly unlikely terrorist attack.  America's legislative and executive branch have more in common with Osama than most state entities do...

"the people are nothing but a great beast...
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value."
-Alexander Hamilton
Back to Top
Tobodai View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Antarctica
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4310
  Quote Tobodai Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-May-2005 at 07:10
Originally posted by JanusRook

 

------------------------------

To Tobodai:

I believe we are the most opposing forces in the AE Forums, its a shame that we don't converse more on topics. Actually most of the time we agree on things but for totally different reasons. Also, I believe that if you were a turk, chinese or macedonian and Kentuckian was an armenian, mongolian or greek, this thread would be closed. 

-----------------------------

 

Than you can Pm me some time, Im much kinder in private than public.  And yes this thread would be closed if I was one of the "volatile ethnicities" But those people for all they claim tend to be racists, because nationalism is just racism-lite.  Im just angry at the south for holding back real america from its true potential, not for nationalist reasons, but because I live here and it effects me directly, in economic ways, such as paying for people that are supposedly anti welfare to have welfare and electricity, while they rant about how where i come from is evil.

Funny, I always considered Coolstorm and the Chinese nationalists my true AE opposite, not you.

"the people are nothing but a great beast...
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value."
-Alexander Hamilton
Back to Top
Kentuckian View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 16-May-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 115
  Quote Kentuckian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-May-2005 at 16:00
Originally posted by Tobodai

[QUOTE=JanusRook]

 

But those people for all they claim tend to be racists, because nationalism is just racism-lite.  Im just angry at the south for holding back real america from its true potential, not for nationalist reasons, but because I live here and it effects me directly, in economic ways, such as paying for people that are supposedly anti welfare to have welfare and electricity, while they rant about how where i come from is evil.

 

funny...here believe just the opposite...we believe that the big cities are the problem...the place where I live is all middle class so the welfare is not coming anywhere near me.  I believe that it is you guys holding America from its full potential.   The south and mid-west hold onto the old traditions that make our country great... and any who thinks nationalism is bad...wow, that's awful.  Pride in one's country is very important, it's like pride in one's home or pride in one's achievements, America is a major part of who we are.  But you act like you could care less about it. *sighs*

"I have not yet begun to fight." - John Paul Jones

"America will win through absolute victory" - President Franklin Roosevelt

"This was our finest hour." - Winston Churchill
Back to Top
Genghis View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2656
  Quote Genghis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-May-2005 at 16:12

Actually Tobodai, if you look at Crime rates, the South isn't more prone to crime than anywhere else.  On the contrary, many of the Southern states have less crime than the Northern states.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004912.html

Member of IAEA
Back to Top
hugoestr View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar

Suspended

Joined: 13-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3987
  Quote hugoestr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-May-2005 at 17:13
Genghis,

If you look at the data that you provided, the claim that the South is one of the most violent areas of the U.S. stands.

Of the top ten states with the highest murder rates, five of the states are from the South, and this is excluding Washington D.C., even though it really belongs there for both cultural and historical reasons. I am not including it because most Southerners wouldn't include it as part of the South. Two states are in the gun-friendly Southwest, and one in the Midwest.

Of the top ten states with the highest murder rate, eight of them voted for Bush. D.C., once again, is the anomaly being in first place. The next blue state appears in 11th place, followed by another 5 red states before another blue state appears.

Tennessee, in fact had more violent crimes than California, even though they shared the same murder rate.

N.Y. for all of the bad rap about being a tough place, has a lower murder rate than:

Georgia
Florida
Arkansas
Louisiana
Mississippi
Missouri (not by much)
North Carolina
South Carolina
Virginia

The states with the lowest murder rates are in fact in the North and Northwest: Maine, South Dakota, New Hampshire, Iowa, Hawaii, Idaho, Oregon, North Dakota, Massachusetts, and Vermont.

One should notice that many of these states with low crime rates are gun-happy too. This would lead me to believe that it is not the availability of guns but the culture of the state that turns the place violent.

The South, overall, has the highest murder rate while the North has the lowest.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.109 seconds.