Stopping Murders in the USA ?

[laserred]

Americans only have such a right because we have a government and society in general (that is to say a power) willing to defend it

Trip, Americans only have these rights because there are still a very few of us who actively exercise our rights, and give our government hell when they try to usurp these rights. I read a quote this morning, from a politician, by a man who believed in rights, and was killed by a gun: Martin Luther King, Jr. His quote was: “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.â€

[Bluefront]

laserred.....you and I differ quite a bit about the intent of this current "war on terror", but apparently agree about guns. I consider this current "war" a pay-back to a hard-to-define enemy of the USA, but a necessary one. We simply encourage further attacks, if we avoid the pay-back. Just how else would you have handled it? The current Liberal/Democrat has little to say on the matter.

It's exactly the same with effective anti-crime laws. Society should make the penalty for crime so severe, that most sane people avoid crime completely. We have not been attacked by an external enemy since the "war on terror" was started. I just wish the War on Terror could be applied to our internal crime/murder problem. It's not happening to any great degree.....and the Liberals complain about the relatively little things being done right now.

Country-club jails, early releases, no capitol punishment to an effective degree, and sentences for crime that are laughable.....all encourage further crime.

[walle]

Yet another great post from you laserred, I really like it, its nice to see someone not turning it into partisanship (division by politics) but view the issues as issues instead thus far, like a breath of fresh air.

"How can you be anti-war and pro-guns?" I politely reminded her that it was politicians that start wars, not guns, and that a gun's only intent is what its user's intent is.

This is what people have yet to understand, and to elaborate further on your quote; pass a law that states that any one in a position of power whom A: start a conflict B: start a war, are to C: be the very first person to set his/her foot on the battle field serving at the frontline. If that was done a great many things would change in a heartbeat, no question about that.

Jumping in

laserred.....you and I differ quite a bit about the intent of this current "war on terror", but apparently agree about guns. I consider this current "war" a pay-back to a hard-to-define enemy of the USA

I view the result, and the result is not subtle anymore. In the process on the war on "terror" our freedoms, our democracies (and your republic) has gotten more and more eroded by the day and it keeps getting eroded as we speak, and if we (the people, citizens) do not stop this madness allowing it to continue we will soon have lost it all. The fact Bluefront (and others reading) is that you can’t protect freedoms by removing them, it matter not how *they* try to justify *their* actions, it’s simple enough here; you can never ever protect freedoms by removing them, because that, in the end; ends up in fascism.


Cheers

[Bluefront]

walle.....it's absolutely not "simple". We have a horrible crime problem in the USA, caused in part by the relative freedom of our society. A metal detector at the door of our schools prevents most guns and knives from being brought inside. Is this an erosion of our freedoms? Most certainly....but apparently necessary in many areas such as St Louis.

It's regrettable that things have gotten to this point....but what's the alternative? Tougher punishments would work.....but probably not where young kids are concerned. Face it....these are new times, and we face new problems. The solutions will change things....and probably result in a loss of some freedoms.

You want less murders.....come up with new solutions. The wife of the murderer in the first post of this thread is now blaming the City of Kirkwood. She herself should be in jail, an accomplice to the murders IMHO. She saw the signs, but did nothing.

[Trip]

I wouldn't go so far as to say a right

It was viewed from an American perspective Trip in terms of the right to bear arms; the other mentioned applies for all of us on this beautiful planet of ours.

Upon what basis?

The American basis is upon religion, that man has a God given natural right to bear arms. Is this what you're basing your claim upon?

And if this God given right of yours is to be granted, what power will guarantee it?

---

I don't think most who believe in natural rights realise they are making a religious statement.

It could be too that all ought to have guns so that some ideal system will come about, but then that wouldn't be the same as a "right." That would be more a protected power. Then for those who call for such a protected power what is truly wished for is a global goverment to dominate the world in order to provide such guaranteed powers.

[laserred]

We simply encourage further attacks, if we avoid the pay-back. Just how else would you have handled it? The current Liberal/Democrat has little to say on the matter.

Blue, personally I believe that right after 9/11 and even today after all of the Bush blunders, that the majority of the world is tired of living in fear. Period. Tired of suicide bombers, tired of IEDs, tired of extremists in general. This includes the radical (and insane) idea that the United States can hunt down and eliminate all the "terrorists". Well, let me tell you, if I was an Iraqi, and the US dropped bombs and killed my wife and kids, I'd be all up to being a suicide bomber or starting my own terror cell too! C'mon, it doesn't take a brain surgeon to realize that especially with the Muslim beliefs, that "An eye for an eye" is a very prevalent part of their way of life. So, kill my family, I kill yours. My point is, that instead of invading other sovereign nations and performing violent coups at will, the United States instead needs to focus on the real problem: we give guns and weapons to everyone, support hardline governments that bend to our whims, and provide billions of dollars in "aid" and technologically advanced war machines to a country that was brought about by war. We need to start practicing support for the wonderful diversity of this planet, not forcing conformity or the "New World Order". Shoving "democracy" down people's throats is the same thing as a dictatorship- if they WANTED what we were selling, they would buy it, not have it forced upon them.
I agree that punishments for crimes should be much more severe- I remember one of the "shock" videos where two scumbags in Brazil had raped a couple underage girls, and for their punishment, they were tied to a stake in the town square, and the families were given AK47s and performed firing squad duties to extract justice. I truly believe that if the US adopted some of these "shock value" punishments that crime would decrease to nearly zero. But, this needs some help. First, fine all the companies that keep exporting jobs, because poverty breeds desperation, which feeds the fire of criminal behavior. Get these people jobs so that they can keep a roof over their family's head and food on the table. Second, get rid of "humane" punishments for violent crimes. You stab somebody to death? You get the same, in a public forum, from your victim if they desire. Steal something? Lose your hand by machete. You rape a kid? You should get beat to death with baseball bats. Etc. I think the only way you will get through to violent criminals is with the very real threat of violence in return. Honestly, if you're living in absolute poverty and don't know where your next meal is coming from, how does a roof over your head and three square meals sound like a bad gig even if there's bars on your bedroom door? This also costs law abiding citizens millions upon millions of dollars, and very rarely discourages any future criminal activity. Only by showing criminals that there is not a better life in their future by committing crimes will you get them to straighten up and be productive members of society.

[walle]

The American basis is upon religion, that man has a God given natural right to bear arms. Is this what you're basing your claim upon?

As based in the constitution, if there were religious motives behind the decision to allow the citizens to bear arms or not I’m not so sure, It’s been my understanding that they put it there knowing that any government could turn against their own citizens, they fled from Europe having experienced the very same so the decision to allow their citizens to bear arms had more to do with those very experiences rather than with any religious values; not to forget the experiences of having soldiers of the English crown running around the country side creating mayhem, which I'm sure played a part in the decision as well.

I don't think most who believe in natural rights realise they are making a religious statement.

I don't believe I did, if I’m wrong, viewed to why they put it there, it’s something I can both live with and something I also stand by; despite possible religious reasons for their decission.

Then for those who call for such a protected power what is truly wished for is a global goverment to dominate the world in order to provide such guaranteed powers.

Interesting reasoning and conclusion, well; this sheep and the vast majority of sheep want sign up for that one. What’s next; getting Microchipped like pets and cattle?


Cheers.

[laserred]

Trip, I don't know if it's able to be seen, but I put very little weight in "religious decisions". I truly believe if the United States truly practiced freedom of religion, we would not be embroiled with Muslims and everyone else. I believe that if we were to say, "You know what? Your God is your God, and doesn't affect who my God is, so enjoy!", the world would be nearly free of any armed conflicts. I feel it's this hatred of other people's vision of what "God" is that creates a huge part of human suffering. Honestly, how does it make any difference? As long as a religion is not forced upon you, you should not have any say, care, or feelings about another's religion. Also, what damn sense does it make to kill other people "in the name of God (see Crusades)" when one of the Commandments is "Love thy neighbor"? Seriously, people. It's the reason I don't attend church, they preach fanaticism and hatred when they should be preaching love and acceptance. It's all a plan to maintain control over the masses- if we weren't arguing over stupid crap, we could actually come together and accomplish true, wonderful things as a human race. Instead, their message is divide, anger, and let the masses conquer themselves into submission.

[laserred]

Oh, and also, to the anti-gun contingent- I read somewhere, might have even been here on SPCR, that your local police, sherriffs, and state police have absolutely no duty to protect your life. Meaning, if they aren't there before it happens, or even are there when you get popped, they can't be held responsible. Simple translation: you've got the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The 2nd Amendment gives you a tool to preserve the first two rights- if someone threatens your life, you have a duty to yourself to protect yourself. Exercise #2. If someone attempts to imprison or detain you against your will, again, you have a duty to yourself to protect yourself. Again, exercise #2. See how easy this is? So, in a way, if you are a victim of a crime, you are at fault just like the criminal who committed it. Stop blaming others, and exercise your rights and defend them, before they are stripped away and you cannot defend your rights. Just because you're safe right now does not mean it will be so for the everlasting future.....

[djkest]

When seconds count, police are only minutes away!

No one has taken on my challenge as to why there is no gun education from the NSC but there is for fireworks. Don't you see? If guns are so dangerous shouldn't we educate people about gun safety?

Btw almost as many people died from falling into pools and drowning than the number of people killed in firearms accidents that same year.

A drunk driver hits and kills a family of 4 with his vehicle. In an ironic twist of fate, he survives. We don't blame the car manufacturer, we don't blame the vehicle, we don't blame the alcohol (well, some people do). We blame the idiot who was driving. Why should guns be any different?

As far as this guy from Illinois, it really pains me to see so many people lashing out with violence to strike down whatever bystanders they can find. Please know that this gentleman was not even legally possessing firearms, he had spent a year in a mental institution and must have circumvented the system in getting his handguns. Him even possessing them was a crime. So perhaps we should look at why the system failed, why despite his ineligibility to own firearms he was able to buy them anyway. Gun owners are just as upset about this killings, but we dont' really know what can be done to reduce them.

1/10th of 1% of all firearms owned in the United States will ever be used in a crime.

[laserred]

When seconds count, police are only minutes away!

No one has taken on my challenge as to why there is no gun education from the NSC but there is for fireworks. Don't you see? If guns are so dangerous shouldn't we educate people about gun safety?

1/10th of 1% of all firearms owned in the United States will ever be used in a crime.

Your first quote kinda makes me laugh at its (hopefully unintentional) naivety. When seconds are the difference between life and death, police being only minutes away simply means your body will still be warm when they get there. I totally, wholeheartedly, unconditionally agree that everyone should have handgun/rifle/shotgun exposure and training before being set loose in this world as an adult. Ideally, educating kids from a very early age is the best bet, as my son will be. And finally, I probably agree with the statistic you used, but do some research on this facet: how many legally owned handguns/rifles (not so much)/shotguns have been used to prevent or stop a crime? Probably a much greater percentage. Another thing gun critics fail to recognize is that with home intrusions, just the mere "shaclack" of a shotgun is enough to send 99.9% of all criminals out the way they came, in a much bigger hurry. The gun in this case is merely an audible threat of reciprocal violence, and they obviously react. That's why I support dealing with violent criminals violently. [/i]

[djkest]

My buddy is a county sherriffs deputy. He said the response time on a hot call with lights and sirens is anywhere from 5 minutes to 1 hour depending on where you live. (kind of a rural area)

Yeah, it's kind of a tongue in cheek phrase, but I believe it means what it says. In a true emergency situation the police may not get there in time to save you, you'd better be able to defend yourself. Another one I've heard that is kind of funny?

Why do I carry a gun? Cause a police officer is too heavy.

And no, I don't hate cops. I just realize their limitations.

[Bluefront]

laserred.....I agree to a point. The point being that a good offense, beats a good defense. We strike into the heart of terrorism, sending the message we will not be defeated. Hopefully, they will be smart enough to realize it. Israel has managed to survive for fifty years, living in a country surrounded by these same enemies.......using similar techniques to what we are doing.

Tough way to live, but the alternative is death for Israel, because their enemies do not listen to reason. All their neighbors hate Israel, and hate us for the same reasons......our religion, our success, our strength.

[qviri]

Guns are here to stay in the hands of bad people....with no likely solution. We need to protect ourselves from crime, and in that our justice system fails, helped along by the bleeding-hearts who refuse to punish criminals to the degree necessary to stop the crimes.

Again with the circular logic. If you effectively get rid of guns, you won't need guns to protect yourself from guns. This isn't impossible, merely very hard, and does require a fair amount of resolve. I expect a couple more Virginia Techs before the necessary amount of resolve appears.

No one has taken on my challenge as to why there is no gun education from the NSC but there is for fireworks. Don't you see? If guns are so dangerous shouldn't we educate people about gun safety?

Why isn't there bomb safety education? Grenade safety education?

The fact some people use both objects for criminal activity, is the fault of the person, not the object itself. Cars kill more people than guns.....and they are not protected by a constitutional Amendment. Cars could be completely removed from this society, saving many lives.

A drunk driver hits and kills a family of 4 with his vehicle. In an ironic twist of fate, he survives. We don't blame the car manufacturer, we don't blame the vehicle, we don't blame the alcohol (well, some people do). We blame the idiot who was driving. Why should guns be any different?

We don't blame the gun. Guns don't kill people. People who have access to guns kill people. Unlike the car manufacturer, the vehicle, and the alcohol (some would disagree, but bear with me), the sole purpose of the gun is to destroy. They have no use other than destruction, the threat of destruction, and looking neat in a display case. Call it protection from animals if you wish, whatever.

The vehicle may end being a destruction device, but that's not the primary design goal. It has wheels, an engine, a frame, a steering wheel, a trunk, etc - all are there for purposes other than destruction. If guns came with washboards so you could wash your clothes in a river on a wilderness trip you may have a point - but as it is, all features of a gun are there to further its primary goal - destruction.

Tough way to live, but the alternative is death for Israel, because their enemies do not listen to reason. All their neighbors hate Israel, and hate us for the same reasons......our religion, our success, our strength.

Delusional.

[klankymen]

You stab somebody to death? You get the same, in a public forum, from your victim if they desire.

ZOMBIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[walle]

All their neighbors hate Israel, and hate us for the same reasons......our religion, our success, our strength.

No offence Bluefront (really mean that), but where the heck do you get all this nonsense from? television?!? and the conclusions? seriously now; you *must* be pulling our legs on this one, right?


Cheers

[Erssa]

Small detail: murderers, burglars, and muggers have to be convicted before they are actually considered murderers, burglars, and muggers, and only then can be denied financial support. Or were you suggesting abolishing presumption of innocence?

No problem really, the way things are going we are all considered guilty unless proven innocent. Basic civil rights are being stripped away a little bit at a time here. All in the name of increasing safety, guarding vs terrorism or in order to solve more cases.

Yep, we have already embraced reversed burden of proof in discrimination charges, so why not extend reversed burden of proof to rest of the crimes as well.

By denying proper lawyer support after conviction, are you suggesting the judicial system is flawless, and once convicted, a person should not expect a right to rehabilition if wronged?

It's not that he is suggesting the judicial system is flawless, it's quite the opposite. He is accepting that nothing is flawless. (Andyb, feel free to correct me.)

First, fine all the companies that keep exporting jobs, because poverty breeds desperation, which feeds the fire of criminal behavior.

What about global poverty? You are ready to reap the benefits of globalization, cheap imports, but not ready to pay the price, export of jobs. Are you truly willing to work for less or to pay much much more for your goods? I haven't seen any people on barricades demanding wage cuts in order to save their jobs. I'm sure you (just like the rest of us) have also bought something made in China, just because it was cheaper then it's domestic counterpart. Don't blame companies, it's your consumer behavior that's exporting jobs. World is full of selfish hypocrites, as Bochum's Nokia demonstrations recently showed us. Exporting your unprofitable jobs to developing countries is the best form of foreign aid and the best way to promote peace, equality and stability throughout the globe.

I politely reminded her that it was politicians that start wars, not guns, and that a gun's only intent is what its user's intent is.

Hell, why not give weapons of mass destruction for every citizen, so they can defend themselves against their government. Vial of anthrax for everyone. After all, it's politicians that start wars, not anthrax. Anthrax's only intent is what it's user's intent is. What better way to protect yourself from criminals then the deterrent of mutually assured destruction. Now all we need to do is make people fill up applications and give them proper training, so we can be sure, that none of the anthrax falls in the wrong hands or isn't misused. That way everything will be fine and dandy.

Anyone who defends guns with the principles of second amendment, is a hypocrite, unless he also aknowledges, that Iran and North Korea have the right to obtain weapons of mass destruction based on that same principle. And anyway what's there to worry about, it's not like weapons of mass destruction start wars, it's politicians.

[djkest]

Why isn't there bomb safety education? Grenade safety education?

They don't sell bombs and grenades at Walmart. You can own such things, I believe, with the proper paperwork and taxes. (I believe it falls into the category of destructive devices). You can also own dynamite, I think, but definitely not bombs. Please forgive me because I haven't really looking into buying explosives.The difference is huge though. If there were 200 million grenades in the united states, maybe grenade education would be important. Look at countries with lots of minefields: they tell their children to stay away. But they are not the same thing, and a comparison as such is pretty weak.

There is also a large difference between a grenade (or bomb, or anthrax) and a gun. A grenade is an indiscriminate weapon. It blows up anyone and everything. You can throw it, but it doesn't always go where you want it to. Guns can be aimed very accurately, and are used safely by thousands of people every day. Grenades and bombs are used in war. Guns are carried by peace officers.

I said it before. The only thing kids know about guns in many cases is just from TV and movies. They never see gun safety, they never see proper use. They just see portrayed criminals and cops blasting each other. They don't know that they aren't a toy, they don't know they shouldn't be playing with them, they dont' know to point them in safe directions should they pick one up, and they don't know to treat it as loaded and keep their grubby little fingers off the trigger. Some parents have done a poor job of both educating their children on proper use, and also of safely storing their firearms and ammunition.

Seriously, have you guys heart of shooting sports? You know, competition target shooting? It's an Olympic event. There's also trap shooting, I'm pretty sure that's not in the Olympics, but I could be wrong. There are guns specifically made for national match shooting, for trap shooting, etc.
I used to compete at a state level in shooting sports, it was quite interesting. Maybe that is where my foundation of safety comes from.

Please dont' compare guns to anthrax, that is just ridiculous.

[walle]

Hell, why not give weapons of mass destruction for every citizen, so they can defend themselves against their government. Vial of anthrax for everyone. After all, it's politicians that start wars, not anthrax.

Laughable analogy; a sidearm is for protection whereas anthrax and nukes are not, but you were spot on in terms of who start wars thou.

Anyone who defends guns with the principles of second amendment, is a hypocrite, unless he also aknowledges, that Iran and North Korea have the right to obtain weapons of mass destruction based on that same principle.

No one has mentioned the right to “bearâ€

[Erssa]

Seriously, have you guys heart of shooting sports? You know, competition target shooting? It's an Olympic event.

Please don't compare air pistol to lethal handguns, that's just ridiculous.

There's also trap shooting, I'm pretty sure that's not in the Olympics, but I could be wrong.

You are wrong.

[laserred]

Anyone who defends guns with the principles of second amendment, is a hypocrite, unless he also aknowledges, that Iran and North Korea have the right to obtain weapons of mass destruction based on that same principle. And anyway what's there to worry about, it's not like weapons of mass destruction start wars, it's politicians.

You know, Erssa, it's kind of funny you chose your words like you did, based on my previous comments of understanding why "terrorists" are driven to such extreme measures. You also grossly ignore that, hey, Iran and North Korea do not have the United States Constitution as their governmental doctrine, therefore they do not have the legal right to maintain ownership of a gun. To call a single gun a weapon of mass destruction is about as intelligent as believing mainstream corporate media. A gun requires a human being to pull the trigger, a nuclear bomb can be launched without human intervention. And, your sarcasm is actually, humorously to your chagrin, totally true. That weapon of mass destruction is nothing but a lump of radioactive material or a vial of infectious disease, and just sitting there it doesn't cause war, or bloodshed, or pain and suffering. It's only after a politician has decided that the rewards of the objective far exceed the cost of human life. Please utilize your right to engage your brain instead of simply regurgitating the disinformation fed to the masses.

[laserred]

Please don't compare air pistol to lethal handguns, that's just ridiculous.

There are more than air pistols involved. And if you don't feel comfortable handling the tremendous responsibility of that air pistol, feel free to refrain. And Erssa, I understand that over in Finland it might be different, so you can't understand the fear associated with ghettos and slums like here in the States... it's been closed down, but to make my point, we could have dropped you off in Cabrini Green in Chicago at 3AM and see if you made it to daylight alive if you didn't have a handgun for protection. Handgun ownership is not the black-and-white, cut-and-dry topic most people would like. You're telling me, that if confronted by a posse of knife-wielding criminals that were endangering your wife and kids, you would not support using violence if necessary to ensure your family's safety? Mmhmm.

For what it's worth, just so some of you don't go shouting crazy like I know you'd like to, I'm not a Democrat or a Republican, liberal or conservative. I choose my own damn positions regardless of the tag associated. I support a woman's choice of what to do with her pregnancy, I am anti-war but pro-troops, I am not a racist, I own guns but do not condone violence, I support the death penalty and dismissing petty cases that clog the judicial system like marijuana possession, I'd die for the ideals this country was founded on but likely wouldn't save a drowning politician these days, I totally oppose anything with "The War on.... (Drugs, Terror, the Middle Class), I support humanitarian causes but believe we should fix our own problems at home first, etc. I'd go on, but I think you can see that instead of calling someone who wants to defend themselves and their property "Delusional", I support their right. I believe that the majority of people have good intentions in their heart and most politicians do not. I believe in holding doors open for people, being polite to all people, and that the majority of non-violent criminals only became such because of bad circumstances. In short, I believe in the goodness of the human race but maintain my right to defend myself against the bad apples that are present in any group of society.

[Bluefront]

laserred......it's simply a matter of not being there. It's impossible for people in Europe to imagine a place such as the St Louis I see, to even exist. Hell if you live a few miles away from the place and never go there, you'll deny everything.

Like the place in Chicago you talk about, St Louis is filled with such places. Take a stroll down M.L. King drive after dark......the odds of finishing your stroll alive, without a gun in your pocket..... slim. Park your car there and leave it for a while....insane. Take your family along.....criminal. These are the reasons St Louis is so dangerous. There aren't enough cops in the whole city to protect you. You simply stay out, and pray the crime never reaches your own neighborhood.

This is no TV sit-com or drama.....though it sounds like one. Walk through the streets of St Louis at night without a gun....crazy. And it's not much better in the daylight.

[Erssa]

And Erssa, I understand that over in Finland it might be different, so you can't understand the fear associated with ghettos and slums like here in the States... it's been closed down, but to make my point, we could have dropped you off in Cabrini Green in Chicago at 3AM and see if you made it to daylight alive if you didn't have a handgun for protection.

Maybe you shouldn't buy all the fear media is selling you. And believe it or not, there are places in Finland where some people dread to tread, even if they can't be really compared to places like Cabrini Green. When I moved to Helsinki, my first apartment was located in a neighborhood with one the worst reputations in Finland. I soon found out that it's reputation was grossly exaggerated. I'm sure the same applies to Cabrini Green. I might get mugged there, but it's highly unlikely, that someone would shoot me just for the fun of it. It's a dump, but hardly a place where every stranger is shot at sight. I'm sure there are many unarmed people living in Cabrini Green and yet they are miracuously alive.

Handgun ownership is not the black-and-white, cut-and-dry topic most people would like. You're telling me, that if confronted by a posse of knife-wielding criminals that were endangering your wife and kids, you would not support using violence if necessary to ensure your family's safety? Mmhmm.

I would do the best thing to ensure my family's safety, comply. Turning into a Rambo would be just about the best way to endanger my family. After you draw out your gun, you must be ready to kill without hesitation. Thugs fearing for their lives are much more dangerous then thugs who just want to take your wallet. If one or more of them is packing, you might have just killed your family by pulling out your gun. Same applies agains a gang of armed criminals.

And I'd like to reiterate, I'm not against guns, I am against handguns.

[Erssa]

Take a stroll down M.L. King drive after dark......the odds of finishing your stroll alive, without a gun in your pocket..... slim.

I assume you have done it and are talking from experience, instead of basing this argument on fear instilled by the media.

[laserred]

Bluefront, I guess it is different over there. I grew up in Gary, which is quite infamous on its own for crime and murder. I do believe it's probably the only place that's ever been the murder capital of the world to not need a calculation to come up with the number of murders per 100,000 population- Gary is right around there, and is nearly always in the top 10. Downtown Gary recently has been dragged, kicking and screaming, from the blight it became in the 80s and 90s, into something that's only slightly less scary. Personally, in locations like Gary and St. Louis, I practically condone police brutality for reasons I've disclosed before. Most cops don't roll out of bed in the morning and go "Man, I want to have to kick in somebody's teeth, bludgeon them senselessly, and abuse the power I'm entrusted with just to finish the day." No, they roll out of bed and go, "Man, I hope I make it home to my wife and kids tonight the same way I'm leaving them now." Cops know who the troublemakers are, and I see a little roughing up as corrective instruction- "Straighten up now, or be prepared for much worse treatment in prison." I know many of the officers in Gary and the surrounding communities, and as an average of the whole, they are all free of corruption, and simply want to rid the streets of scum dealing drugs to kids, robbing hard working people, and instilling fear in innocent citizenry. So you know what? Some crack dealer runs from his arrest and happens to get beat up? Why should anybody be opposed to this? Sure, you're innocent until proven guilty- but, you run from the cops, you're proven guilty. Pull a gun on a cop, proven guilty. Get caught beating your 85lb girlfriend, proven guilty. There are cases when you've proven yourself guilty, no jury is needed. I guess people don't understand that justice doesn't always happen in a courtroom....

[laserred]

Take a stroll down M.L. King drive after dark......the odds of finishing your stroll alive, without a gun in your pocket..... slim.

I assume you have done it and are talking from experience, instead of basing this argument on fear instilled by the media.

Erssa, if Bluefront hasn't, I have. I've done many jobs that require me to interact with the local population of these bad areas- namely, doing service disconnects for people who don't pay their cable and satellite bills. A couple times, people have come running out of the house spewing expletives and threats. They have run right up on me, when I calmly expose my handgun in its holster and explain that they've got to call the 800 number and pay their past due amount before their service can be reinstated. Now, I can't say for sure that those people would have attacked me, but if I put you in a dark alley with these characters and no handgun in your pocket, I can guarantee you'd have a sopping diaper around your waist and fear of certain death in your heart. We Americans don't claim to understand how Europeans' parents/grandparents felt during WWI and II when getting bombed daily and hiding like varmints, so please don't claim to be enlightened on the subject of daily violence in the US. Believe me, legal gun owners also despise criminals just like people who don't have guns, and I can pretty much bet that anybody who has ever had to actually USE their gun in self-defense wishes that they never had to do so.

[Trip]

The American basis is upon religion, that man has a God given natural right to bear arms. Is this what you're basing your claim upon?

As based in the constitution, if there were religious motives behind the decision to allow the citizens to bear arms or not I’m not so sure, It’s been my understanding that they put it there knowing that any government could turn against their own citizens, they fled from Europe having experienced the very same so the decision to allow their citizens to bear arms had more to do with those very experiences rather than with any religious values; not to forget the experiences of having soldiers of the English crown running around the country side creating mayhem, which I'm sure played a part in the decision as well.

Ah well yes it was mostly to defend against government incursion, but the concept of a right is religious based.

Then for those who call for such a protected power what is truly wished for is a global goverment to dominate the world in order to provide such guaranteed powers.

Interesting reasoning and conclusion, well; this sheep and the vast majority of sheep want sign up for that one. What’s next; getting Microchipped like pets and cattle?


Cheers.

My apologies, the way you worded that sounded as if you were calling for universal natural rights, rights guaranteed to all men because they are men (men having natural rights from their creator.) But, I seem to have wholly missed my mark... yet again

With politics it seems unusually difficult to communicate... I don't like the wording of "rights" though because 1. there's no basis for them other than a fuzzy religious basis that most don't realise and 2. a power is required to defend them and the list of rights has a tendency to... grow.

---

Anyway, yea I hope all throughout the world have access to guns and the ability to defend against tyranny, though I'm not willing to die for that desire, especially since there is such diversity of cultures and societies that an outsider such as I might misunderstand just what the best solution is for another society.

My sincerest apologies especially since I should have known your particular stances by now after so many responses back and forth over the years.

[qviri]

Hell, why not give weapons of mass destruction for every citizen, so they can defend themselves against their government. Vial of anthrax for everyone. After all, it's politicians that start wars, not anthrax.

Laughable analogy; a sidearm is for protection whereas anthrax and nukes are not, but you were spot on in terms of who start wars thou.

A sidearm's main goal is destruction or threat of destruction, which - in your intentions - will assure your protection.

There's no substantial difference between telling a government agency "if you come into my house, I will shoot you" and "if you come into my house, I will attack you with anthrax."

A gun requires a human being to pull the trigger, a nuclear bomb can be launched without human intervention.

What.

Sure, you're innocent until proven guilty- but, you run from the cops, you're proven guilty.

If you're running to catch a train, too?

Believe me, legal gun owners also despise criminals just like people who don't have guns, and I can pretty much bet that anybody who has ever had to actually USE their gun in self-defense wishes that they never had to do so.

I'd like to state quite clearly that I do not doubt that the majority of gun owners, and you specifically, are responsible with their guns and aren't crazy gung-hos.

I believe that in this case, the majority isn't good enough.

[Bluefront]

Erssa....others. You seem to forget St Louis has been judged the most dangerous city in the US last year, second worst this year. This is no media hype....it's the truth. That Kirkwood incident from the OP, is a small (somewhat exaggerated) sample of what happens daily on the streets of St Louis. There are places the US Postal Service won't enter. Fire departments get shot at fighting fires. Random gun-shots are common. I'm not making anything up. Sane people just stay out at night.

This is crime, made worse by illegal guns, and all the drugs. You want to go into this place without protection?

You want to amend or eliminate the Second Amendment? It takes a vote of 3/4 of all the 50 states to do that. Won't happen. There's an "Equal Rights For Women Amendment" that was proposed....sounds fair enough. It never got the vote. Remove the Second Amendment.......the odds of that happening are as good as removing the First Amendment. Won't ever happen....

Start thinking of other ways to attack crime......