*DAMN R6 Forum

Lost To History

OMG I'm a Southerner.

Just a point of debate. Generalization sucks and so do hippies that hate guns (cough Bondo cough) I am a democrat and I am adamantly pro-guns. A few current mainstream democratic canidates are pro-guns (ie Clark and Dean). Now I am getting off topic. So yes I would shoot him till he looked like Swiss cheese without a second thought.

Well said, Coss. Beat me to the punch.

if you are coming at me with a knife and obvious intent to kill, you can kiss your ass good bye.  i will not hesitate to put enough lead in your sorry ass so that a small mining operation can be set up over your grave
i would rather be judged by 12 than carried by six and that is the beginning and end of my train of thought

That is the coolest thing I have ever heard.. who did you steal it from?:)

Erm... on topic... I would blow the guy away. I have the right to bear arms(or would if I was old enough) and I would protect my family. I doubt any jury would convict me for protecting my family.

i was born up north and now live in the south. i'd consider myself pretty much conservative, but with those extra bangs i had to represent the south! ;D ::)

This is dumb. The scenario has nothing to do with being liberal or conservative. It's just as biased and manipulative as the Fox News Channel.

Besides, anyone who uses labels like liberal and conservative is stupid. Ooh yeah let's find more ways to divide people (as if religion and political parties weren't enough)...

Oh, in case you're wondering, that guy would die 3 times before he hit the ground if he came within 20 feet of my family.

HAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!

pwnage.

Ok I am tired of people misusing liberal and conservative. If you take a liberal stance you want to change the status quo, if you take a conservative stance you want to keep the status quo. Lets take abortion as an issue. Republicans are liberal, they want to change the current abortion laws, thus the status quo. Democrats and the left want to keep the status quo and thus they are conservative. So that is the correct use of conservative and liberal. It is to identify yourself with an issue and both far left and far right can be conservative and vise versa. Thats Poly Sci 101.

I've made that point 4 or 5 times in threads about abortion and gun control Sack =D

And remember, they can have my gun when they pry it from my cold, stiff, dead fingers.

     In most cases where one might be threatened with a weapon, such as muggings, carjackings, and the like, having a gun or not having a gun is not going to make much of a difference in your possible courses of action. Unless you're a quick-draw champion, you simply aren't going to have time to get to and use your piece without taking a couple of rounds for your trouble. Yes, in a situation where you're killing someone in your home, then a gun would probably be useful. But walking around packing heat will likely never have utility. If you want to be able to deal death at any time and any place (and more usefully, NOT deal death), put time and money into an effective martial art.

     Now for my answer: I've seen someone shot and don't particularly want to inflict that on anybody. So I'd break his arms and knock him unconscious.

Loth, technically speaking, shooting is a martial art =D.

Seriously, there is some stat that the FBI came up with long ago, about how most gun fights are 6 misses from 6 feet (or something along those lines).  It had some catch phrase that I can't remember now, but the gist of it is that cops do have time to pull their weapons, because between the inaccuracy of pistols, the adrenalin, and just the fact that you don't really stand still, it's not that easy to hit someone in a real gun fight.  It's not like plinking targets at 25 yards.

     Hmm, yeah, that makes sense. Still and all, I prefer being able to handle myself even if I don't have a weapon on me. But that's just me.

The situation wouldn't even be thinkable in Sweden.

The same applies to Austria.

what loth says about martial arts is true. if i had a choice between a gun and my fists in that situation i would probably take my fists simply because i am trained in martial art (using that to mean some form of hand to hand combat).  my reasoning is that i'm less likely to miss with my fists than with a bullet and all i need to do is control his arm to stop his attack from harming me and my family.

this does not mean that i would not kill him however.  by flashing that knife  he has exhibited intent to use deadly force.  i would reply in kind and in full

Yes, we are all aware that Sweden and Austria have absolutely no violent crimes, muggings or murders.  

Just because it doesn't happen often (like it's never happened to anyone I actually know) doesn't mean it couldn't.  Way to take the fun out of a hypothetical.

first of all, all of this talk about u disarming him with your hands is BULLSHIT

Loth, lets say this guy pulling the knife knows which side is the sharp end? Most self defense books ive read basically state: if u haven't a weapon, and someone pulls a knife on you, improvise a weapon, or run your ass off. Just because Jason Bourne or James Bond can do it, doesn't mean other people can...especially people like you who sit around arguing and playing computer games most of the day.

Especially if you have a family! It simply isn't worth getting killed over something stupid like this. - If you can run, run. If you aren't fast enough, then 1) either shoot him or 2) if you havent' a weapon, lambard him with your complete BULLSHIT REMARKS ABOUT HOW YOU CAN BEAT HIM UP.

If he is truly as big an idiot as you, he might believe you and run.
Most likey, he wont, you will fight honorably and i wouldn't have to put up with your pompous remarks (and bragging?) at *DAMN anymore.

I think people carrying guns on their person would cause a lot more problems than it will solve. How often does this scenario even happen? It's just an emotional scenario designed to appeal to people's fears and elicit a particular ideological response. If you asked the same question to people and the scenario involved a child finding their fathers gun and shooting themselves, it would be no different.

maybe from a college dorm in iowa it seems like an unlikely scenario. but after you graduate be sure to move to some nice big city for a real education. the most imoportant things you'll ever learn in life aren't in those books.

baz, i might be inclined to believe you IF i hadn't actually disarmed somebody before with my bare hands

i can't decide whether this thread is filled with so much bull that its overflowing, or whether every single member of the *DAMN community either packs heat or knows enough martial arts to take down a small country.

     I think it's just that we're that kind of a macho community. Can't you smell the testosterone? Or maybe that smell just means that Bucc needs to wash his underwear.

badass  :D
when did this happen?

edit: If it takes a city to necessitate guns, then why does most anti-gun activism take place in large urban areas?

Tasty, because the liberals can't afford to live out in the burbs =P

One thing Tasty, as to your belief that everyone packing heat would cause more problems, I could refer you to a couple university studies on areas where anyone can get a CCW in America, and how violent crime and gun related crimes went down (or are just lower, in the case of areas that didn't have data before).

I can also point out that in Canada, when they banned hand guns, violent crime went up.

The fact of the matter is that when hand guns are banned, it's really only the legal, law abiding citizens that give them up or are hurt.  The criminals actually like it, as they don't have to worry about you packing heat and being able to defend yourself.

And before you spout that tougher laws (read as: much stiffer penalties) can be put in place, to make criminals not use guns, those laws could be there without taking them away from the law abiding citizens.  

But all that is old hat, and there are pages of it already.

Brain,

did he hand you the gun?

or was it a AEG or Spring type?

or was it CO2 or Nitrogen powered gun?

or was it metal/plastic knife

or was the person your karate teacher?

or was it just you after the bar till 2am

or was it (most likely) just you playing wayy too much Splinter Cell?

if you think you can disarm someone with a gun, come over to cleveland and i'll show you how i can prove you wrong.

baz so much anger! find a therapist

baz, it was a metal knife
yes it had an edge
and although the guy was drunk, i still felt that he had enough intension to harm me that it was necessary to disarm and controll him an not simply get the fuck out of the way (joint locks do wonders for persuading people to knock what ever the hell they are doing off)

notably, i'm not stupid enough to try and disarm someone with a gun unless i am 100% sure that they are going to kill me anyway, BUT our hypothetical situation states this dumbass has a knife and not a gun

ahh ok brain

that is very believable; especially seeing it everytime i goto Put-in-Bay on lake erie...island of the drunk...(http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~damnr6/yabbse/YaBBImages/beer.gif)

Sure, I wasn't trying to make an anti-gun argument, just pointing out the biased nature of the example.

BTW I'm from the burbs :P

No offense, but being from the burbs isn't living there.  Not in my context anyway.

Your parents live in the burbs (you just freeload off them).  =P

This is true, I am quite the freeloader.

Aren't most city properties more expensive than suburbs though? I guess it depends if you're talking about downtown or the renovated neighborhoods of the gentry, or the poverty-ridden surrounding areas. So anyway, I see myself in a city in two years? although not because I can't afford a house in the burbs.

Detroit is the home and founder of urban sprawl.  We have the richest zip code in America (more meney then 90210, yes) but that's in Oakland County (and yes, it is also named Beverly Hills for real.  That and Bloomfield Hills)

Nothing in the city costs money.  A house this size which is close to $200k here goes for $25k once I cross into the Detroit border.  And I'm in the one of the nicest burbs that actually borders on Detwa.

But you could be right elsewhere.  Places like Seattle (and especially NYC, but NYC is unique in so many ways.)

Yeah, burbs surrounding large cities are more expensive than burbs around other cities? my friend's dad just moved from a house in Clive (my suburb) to Schaumburg (a Chicago suburb) and although its about the same size, the price difference was 300,000. However, compared to the price of a condo or loft actually in downtown Chicago, it's peanuts? a 1,500 square foot apartment down there costs over a million normally.

A shot in the Knee
Oh, american
The day that you can say
That you could kill a person
Your reflection will look away

Try facing the mirror
After ending one's life
Try comforting the children
Try embracing your wife

         Nobody loves a killer
         They will never feel secure
         When you say you can kill a man
         You're not a man
         Anymore

Oh, american
Where is your dream now?
You must have lost in your drawer
With that glock, somehow

At the expense of your dream
You carry that gun
What's the use
when we both know
That either way, you'd run?

       Nobody loves a killer
       With each bullet bought
       You comdemn the american dream
       To be no more than thought

You say that action
is the american way
Then take action
and run away
Oh brave american
         

BTW... its alot easier then you think... if you hit there hand on the back side of it you can disarm them easaly.  I had to go through training when i used to work security. and they showed how easy it was. Knies r harder to dissarm from a person then a gun is b/c you can grab a gun barrel w/ out getting a major injury.. but it can be done w/ many type of weapons.

So you want to defend yourself against every "could-happen" out there? Perhaps you should go hide in your padded cellar with a pair of machine rifles, oh wait, those could explode in your face and kill you, oh no!

Kami, sometimes I don't know what in the hell you are talking about.

Where in the world did I say defend myself against every "could-happen" or anything like that?

Acri, would you rather prefer to be dead because the bad guy was a bit quicker than you?  Or would you prefer to still be able to live with your family?

Actually cossack even you have a common misconception going on.  According to my college text here, the conservative is marked by favoring order over freedoms and freedoms over equality.  The liberal stance is equality over freedom, and freedom over order.  The concept is two dimentional, as you can see.  Use this to best classify yourself.
http://idealog.org/ideaflash.asp?page=run

Hathcock:
Thing is, only an american would think as you do now.

Ok, hathcock how about this:
You are presuming that you would be able to shoot him with your glock. You are presuming you'd have the guts and the skills to pull it off. Ok. Sure. Then shoot him in the legs. Do you HAVE to kill him? Or howabout JUST taking your pistol out and aiming it at him, looking dead serious? If that doesn't work, everntually he will be close enough to get shot in the leg.

I think most americans have, after watching too much and playing too much games and spending too little time learning about the real world (outside of america), have a subconscious wish to kill someone. Or maybe in america you HAVE to say that or you are a pussy?



I once knew a man
Considered himself brave
He said that to the mirror
Each day when he shaved

I once knew a boy
I know he lived rough
Carried a knife for his friend to see
To prove himself tough

I once knew a man
He carried a gun
He said to himself "I am brave"
He'd bend for no one

I once knew a boy
That tried to rob somebody
Threatened him with a knife
But didn't want to hurt nobody

Seconds are short
And the train of thought is long
To himself "I am brave"
The pistol made him strong

I once knew a boy
Now he's dead
Got the american dream
shot through his head

My friend, it's right there in my quote.

Acri, your poetry makes my heart melt.

     While the description given is not all encompassing in its depiction of the events, such as how far away the attacker is and other small details.  Many have said how hard it is to hit a man at close distance.  How the hell am I going to hit his leg?  Or point a gun at him and hope he just stops coming at me, and if he doesn't then it's too late.  I just accept that fact that there are those in this world that no longer deserve to live, and if they want to attack me and I have a weapon than so be it.
     And don't characterize my comments as, "only an American" would think like that.  I'm not going to get into yet another flame war of US vs Europe.  We have to diferent mindsets and I can respect that.  But if you want to let him stab you through the heart and take your family, than I'll see you on CNN in a body bag.  I would prefer to be seen talking to the police and holding my family close by my side over the othher guys dead body.  

They day you shoot somebody, your family life will change.

Take this scenario:

Your wife is on her way home from... whatever it is women do on friday nights... She carries a purse with the following accessories:

Lip stick
Wallet
Cell phone
Concealer
Bandaids
Pencils
Tampax
Hankies
Glock
Pepperspray

She walks into a dark alley and is attacked by a man she doesn't know. His obvious intent is to rape her and maybe kill her afterwards? Maybe this is that famous rapist/killer/american nightmare? Maybe he is a sexually deprived Baz? You just don't know. Your woman doesn't hesitate. She shoots him 5 times. Your wife has killed a man. Killed him. Five shots. How safe would YOU feel with her?

She COULD have tried to run away.
She could have used her pepperspray (which is proven to be effective)
She could kick him in the nuts.
She could've thrown her purse at him and then run away.

But she decided to shoot him five times. Don't even TRY telling me you wouldn't be scared of her. You would.

Not to mention how scared your wife and your children would be of you!

Acri you are presuming yourself.  Namely, you presume that he isn't likely to succeed.  I happen to know that hathcock here is a U.S. Marine.  Still think he can't handle his glock?  He's more likely to use it the right way and know when to pull the trigger than the chubby gamers in this thread. Period.

Not to mention that his family would most certainly know what he is capable of.  I am the child of a Marine myself.  While this sort of thing never came up, dad once said to me that in such a situation, all he wants me to do is stay out of the way.  Sure, theres an element of fear in that.  But its also a bit comforting to know such men are here to protect the nation.

Like Ghostsniper said that situation is so ridiculous... I mean if anyone not just my spouse shot someone who attacked them I would not be afraid of them, of course I would look at them differently but never change how I acted to them. You act as if she would whip out her glock if you told her she looked fat in a dress. She is still the same person and probably would feel semi guilty for killing the man. At least that's how I imagine she would feel. And btw what the hell are all these people doing in dark alleys??? ;)

Stop living in the world of "what ifs" if someone is threatening you, whether it be with a knife, a gun, or  just their fist you have the right to defend yourself. Most likely if a man confronts a woman in the dark and it appears to be of the hostile nature he obviously had intent to mug or kill someone that night. A person should protect themself.

GhostSniper.
If you are that skilled with your gun...
You don't have to kill anybody. How come you'd rather kill him than shoot him in the legs? How come you want a gun that will actually kill him? If I lived in america, I could consider a gun, but it would have to be the one with least kill probability.
If you really are that good with the gun... Why just not shoot him in the legs huh? I think this whole gun issue is perverted and fubar.

Note: I am not really saying you wouldn't be able to pull the trigger... rather that you won't be able to get your gun out? Do you guys mean you actually carry guns while walking down the street? I could have a gun in my drawer mb... Right now, I have a small sword. It is scary enough and vs a knife, as the issue was here, I think I could hurt him. I would NEVER dream of killing him though.

     Actually I think I would feel safer at night with a wife that knows how to handle a weapon.  Just in case I sleep heavy the night an intruder comes in and she takes care of bussiness.  Theoretically of course.  
     Ancient Chinese Proverb (well probably not but it sounds cool that way) states that, "You do not bring a knife to a gun fight"  so his mistake.  It's also not common policy to fire warning shots, and Acri I ask you this.  If its a dark alley this obviously wouldn't apply, but say someone comes at you with a knife in a semi crowded area.  Are you still going to risk a leg shot to ease your conscience and kill an innocent bystander?  Or go for a sure body shot, to stop him cold.  Not even necessarily killing the man, plenty of people have been shot and lived.  Remember that the real world is not hollywood, nobody shoots for the oher guys gun, and nobody shoots for a leg when the body is perfectly visible.  Pistols are just not that accurate.

To Acri:

"It's better to have a gun then not need it, than need a gun and not have it."

I guess a stun-gun could be used in this situation... but then again I doubt your attacker has the same morals and would use the same courtesy during his assault. Just something to think about.

Kami, if I understood what in the hell you were talking about, I wouldn't have asked.  Thanks so much for clearing it up.  Oh, wait, you didn't.

I'd love to have a stun gun / taser.  But, they are illegal in many states, including mine.  

On another note, those of you that watch TDC and such may have seen many of the non-lethal weapons they've done a couple specials on.  I really like the paintball guns that are filled with pepper spray and stink bombs.  

I think the arguement acri has here is not really a gun issue but a death/capital punishment issue.  

For me, whether I have a gun or not the guy would die.  Much like Ghost Sniper belives, I too think many criminals get out pretty quick and they may remember who I am or where I live.  I would resort to using anything I could to kill the SOB who attacked me and my family.  I would take the time to knock him down, undo my shoelaces and strangle the mofo to death.  I would even put my fingers through his eye socket and pull his damn brain right through if I could.  So given the situation to even have a gun, unload the clip and live another day.

i dont own a gun, its pretty inconceivable up here in maine that some dude is going to jump you in a dark ally. and anyway, wtf were you doing in the ally anyway? you sketchy, sketchy person

and as to ghostsnipers last remark, all i have to say is: no wonder the rest of the world doesnt like us

True Spike, the world doesn't like the US much right now.  But guess who the world will come crawling back to the next time it has a problem?

mmm...pepper spray filled paintballs. now thats what i call fun! speaking of which, the FTAA meetings are going on down here this week and they have the entire downtown area on lock-down in anticipation of another seattle situation. damn hippies. i've never seen so many damn cops in my life. but for just this week i wish i was a cop. haha, tear-gas grenades, pepper spray painball guns, 12 gauge bean bags, rubber bullets, and tons of smelly hippy kids just begging to be pelted  to death.  ;D
ohh the fun !!!

They had some other very interesting ones too.  One that shot rings that were about 5mm thick and about a diameter of 2 inches (just to mix my units).  They would fly much more accurately then a bean bag, and knock someone on their ass.  They were also shooting what I can only describe as the grenades you would stick on the end of a normal gun.  The difference was, these were just hard plastic and no explosives.  They had them in different hardness, but they were leaving dents in steel doors.

Pretty sweet.  I'm all for non-lethal ranged weapons over normal pistols (and I do own a few guns), I just wish they'd make them legal for us normal guys to own.

yeah i saw that show too. i've always been partial to "the brown noise". ;D

you can't get tazers or stun guns up there? that sucks. they sell them here. i considered one for the wife but it turns out that shes a great shot. so i got her something a little more special. ;)

and to the ppl not so keen on guns or carrying one .....pepper spray works like a mofo. trust me! the after effects are worse than the initial burst, but if your a runner (a liberal), a good blast of pepper spray will give you at least a 5 second head start.

The biggest reason I'd give my wife a stun gun over a pistol is simple gun safety.  Face it, when confronted most people don't think about where the bullet will go after it hits or misses.  It could go through the guy and into a kid on the far side of him (and yes, I do know that's just a great reason for hollowpoints, but I hate the drop on them).  

Another big one is the fact that the gun makers still haven't started making the "smart locks" that have been out for years.  No kid is going to accidentally kill themselves with a stun gun (ok, maybe, but it's around the odds of getting killed by lightening).  I practice great gun safety, but nothing is 100% safe, so better to disable the fucker with a stun gun (and maybe do a little more damage before the police show up) then kill or hurt someone by mistake.

Just my opinion, mind you.  I'm all for the right to bear arms, my personal choice would just be a little safer.

i agree with you 100%. but i already owned a gun handed down from my step father (an ex cop in philly). the wife was robbed at gunpoint a couple years before we met, so she was rather enthusiastic about me teaching her how to handle a pistol. and honestly, my main concern with having a pistol in the house, as is yours, is children. at this point though we don't have any children. just as i suspect every other aspect of life when a child arrives would change, i'm sure my home protection situation would as well.

oh, and just this week the cops here in miami used a tazer on a man and he died from it. they found no drugs or alcohol in his system and no pacemaker. of coarse it's still early but they know that much so far. so use on a child would not be recommended i believe. jk.
but anyway when we have kids, any gun, pepper spray, stun gun, or even my knives would be far out of childrens reach. oh shit...i just remembered what was out of my reach when i was a kid. NOTHING! i'm gonna need a safe...a big one.

Yeah, i have a safe for my hand guns, but I need to get one for the rifles.  They are just locked in a closet now.  I figure I have until she's at least 2 before I have to worry about her being able to pick up the shotguns, or pick a lock for that matter.  =D

I hadn't heard about the guy from Miami, keep me informed if you could.

Hathcock: That was a disgusting remark and I hope you've noticed no one is really crawling to america lately. People dont really like asking america much of anything right now. That kinda remark would have gotten you beaten up pretty bad by most europeans.ex-ranger or no...

Fah: Yes, it is about capital punishment. It sickens me. And the scenario showed in the first posts doesnt really point out that the guy would haunt you after jail. He is just a random gun-toting stranger (dont have those in europe, because we dont really allow guns to that extension).

In a country where guns are hard to get, the criminals have less guns too. You americans are making it easy for people to get guns.Too easy. It is your own bloody fault.
I hope the next generation of americans wont be as fucked up as you are.

This is the disgusting remark, ghostsniper. I don't really see how it was you who said it?

"I hope the next generation of americans wont be as fucked up as you are."
 
that's a rather unnecessary comment acri.

bucc i found an article on that case, also look up stun gun deaths on google. seems (many different circumstances considered) that it's not such an uncommon thing.
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/7264088.htm

Well Acri, ghostsniper was partiallly right since he is the Ranger.  And if you would look at my remark a little closer I said the NEXT time.  Most of Europe doesn't consider Iraq much of a threat.  I mean hell, why would Sadaam hurt his biggest buyers of oil?  Now for the US, Sadaam allready tried to kill Bush Sr, so why would he not give terrorists weapons once he got them.  It was not a decision this administation felt it could live with nor the British and Italians either.  Just clarifying my comments a little more for you.  Enjoy.

Fuss and beat on him all you want, the truth speaks for itself.  And here is why:  several years ago Europe was experiencing "ethnic cleansing" in its own back yard.  The european community was powerless to stop it.  The world cried for our involvement, and we gave it, stopping the nightmare and restoring order.  This is reality Acri.  It is nothing against Europe, but the fact is that the US military is now the army of the free world, and that is why we fought in the former Yugoslavia instead of Europeans dealing with their own.

I mean really, doesn't it make more sense for the nearby countries to ship their troops there instead of us from across the Atlantic?  There's a reason it was our troops.  I don't like it, it is a bad thing for the US to fight everyone's battles, but it isn't my call.  This is the reality of post World War II Europe.

This is the essence of the recent issues in the UN about Iraq.  One major arguement against our action was that we would destabalize the region.  Look at us, the French and others cried, we have peace and we maintain it without force!  But guys, that's just not true.  European nations do have an army protecting them- it just doesn't march under their flags.

Here it comes, the firestorm.  Go ahead, flame me.  I don't need your approval to use my eyes and mind to analyze current events.  Again, I'm not saying I like things this way.  But liking it has nothing to do with the facts.

no firestorm here.
great example, well spoken, and the truth!

I liked that last line Cutter:

"Perper said his office will also look at the number of times O'Brien was Tasered."

I did a google search, and only found one new item.  The manufacturer (of course) still says that no deaths have actually been blamed on the Taser, and I only found one true case otherwise.  In most cases a preexisting condition or drugs in conjunction with the Taser have done it, but the one other case was that of a fetus in a pregnant woman.  I can understand how that would be a danger.

But, if any of those had been normal hand-guns, they all would have been dead anyway from lead poisoning.  So, while I wouldn't want my kid to be accidentally shot with a taser, better that then accidentally with the S&W .45.  Plus, I'm all for the police using less then lethal weapons in most cases.  Some punk with a knife trying to rob a liquor store can rot in prison for 10 years before he rots in hell anyway.  (but please note the word "most", I have no problem with them pulling the trigger on some assholes).

I disagree, though, Aramarth. I don't really think America is the army of the free world but YES, thank you for helping out on balkan. I never bad mouthed that nor would I ever.
That was a thoroughly good deed, imo.

I again must intervene.  I think the misunderstanding here is that UN is actually the army of the free world.  

Not since the Korean war has the UN actually participated in any "World" conflict.  This institution has proved time and time again that it is basically useless.  The 5 charter members with Veto power rarely agree on anything and creates havoc on coming to any legitimate decision.

Another misconception is that this is truly a "World" entity. Without US funding the UN would actually just go bankrupt and cease to exist. So I guess you can say this gives us more power, but can you blame us for this.  The world would have to pay more to put an end to this and I don't see anyone offering up more sums of cash.

One example would be Somalia.  We asked numerous times for UN intervention and had to go it alone. Take it, the UN was there, but they took no active participation in the country.  They mainly just stayed to protect their interests and personnel. The only other institution with the balls to do anything was the Red Cross and they can't even protect themselves. We payed dearly for this decision, but it only made us rethink the way we do things, it didn't make us abandon the rest of the world.

So, for the majority of America, we feel that many countries just hide behind the UN so they can just sit on the fence and complain. We all know no action will be taken from this standpoint and to say you are waiting for there involvement is just another joke.

So in essence we have been forced to take on the role of the UN. Not by choice.  It is really not in America's interest to waste money and lives.

I know this has gotten off topic, but just a little clarification.

The UN is a tail that trys to wag the dog.

Only a small group of countries can really get the UN off it's collective asses to do something, and then it's rare.

I will correct FahQ2 on one thing.  Desert Storm was the last time the UN did, but it was just a "get on the bandwagon" thing because the US was all behind it.

The UN also showed how it's peacekeeping efforts fail in Somalia and Bosnia.  In both cases, the UN didn't get shit done without American forces.

I will say that the US is reluctant to actually go under UN command, but I can't say as I blame them either, given the track record.  

One point to Arci, you condemn the US for getting involved so quickly and without UN support, but you didn't really address why more European countries didn't go in and correct the crap in Bosnia.  I'm interested in your opinion on that.  

Because maybe we get involved to easy, but maybe most European nations take too long.  War should be the last resort, but when it's time to bring it, it's time.  Think how many innocent lives would have been saved if the Europeans had banded together (because, lets face it, it would take quite a few to put as many resources to bare as the US did), and gotten involved months and even years earlier.  I know the Brits, Italians and a few other countries had peacekeepers there, but I'm specifically talking about going above and beyond what the UN was doing.  

One more point, I haven't heard anyone disagree with the US going into Bosnia.  But, that was not following the UN edicts either.  They didn't go in as peacekeepers.  So anyone that condemns them for not following the UN in Iraq, answer me this: should they have followed the UN in Bosnia?  If so, would it have turned out better?  Or worse?

I'm all for democracy, but let's face it, in large scale societies (and they don't get bigger then the UN) pure democracy doesn't work.  It only ever worked in small communities.  And the current organization of the UN is just absurd to me.  It's time for it to be swept away in favor of a new republic, one with more fair checks and balances.  One where the majority doesn't always win when it's oppressing.  

Just my off topic thoughts =D

But good thoughts Bucc :)  The UN is turning into the League of Nations.  Just a showpiece that had no real power.  The only difference right now is that the US is currently in the UN and we were not in the League of Nations.  Might be interesting to see the UN without the US to back its every play.  Things have not come that far yet but there are many Americans that are extremely frustrated with the complete beraucracy that is the UN.  Even in Korea the only reason it was a "UN" mission was because the Russian ambasador left and then the security held their war vote w/o him.  So what has the actualy UN done by itself.  Virtually nothing I'm afraid and it really does not frighten anybody that would like to take that little neighbor next door.

Bucc i think its fair to say that the US has been guilty of Undermining the power of the US. Regarding Iraq and the arguments leading up to the invasion the US gave the UN and its councill no option. The US would go ahead and attack Iraq and make the UN look like nothing, or the UN could back down to US pressure and show how week it was.. they didn't have much in the way of options.

The US CLAIMED that action needed to be taken against Iraq as it was breaking UN resolutions....

SO WHAT ABOUT ISRAEL? WHAT ABOUT SHARON?

Well Israel happens to be losing hundreds of its citizens a month to suicide bombers which does tend to complicate things.  I'm in no way supporting every move they make but, you have to see their viewpoint a bit.  The palestinians make any other terrorist look lazy in the ammount of bombings they have done.  I'm is not saying all Palestinians are bad but that area has been attacking Israel since day one.  And how many mandates has Israel broken.  Because it takes all your fingers and some toes to count Iraq's violations.

I think after 9/11 we can all begin to see the Isreali side of the war.

The real problem isn't, however, with the Isreali side. It lies within the complex social issues of Palistine and Palistinians.

The Isrealis have tried, to their credit, to make peace. And having failed to make peace now make war. My personal trouble with what's going on these days in Isreal is that the sort of war being fought looks more and more like a war of genocide than a war of conquest.

Isreal could very easily overrun what little remains of the Palistine army. But Isreal will never be able to stop the people of Palistine, who have suffered more death and loss than the Isrealis give them credit for, from fighting a war of terrorism. Indeed, rarely can a nation combat insurgents or terrorists with conventional arms and tatics and win. It because conventional arms and tactics are supposed to be used against a logical enemy - and a logical enemy doesn't want to die and he gets scares when big guns get shot at him.

Terrorists and terrorists of the palistinian sort especially are more than willing to die in order to kill. What makes the Palistinian sort of terrorism really frighting is that Palistinians see terrorism more and more as a commonly accepted method of fighting war. This means terrorism has moved from the fringe of society into the mainstream. Just like Americans celebrate our soldiers as heroes so too do Palistinians, only their celebrate Martyrs. Isreal can never overcome this with War alone ... unless it kills all Palistinians.

And I fear that, with the walls being put up, the soldiers shooting children, and so on, we are seeing the first steps towards a strategy as fundamentally frighting as the Palistinian one: kill them all.

So what it comes down to is this: that one side is already extremist - that's the Palistinians. The other side is becoming more extreme - that's the Isreali side. International organizations are the only forces that are strong enough to step the tide of blood. But, those organizations require American support and they require it for the simple reason that we are the strongest most important country in the world and thus without our support and effort will be immeadiatly undermined.

The US has effectively nuetered the UN. To our shame.

I've got nothing but glee at Saddam's fall from power, but our timing on enforcing those resolutions - namely in the middle of a fucking important conflict, the defining conflict of our generation, should have been smarter. The great irony of our using the UN resolution as a causi belli in Iraq was that we were discrediting the viablity of the UN at THE SAME TIME. Which meant we called into quesiton our own validation for war. Pretty stupid. We also blew to bits any international moral credit we had. I guess it's a good thing we're so rich, that way we can buy allies ... but money goes only so far.  

* just a quick retort to Buccs comments on Bosnia and how no one complained about that. Two points:

First, let me co-opt your own question and use it to make a point: People did complain about US involvment in Bosnia. Those people were mostly elected Republicans. I have fond memories of the Republican party arguing that nation building wasn't our job to do. I remember Bush making it a cornerstone of his foreign policy agenda during the election. I believe Bush used the word "humble" in that speach.

Second, I'm greatly pleased we went into Bosnia. I was and still am even more pleased that not a single American died in combat during that war. Further, we had clear objectives that were then achieved - such as removing a war crimminal from power  and putting him in jail as well as freeing a people who were being eleminated. We also had the support of our allies via the international organization NATO. We worked hard for their support and it was given, to their credit and President Clinton's. All told, Bosnia has been a resounding success. In comparision to Iraq, Bosnia literally was a perfectly executely modern combat operation.

In Iraq we had two clear objectives: remove Saddam from power and find the weapons of mass destruction. We've removed the vile Saddam, but cannot, for the lives of 400+ Americans, find him. He continues to be a ghost that haunts the country (oh, and where is Osama, a man who has actually engaged in war with us, who has the blood of 3000 Americans on his hands? I guess we have more important things to do than actually fight the war on terrorism - namely, piss off our allies and alienate the world's populace). We have occupied the country, but cannot find the WMDs. Meanwhile, Iraqi nuke scientists are moving to Iran and who knows were else, thus making our objective to stop WMDs look like a hollow claim. All the while local guerillas blow up more Americans. We've insulted our allies, who have historically supported the United States when it came to military matters, (see Bosnia for a modern reference) and offended the very people we are supposedly trying to save. We have also delibrately attempted to dismantle the UN by discrediting it. Remember, we used the UN resolutions as a lead up to this whooooooole endeavor. All told, Iraq is a dismal failure. Btw, you may soon be able to vote for the man who subjugated Serbia during the Bosnian conflict. I suggest if you like America to win wars AND end them you vote for him, or someone like him.

Oh and Hath, it's not hundreds of isreali citizens a month. Things are bad enough that you don't need to grossly over estimate the numbers killed.

And yes, yes I like to write. :P

That's one good example of what I meant about the tail wagging the dog.  But remember, you aren't questioning when they did it in Bosnia, why?

As for the others, what about them?  There's not a government on the security counsel that really wants to remove Isreal.  And that's the tail.

If you are asking why the US doesn't get involved, I would just ask the same of your government.  Or any other European nation that brings it up.

I don't agree.  I think the UN was doomed from the start.  The UN wasn't even effective in the Cuban Missile Crisis, except for swaying public opinion.  The US just realizes that, and refuses to be handcuffed because of it.


Actually, I was referring to the people that are complaining loudly, from other countries, especially in Europe.

And bringing up which political parties here at home doesn't really say anything at all.  It's not often that you see both sides of our political aisle united on such issues.  It's the nature of our government to be adversarial amongst itself.  This isn't a contest of who's party said what.  I'm talking about the world stage here.  How the same people that blast us for invading Iraq were all cheers and grins about it in Bosnia.  And how their own governments lacked the initiative to get off their own asses and do something in their own back yards.


Hmm, strike out the word NATO there and you could be talking about Iraq too.  And not all of NATO supported Bosnia either.


I would disagree that finding weapons of mass destruction was a clear objective.  I think that objective was thrust in there by the nay-sayers more then anything else.  Making it not so clear.  I agree, it became an objective.  But just like objectives in Viet Nam, things change and good intentions pave the road to hell.


Two things here.  First, are you saying that because we aren't as successful at finding him that we are in the wrong for attempting?  Because that makes no sense at all.

Second, the US is still fighting / involved in Afghanistan.  Just because the media doesn't focus on it, doesn't mean that you can't find the information if you look.  

On a final note, you see to let the lack of success color your views on if we should have gone.  I think that they are two separate issues.  Yes, I'm frustrated in the lack of success, and I don't think we should have split our attention between the two before getting a better handle on Bin Laden.  I'm frustrated that we let world opinion keep us from sending in more troops to actually make Iraq more secure for our soldiers.  That's the kind of bullshit that really hurt US Soldiers in Viet Nam too.  

I believe that when you commit that you really have to commit.  Do what it takes to hunt him down and achieve your goals.  If the goals are worth it, then you do it.  If they aren't worth the price, you don't.  Because when you do it half-hassed, you lose on both accounts.

And don't make the mistake of confusing me with a Bush fan, I'm not (or Clinton for that matter).  The purpose of my post was just to point out that many Europeans like to point at America's flaws, and I find it insulting.  Especially when nobody is perfect, and there are governments out there that have done worse then ours.

Bucc, when the US was in Bosnia, I was way younger and more gullibe. Therefor I only hear good things. Good good things. *3 x monkeys*

However, this whole Iraq thing is not wrong as such, it is just handled badly. I could care less about the UN.

Fah: The UN would die without US funding? Funny... I thought the US didn't pay anything to the UN until Bush came along. Maybe I'm wrong...

I think american motives in iraq are questionable and they werent in bosnia. This is why i dont mind bosnia. It was never about stealing the resources of the oh-so-prosperous bosnians. I hope that clears it bucc.

I am not in any way saying that the only motive is greed, but I fear it is part of it. The US are doing good things in iraq but I always thought the motives were rotten. Never looked good from my side of the atlantic.

I dont consider the US to be the bad guys.
I consider the US to be ignorant and proud.
I consider the US to exaggerate themselves and others
I consider the US to shoulder too much credit for world affairs
I consider the US to take too little blame for their mistakes.

Hathcock i think the current number of Broken UN resolutions by Irael stands at 113 (i think).
Personally if i was palestinian and i lived in the same conditions in which they are living in now, and under the same brutality from israeli forces... Not being funny but i would do everything and anything to try and help defend my family and my country.

Lets face it. Nothing will be done about Israel because of the strong power of the jewish vote in America and the fact that the Administration would be extreamly unpopular.

Don't know if your guys media was allowed to tell you about this secret prison base they have found in israel (which the israeli's deny existing)... Its a bit like their equivelant of Gwantanamo (sorry shocking spelling) but there they tourture, electrocute, gang rape, and murder those unlucky enough to be chucked there.

Regarding Bosnia i think acri has a point - yes it could have gone a lot better, but the reasons for doing it were much clearer (no hidden agenda) and the country's involved really did try to help people rather than just secure some oil that they want to ship to their country so they can help pollute the rest of the world a bit more

and yes, america hadn't paid their U.N. dues for a long time. it was in protest. just about every single resolution that america had put before the U.N. had been veto'd or been threatened to be veto'd by one country for many years. during the cold war russia had made it a point to give us trouble wherever they could, the U.N. was the only place they could. so then bush puts the order in to get current on our U.N. payments. only to have france threaten a veto on every single resoultion put up by the U.S. it's a huge joke! libya on the human rights commision, iraq almost on the disarmament commision and a security council that is made up of a bunch of countries whose only desire is to see each other fail. as i like to call it: L.O.N part 2

Acri, While we may start receiving oil sometime in the next decade from Iraq, how does it look for the three biggest importers of Iraqi oil to be the biggest critics of war?  Perhaps Europe thought more of Bosnia because its right next door as well?  Sadaam was as well known for killing his own people as Milosivitch was.  

Time is going to have to tell in Iraq I believe though.  At the end of World War 2, reconstruction of Japan, and Germany was also met with contempt by many of their citizens.  Nobody really remembers those days anymore of course but it has yet to be a year in Iraq, and it took many years to get Germany and Japan to trust us.  The modern generations just don't realize what real hardship used to be like.  They said we were bogged down in Iraq when in fact it was one of the fastest invasions ever if not the fastest.  The world has changed and has been without a major conflict for a long time.  Don't forget our past and what those wars were like with their tens of thousands of casualties.  I'm not saying even a single soldier, airman, sailor, or Marine dying is a good thing but in the history of the world that will follow I hope this can be viewed as a good and noble act.

I couldn't agree with you more on that statement Acri.  I always said he was doing the right thing, but for the wrong reasons.  And his motives and claims are what really casts a bad light on the whole thing.


There are different ways of funding.  The US was withholding it's dues (along with quite a few other nations).  It was a political statement.  But they were still putting money into it.


Anything is questionable.  Russia was saying that we were looking for a forward base back then.  And I don't think Iraq is going to be a case of stealing oil either.  If nothing else, it would be impossible with the focus of the world stage upon them.


Ignorant??  Bondo tried that one on me to.  If you look at the only real source for such things (The UN) You'll find that America has top scores for education (along with a handful of others, including European).  As a nation, we are not ignorant, but like all, we do have our share of dumbasses.  


I don't.  But the credit goes to the US because of Europe more than any other reason.  We weren't considered a world power at all before WW1.  We were a joke (yes, the French laughed at us).  Until our entry in the war really added enough mass to turn the tables.  WW2 was much the same.  The UK really knew we could help and wanted us there, but much of the world still thought we were a joke.  Then we mobilized over 4 million soldiers, not to mention fleets, tanks, planes, etc.  We were even making much of the equipment for other countries.

Face it, how many large issues has American gotten involved in and pushed to conclusion that wasn't happening before our involvement?  While that doesn't negate the efforts and contributions put forth by other countries, it does make for a bit of arrogance.  You'll also notice that the US doesn't bad mouth the UK about WW2, because they took on the battle even more than we did.  If it wasn't for them holding out, WW2 probably would have gone the other way.


I think the US gets more than their share myself.  I think all countries try to duck the blame, I just think the Euro governments are better at it.

Buccaneer: You just said something very ignorant yourself. If you had given it some thought, you could conclude there are very few countries with good education. We have europe, some asians and north america. What does that add up to? 20 countries tops with good education? That's like saying "Dude we ended 15th in the DAMN league so stfu".
And being ignorant has very little to do with education anyhow.

     Acri, your last sentence is wrong. To be ignorant is to lack knowledge. Imparting knowledge is the primary goal of education. A stupid person--that is, a person lacking intelligence--can acquire knowledge. On the other hand, one's intelligence can never change. A person with an I.Q. of 80 could get a Ph.D from the most challenging university curriculum in the world if they were willing to work hard enough. It would not mean that their intelligence had increased, but rather that they had gained knowledge.

     Ignorance depends entirely upon education.

One more thing Arci, I think you missed the "top marks" part.  America didn't finish below anyone on education.  It had top marks, ie tied for first.  

Oh, and Europe isn't a country and different countries in Europe score differently.  

Anyway, in your analogy, it would be like 15 out of over a hundred tied for first.  But you were the one that called us ignorant, not the other way around.

Loth covered the rest better then I could.

Sorry was someone telling a hilarouse joke about America as a nation getting top scores for intellegance?

Hold on im just going to go outside to laugh my guts out. Oh tell me another one please please....

Oh my, you behave like your gods given gift, you wont teach the theory of evolution to kids in some states ( you tell them that god made the world in 7 days), you abandon the Kyoto agreement, you eletrocute, posion and gass your own citizens, you believe it is a persons right to own a gun... hell i don't have enough time to write it all..... Bust best of all... Look at your President! LOL I cant take it anymore plesase no.

Bravo Bravo well done well done.

omg of course I don't count europe as a country.

btw

Sweden has best welfare according to whoever it was. There are two ways of counting:

One way gives sweden the best
The other gives norway the best.

Acri please please, do tell where did america come?

And wellfare has what to do with this conversation?


BFG, thanks for showing a grand lack of intelligence and reading that wrong.

The word is IGNORANCE, and the discussion is it or the lack thereof.

Arci called us Americans IGNORANT.  As loth pointed out, there is a difference between Ignorance and Intelligence.  

What I pointed out was the UN numbers that showed that America's EDUCATION (as a nation) ranked at the top, along with other countries.  

Now EDUCATION is tied to IGNORANCE, you remove ignorance through education.  

Do ya get it now?

So both you and Acri show some ignorance in both how you've used the words, and how you've stereotyped America.  BTW BFG, how many students (give me a %) in all of American aren't taught evolution?  

And don't get me started on how you think the right to bare arms has anything to do with ignorance or intelligence, because you'll never be able to connect those dots.

Well Bfg, perhaps when evil people leave this world there will no longer be a reason for the death penalty and the right to bear arms.  For my tax dollars I would much rather save some cash and put someone to death who deserves it rather than kill him through a prison term anyway.  

Hell, i'll never go out in a major city without a form of protection.  Slam the US for that if you like, but there's not much to be done about those that don't give a shit about others.  Better to live and deal with the aftermath than be put 6 feet under.  But hey, you stop the guy with your fists if thats your choice.

I'll stay out of the rest of the arguments.  Bucc and Loth seem to have it well in havd.

i'd just like to point out as well that while America's primary and secondary education systems are being questioned here, our post secondary (i.e. collegiate level) institutions are with out a doubt among the best in the world

Indeed, Brain. Thanks.

Bucc:

THe Judeo-Christian conception is still the most popular theory of human nature in the United States. According to recent polls, 76 percent of Americans believe in the biblical account of creation, 79 percent believe that the miracles in the bible actually took place, 76 percent believe in angels, the devil, and other immaterial souls, 67 percent believe  they will exist in some form after their death, and only 15 percent believe that Darwin's theory of evolution is the best explanation for the origin of human life on earth. Politicians on the right embrace the religious theory explicitly, and no mainstream politician woul dare contradict it in public. But the modern sciences of cosmology, genology, biology, and archaeology have made it impossible for a scientificaly literate person to belive that the biblical story of creation actually took place. As a result, the Judeo-Christian thoery of human nature is no longer explicity avowed by most academics, journalists, social analysts, and other intellectually engaged people.

"God bless america"

Hath what you just said really amazes me. Evil people... evil? This mix of religon i finid extreamly disturbing - bush's statments about the crusade of good v evil are terrifying.
If you are happy to kill a person well i can find no way to understand that. How can a 'civilised' contry execute people... I find it hard to conetmplate how people can be prepared to do this. The fact that 100% of the people on death row are not guilty of the crimes they have been convicted of makes it even worse.

- I can't find any words to answer that stament. I just feel sick.
An eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth?

If that is the sort of society that you now life in when you feel you must carry a weapon then i am truely sorry - that is a terrible thing. Perhaps if you didn't feel it was your 'right' to carry a fire arm and they were made illigal then you might find there was less need for this sort of action.

BFG, nice quote, but I say "so what".  It has nothing to do with education or what is taught in schools.  Since CREATION isn't taught in schools.

You didn't answer my question.  I asked what % of American students aren't allowed to be taught evolution.  You responded with a percentage of Americans and their faith beliefs.  The two are not connected.  Your christian churches there teach the same as ours here.  And people still have their faith.  

I didn't refer to "evil" as any sort of biblical reference.  I'm not even a religious man myself.  Maybe next time I'll refer to them as "bad people"  And as for 100% of death row inmates being innocent, where do you get your information.  And I do happen to believe that in most cases, murdering someone makes your life forfeit.  So why the hell should I let you live for the rest of your life when you just ended someone else's w/ no reason?  Just does not appear logical to me.  This world is not a civilized place in the most part.  Until it is harsh measures must be taken at times.

So say Osama Bin Laden is captured.  He is well known to have caused thousands if not tens of thousands of deaths.  But you would not give him a death sentence?  

And the right to bear arms has been an argument for quite a while now with a lot of countries outlawing them.  The problem with this is that the outlaws still have the guns but now a law abiding citizen is basically fucked.  There have been many studies in which the crime rate actually increases in a society without weapons.

Hey Hathcock, even though you and I are pretty much on the same side of this argument, I'll answer that little bit for you.  And it also has little to do with moral beliefs, no matter where they come from (religion or otherwise).

It's simple, none of us wants to kill an innocent man with the death penalty.  So we have all these measures in place to ensure that it doesn't happen (and even then, we've been wrong at times as proven by DNA tests of late).  So, speaking in terms of pure economics, it's cheaper to keep someone in prison for 50 years (a rough average of the rest of their lives) then it is to jump through all the hoops to kill them.  It's not that I think it's wrong to kill someone like a Hitler, or Bin Laden, just that in most cases (most) it's just good economics.

On top of that, I say make the bastards suffer a bit.  Give me back some of the older prisons, where the convicts were made to work at hard labor, and the prisons actually broke even or made money in some cases.  Fuck giving them weight rooms and basket balls, give them shovels and stamping machines and let them earn their keep.  

If you believe in hell, then they are going to rot in it eventually.  If you don't, then why not make them suffer or pay a little back before you just snuff them out?

Regarding good and evil... I don't know about others but i always think of it regarding religion..

I hope your right bucc, but like you said it does happen. Hathcock you cant hontestly tell me you believe 100% of deathrow inmates are guilty of the crimes they have been convicted for? - your basically saying you belive the american justice system is 100% proof???

Im rather with bucc regarding the make the bastards suffer... not to extreams but nothing like beeing locked up for several years of your life - i mean properly locked up like bucc, not let us give you bed and board and a snooker table and a gym, fooball pitch etc etc.

So more guns in america = less violence? Ok.. True in britian we have incedents of gun crimes - normally related to drugs. People occasionally get shot. When people do you tend to hear about it on the National news.... Its not very often. I cannot agree with you that if america made guns illigal and it idfficult for people to own them you wouldn't get less people being shot.

its not a civilised place.. Hell i got to agree with you about that. Perhaps if you helped set a presidence and stopped frying your own population? I won't mention Camp X-ray (oops) etc etc... I can't agree with the "well they behave like it so its ok if we do" attitude

BFG, different states, and even different counties in America (and yes, even some cities) have different laws on gun control.  But, what I can do is direct you to some old threads here where we debated this.  In them I posted reports from a few universities, and stats from the UN showing a few things like:

In America, in places with a very liberal gun policy (meaning anyone can carry that isn't a felon), there are actually many less violent (ie rape, assault, murder, etc) then in places with very tight gun control laws.  There have been quite a few studies on it, by universities.  The conclusions after it was that criminals like to be the only ones with guns, therefore, they go elsewhere and look for easier prey.  

Other stats showed that both in England and Canada, after their strict controls or bans, violent crime went up.

Now remember, violent crime doesn't have to be with a gun.  Knives, bats, crowbars, ropes, fists, anything, They are just violent crimes.

Also take note that yes, Canada and the UK both have less violent crimes per capita then the US.  But in both cases, after gun bans, their own rates went up, not down.  That was the wrong direction.

Now, you can scan back and find the links to the studies if you don't believe me (I'm not going to fish them for you right now, but Tasty for one knows I posted them before).  

Now, you tell me what conclusions I'm supposed to draw about guns making it safer?  I asked the guys at the time to find anything saying that guns make it less safe for the average citizen, and all I got were stats showing that it was safer in countries with gun bans, but those same countries were safer before the gun bans.

Think about it.  If it's illegal to carry guns, then only criminals will.  Why do you want to give criminals an advantage like that?

Oh, one last thing.  I think the UK does a much better job of enacting tough punishments on criminals that use guns.  We could stand a lot of improvement in that regard here.

Bucc: If all america outlawed guns, it wouldnt be the same thing. IT is so easy to get a gun in america. not in sweden, unless you have your papers in order and you have to really deserve those papers!

The reason the criminals have so many guns is because you are making it easy to get them. Suit yourselves. You put yourselves into this position. Shoot eachother of if it solves anything.

I hereby retire from this discussion, as it is going nowhere. Why are the conservatives always unwilling to listen to reason and logic? There is no point talking to you guys, as you skip all my interesting questions and pick on my small errors. Total evasion of all good criticism. Not fun.

                                Acri

Acri, are you saying that the Brits and Canadians made it easy to get them too?  Because violent crime went up AFTER they banned them.  Not down.

What more stats have shown is that in the places in America that it is easier for all people to get and carry them, crime is lower then in places where it's like sweden, and hard to carry one legally.  

Now, given both those facts together, I can't see a different conclusion than the one I've made.

I too would like to see tougher prison's Bucc.  Right now it just seems like our penitentiory system is a joke.  I've caught the Discovery channel when they are going through a prison here and the inmates don't look worried, they just sit back, watch some T.V., or go lift some weights.  

And no I don't believe that our system is fullproof in anyway BFG.  But there are so many appeals levels and actually getting the death penalty is pretty hard (Look at the Lee Boyd Malvo sniper case.  The jury is hung over the death penalty right now).  

If the prison's we an actually very bad place to be, like Alcatraz was perhaps.  Then I would not be so set on the death penalty.  But the criminals in this country get more rights than the victims.  You even hear of prisoner's suing the system all the time.  In lighht of that I think the death penalty is one of the only real consequences that might make someone think twice about murder.  Then again, it is so rarely used that they probably don't even care.