A new ACW..

[Chijohnaok2]

ORIGINAL: junk2drive

Here in the land of Timothy McVeigh, you don't need a permit to carry a weapon unconcealed, and now concealed too. When I first moved here it was a shock to see people with side arms at banks, stores and restaurants. I've gotten comfortable with it and haven't seen anyone waving around a weapon of any sort. In general, crooks avoid occupied homes and autos because they don't know who will have the upper hand.

This is why all the controversy over what a newspaper in New York state did.

They obtained a list of all registered gun owners in their readership area, then crossed the addresses of each registrant using Google (or Yahoo) maps, and made the results available on their website.

Suddenly every burglar could figure out which homes were protected by guns, and which ones were not.

[Qwixt]

Is there any example of someone getting arrested for talking about revolution in the EU or UK? If a group starts talking or planning a real revolution in the U.S., I'm pretty sure they would get arrested as well. The FBI has always kept an eye on what they consider subversive groups. Just ask the Indians about what happened in the 1960s and 1970s.

[Missouri_Rebel]

ORIGINAL: chijohnaok

ORIGINAL: junk2drive

Here in the land of Timothy McVeigh, you don't need a permit to carry a weapon unconcealed, and now concealed too. When I first moved here it was a shock to see people with side arms at banks, stores and restaurants. I've gotten comfortable with it and haven't seen anyone waving around a weapon of any sort. In general, crooks avoid occupied homes and autos because they don't know who will have the upper hand.

This is why all the controversy over what a newspaper in New York state did.

They obtained a list of all registered gun owners in their readership area, then crossed the addresses of each registrant using Google (or Yahoo) maps, and made the results available on their website.

Suddenly every burglar could figure out which homes were protected by guns, and which ones were not.

And that is why I reposted this map many times in the past week or so with the name, addresses and home phone numbers of the Journal employees. They sure do love the FOIA as do I.

https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msa=0&m ... 1,0.222049

And here is the rub. These anti gun people hired armed guards for the Journal after they posted that Yellow Urinalism even though the police said there were no threats. It's always the same with these hypocrites. Rules for thee but not for me.

[mgarnett]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

The statement "people would no longer be permitted" should send chills up the spine of anyone who lives in a free country. When you accept a governments right to take away any natural right, you've started down a dangerous path indeed. History has shown time and again almost any government that had such power over its people eventually leads to horrific tragedy.

Restricting freedom may seem fine when the people in power seem trustworthy, but once the governments right to restrict freedoms is part of the power structure someone always comes along to abuse it, it's simply a matter of time.

Hi Jim,

The difference, though, is that it was done WITH public support, not without. The citizens wanted the government to go down this path. In other words, we exercised our our freedom to restrict gun ownership, it was not a case of having it imposed upon us, we the people wanted this.

As a result, IMHO, there was no loss of freedom here, rather, the people exercised freedom. Just because we voted for stricter laws, does not mean we gave up our freedom or restricted our freedom but rather the opposite. To me, guns do not equal freedom and merely being allowed to carry a gun does not increase my freedom in any way at all (this to me, from my perspective, I'm not saying this is the same for everyone).

A good example would be the laws passed by the Weimer Republic that were intended to disarm the Nazis and Communists were later used by the Nazis against their enemies when they were taking full power in Germany. Free people should always weigh what they will or can lose when a freedom is taken away, even if it seems like a good reason to take it at the time.

I don't think this is a good example. There is a massive difference between a government imposing a law upon a population without the majority of the population wanting it.

I've been to Australia twice and made many friends in the law enforcement community down there (I'm retired police). All I can say from my talks with them is there is simply no comparison to the type and level of crime in the two countries. We have gangs here that require their prospective members to go out and kill some random innocent person just to get in the gang. The gangs in Oakland would make a game of it by going out and driving crazy on the freeway. The first person to flash their lights at them would be followed home and shot. I personally worked three different cases like that. Your only chance in an encounter like that is if you're personally armed, otherwise you're dead.

Oh, I absolutely agree with this and if it wasn't clear in my original post that I made this distinction, then my apologies. It goes back to my original point that this is not simply an issue of gun control, it's also cultural

You completely missed the point if that's what you think. Prohibition was tried and failed miserably. Alcohol still kills far more innocent people daily than gun violence ever will, but it is far better to leave it a lawful commodity then to outlaw it again.

Again, if my post was ambiguous, I do apologise, but my point is this. If I were to say lets ban fast food burgers because they are bad for you and you say, yeah, but what about fizzy drinks, they're just as bad and I say, well what about candy, that's not good either and so on and so on, you never get to the end.

So, let's take guns, if I said lets ban guns and you say, well knives are just as bad and I say, well, what about about alcohol that kills people as well and you say, well, cigarettes are just as bad and I say well, don't forget cars, they kill people and you say.....

You can see that we will get nowhere fast because for every additional example I can bring up, an equal and just as bad example can also be found. So my point is, not to advocate prohibition, that's absolutely not what I'm saying, but to say problems of this magnitude have to be dealt with one at a time. You can't solve every issue at the same time, you need to concentrate on what the issue is.

ORIGINAL: mgarnett

The position of freedom? Nothing wrong with that. 99.9% of law abiding gun owners never use a gun in a criminal act, it's the law breakers who use them in crimes right now, so outlawing them simply disarms the law abiding citizens and leaves them vulnerable to the criminals.

Jim

No no no, I really cannot understand how on earth you came to that conclusion. I mean I feel sorry for the law abiding citizens that they have to put up with such violent crime, wouldn't you rather live in a society where you didn't have to put up with violent crime (all things remaining equal, i.e. no loss of freedom)? Just because I feel sorry, does not have anything to do with your freedom, I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion.

I don't have any crime statistics, but I would be interested to know if there is any proof that allowing citizens to carry a gun protects them from crime compared to those societies where citizens are not armed. Actually, this is something that would be really interesting to know, I think I might do some googling to see if any studies have been done and what the results are (for my own interest).

This does lead to an interesting thought, if studies support the notion that guns equals freedom and protection, then it would be a powerful piece of information supporting not introducing gun control. However, I wonder what would happen if studies proved otherwise. Here's a question, as a thought experiment, because I'm sure such a thing would not exist, if a study existed that proved beyond any reasonable doubt that gun control would reduce violent crime and as a result, increase public safety, would pro-gun people still argue against gun control?

I also want to be clear, I am not a US citizen, therefore I do not advocate for or against gun control in the US, because I don't live there and as a result, I do not feel I have a right to voice that opinion. I am merely trying to understand the problem because I feel just as horrified as the next person when I see news reports of innocent people being killed (again, this is not meant to be a dig at firearms). It's just so senseless and I wish a satisfactory solution could be found for all concerned, those pro-gun and those against.

Cheers

Mark

[junk2drive]

Again, if my post was ambiguous, I do apologise, but my point is this. If I were to say lets ban fast food burgers because they are bad for you and you say, yeah, but what about fizzy drinks, they're just as bad and I say, well what about candy, that's not good either and so on and so on, you never get to the end.

So, let's take guns, if I said lets ban guns and you say, well knives are just as bad and I say, well, what about about alcohol that kills people as well and you say, well, cigarettes are just as bad and I say well, don't forget cars, they kill people and you say.....

It won't be alcohol next because the politicians drink too much. Plus they tried prohibition already. But they tax the heck out of booze and tobacco while subsidizing the farmers that make the raw materials. They have made smokers out to be the bad guys. Fast food/fat food will be next. It is all about control. National health care with strings attached. No smoking, drinking, overweight, etc etc will be allowed if you want free health care. Oh wait, that is half the politicians. Well they have their own health care...

[mgarnett]

ORIGINAL: Missouri_Rebel

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
1 more edit:

That really came out wrong. I'm sorry if I offended my cousins across the pond. Instead of saying you weren't free, I should have merely stated that your speech codes are odd to me. Again, maybe a cultural thing, and I don't intend to influence your laws, it's just something very foreign to me(pun intended).

I think this is a good edit! It recognises that we all see things differently depending on where we live and what laws we live under. Every country has laws restricting what we can and cannot do. For the most, these laws are common, murder is murder, assault is assault etc. However, there those laws which are not common and whilst some may see another country's laws as oppressive, those that live there may want it just like it is.

I think the reason this thread has remained so civil is that we all recognise that. I'm sure there are laws here in AU that people in the UK or US would perceive as terrible, but no country is perfect, we are all trying to live a peaceful life in safety where our children are free from harm. For me, that's what the issue is about, it's not simply a gun issue (for or against), it's about keeping our children safe and to strive to find the best way to achieve that goal and that's a goal worth working for.

Cheers

Mark

[Perturabo]

ORIGINAL: Missouri_Rebel

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

ORIGINAL: Missouri_Rebel

My wife's job ensures that she is very close to those that are on the government dole and the lack of drive among many and a complacency to live with what they are given, never striving for more, is troublesome. I shouldn't have to work so hard to pay for people who refuse to work, and yes there are MANY, so that I can pay for them to fill up on junk food and expensive meats, utilize a free phone, tear up property and homes where they have no vested interest while they demand things such as free internet. Get a job if you can work.

For instance, a consumer of my wife has a son that is 43, older than we are, who 'can't' find a job after 4 years of 'searching' for one. Yet he spends his day on mommy's internet playing games. My wife suggested that he try McDonalds as they are usually hiring. His response? It is below him to work there. Soaking the govt (me) for $300 a month in food stamps and hitting the local food pantries, basically stealing from those who really need it evidently is not below him though.

It doesn't really matter whenever he wants to get a job or not. McDonald's job may be "below him" to him, but it's not like McDonald's would actually hire him. "Usually hiring" means "a position is free in one of the restaurants from time to time" with the "but we got hundreds of applications" part omitted so that they'd get even more applications to choose from.

It's funny how many pretend employers there are nowadays. For example stores and restaurants usually keep job announcements on their fronts for a few months after they have already hired someone on that position and continue to collect tens or hundreds of CVs in that time. Additionally, employment agencies display outdated job offers to get CVs too (why do they even need so many CVs anyway?), government unemployment offices keep tens of outdated job offers on their page, one of the most annoying things that I have encountered is companies posting a job offer and then when one calls, it turns out that they aren't actually hiring, they just want to collect CVs for some time in future when they will have a free position. Tens, hundreds of CVs.

Then there are interviews whose purpose is to eliminate people who aren't good at bullshitting from getting any work.

Getting a job nowadays has nothing to do with wanting to get a job and availability of jobs is illusionary.

I guarantee he has a 100% of not being hired when he won't even go look. Nothing quite like the 'why bother attitude'. The rest of us flipping the bill for people working our butts off are starting to get the 'why bother' attitude.

I understand that the market is bad, but I am talking about people who refuse to work while I pay for them.

On the other hand, I *love* job-dodgers as every one of them is one less CV to the pile and one less person to show off their bullshitting skills on job interviews. You may be hating them, but as long as there isn't enough jobs for people who actually want to work, their influence on job market is very positive as they make it less difficult (which is ridiculously difficult anyway) to get job for honest, ambitious people who find pride in well done work and want more from life than food stamps. And employers have to deal with less lazy bullshitters.

Personally, I'm more inclined to dislike people who keep 3 different jobs for themselves, denying 2 workplaces to people who are searching for a job and have none. I wonder how much unemployment is created this way.

[Missouri_Rebel]

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

ORIGINAL: Missouri_Rebel

ORIGINAL: Perturabo


It doesn't really matter whenever he wants to get a job or not. McDonald's job may be "below him" to him, but it's not like McDonald's would actually hire him. "Usually hiring" means "a position is free in one of the restaurants from time to time" with the "but we got hundreds of applications" part omitted so that they'd get even more applications to choose from.

It's funny how many pretend employers there are nowadays. For example stores and restaurants usually keep job announcements on their fronts for a few months after they have already hired someone on that position and continue to collect tens or hundreds of CVs in that time. Additionally, employment agencies display outdated job offers to get CVs too (why do they even need so many CVs anyway?), government unemployment offices keep tens of outdated job offers on their page, one of the most annoying things that I have encountered is companies posting a job offer and then when one calls, it turns out that they aren't actually hiring, they just want to collect CVs for some time in future when they will have a free position. Tens, hundreds of CVs.

Then there are interviews whose purpose is to eliminate people who aren't good at bullshitting from getting any work.

Getting a job nowadays has nothing to do with wanting to get a job and availability of jobs is illusionary.

I guarantee he has a 100% of not being hired when he won't even go look. Nothing quite like the 'why bother attitude'. The rest of us flipping the bill for people working our butts off are starting to get the 'why bother' attitude.

I understand that the market is bad, but I am talking about people who refuse to work while I pay for them.

On the other hand, I *love* job-dodgers as every one of them is one less CV to the pile and one less person to show off their bullshitting skills on job interviews. You may be hating them, but as long as there's unemployment, their influence on job market is very positive as they make it less difficult (which is ridiculously difficult anyway) to get job for honest, ambitious people who find pride in well done work and want more from life than food stamps. And employers have to deal with less lazy bullshitters.

Personally, I'm more inclined to dislike people who keep 3 different jobs for themselves, denying 2 workplaces to people who are searching for a job and have none. I wonder how much unemployment is created this way.

Oh yeah, those greedy people and their 3 jobs. How dare them! I can see them now coming home after spending 12 or more hours at work and away from their family with their smiles and cheers of jubilation. I bet they skip up the driveway just thinking about their next long day.

If only the government would come in and give their jobs to someone less deserving. Maybe an Executive Order is needed.

[junk2drive]

Bush and Obama's exec orders need a whole other thread, lol

[wodin]

My uncle and cousin both owned rifles and hand guns..my uncle even made his own bullets..he had to hand over £1000's of pounds worth of guns..think he had about 10 hand guns or so..all locked away and safe..yet the Government came along and took them, so not everyone felt like the Government was acting on their behalf. They had the main hobby and enjoyment in life taken away from them because people who weren't interested in shooting decided they where all bad and the Government should ban them.

ORIGINAL: mgarnett

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

The statement "people would no longer be permitted" should send chills up the spine of anyone who lives in a free country. When you accept a governments right to take away any natural right, you've started down a dangerous path indeed. History has shown time and again almost any government that had such power over its people eventually leads to horrific tragedy.

Restricting freedom may seem fine when the people in power seem trustworthy, but once the governments right to restrict freedoms is part of the power structure someone always comes along to abuse it, it's simply a matter of time.

Hi Jim,

The difference, though, is that it was done WITH public support, not without. The citizens wanted the government to go down this path. In other words, we exercised our our freedom to restrict gun ownership, it was not a case of having it imposed upon us, we the people wanted this.

As a result, IMHO, there was no loss of freedom here, rather, the people exercised freedom. Just because we voted for stricter laws, does not mean we gave up our freedom or restricted our freedom but rather the opposite. To me, guns do not equal freedom and merely being allowed to carry a gun does not increase my freedom in any way at all (this to me, from my perspective, I'm not saying this is the same for everyone).

A good example would be the laws passed by the Weimer Republic that were intended to disarm the Nazis and Communists were later used by the Nazis against their enemies when they were taking full power in Germany. Free people should always weigh what they will or can lose when a freedom is taken away, even if it seems like a good reason to take it at the time.

I don't think this is a good example. There is a massive difference between a government imposing a law upon a population without the majority of the population wanting it.

I've been to Australia twice and made many friends in the law enforcement community down there (I'm retired police). All I can say from my talks with them is there is simply no comparison to the type and level of crime in the two countries. We have gangs here that require their prospective members to go out and kill some random innocent person just to get in the gang. The gangs in Oakland would make a game of it by going out and driving crazy on the freeway. The first person to flash their lights at them would be followed home and shot. I personally worked three different cases like that. Your only chance in an encounter like that is if you're personally armed, otherwise you're dead.

Oh, I absolutely agree with this and if it wasn't clear in my original post that I made this distinction, then my apologies. It goes back to my original point that this is not simply an issue of gun control, it's also cultural

You completely missed the point if that's what you think. Prohibition was tried and failed miserably. Alcohol still kills far more innocent people daily than gun violence ever will, but it is far better to leave it a lawful commodity then to outlaw it again.

Again, if my post was ambiguous, I do apologise, but my point is this. If I were to say lets ban fast food burgers because they are bad for you and you say, yeah, but what about fizzy drinks, they're just as bad and I say, well what about candy, that's not good either and so on and so on, you never get to the end.

So, let's take guns, if I said lets ban guns and you say, well knives are just as bad and I say, well, what about about alcohol that kills people as well and you say, well, cigarettes are just as bad and I say well, don't forget cars, they kill people and you say.....

You can see that we will get nowhere fast because for every additional example I can bring up, an equal and just as bad example can also be found. So my point is, not to advocate prohibition, that's absolutely not what I'm saying, but to say problems of this magnitude have to be dealt with one at a time. You can't solve every issue at the same time, you need to concentrate on what the issue is.

ORIGINAL: mgarnett

The position of freedom? Nothing wrong with that. 99.9% of law abiding gun owners never use a gun in a criminal act, it's the law breakers who use them in crimes right now, so outlawing them simply disarms the law abiding citizens and leaves them vulnerable to the criminals.

Jim

No no no, I really cannot understand how on earth you came to that conclusion. I mean I feel sorry for the law abiding citizens that they have to put up with such violent crime, wouldn't you rather live in a society where you didn't have to put up with violent crime (all things remaining equal, i.e. no loss of freedom)? Just because I feel sorry, does not have anything to do with your freedom, I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion.

I don't have any crime statistics, but I would be interested to know if there is any proof that allowing citizens to carry a gun protects them from crime compared to those societies where citizens are not armed. Actually, this is something that would be really interesting to know, I think I might do some googling to see if any studies have been done and what the results are (for my own interest).

This does lead to an interesting thought, if studies support the notion that guns equals freedom and protection, then it would be a powerful piece of information supporting not introducing gun control. However, I wonder what would happen if studies proved otherwise. Here's a question, as a thought experiment, because I'm sure such a thing would not exist, if a study existed that proved beyond any reasonable doubt that gun control would reduce violent crime and as a result, increase public safety, would pro-gun people still argue against gun control?

I also want to be clear, I am not a US citizen, therefore I do not advocate for or against gun control in the US, because I don't live there and as a result, I do not feel I have a right to voice that opinion. I am merely trying to understand the problem because I feel just as horrified as the next person when I see news reports of innocent people being killed (again, this is not meant to be a dig at firearms). It's just so senseless and I wish a satisfactory solution could be found for all concerned, those pro-gun and those against.

Cheers

Mark

[mgarnett]

ORIGINAL: wodin

My uncle and cousin both owned rifles and hand guns..my uncle even made his own bullets..he had to hand over £1000's of pounds worth of guns..think he had about 10 hand guns or so..all locked away and safe..yet the Government came along and took them, so not everyone felt like the Government was acting on their behalf. They had the main hobby and enjoyment in life taken away from them because people who weren't interested in shooting decided they where all bad and the Government should ban them.

Hi Wodin,

I understand completely and I feel sorry for your uncle, we had issues here in AU with sporting shooters and what not (although sporting shooters are allowed firearms, but I think there is criteria around where the guns must be stored or how they must be stored, I can't quite remember), however, the majority of the population wanted the Government to do a particular thing and, for good or ill, that's the way democracies work. There will always be those who are adversely effected by the "will of the majority" (although, IMHO, this of itself does not make the decision inherently wrong, although it might not necessarily be right), but a perfect system of government does not exist where all of the people are happy all of the time.

Take cannabis for example, it's illegal here (although it is decriminalised in some states), but I'm sure some of those that do smoke it disagree with the governments decision to "outlaw" it. Does this make the decision wrong just because some people disagree with it? I honestly don't know. I think apart from those laws that address really extreme criminal behavior, there will always be two sides to the debate.

Some decisions we will agree with, some we won't, but the majority dictates policy (I say this as a statement as far "general policy and direction" is concerned and it's not meant to cover absolutely everything a government does, i.e. lobbying by minority groups). Here in AU, voting is compulsory, you vote or you get fined for not voting, unless you can justify it of course, so the government is voted in by a majority of the entire population (minors excluded), not just a majority of those people who vote.

I'm sure this is one law that could be viewed on as strange from the outside, especially from the US, we are forced to vote or pay a fine, so I suppose you don't have to if you're willing to pay for not voting with your wallet. I would vote regardless, but I'm sure there are those that wouldn't.....right or wrong, who knows.

Cheers

Mark

[goodwoodrw]

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

ORIGINAL: Wolfe

ORIGINAL: Perturabo


You should check your privilege:
fb.asp?m=3246182&key=

fb.asp?m=3246210&key=

Not disagreeing that there is still gun violence in the UK just that my perception is that I am more free from the threat of violence than I think I would be in the US. Maybe I've just been watching too much of Sons of Anarchy recently [:)]

That's why you should check your privilege. You're privileged to live a safer area and you're denying people who don't have that privilege the right to protect themselves.
Also, it's not just gun violence - there's also other kinds of violence that are as deadly.

ORIGINAL: BASB

I guess what all my waffle is about is moderation, and gradual culture change. I'm not suggesting for one moment to ban firearms or hunting or target shooting etc etc, but for the life of me I can't see the need for every citizen have 5 shotguns, 4 rifles, 3 sub machine guns,2 semi automatic pistols and a cocked revolver in the pear tree.
Over the past 40 years the US has changed its attitude when it comes to racism, perhaps in the next 40 years your country can do the same and change the gun culture, I'm sure all citizens will benefit if there is only 150 million firearms instead of the 300 million you have today!

But why? If people can afford having many arms, then why shouldn't they have them? I'm pretty sure that having a few or several guns to go to shooting range with is much more fun than having only one gun.
[/qu


If for no other reason to save one persons life and hopefully many more, Its all about risk management. Reduce the risk and you reduce the chances of something going wrong. This may sound very dumb and simple, I question anyone to prove my theory wrong. If 2 blokes go to a fight both with guns, its odds on one of will get shot if not both. If the same two went to a fight and guns were weren't available, the odds of them getting shot very long. Now I'm not suggesting reduce guns by 50% you will reduce the number deaths by firearms by the same amount, but you will reduce them by some percentage.
An issue that hasn't touch in this particular thread is the number of accidental death by firearms. I'm not sure if my stats are right, but there were about 500 accidental death due to firearms in the US in 2012, and about half of all suicides firearms were used.
Every sound minded person should have the right to apply for a gun licence, but necessarily have the right to own a gun. Gun ownership should be a privilege not a right.

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: mgarnett
I don't have any crime statistics, but I would be interested to know if there is any proof that allowing citizens to carry a gun protects them from crime compared to those societies where citizens are not armed.

Here's some facts to ponder:

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

The specific quote:

* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 0.5% of households had members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone "almost certainly would have been killed" if they "had not used a gun for protection." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 162,000 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[12]

162,000 is a very large number (34k+ a year) when compared to actual homicides committed in the US. Without guns in the home a lot more people would be murdered every year, no doubt about it. And when you read about the percentage of felons in prisons stopped/captured by armed civilians, it's a stark example of the benefits of guns in the home.

If you watch the video in an earllier post by me, you'd see there are almost 4 times as many violent crimes in Britain than in the US. It can really only be attributed to the fact Brits can't defend themselves given how many americans stop or thwart crimes here using their guns.

Jim

[Missouri_Rebel]

Story from 2 days ago. Woman defends home against intruder. This type of self reliant defense is under reported and nobody really tracks crimes that were foiled by armed citizenry.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/georgia-mom-hi ... d=18164812

He chased one of the 9 y.o. twins up the stairs and then broke through 2 more doors while the family retreated.

[Chijohnaok2]

ORIGINAL: mgarnett

ORIGINAL: wodin

My uncle and cousin both owned rifles and hand guns..my uncle even made his own bullets..he had to hand over £1000's of pounds worth of guns..think he had about 10 hand guns or so..all locked away and safe..yet the Government came along and took them, so not everyone felt like the Government was acting on their behalf. They had the main hobby and enjoyment in life taken away from them because people who weren't interested in shooting decided they where all bad and the Government should ban them.

Hi Wodin,

I understand completely and I feel sorry for your uncle, we had issues here in AU with sporting shooters and what not (although sporting shooters are allowed firearms, but I think there is criteria around where the guns must be stored or how they must be stored, I can't quite remember), however, the majority of the population wanted the Government to do a particular thing and, for good or ill, that's the way democracies work. There will always be those who are adversely effected by the "will of the majority" (although, IMHO, this of itself does not make the decision inherently wrong, although it might not necessarily be right), but a perfect system of government does not exist where all of the people are happy all of the time.

Take cannabis for example, it's illegal here (although it is decriminalised in some states), but I'm sure some of those that do smoke it disagree with the governments decision to "outlaw" it. Does this make the decision wrong just because some people disagree with it? I honestly don't know. I think apart from those laws that address really extreme criminal behavior, there will always be two sides to the debate.

Some decisions we will agree with, some we won't, but the majority dictates policy (I say this as a statement as far "general policy and direction" is concerned and it's not meant to cover absolutely everything a government does, i.e. lobbying by minority groups). Here in AU, voting is compulsory, you vote or you get fined for not voting, unless you can justify it of course, so the government is voted in by a majority of the entire population (minors excluded), not just a majority of those people who vote.

I'm sure this is one law that could be viewed on as strange from the outside, especially from the US, we are forced to vote or pay a fine, so I suppose you don't have to if you're willing to pay for not voting with your wallet. I would vote regardless, but I'm sure there are those that wouldn't.....right or wrong, who knows.

Cheers

Mark

[My underlines added to your above note]

Democracy is generally about the "will of the majority".

In the US, however, the Founding Fathers also put in certain protections to minimize the possibility of the "tyranny of the majority". Certain rights are guaranteed to all citizens, regardless of whichever way the will of the majority may go.

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: Wolfe
I still feel free and also more free from the threat of violence than I think I would in the US. Maybe we in the UK have a greater inherent trust in our Parliament than US citizens have for their government, again maybe just one of those cultural differences.

You may feel safer, but the facts simply don't back up that statement. The video I posted a link to earlier saw the data from the US and Britain compared. You are almost 4 times more likely to be a victim of a violent crime in Britain than you are in the US.

More of note, it's the dense urban areas where the big gangs are prevalent where all the violence is in the US, in most regions of the US we are far safer overall than most other people in the world.

We have a problem with big dangerous gangs in our inner cities, but that's a symptom of our freedoms. We protect everyone from unlawful search and seizure and as a result it is very hard for law enforcement to crack down on gangs. This makes organized crime a very lucrative business in the US, so our urban areas are plagued by violence from those same gangs.

That said, most violence and murders reported in those areas are gang on gang violence. Some does bleed over into the civilian populous sure, but the vast majority of it is scumbags killing scumbags. But hey if it fits into the niche of the anti-gun crowd they're always glad to point to it and say see I told you so.

But the fact is their poor governance in those areas is the true underlying cause of the problem. They get their power from the underprivileged and poor who vote for them, so it's in their best interest to keep those same voters underprivileged and poor while telling them they're "on their side". Some of the worst areas in our nation like Oakland have been staunchly democrat for 50+ years, but nothing ever gets any better in those areas. At some point you'd think the people would wise up and try something new just to see if things might change.

[parusski]

Today even PRAVDA recognizes the danger that Americans may lose "the right to keep and bear arms".

Link to Pravda's warning to Americans not to give up their guns...

The author makes a lot of great arguments, including the fact that Russia was once heavily armed and this enable the White's to rise up against the Reds.

One great excerpt:
"Of course being savages, murderers and liars does not mean being stupid and the Reds learned from their Civil War experience. One of the first things they did was to disarm the population. From that point, mass repression, mass arrests, mass deportations, mass murder, mass starvation were all a safe game for the powers that were. The worst they had to fear was a pitchfork in the guts or a knife in the back or the occasional hunting rifle. Not much for soldiers."

[Chijohnaok2]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

ORIGINAL: Wolfe
I still feel free and also more free from the threat of violence than I think I would in the US. Maybe we in the UK have a greater inherent trust in our Parliament than US citizens have for their government, again maybe just one of those cultural differences.

You may feel safer, but the facts simply don't back up that statement. The video I posted a link to earlier saw the data from the US and Britain compared. You are almost 4 times more likely to be a victim of a violent crime in Britain than you are in the US.

More of note, it's the dense urban areas where the big gangs are prevalent where all the violence is in the US, in most regions of the US we are far safer overall than most other people in the world.

We have a problem with big dangerous gangs in our inner cities, but that's a symptom of our freedoms. We protect everyone from unlawful search and seizure and as a result it is very hard for law enforcement to crack down on gangs. This makes organized crime a very lucrative business in the US, so our urban areas are plagued by violence from those same gangs.

That said, most violence and murders reported in those areas are gang on gang violence. Some does bleed over into the civilian populous sure, but the vast majority of it is scumbags killing scumbags. But hey if it fits into the niche of the anti-gun crowd they're always glad to point to it and say see I told you so.

But the fact is their poor governance in those areas is the true underlying cause of the problem. They get their power from the underprivileged and poor who vote for them, so it's in their best interest to keep those same voters underprivileged and poor while telling them they're "on their side". Some of the worst areas in our nation like Oakland have been staunchly democrat for 50+ years, but nothing ever gets any better in those areas. At some point you'd think the people would wise up and try something new just to see if things might change.

An even better example of that is Chicago. Every mayor of Chicago since 1931 has been a member of that same political party.

[vonRocko]

ORIGINAL: BASB

I'm sure all citizens will benefit if there is only 150 million firearms instead of the 300 million you have today!

That's 300,000,001! I just became the proud father of a little baby 22 derringer.[:)]

[goodwoodrw]

Why does the US government spend so much money on training their soldiers and police when it appears that every citizen is an expert in the use of firearms already???