Where exactly is over there? Southeast DC or Boise Idaho? That made no sense. There are plenty of areas within Hong Kong where you wouldn't last five minutes.

no ur not

ur prolly just loaded and have never seen real crime other than on tv in america. chiense tv wont televise its crime lollllllll its a commmi country

Which areas are those? I've been all over hong kong and never came across one neighborhood where I feared for my life.

And over there was in reference to hoston texas.

Gee you remind me so much of mr. chronic over there.

Like Jeboduuza said, you obviously haven't seen crime because you must be rich and sheltered. Your bubble won't last forever ducky.

Aren't you still in the US living with an Uncle until your Mom takes you home to Hong Kong?

If that's the case - I'm confused how you can say we're so evil and crime riddled, but feel safer HERE than there.

Explain please.

why. because i dont agree with you? im not the only one

No we moved back to hong kong and are living with my aunt and uncle until my mom finds a place.

Reality is that the United Stated is THE most violent nation among the western democracies. That violence is significantly less even in Mexico and Canada. In the same time that the United Stated massacred school children about 44 times, then entire rest of the world combined only saw that happen about 10 times. So common that Americans attitude to what happened in Virginia: yawn.

America is now so violent that a killer can fire every 3 second consecutively for nine minutes at students. That is now considered acceptable in America because attitudes to so much violence: yawn. Instead, Americans here would instead attack the messenger.

United States is clearly the most violent western nation. That is not even disputable where people live in reality. Furthermore it is predictable from history. As numbers of guns increase, then so does violent death. That fact has been well established throughout the world for at least 200 years.

That is pretty much what I have been saying the whole time but not as articulately. Yet I get accused of trying to prove I'm queen of the world, called a naive 16 year old, america basher etc. I even had a bashing thread started about me. lol
One thing that does surprise me about your post is you say the violence is less in mexico. The school I was going to in houston had many latinos that were from mexico and they seemed to think the violent crime was much worse there.

It's only natural that duck_duck feels that the place she lives in is the best place to live. Same with anyone else.

The only difference is that the supposedly more mature people in this forum are arguing with a 16 yr old as if they are 16 yr olds also. Granted the main opponent in the argument is a mere 3 yrs older with probably not much more life experience, and possibly less.

Yes there's crime everywhere. Yes there's different levels of crime from place to place within a country. Yes there are places that we as residents of our country/city know we wouldn't go after dark.

I can see dd's point here and the point she's trying to make and coming from a country with similar gun laws, I know what she's trying to say.

Let me say this to you dd. You wont win this argument. No matter what 'facts' you provide as evidence. Better to save your energy and just be glad you live where you do.

But you are still in California.

says the two IPs I have to go through to access this site.

My uncle put tor on my computer and because of that I get a "your IP has been banned by the administrator" message so I have to log in through an online server just to get here.

And never never ever did Duck_duck consider that an average Jane like Duck_duck might get a gun and become skilled with it. At sixteen, she'd still have to wait a while, but still, there it is. Rapists (and I very much doubt the one-in-five-women figure she cited earlier -- sounds like an Andrea Dworkin shibboleth not well borne out by the stats) tend to lose their enthusiasm when somebody lines up a .38 on their naughty bits.

And the ones who can rape a .38 -- maybe they deserve to. :cool: But they should really buy their own guns. Spoogeing down the bore of somebody else's fighting tool is not behavior Miss Manners would approve of.

Actually, we disagree with you because we have studied the matter, and we are persuaded of the veracity of the researchers we've studied. In a word, we know more about it than you do.

Opening up the path to crime, on a retail scale or a wholesale, by eliminating self-defense is stupid, on its face. The pretense that armament benefits only criminals is given the lie by not only the carrying of guns by government arms such as the police and sheriffs' departments, but also by the universal experience of every state in the Union that went more liberal on its concealed carry of weapons: in every single such State, crime went down and stayed down. The States that have not done so have crime levels that remain higher than the states that actively enable self defense even unto arming oneself and fighting crime by shooting back. You could look it up -- the NRA got it right, and lives are being saved en masse.

Swiss homes are full of assault rifles, each with a box of 200 rounds of ready ammunition, tw.

Show me the Swiss murder rate. Show me the Swiss rate of murder by firearm. Show me miscellaneous Swiss massacres by selective-fire assault rifle.

Closer to home, try Nevada, Idaho, the Dakotas: all these places have a total murder rate that looks like... England's. Let three examples stand for a couple dozen.

You aren't much of a researcher.:D :D :D

Oh ,my god!It is very pity and the USA government should prohibit the guns now!!!

Further refutation of your argument, Spexx, may be found in Thomas Hobbes' The Leviathan: in Chapter 14, he presents two natural laws:

The structure is rather strangely inverted, but the idea is a good one.

You're pretty good at the first of these; I'm considerably better than you at the second. That this discrepancy should anger you so, and motivate you to dish out the guff you have is puzzling, for I do not despise nor do I fail to practice the first.

The Leviathan

And who are you to ask us to clear the path to a genocide -- which only happens to unarmed populations? Gun prohibition is necessary before you can get your victims shipped to Aushwitz and Dachau, fullove.

But if the victims have got guns, your Einsatzkommandos die before they can shove the targeted group into the boxcars.

What, are let Chairman Mao's minions run roughshod over us?

With every Swiss gun is massive, repetitive training. Since number of guns has not increased in Switzerland, then violent crimes do not increase. Where number of guns increase, then violent crimes increase. Charts comparing gun ownership in America compared to a following increase in violent death demonstrates a problem that is also well proven throughout the world.

Yes, the other parts of the western world regard America as a most violent nation - because they look at the numbers. In America, if someone 'disses' you, then you have the right to a gun. That attitude is now becoming more prevalent. So prevalent that American school yard massacres get a response called "Yawn".

How did Britain stop schoolyard slaughters? Everyone now carries a gun? A solution advocated by those who deny basic facts and numbers.

Meanwhile, every home in Switzerland does not have a gun. In Switzerland, those who are mentally unstable cannot have a gun. In Switzerland, everyone is carefully vetted. Urbane Guerrilla forget to mention that part. He also got to mention that many gun advocates oppose 'mental stablity' rules are contrary to the their interpretation of the Second Amendment. According to second admendment 'advocates' even the mentally unstable have a constitutional right to guns - even 155 mm howitizers.

Urbane Guerrilla forgot to mention so much. Therefore what is his poltical agenda?

Cite.

Second Amendement: "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." Quoted exactly as interpreted by the NRA. The right of the people, if or if not mentally ill, shall not be infringed. Arms - anything from hunting rifles to assault weapons to 155 mm howitzters - shall not be infringed.

Where "arms" is defined as weapons that you can carry, i.e., an extension of the arm.

next

Nice try, now cite where the NRA says the mentally ill should not be denied.

You really can't compare gun control and deaths with other countries and expect it to be accurate. Gun deaths are just a product of something much larger that can not be controlled through laws. If you live in a peaceful society, legalizing or illegalizing guns won't make gun deaths go up or down because people will be less likely to use them to kill in the first place. If you live in a violent society, you will still get violent deaths no matter how many laws you make.

But that is still on the surface. Then you have to consider how many deaths banning guns or making them harder to get will prevent and how much it hurts then find a compromise.

Is that a generally accepted definition? IYHO, would the Framers have considered cannons covered by the 2nd Amendment?

Bruce, you are doing this more and more often. Are you alright?

I never said, "NRA says the mentally ill should not be denied." Let's look exactly at what I posted: Bruce - again you have jumped to conclusions rather than read what was posted.


9th Engineer makes another relevant comment in another thread: Exactly. Many have completely contradictory opinion - none based in political agendas. Whereas the NRA leadership now advocates action to restrict guns from the mentally ill, the Medical industry opposes complete access to everyone's medical records. That (now) NRA advocated gun restriction calls for all such medical records to be accessed by government - a violation of privacy rights.

Meanwhile, what gets lost? Court records (public records) are not even being used to restrict weapons, in part, because of those who opposed 'any and all' gun restrictions. Eventually gun ownership will require one to display responsibility. In so much political spinning, that demand for responsiblity is completely lost in mud and distortions.

And so a hunter in Allentown PA fires a high power rifle. The bullet strikes a pregnant woman in the head in her driveway one half mile away. The hunter would not even apologize for his irresponsible actions. Therein lies the problem. Responsibility is now secondary and irrelevant to rights.

Meanwhile, Bruce should read before making such accusations. Lately he has been doing this more often.

Show me where anyone needs hardware to fire a round every 3 seconds for nine minutes. Clearly he needed that for personal defense, hunting, or to have fun. A post that begs for responses from non-Americans (including Canadians). Tell me if that 'need' sounds justified, necessary, and essential to you?

I think it is accepted. I don't know if they picked the word specifically.

Bouvier's law dictionary (c. 1856, closer to the framers than we are) sez
The word "anger" seems subjective here, but I think it makes the point that a rock can be "arms" in certain circumstances.

I was talking about placing restrictions on guns and maybe banning a few. You seem to be talking about placing restrictions on guns and maybe banning a few. I don't see where our disagreement is?

If we had a country the size of Rhode Island with a population not bigger than large American city, that might be significant.

That would be total bull crap.

NRA Statement On Legislative Efforts On Capitol Hill

Friday, April 27, 2007

Recent reports in the Washington Post, Newsweek and other media outlets are fanning Internet rumors regarding the NRA’s position concerning legislation currently being discussed in Congress in the aftermath of the horrific crimes that occurred at Virginia Tech.

The NRA has a long history of supporting measures to prevent guns from being acquired by violent criminals and those who have been adjudicated by a court as mentally incompetent. And we wrote into law mandatory prison sentences for armed felons and other prohibited classes who violate state and federal gun laws.

We will continue to make certain that the National Instant Background Check System (NICS) is accurate, fair, and instant by seeking changes to permanently ensure that no fee is associated with the check, that system outages are minimized, and that our men and women in uniform who have served our country honorably are not unjustly denied their constitutional rights. As always, the NRA is committed to ensuring that any proposal does not infringe upon the rights of law-abiding gun owners.

It is impossible to predict right now what any final bill will look like; therefore, we will withhold judgment until we see a final product. However, the NRA will continue to work with Members of Congress throughout the process to ensure that any changes to the NICS benefit lawful gun purchasers while ensuring that those adjudicated by the courts as mentally incompetent are included in the system.

Including necessary records on prohibited persons into the NICS is a position we have long supported. However, history has shown that no law will stop a madman intent on doing evil.

The NRA believes that our schools are not adequately protected. Therefore, we believe a national conversation on school security is necessary, and we look forward to those discussions and finding meaningful solutions to keep America’s children safe.

For more information, visit http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactShe...=217&issue=018

None existed. A reply does not intrinsically mean disagreement. My post simply added information (another perspective) to yours.

Same history applies to cars. As access to cars was restricted, then deaths due to cars decreased. Guns and cars. Both are dangerous weapons. Both require responsible behavior.

Whoops, sorry about that.

Again tw is caught in a barefaced lie. Claiming "second admendment 'advocates'" say the mentally ill should not be denied firearms.
Knowing tw's lying, I asked for a cite.
Then tw quotes the NRA. tw's second lie can't go unchallenged.
Now the 'look a birdy' tactic starts, to cover his lies.
In a classic tw move, he claims he never said that and accuses me of jumping to conclusions. Guess what, he didn't say that. He just tries to deceive everyone by posting lies that allude to backing up his lies. Lies to back up lies and more lies to deny the lies.
This is the modus operandi of all tw's posts..... lies, half truths, and fabricating allusions to create more lies.

tw, fuck you, you're not going to get away with it anymore.

It does not surprise me that as warped a big-C Communist as tw is would be so friendly to the disempowering of the general population: this man is not visibly a democrat, nor is he that sort of democrat known as a republican.

He forgets something a famous commie once wrote: "Power grows from the barrel of a gun." Yes, I can from time to time quote Mao, to my own ends. Considering that in more normal times in China Mao would have been arrested as a bandit and beheaded, whereas my conduct is exceedingly unlikely to get me executed, I'd say my own ends are better than Mao's. It's so often like that for the anticommunists.

In a republic, the source of political power is the people, the electorate. That which reduces the power of the electorate should simply not be countenanced.

Yet, even in the face of all his perfidies, the NRA will patiently uphold tw's gun rights, and encourage him to actually enjoy the use of the rights and the guns.

Of course, if this kind of thing is what tw accepts as factual, no wonder his conclusions are raddled with error, and likewise with all the subsequent horrors that spring from them. The numbers of guns in America have climbed steadily, and crime of all sorts has been slumping -- violent death too -- in all the states of the Union that have liberalized concealed carry of weapons, and accidents with arms have fallen off also. NRA sources are the most convenient places to find the data, but sources outside the NRA exist also -- viz., John Lott and FBI statistics.

Nah, a convenient litmus test for who's the more democratically inclined is to examine their enthusiasm for private arms ownership. Like most convenient tests, it's not comprehensive, but in tw's case, it is most surely illuminating, to say nothing of, in Tolkien's words, "perfectly true and applicable."