ozoneocean
The way I look at this is; if I was walking into town to go to the shop to buy milk or whatever, I would really rather NOT have every idiot on the street having their own gun... morons with itchy trigger fingers.

Mass armed populations can't work. It's a stupid idea championed by stupid people.

Ozone I think its sad that you think all people are just retarded Baboons just itching to cut each others throats, and that everyone who could ever want a gun must obviously be a blithering idiot. I guess Im just more optimistic than that. I believe people are plenty capable of handling the responsibility of firearms.

and as for "mass armed populations cant work" look towards Switzerland young man. here is an excerpt from Wikipedia's entry on Switzerland's gun control laws.
"The gun policy in Switzerland is unique in Europe. The personal weapon of militia personnel is kept at home as part of the military obligations. This, in addition to liberal gun laws and strong shooting traditions, has led to a very high gun count per capita. Switzerland has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world, but also one of the lowest firearm related crime rates in the world."

"Police statistics for Switzerland for the year 2006 records 34 killings or attempted killings involving firearms, compared to 69 cases involving bladed weapons and 16 cases of unarmed assault. Cases of assault resulting in bodily harm numbered 89 (firearms) and 526 (bladed weapons)". WOW 34 killings is all! some US cities have that in a week! If they can do it so can we! And I don't think the Swiss would appreciate being called stupid.

The point wasn't to call all people who own guns idiots, the point was that if you make everyone carry a gun then all the idiots will be carrying them too ;)

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

I know plenty of Swiss people my old fruit and I know why they have those laws. It's part of the tradition they have of defence of the country. It's not just normal people having weapons you silly bean, but trained soldiers: serving in the armed forces is compulsory when they reach a certain age, so they all know very well how to use them and what they're for.
So while they might have hunting rifles or whatever they're all required to have a serviced military rifle home and ready in case they're invaded.
-When they leave service, it doesn't matter, they're always in reserve.

Many other countries have similar policies: Israel does, and I think West Germany used to as well, to name a couple.

Suicide rates (using their guns), and family shootings are quite high though.

ozoneocean
The point wasn't to call all people who own guns idiots, the point was that if you make everyone carry a gun then all the idiots will be carrying them too ;)

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

I know plenty of Swiss people my old fruit and I know why they have those laws. It's part of the tradition they have of defence of the country. It's not just normal people having weapons you silly bean, but trained soldiers: serving in the armed forces is compulsory when they reach a certain age, so they all know very well how to use them and what they're for.
So while they might have hunting rifles or whatever they're all required to have a serviced military rifle home and ready in case they're invaded.
-When they leave service, it doesn't matter, they're always in reserve.

Many other countries have similar policies: Israel does, and I think West Germany used to as well, to name a couple.

Suicide rates (using their guns), and family shootings are quite high though.

And Americans couldn't be trusted to do the same because???
Why can't we have a tradition of defense, why do we have to have a tradition of being defended??? If we where encouraged to learn and practice rifle safety and marksmanship, we could find ourselves in the same position, but instead we are told that we cant be trusted, that there are too many "idiots" in our country. Tell me Ozone are there no "idiots" in Switzerland or are those just the ones that shoot themselves.
and as for suicide and family shootings, yes many do the deed with their military issue rifle,(Geez don't they have tall buildings or razor blades) but the actual number of suicides and murders "per capita" is still far lower.

statikpunk
And Americans couldn't be trusted to do the same because???

I think the post you quoted had that answer already somewhere... Oh, there it is!

me
It's not just normal people having weapons you silly bean, but trained soldiers: serving in the armed forces is compulsory when they reach a certain age, so they all know very well how to use them and what they're for.

And the suicide rate is rather high, at lest compared to Australia. lol!
Man! I just looked it up. :)

As I said before, "idiots" in regards to idiots. If you'd like to think of every person who has a gun as an idiot, then that's our call, not mine mate. :)
I just know that I wouldn't want those stupid, uneducated, rough young youths who hang around train stations and service stations to be armed. And if everyone else had guns as well, I doubt that'd make the situation better.

The strange utopia you're suggesting in relation to Switzerland etc. involves compulsory national service. Do you want that?

You really don't have all the facts here do you? :)
I quit understand, you want to blow off steam supporting your chosen position. You pic an opponent (me) and go for it regardless. We all do it sometimes, that's the fun of the place, but don't expect it to be easy.

ah come on now your backing down!! I haven't picked you as my "opponent" your just the only one still replying, and as far as blowing off steam on our opinions you posted first.

anyway back to the point, your trying to give off the impression that every man woman and child in Switzerland goes through years of rigorous military training, when that's not true, its basic military training, like boot camp, (because they don't keep a standing army, in a 30 year service a citizen will spend about 1 year in training and service.)So yes I am willing to deal with that. there is no reason our respective countries couldn't do the same in a military or non military fashion,(boy scouts used to be just that in the past) but that is not the point I was trying to make either, it is their countries basic opinion of firearms and firm belief in community in general that make it work. they realize that it is not the firearm that needs fixing but the person holding it.
you say you don't want the rough youths by the train station to have guns, but what you should be asking is "why IS there rough youths at the train station, and how can we help turn them into productive citizens."

It sounds to me like "YOU" don't have the facts and to compensate you have decided to twist my words and Psychoanalyze me, making it sound like I am attacking you personally. when in actuality I just make good sense and it frustrates you. lets get to the point shall we before this thread gets locked. Why do you feel that someone else needs to be responsible for your protection. (since it's obvious you don't see any other use for guns than shooting people.

PS you also cant say that gun control would have any effect on suicide rate for any country, I just read that Australia has a high suicide rate of veterinarians maybe you should outlaw sick kitties :)

I'm not backing down, I'm addressing the points. I think I spotted where you got me wrong. You came into the argument on that "idiot" point where someone was suggesting the idea of universal armament: normal intelligent people as well as the undesirables would be armed in that case.

As for the Switzerland thing, you're being silly, it's only the men that have to have the weapons and it's only them that get the training.

Compulsory national service is a bad idea. Sorry. It's expensive and not much use to anyone, it makes poor quality soldiers and needlessly squanders precious military funding which is why only rightwing popularists support it and military brass almost never do. ;)
You only have it when countries feel they really need it- Switzerland has that because of tradition, because they're neutral and surrounded by potential enemies on all its borders, and because they don't spend much on any other aspect of their military.
A place like Israel is similarly surrounded by enemies, in active occupation of a hostile population, and receives aid from the United states to help them get by. :)
The U.S. has... Canada and Mexico? Scary... o_o

Sorry man, but you just don't have a good grasp of the facts or me either. lol!
As I say, you jumped into the part of the argument about making everyone have guns for protection. That's what most of this thread is about. Not gun collectors, sporting shooters, hunters and all the rest of it. Sorry, but that aspect is for another thread :)
We're not even talking about THESE sorts of people....
http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2008/09/man-charged-wit.html

With suicide, yeah, that's about available tools for the deed. But that wasn't part of the argument, that was a fact mentioned in passing about the guns in Switzerland. ;)

Interesting video that started this whole thing, not that I'll even bother reading three pages of debate, much less one. I really had no idea that there was a Canadian gun lobby, but then again, I didn't know the YMCA up there until a few years ago, so that shows what I know. I thought everything was pretty much cool up there. However intimidating the whole idea maybe, I could definitely see some firearm liberties for citizens of Canada to be useful if enacted intelligently. If it should ever comes to pass, I hope the Canadian government is smarter in firearms regulations that we've been down here. In the meantime, I think it might be better to make it mandatory for women to engage in self-defense training, especially focusing on how to get out of grapple and submissive holds, as opposed to compulsory military service.

ozoneocean
I'm not backing down, I'm addressing the points. I think I spotted where you got me wrong. You came into the argument on that "idiot" point where someone was suggesting the idea of universal armament: normal intelligent people as well as the undesirables would be armed in that case.

As for the Switzerland thing, you're being silly, it's only the men that have to have the weapons and it's only them that get the training.

Compulsory national service is a bad idea. Sorry. It's expensive and not much use to anyone, it makes poor quality soldiers and needlessly squanders precious military funding which is why only rightwing popularists support it and military brass almost never do. ;)
You only have it when countries feel they really need it- Switzerland has that because of tradition, because they're neutral and surrounded by potential enemies on all its borders, and because they don't spend much on any other aspect of their military.
A place like Israel is similarly surrounded by enemies, in active occupation of a hostile population, and receives aid from the United states to help them get by. :)
The U.S. has... Canada and Mexico? Scary... o_o

Sorry man, but you just don't have a good grasp of the facts or me either. lol!
As I say, you jumped into the part of the argument about making everyone have guns for protection. That's what most of this thread is about. Not gun collectors, sporting shooters, hunters and all the rest of it. Sorry, but that aspect is for another thread :)
We're not even talking about THESE sorts of people....
http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2008/09/man-charged-wit.html

With suicide, yeah, that's about available tools for the deed. But that wasn't part of the argument, that was a fact mentioned in passing about the guns in Switzerland. ;)

ok first off it is not just the men that shoot guns in Switzerland. Yes they are the only ones that get trained, but shooting is part of their national culture. they are host to the worlds largest target shooting competition, which involves men women and children. furthermore your not listening to me I am not in support of compulsory military service, I am in favor of creating a public opinion that doesn't see guns as evil people killers that should be removed.(realistically speaking more people die in car wrecks than have ever been shot by guns) the swiss do that through creating a sense of community via military service.
anyway you keep skirting the point "your opinion" we established that you are in favor of gun control, but you have also said that you do not want to take guns away from collectors and sportsmen,and honest gun owners just "undesirables" . Well we already do that with the mandatory 25 dollar background check that each person must go through when purchasing a gun from a vendor. so if your saying that the system we use now is fine and that you will never support any more strict gun laws, then we are best buddies and I will never harass you again :) because while I believe that our current gun laws are to strict I am willing to deal with the ones currently in place, as long as no others are added.

you keep saying I don't know the facts, point out which fact is wrong, what number do I have that is inaccurate.
the thread is also not about mass armament it was about a single woman using a personal firearm to prevent a rape.(at least that was the case when you transfered it over to the debate section) besides we already have a law that respects mass armament its called the second amendment, and the supreme court just upheld that.
also the reason the military doesnt support a compulsory military service is because many would lose their jobs! (understandable)
you also cant use that wacko in your news article to support your ant-gun cause either because the same argument could be said about arson, but we don't regulate matches and lighters.

Um... this isn't a gun control argument statikpunk... All those points concerned the idea that gun ownership should be made universal and mandatory and that would make things safer.

I don't know how to explain that to you any clearer. I'm not being rude of patronising, but what you say is for another thread... It's like arguing global warming when someone is just talking about how the weather works: i.e. sort of on the same theme but different discussions. ;)

Take the Swiss thing for example; the idea is that only the men are MADE to have guns at home because it's part of their military obligations. It's nothing to to with the culture etc, just about the idea of a society where people are all made to have guns at home and what that means. That's what all my points that you're addressing were about. Applying that to the gun control situation more broadly in the U.S. is a complete nonsense.

Heh, I have chatted about that before but not here and I'm not interested in that right now.

ozone I have not been offended by anything. You haven't been rude or patronizing, it just seems like your trying to keep up one side of an argument that you don't have an opinion on, or are now finding yourself questioning your opinion on.

furthermore forced armament is not how I read the thread, and if it is what the thread was about, then bad on me, and the thread has evolved, its only for another thread if you (or anybody else) have been swayed or have nothing left to say on the subject. (people don't stop a regular conversation because the subject has shifted)
as far as I can tell you haven't made a point yet, you just keep making comments about a non-armed populace, I make a rebuttal, then you tell me "I" missed the "Point"

but that's OK (I don't want to make trouble) let me then change my position to one that suits your view of what the thread is about

"Yes, I do approve of an armed populace,(by choice) but for that to work a country would have to create a culture that approves of firearms (instead of demonizing them,) much like Switzerland. as well as working towards solving the root of the problem with the criminal element, besides just denying access to a certain types of weapons." many countries have spent to much time blaming guns for the ills of their society.

there that is an "opinion" ozone give it a try it's liberating :)

but isn't the 2nd amendment one of the checks and balances designed just in case the government becomes a dictatorship?

Do you know who else is for gun control?

Nice guys like:
- Mao Zedong
- Adolf Hitler
- Joseph Stalin
- Ferdinand Marcos

Gun control isnt about keeping you safe. Its about disarming you and making you helpless.

kyupol
but isn't the 2nd amendment one of the checks and balances designed just in case the government becomes a dictatorship?

Do you know who else is for gun control?

Nice guys like:
- Mao Zedong
- Adolf Hitler
- Joseph Stalin
- Ferdinand Marcos

Gun control isnt about keeping you safe. Its about disarming you and making you helpless.

That is the great debate, whether or not the founding fathers put the second amendment in to make sure the people always have a way of fighting back against an unjust government, or whether they only meant that to apply to a militia in the absence of a standing army. the supreme court just recently decided that yes, the second amendment protects the right of citizens to keep firearms for personal protection, although they did not address it in respect to an unjust government.

I believe our founding fathers did put the 2nd amendment in as a check against an unjust government, if you consider what they just went through with England, it was personal firearms that won their independence.

I honestly dont believe that most people who support gun control want to disarm the nation for evil purposes, I think they actually believe that it will save lives. but its just not true, and when someone who does have evil and power in mind a disarmed nation will be ripe for the picking. most anti gunners would argue that its not probable for an evil super power to come into power, they believe that our government is fail safe against such things, but like you said Kyupol hitler stalin many dictators have made it happen and because they forced mass disarmament their soldiers (who believed they where doing the right thing) could run a muck and force the "undesireables" into concentration camps without fear of an uprising.
that is why I believe the gun laws we have now are too restrictive. I think that for the 2nd amendment to be upheld every law abiding citizen should be allowed to have weapons that can compete with an average soldiers weapon. the most common weapon for a modern world soldier around our planet is the fully automatic AK-47 and that I believe should be the standard type of weapon for any citizen to be allowed to own. (if they want) every citizen should be allowed to arm themselves at least as well as a common soldier.

ozone does bring up a good point many people now do not live in small communities where everyone knows each other and many rough groups have popped up, that would no doubt use the best firearms available for their personal gain. I dont know how we lost our sense of community, or how, many youths have strayed into a life of crime, but i do know that when they begin to believe that their lives are forfeit when committing a crime because every person could be carrying a weapon, fewer will take that risk. Will that make us a more violent culture willing to shoot anyone who crosses us?? I dont know, but i would rather take that risk then know that I and my family are at the mercy of anyone who is willing to illegally arm themselves.

as far as the thread goes is compulsory mass armament the answer? No, I don't believe so, but if a law abiding citizen wants to arm themselves they should be allowed to.
like I said before, I would rather live free with the possibility of a violent death then live under the thumb of a ruler. and that is what the USA was founded on.

anti-gun people mean well.

I don't think they're malicious minded fascists who think they're on the winning team.

They want to be safe from criminals and to protect their children from harm. Which is a good cause.

However, they've been DUPED into thinking that putting surveillance cameras all over the place and increasing the size of the police is a good thing that will keep them safe.

As far as banning guns is concerned, I do think its reasonable though to ban automatic weapons (m16, AK47, UZI, etc). The people should be allowed to legally own handguns and shotguns as long as they don't have a criminal record.



Up here in Canada, gun laws are so strict. And oh. Not only that. You're not allowed to have pepper spray (unless its labelled "dog repellant" or "bear spray"), automatic knives, stun batons, tasers, etc. Cmon. wtf is that? Thats why one of these days maybe I might go to some rural part of the USA or Canada or back to the Philippines. Came here as a little kid. No choice. The job market in Canada is better though so I'm staying here in the meantime.

No wonder those gangsta thugs in Jane and Finch act so arrogant like they own the place. In the bus, these guys tend to occupy too much space even if they're not morbidly obese.

Why? Its because they are aware that they can easily bully and intimidate the average person... who is most likely to be disarmed. Who is most likely to not have a the slightest clue about how to fight. Who is most likely just gonna stand there like a docile sheep and take it.

As they have been so totally brainwashed into believing that somehow, a gun is gonna fly then go berzerk. GUNS DONT KILL PEOPLE!!! PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE!!!

For personal defense though, I wear steel toe boots (I practice kicking with them... because kicking with boots and kicking with bare feet are different) and carry a folding knife. Here, it is illegal to have a knife that has a button on the blade (aka switchblades). But if its thumb assisted, its ok. Besides, my knife can have other purposes too like cutting boxes. At work, I have to do that.


Anyway, I wish the pro gun Americans GOOD LUCK in defending their rights. I understand that America is the beacon of freedom in the world and its under attack by enemies from the inside. GOD BLESS AMERICA!!! LONG LIVE FREEDOM!!!

kyupol
As far as banning guns is concerned, I do think its reasonable though to ban automatic weapons (m16, AK47, UZI, etc). The people should be allowed to legally own handguns and shotguns as long as they don't have a criminal record.

I like your spunk Kyupol you have your head screwed on correctly, you did mention one thing though that is a common misconception, living up there in Canada I wouldn't expect you to keep up on American law, you said you thought it was OK to have fully auto guns banned, actually here in many places in the US it is legal to have fully autos (many people don't realize that) you just have to buy them or the kits through a class 3 federal firearms holder plus pay an additional 200 dollar federal tax on top of the price of the class 3 item (which includes fully auto kits, silencers, go-ex explosive black powder, and others) what i think is wrong is the 200 dollar federal tax, because it restricts those that don't have much money and it creates a record of who owns the gun, or kit, and every time the item changes hands the new purchaser has to spend that 200 federal tax, so you see they don't even have our safety in mind when they make these rules they just want to make money off the deal. say i buy an AK-47 full auto kit then I sell it, that kit could change hands 20 times in its life, and each time the new owner has to pay a 200 dollar fee thats 4,000 dollars the feds have made off of the citizens without providing a service, as well as creating a record of everyone who has owned that kit. (so when the time comes to knock on the doors of gun owners they don't have to look far :( ) thats what gets me about our laws its they are not made in earnest, they are made just to make a buck off of us. Taxing someone to exercise a right is wrong, they already established that back in the day when they used to tax the vote for president to keep poor people and blacks from voting.

also you mentioned not having many options for self protection you should look up using needles (or ninja needles) its basically a 6 inch or so needle made from metal or wood or bone or something with an end on it, but if you stick someone with it in a vital area it is long enough to cause spasoming and not just bleeding like a knife. plus they are legal almost everywhere and you can decorate them and use them as a clothing decoration, allowing you to take them nearly anywhere.
they are especially great for women because they can use them as decorative pins, hold their hair up with them, and still have a backup weapon with them at all times. anyway you can stick it in the cuff of a jacket or in the seam of your jeans. its a great way to always have something and if you make it out of something that doesn't have metal in it like bone then metal detectors and such wont pick them up either :) (not to be carried in illegal situations or anything)
but that's an option to think about. Many places don't have laws against carrying needles, at least if they did grannies all over the world would be hardened criminals. :)

kyupol
Up here in Canada, gun laws are so strict. And oh. Not only that. You're not allowed to have pepper spray (unless its labelled "dog repellant" or "bear spray"), automatic knives, stun batons, tasers, etc. Cmon. wtf is that? Thats why one of these days maybe I might go to some rural part of the USA or Canada or back to the Philippines. Came here as a little kid. No choice. The job market in Canada is better though so I'm staying here in the meantime.

also if you want to move to rural US. In my town you have to not want a job to not have one, (everyone I know gets job offers all the time) its a small town of about 50,000 in the Nevada desert, I could probably even get you a job at one of our gold mines, that's where I work (there is always money at a gold mine :) ) I think you would find a lot more people that think the way you do down here. Ill even put you up till you could find a place to live!
do what you will but the invitation is there.
always glad to meet someone of like mind!

I have to say, I'm amazed at how many people in this thread are in favour of an armed populace. If you guys really are in any way representative of the US then I don't think you need ever worry about your right to bear arms being removed. No government is going to pass legislation so far removed from what the voters want. Governments do stupid things all the time but they don't willingly commit electoral suicide.

That said ... I am enormously relieved that you all live on the other side of the Atlantic from me!

The Swiss aren't stupid, but they alser aren't culturally diverse, and they're economic classes aren't quite so divided.

Universal healthcare and other government programs keep the poor of their society (mostly) from developing the criminal culture that prevails in some places. Also, the proper use of lethal force is recognized by most Swiss citizens because I believe they all must serve in some military fashion at some point in their lives.

But listen...

I think that if the United States really had an interest in following its Constitution then all citizens should be able to arm themselves as well as their government. That means everything all the way up to nukes. If that doesn't work for the United States government, then they can get rid of their nukes, then tanks or whatever.

But it is an unrealistic argument.

Instead of trying to figure who should and shouldn't get guns, people should dig to the root causes of violent crime in the first place. That is almost always caused by a failure of government.

Also, there are no statistics possible to list all the violence a gun averted, because it would go unreported to authorities most of the time. If you are anti-gun, you have to realize that you don't know what the downside to an unlimited armed populace really would be.

Ronson
I think that if the United States really had an interest in following its Constitution then all citizens should be able to arm themselves as well as their government. That means everything all the way up to nukes. If that doesn't work for the United States government, then they can get rid of their nukes, then tanks or whatever.

But it is an unrealistic argument.

Instead of trying to figure who should and shouldn't get guns, people should dig to the root causes of violent crime in the first place. That is almost always caused by a failure of government.

Also, there are no statistics possible to list all the violence a gun averted, because it would go unreported to authorities most of the time. If you are anti-gun, you have to realize that you don't know what the downside to an unlimited armed populace really would be.

Great post Ronson you are right, we need to get to "criminals" as a problem. we need to make them not want to be criminals not just limit their means of being criminals.
I do disagree that it is the governments fault that we have a lot of crime its societies fault. I don't believe it should be the governments job to make sure that people raise their kids right.
like i said before Switzerland works not because of all the guns but because of the sense of community that is instilled in their youth, everyone feels responsible for their country. they don't have the attitude that their country should take care of them.

statikpunk
I do disagree that it is the governments fault that we have a lot of crime its societies fault. I don't believe it should be the governments job to make sure that people raise their kids right.

I think there are steps in public education that the government is currently involved in that could be done better. I think a nationalized healthcare system goes a long way towards preventing those who are the worst off in our country from resorting to criminal desperate means.

I think that governments that reward only those at the top, and ignore those struggling at the bottom are indeed directly responsible for the results.

In short, I think that government is a part of society, or at least it should be. If government isn't supposed to maintain order and health in a society then what possible use could it have?

like i said before Switzerland works not because of all the guns but because of the sense of community that is instilled in their youth, everyone feels responsible for their country. they don't have the attitude that their country should take care of them.

I don't think this is an accident. I think the Swiss government does take a part in instilling the importance of community to their citizens. Through public works, public education and national healthcare. The Swiss pay taxes, and they feel the taxes are (overall) worth it for the result they receive.

It is very difficult to reach a hand out to save someone else when you are also drowning. Without a stable support structure, the Swiss would have turned inward just to protect their families and homes. This is what has happened in the US as social programs have been reduced. There are less people who are even capable of putting their hands out to help.

The problem is that so many governments have gotten away from the societal responsibilities that I think we forget that that's why most modern governments exist in the first place.

Interesting that Switzerland and Israel are used as the examples for a successful armed population. The argument that they are small nations surrounded by enemies is correct.

So was the USA when the second amendment was drafted and if you are familar with the milita laws of the 18th-early 19th century they were the equivilent of the Swiss compulsory military service. (several good books on this including Draftees and Volunters and Our Savage Neighbors as well Arms and Men, For the Common Defence and the American Way of War)

Murder wasn't as common then even with bad inner cities (the underside of the wharves were nasty) But with eveyone having a musket at home... like I said before the psycho could kill his family and rather than holing up for the Swat team and crisis negotiator, his neighbor came back with his militia issue musket and shot him. Then the sheriff came by and bagged and tagged the body. Everybody policed each other not just guys with badges. With a responsible armed citizenry every person was a deputy for the sheriff. (Tons of primary evidence I've read about this. Our Savage Neighbors was good.)

That sense of communutiy no longer exists in the USA though in areas with neighborhood watches and the Guardian Angels it is coming back. The police can't be everywhere and their presence can deter crime but most of the time they come by to pick up the pieces. Then the pieces are destroyed by the legal system. The legal system is so backed up that deals are cut because trial is such a pain in the ass. The DAs can read the criminal attorneys because they see each other multiple times a week often with the same perps. Living in the New York metropolitan area (which includes northern NJ, on 9/11 I could see the clouds) I hear about this all too well and know the people involved. A lot of cops are National Guardsman.

As for a fully auto AK-47 as the typical weapon for an armed populace. Are you kidding? Only trained soldiers should have them. Fire them in the air and the bullets fall down and kill people at random. Nope, semi-auto because no one moves faster than I can squeeze the trigger and I don't want to blow that 30 round clip firing at the sky. I want to take down perps. (Controlled three round bursts kiddees, 'kay? Now take your weapon and play nice and the mean US Army man sergeant will stop typing)

Wow Ronson you must be the DNC's poster boy, you actually think that universal health care and more government programs will keep people from killing each other??
Switzerland has a good sense of community because the parents instill it in their kids. Its the PEOPLE not the government! (do you live in red China?? your touching on some spooky territory with that "social responsibilities" talk.)

"no thanks" on that one, I will keep my money if its all the same, raise my kids right, and pay someone green cash to patch up MY bullet holes.

besides its a known fact that quality of health care goes down when the government picks it up. sure its great if you just have a cold or need an antibiotic, but if there is ever anything really wrong with you then, your visit could be wracked by long waiting lists and lackluster overworked doctors. (when a doctor is paid by the patient, then their focus is on a happy customer for repeat business, when they are paid by the government then their focus is on getting the patient out of their office as soon as possible so they can go home.

actually that would be an interesting thing to ask here since many drunkduck users are from Canada, (which has universal health care.)
Any Canadians out there that have had a MRI scan, CAT scan, surgery, lobotomy, or something like that before. let us know what your experience was like! (I have heard that many Canadians (who have the money) come down here when they need a major surgery, just so it will get done in a timely manner. just like many Americans go to other countries like Thailand to escape the cost)

Dont get me wrong universal healthcare would be great (if it worked) I would love to be able to pop down to the old doctor anytime I feel under the weather and know I was getting top of the line care, but that just will not happen

I know its off the subject but my best argument against Universal healthcare is this. take your average experience at the ol' DMV (a government run agency). now apply that to your doctor visits. 'nuff said.

statikpunk
Wow Ronson you must be the DNC's poster boy, you actually think that universal health care and more government programs will keep people from killing each other??
Switzerland has a good sense of community because the parents instill it in their kids. Its the PEOPLE not the government! (do you live in red China?? your touching on some spooky territory with that "social responsibilities" talk.)

"no thanks" on that one, I will keep my money if its all the same, raise my kids right, and pay someone green cash to patch up MY bullet holes.

That's the problem right there. Social Responsibility enriches your life directly. If everyone had a sense of community, you're kids could play safely in their neighborhood. If you hit hard times, the community would be there to get you on your feet.

But instead of teaching anything even approaching our responsibilities to other people, we isolate ourselves into smaller and smaller groups and hold those outside of these groups as the enemy.

And this is by design. By emphasizing the idea that we have to fight eachother for whatever scraps we can get, we create the perfect dynamic for a consumerist economy.

And a consumerist economy is bound to have a high crime rate. If everything in the society - educational systems, entertainment industry and politicians - espouse the idea that a successful life is only possible when you own the most stuff or rule over the most people, those at the bottom who feel helpless working within the system will start to work around it.

When you say "your money", is that your money less the amount that the government needs to supply a working infrastructure? Or do you want to take responsibility for the roads you take to work, or the water your children drink?

When you say "raised right", do you mean make them perfect consumers, ever with their hands out for the best gadgets and trendy clothes? Do you mean to have them lack any interest in the people around them? For if you spend your time worrying about "your money" and "your property" and worrying about the other, those are the kids you'll have.

And it isn't the government OR the people. The government IS the people. Or it should be. After all, that's what a democracy is supposed to be all about. A democratic government is a reflection of its citizens. If you hate your government, you should be trying to change it.

But I understand why you won't accept that. That's what our society has told us for decades. And why is that? To lower voter turnout to give special interests more power. To strengthen the feeling of helplessness so we'll reach for the new technology, or the new food product. We have all been told for so long that the government doesn't care about us that it has become absolutely true...because government reflects our values.

Tell the Swiss that they don't control their government, or that they're government doesn't work. I think you'd be surprised by their response.

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

I'll leave foreign healthcare analysis to others. I will say that you are using straw men arguments. Socialized medicine is quite different from your perceptions. I recommend you look into it.

But even a healthcare system that only pays for regular checkups and the barest minimum of prescriptions would be a savings boon to the U.S.A. Right now, taxpayers are footing the bill for impoverished people who wait until they absolutely have to go to the Emergency Room.

But when you worry about "your money", you become very irrational because the millions of emergency room visits are hidden in our budget, but a rational minimalist healthcare system (which would cost less) would be much more obvious in the budget and would be easy for a manipulative ideology to convice those who already feel they aren't part of society that they were getting their pocket picked.

your spinning things to make it sound like I'm an anarchist-government hater, i know that government needs money to run its infrastructure. (I don't believe in no government I believe in small government) I'm happy to have my city works fix my roads and pay my fire men, what I don't like is my government telling me what my social responsibility "should" be. I am on the board of directors for a non profit organization that trains the developmentally disabled adults to get jobs in the community. I did that on my own, i believe people have the capacity to take care of their needy without the government forcing it upon us.

also yes, I am a consumerist, I have lots of toys and I like them i work hard so that I can afford them. and to tell you the truth I don't see anything wrong with that. if you think its a corrupt government that makes people want the latest, greatest, best things your wrong, that's just the human condition.
further more its pretty hypocritical of you to be damning people for their consumerist ways, while typing on your PC on the internet (the ultimate in capitalistic-consumerist hedonism)

the fact of the matter is that when people don't see any compensation (money) for working hard they will not work hard. the "for the good of the people" mentality works for ants it doesn't work for humans, history tells us this.

you say the problem is our government doesn't care about us anymore. I want them to care "about" me, not care "for" me. the government should not decide what I should do with my earnings. I give back to my community and I want to be left alone, but that's not good enough. why does the government get to decide how I help my fellow man?? or what i should do with my life. for instance the government should tell us that smoking is bad for your health, and not be able to tell us we cant smoke. (not that I smoke, its an awful habit, but its not my business to say what others can do)

I also never said that the Swiss government doesn't work. actually I was the one who brought up the Swiss as a system that works very well (as far as gun control, and protection goes)it works because the "people" believe in it, and "it" relies on the people, not the other way around. we don't have that luxury here, and we haven't for a long time now.

as for universal healthcare, i found this post on the forums at allnurses.com

"As a footnote on Canada, the average wait for a simple MRI is three months. In Manitoba, the median wait for neurosurgery is 15.2 months. For chemotherapy in Saskatchewan, patients can expect to be in line for 10 weeks. At last report, 10,000 breast cancer patients who waited an average of two months for post-operation radiation treatments have filed a class action lawsuit against Quebec’s hospitals."

I realize that's just one persons account, but it sounds like its working great to me! Our system may be expensive, but at least you might live!

Personally, I'm not a fan of the idea of government controlling everything. Why? Because it gives them more and more and more power.

Absolute power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Statikpunk doesn't seem anarchist to me. He's kind of a libertarian.

lib·er·tar·i·an (lĭb'ər-târ'ē-ən) Pronunciation Key
n.

1. One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.
2. One who believes in free will.

I think you're both arguing a utopian fantasy. While I agree, in principle, that a much smaller -or nonexistent government is better, in practice such a society would not last.

All governments will to some extent seek to reflect our moral or ethical valves. What you see as Intrusive interference, others see as a "safety net". And vice-versa I assure you. Even the guns argument is a demand for regulation & protection... and ultimately it becomes a discussion of where the lines are drawn not an argument Against the line in the first place.

I would like to see more (some) direct democracy in the United States. With computers and the internet, there's no reason the American People couldn't decide more legislation... at least on a local level. that might allow our government to reflect our values more closely.

As for my comments on consumerism, I don't deny being a big consume. But the idea that There should be limits and value Judgments beyond "what the market will bear" is something that too often is ignored.

it's funny, from my point of view, you are shooting for the Utopian society. (work hard young man and we will take care of your every need ...trust us.)

I just don't like the idea of someones "safety net" being my pocket book. I work hard and save my money so that I have my own safety net. what makes me different from everyone else?

but you make a VERY good point on the fact that with the technology right now, we all can have a more direct role in our governments (at least local) I have been bringing that up for years. For instance there is no reason that we can not use a popular vote to elect a president. the electoral college system was invented to make collecting votes easier in a time when communication was very difficult. well, now communication is not a problem. but the politicians (on both sides of the isle) will never eradicate it because it would mean they could no longer work the system.

as a side note I think getting rid of the two party system would be the best thing we could do for this country, besides a flat tax

your good to argue with Ronson (I love arguing) you make good points and don't get frustrated and give up when your opponent makes a good point, which all mine are! ;) I just wish we had a Guinness, cigar and a bar to argue over instead of a white computer screen. (my skills are so limited when I have to type!)I argue best when in my element.

anyway back to the differences of opinion: you say all governments strive to reflect our moral and ethical values. Hah that's rich. I would say they strive to reflect the values of their constituents, and then we the people have to decide which constituents we agree with. that's the wrong way of going about it if you ask me.

statikpunk
it's funny, from my point of view, you are shooting for the Utopian society. (work hard young man and we will take care of your every need ...trust us.)

I just don't like the idea of someones "safety net" being my pocket book. I work hard and save my money so that I have my own safety net. what makes me different from everyone else?

From everyone else, or from those that need to know that if things get really bad they won't get unlivable. Remember the point I'm making is that the safety net would reduce crime (a plus for everyone) as well as provide a last resort for those who have fallen through the cracks in our current system.

You could lose it all due to illness or disaster. So could I. The assumption that those that are down on their luck are just poor planners is a straw man argument. There are far more who fall into bad situations that never thought they'd find themselves there.

but you make a VERY good point

Don't I always.

as a side note I think getting rid of the two party system would be the best thing we could do for this country, besides a flat tax

A flat tax is not a fair tax. It rewards those who this system already benefits and punishes those that aren't as skilled/lucky. A progressive tax makes more sense because those that make more get more from the government and should have to pay for it.

As for getting rid of the two party system, we could do that in everything but name with instant runoff voting. But we're getting off topic.

your good to argue with Ronson (I love arguing) you make good points and don't get frustrated and give up when your opponent makes a good point

And you don't tell me I'm mean. :)

anyway back to the differences of opinion: you say all governments strive to reflect our moral and ethical values. Hah that's rich. I would say they strive to reflect the values of their constituents, and then we the people have to decide which constituents we agree with. that's the wrong way of going about it if you ask me.

I assert that government should reflect our moral and ethical values, not that it always does.

But even this patchwork of reaction-only legislation is somewhat in line with our values. The biggies:

1. Murder
2. Rape
3. Theft

...are agreed upon principles that no one in our society is for legalizing. The methods of punishment, the degrees of criminal activity are hotly disputed, but I don't think anyone advocates legalizing any of this.

Ronson
From everyone else, or from those that need to know that if things get really bad they won't get unlivable. Remember the point I'm making is that the safety net would reduce crime (a plus for everyone) as well as provide a last resort for those who have fallen through the cracks in our current system.

You could lose it all due to illness or disaster. So could I. The assumption that those that are down on their luck are just poor planners is a straw man argument. There are far more who fall into bad situations that never thought they'd find themselves there

the problem is that you are making excuses for those that have fallen on hard times, " oh its not your fault you murdered your neighbors little Timmy. your just poor you couldn't help it."
thats bull. its true that all the preparation in the world cant protect you from everything, but hard times is no excuse for breaking the law. People were in drastic times during the great depression, yet they managed to come together till times got better. (they were actually embarrassed to take handouts from the government then. now some people actually seem proud they are living off the government)my wife has actually worked in the welfare system and let me tell you it is screwed up.
government programs that give things away (welfare, healthcare, etc) keep people destitute, because they are learning that to live they must take the governments handouts. there is whole generations of people out there that believe they are "owed" something by our government, because they are poor or whatever.
there was a time in my life when my wife and I were POOR (less than 15,000 a year combined salaries) we lived in a 350 sqft apartment with a bathroom with 6' ceilings (I'm 5'10" ) I used to do handy work around the apartment in trade for money off the rent. (otherwise I couldn't afford it) I can remember then our big Sunday meal was hamburgers fried in cracker crumbs with that yellow saffron rice. I never took a handout during those times, I paid my taxes, I saved my money, I worked hard and lived within my means, and now I I'm pretty well off. I guess what really gets me is the people that believe the government "owes" them something, and I can only see "more government programs" increasing that mentality.

A flat tax is not a fair tax. It rewards those who this system already benefits and punishes those that aren't as skilled/lucky. A progressive tax makes more sense because those that make more get more from the government and should have to pay for it.

how is a flat tax not fair whether you make 5 or 5 hundred million a year you pay the same percentage (15% would be more than enough) you said those that make more get more from the government?!? the people that make money get nothing from the government, and those with no money get everything (food stamps, medicare, school grants, why work??)plus a flat tax would save the government millions to begin with, and we would never have to file a tax return ever again.

you don't tell me I'm mean. :)

you haven't been mean at all. my family considers arguing an olympic sport.

I assert that government should reflect our moral and ethical values, not that it always does.

But even this patchwork of reaction-only legislation is somewhat in line with our values. The biggies:

1. Murder
2. Rape
3. Theft

...are agreed upon principles that no one in our society is for legalizing. The methods of punishment, the degrees of criminal activity are hotly disputed, but I don't think anyone advocates legalizing any of this.

well of course they have the biggies these things are followed in every culture all over the planet, and honestly leaving it at that is probably not such a bad idea. Ive got people on my right telling me we're all too immoral. Ive got people on my left telling me their just looking out for the greater good. All I want is to be left alone. and lets face it there are no more unexplored continents to move to.

statikpunk
the problem is that you are making excuses for those that have fallen on hard times, " oh its not your fault you murdered your neighbors little Timmy. your just poor you couldn't help it."
thats bull. its true that all the preparation in the world cant protect you from everything, but hard times is no excuse for breaking the law. People were in drastic times during the great depression, yet they managed to come together till times got better. (they were actually embarrassed to take handouts from the government then.

I'm not talking about individuals. I'm talking about the simple observable fact that crime goes up when there are less scraps at the bottom. I don't know for sure if crime increased during the depression, but I'd be willing to think it did, and that it went down after the implementation of the New Deal.

From The National Bureau of Economic Research [nber.org]:

The Great Depression of the 1930s led to dire circumstances for a large share of American households. Contemporaries worried that a number of these households would commit property crimes in their efforts to survive the hard times. The Roosevelt administration suggested that their unprecedented and massive relief efforts struck at the roots of crime by providing subsistence income to needy families. After constructing a panel data set for 83 large American cities for the years 1930 through 1940, we estimated the impact of relief spending by all levels of government on crime rates. The analysis suggests that relief spending during the 1930s lowered property crime in a statistically and economically significant way. A lower bound ordinary least squares estimate suggests that a 10 percent increase in per capita relief spending during the Great Depression lowered property crime rates by close to 1 percent. After controlling for potential endogeneity using an instrumental variables approach, the estimates suggest that a 10 percent increase in per capita relief spending lowered crime rates by roughly 5.6 to 10 percent at the margin. More generally, our results indicate that social insurance, which tends to be understudied in economic analyses of crime, should be more explicitly and more carefully incorporated into the analysis of temporal and spatial variations in criminal activity.

Now, I don't want to debate the minutae of the welfare system. I agree there are problems. But there would be consequences if you were to just remove the system. It seems to me that if we were a responsible and rational country there could be a system put in place that does encourage entering the work force and discourage generational welfare families. Even still, the abuse to the welfare system is nothing compared to the people receiving corporate welfare on the opposite side of the economic spectrum. Neither is right though.

The rich do use more government services than the poor. This government especially has been corrupted to the rich get much more access to the government than the poor.

But more than that, a hardworking person who earns $15,000 per year will suffer much more with a 15% tax than a millionaire will.

Police May Stop Responding To Some Crimes

Yep. So how can you expect to protect yourself? lol!