Random Thoughts or OT Chit-Chat Thread

Posts: 1200 · Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 11:09 am

The question I would ask is why are there so many criminals in the US?

What conditions invites people to violate the laws so frequently and in such numbers?

Canada is by no means crime free, but there are very few areas in most cities that people are afraid to walk down the streets.

I am not naive, I have worked nights in a downtown hotel and have had knives pulled on me and in one case a gun pointed at my head, but these are very rare occurrences.

Posts: 1439 · Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 11:51 am

Deadlord39 wrote:

No way possible that guns will be outlawed. WAY too many people own them. I would flat-out refuse to give mine up, and law enforcement would never be able to enact any sort of ban.
It is possible that PURCHASES AND SALES of guns could be banned, but even then, all it would do is drive it underground, making it ten times easier for criminals to get pieces.
The only thing in the world that is worse than a liberal is two liberals.

Tell that to the folks in those nations/countries where individuals are not allowed to own weapons.

The main purpose for governments to initiate and enforce gun control (in any form) is to make it easier to control the people.
The story about making things safe for them by only allowing government to have weapons is a simply a ruse.

Check into the socialist agenda.

First you must make most of the people dependant on governement support.
Then you take a few rights and liberties from them (such as the right to bear arms), thereby cementing that control.
Then take other rights away one at a time, so as not to bring about too fast a change.
Don’t want to alarm the natives before ultimate control is gained.
Start with something simple, like the "Fairness Doctrine".
(Limiting free speach through legislation)
Soon enough they will have removed your ability to make changes to the government by taking control of every aspect of your lives, and taking control of industry (To protect the people) is an important step in that process.

We all know that the democrats want to Nationalize Healthcare.
It is one of the biggest most pressing issues with which they pound against the republicans.

And how well has that worked out for Canada, or for the UK?

Recently Rep. Maxine Waters, D-CAL. Stated during a house panel investigation about the US’ current fuel crises (She was grilling an oil executive at the time) on National TV said that if “Big Oil” did nothing to alleviate the pain at the pump, that the government would nationalize the oil industry (IE. the government would take control over the oil industry) to protect the people from the high prices they have to pay for fuel.

She has NO idea what she is talking about, or if she does know more than is obvious from her own statements, then she is lying to the country for some sort of monetary or political gain.

1st - Crude Oil is a global issue, not a US issue.
2nd - About 90 percent of the world's crude oil reserves are not even owned by "big oil" companies, or by any private companies no matter how big or small. Those reserves are controlled by whatever countries government pumps it out of the ground.
Nationalized oil IS the problem.
3rd - The "big oil" companies whose CEO's were being grilled by Waters, and friends only control about 4% of the world's oil.
4th – This country loves to allow feelings to override need. As long as drilling/pumping for oil is not allowed in Anwar and the Gulf of Mexico (And other areas where the US has an abundant amount of reserves in the ground) this country will continue to depend on other sources for fuel, such as the Middle East, Mexico, and Canada, NONE of which have any problem pumping oil from the ground or at sea in their own countries.
5th – Other countries are pumping oil from the Gulf of Mexico with NO control, and NO restrictions at an alarming rate. China and North Korea are two examples. I wonder if the Environmentalists go to them with complaints about Nature being destroyed by thier actions?

Government control from cradle to grave and beyond..........

Socialism.

Posts: 495 · Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 11:55 am

Jasonw1239

Of course I live in America, and I have never had a knife or gun pulled on me.

Your question is a good one, though. I think the answer is: the amount of freedom in america. You are free to be a criminal. You are free to quit school. Free to be a lazy, scumbag. No free health care to rely on. But plenty of government tets to suck on. Hell, unless you really do something bad (murder, child rapist) you will only do a short time in jail/prison.

Martin

Posts: 4543 · Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 12:08 pm

Aneoth wrote:

The Second amendment is likely to be overturned and appealed.
Your guns will be outlawed and then criminals will no longer fear Texans with trigger-happy attitudes.
Your concealed carry rights will also be taken away through Federal Mandate and re-written laws.

.

Will never happen. Too many politicians get money from the NRA (on both sides), too many politicans are hunters and ex-military, and too many constituents enjoy hunting or protecting themselves. When it comes to both Dems and Repubs, their own convictions are secondary to who writes them checks.....

Mike B.

Posts: 4543 · Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 12:16 pm

Prufrock wrote:

Jasonw1239

Of course I live in America, and I have never had a knife or gun pulled on me.

Your question is a good one, though. I think the answer is: the amount of freedom in america. You are free to be a criminal. You are free to quit school. Free to be a lazy, scumbag. No free health care to rely on. But plenty of government tets to suck on. Hell, unless you really do something bad (murder, child rapist) you will only do a short time in jail/prison.

Martin

I agree with Martin. No weapons pulled on me yet, but probably just been lucky. But yeh he's right....with freedom comes responsibility, and some people just aren't wired to be responsible. Really sad, considering how some people in repressive dictatorships (North Korea, Burma, Cuba, Sudan) would give their right arm to live and work and be a responsible citizen here, and some of the ones that are here abuse the privilege. I wish we could work out an exchange program with, say, Iran....you send us your prisons full of dissidents and we'll send you ours. Something tells me we'd end up with the better deal.

Mike B.

Posts: 1439 · Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 12:24 pm

Badmike wrote:

Will never happen. Too many politicians get money from the NRA (on both sides), too many politicans are hunters and ex-military, and too many constituents enjoy hunting or protecting themselves. When it comes to both Dems and Repubs, their own convictions are secondary to who writes them checks.....

Mike B.

I suppose I didn’t make myself clear.
It wont be the elected politicians who will change the Constitution, or at least re-interpret it to have some other meaning than the one we feel is perfectly clear.
It will be the Supreme Court.
They do it often and the people do not elect them.
So, the Supreme Court Justices have no constituents to be concerned about.
Nor are they normally concerned about monetary situations.
They are Nominated by the President and approved by the congress and that selection is ALWAYS based on political leanings and which party controls the Legislative Branch (Congress, Senate) and the Executive Branch (president).
Starting next year the Legislative Branch and the Executive Branch with both be completely controlled by the democrats.
Soon thereafter the democrats will gain control of the last Branch (Judicial) through new appoinments to the Supreme Court and the lower courts as well.

Posts: 4543 · Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 12:27 pm

Aneoth wrote:

Tell that to the folks in those nations/countries where individuals are not allowed to own weapons.

The main purpose for governments to initiate and enforce gun control (in any form) is to make it easier to control the people.
The story about making things safe for them by only allowing government to have weapons is a simply a ruse.

(Oil Rant Deleted) Very Happy

Despite the rantings of right wing conservative talk show hosts (and I consider myself pretty conservative myself) what you are worried about Aneoth will never come to pass. It's just the pre-election cycle of fear and hatred that both sides stir up before November 4th to make people think if you don't vote for their party the world will end. The process to put a stop to gun ownership, heck even gun registration, in a nation with the history of private gun ownership like the US is impossible. Even then, certain states will never kow-tow to federal leadership on these measures. You can't even get elected to any state office in Texas without publicity shots of you standing with your shotgun beside your pickup. Heck even Ann Richards went duck hunting during the season. You live in a state, Texas, that told President Bush to take a flying leap when he demanded we release all our Mexican nationals on death row (Texas won that case in the supreme court, btw). So ignore the dire warnings, Aneoth, as long as the NRA is writing campaign contribution checks we have nothing to fear...

Mike B.

Posts: 592 · Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 12:31 pm

Yep, DEFINITELY getting a taxi to/from the Acaeum evening meal! Shocked

Cheers,
Malc

Posts: 1756 · Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 12:42 pm

Aneoth wrote:

Tell that to the folks in those nations/countries where individuals are not allowed to own weapons.

The main purpose for governments to initiate and enforce gun control (in any form) is to make it easier to control the people.
The story about making things safe for them by only allowing government to have weapons is a simply a ruse.

Check into the socialist agenda.

First you must make most of the people dependant on governement support.
Then you take a few rights and liberties from them (such as the right to bear arms), thereby cementing that control.
Then take other rights away one at a time, so as not to bring about too fast a change.
Don’t want to alarm the natives before ultimate control is gained.
Start with something simple, like the "Fairness Doctrine".
(Limiting free speach through legislation)
Soon enough they will have removed your ability to make changes to the government by taking control of every aspect of your lives, and taking control of industry (To protect the people) is an important step in that process.

We all know that the democrats want to Nationalize Healthcare.
It is one of the biggest most pressing issues with which they pound against the republicans.

And how well has that worked out for Canada, or for the UK?
...

Well now... I think it is working out alright for the UK. Things are by no means perfect here - and could do with improving. But relatively very few people are murdered here compared to many other countries,

Our “nationalised healthcare” system works well in many respects. For example, I have a young relative who suffers from an extremely serious heart problem – which is rare enough to not be covered by most health insurance plans – but who has received astonishingly good medical care, the kind of care that would bankrupt most families – all free of charge. Of course, the National Health Service always needs improving, but I would much rather have that than a system of private health care which leaves the poor or unlucky in desperate straights. Similarly we could do with better policing and criminal justice, but licensing firearms is not the right way to make the UK safer.

As to the US, well, I don’t think it is right for me to comment on gun laws over thereand people’s attitudes to killing, because, as has been already said here – the national culture/attitudes are different in many respects. Plus practically I can’t see how you could remove guns from a society where they are already so prevalent.

Posts: 4543 · Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 12:43 pm

Aneoth wrote:

I suppose I didn’t make myself clear.
It wont be the elected politicians who will change the Constitution, or at least re-interpret it to have some other meaning than the one we feel is perfectly clear.
It will be the Supreme Court.
They do it often and the people do not elect them.
So, the Supreme Court Justices have no constituents to be concerned about.
Nor are they normally concerned about monetary situations.
They are Nominated by the President and approved by the congress and that selection is ALWAYS based on political leanings and which party controls the Legislative Branch (Congress, Senate) and the Executive Branch (president).
Starting next year the Legislative Branch and the Executive Branch with both be completely controlled by the democrats.
Soon thereafter the democrats will gain control of the last Branch (Judicial) through new appoinments to the Supreme Court and the lower courts as well.

Aneoth, the supreme court doesn't have the power to change the constitution, they can only interpret it. And, even in the case of the recent 2nd admendment ruling, there are loopholes. For example the ruling justices in the case said gun bans are still possible under narrow guidelines (for example, on school grounds, or public property, or in gated communities, etc). Conversely, even if a "ban" or law was voted on by the chief justices in favor of gun control, there would be loopholes especially in regards to state rights (even liberal judges over the years have time and again given preference to state rights over federal rights in numbers of cases).

Not to mention, if you are worried about the Dems having control of congress, senate and judiciary, they had it for about 50 years or so (1930---1980) without any loss of gun rights. And it'snot like having a Republican president has led to a landslade of conservative judges, anyway...Reagan appointed left leaning Sandra Day OConnor, George Bush senior made the absolute dumbest appointment in history with the left of left wing nut David Souter, and the present President attempted to appoint his good buddy Harriet Miers until shamed into appointing someone with a pedigree and intelligence. So don't assume a Democratic president is automatically going to appoint another Ruth Bader Ginsberg (one of the top ten worst supreme court judges in history and an embarrasment to her profession); sure as heck the Republicans haven't always used their powers wisely in this regard.

Mike B.

Posts: 4543 · Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 12:48 pm

red_bus wrote:

As to the US, well, I don’t think it is right for me to comment on gun laws over thereand people’s attitudes to killing, because, as has been already said here – the national culture/attitudes are different in many respects. Plus practically I can’t see how you could remove guns from a society where they are already so prevalent.

That's very insightful because most people don't understand in comparing the US and UK it's apples and oranges. One society has traditionally regulated what private citizens can arm themselves with almost throughout their recorded history, whereas another society from their very inception has had firearms a part of their culture so intwined it's actually in our constitution. Each society had unique advantages and disadvantages over the other and many of them are cultural; unfortunately the ownership of guns is one cultural aspect that UKers are glad they don't have to deal with, while we here in the US couldn't comprehend a life without...

Mike B.

Posts: 4543 · Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 12:49 pm

lawrenson wrote:

Yep, DEFINITELY getting a taxi to/from the Acaeum evening meal! Shocked

Cheers,
Malc

Don't worry Malcolm, I'll be packing heat, we'll be ok on the long walk!!!!! Very Happy

Mike B.

Posts: 592 · Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 1:45 pm

Badmike wrote:

Don't worry Malcolm, I'll be packing heat, we'll be ok on the long walk!!!!! Very Happy

Mike B.

And that is supposed to make me feel BETTER?? Very Happy

Crazy Texans!

Tbh, its just slightly uncomfortable being AROUND anyone with a gun. I guess its because they're not usual in the UK.

Cheers,
Malc

PS How much were you planning on drinking that night Mike? Shocked

Posts: 495 · Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 2:17 pm

lawrenson wrote:

And that is supposed to make me feel BETTER?? Very Happy

Crazy Texans!

Tbh, its just slightly uncomfortable being AROUND anyone with a gun. I guess its because they're not usual in the UK.

Cheers,
Malc

PS How much were you planning on drinking that night Mike? Shocked

Leave it to Malc to pretty much sum up my feelings that there should be some restrictions on who can own a gun.

We can all probably agree that more than half the population do not have the intelligence, responsibility, and common sense needed to possess a gun. Yet most of us will fight to the death that they be allowed to own a gun. Got mental issues no problem. Just now going thru a divorce-get yourself a gun. Feel the government is out to get ya - stockpile lots of guns and ammo. Does your neighbor not believe in the same God you do-damn right get a gun. Have absolutely no training to know which end the bullet comes out of- no problem. We will not let you drive, marry, or fish in this country without a license but you can buy a gun (as long as you do not have a felony).

Martin

Posts: 2556 · Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 2:41 pm

lawrenson wrote:

Tbh, its just slightly uncomfortable being AROUND anyone with a gun. I guess its because they're not usual in the UK.

It is very uncomfortable being around anyone with a loaded gun, especially if they are playing around with it. I was over at a friends house many years ago with a few other people. He had a .38 pistol that he was just goofing around with. Apparently it had a hair trigger and it went off. Luckily he just shot a hole in his ceiling and not someone's head. I got super pissed off at the guy though.

And back when I was in high school I could have easily shot myself in the foot with a .410 that also had a hair trigger. I was being stupid with the gun loaded and pointing at the ground, the safety off, and my finger on the trigger while I was walking through a field. I tripped over a rock or something and when I reacted I clenched my finger. BLAM!!! I almost shit my pants that day. Shocked

And just a few months ago, I woke up in the middle of the night to a strange noise. I kept hearing this noise coming from the back of the house near the garage door. I pulled my pistol from the closet, loaded the clip into it, pulled back the hammer and loaded a round into the chamber. After about five minutes I realized that the sound was caused by the wind blowing a tree branch against the exhaust vent on the roof. I wasnt sure what scared me more....the sound of a possible intruder or that I was prepared to fire a gun at someone? I had to wait until my adrenaline surge wore off before I could unload the pistol as I was too nervous and thought I might accidentally fire it while I was trying to remove the round from the chamber. I think my problem there is I really dont like pistols, especially semi-automatics. I am comfortable with a rifle. But if I am going to have a gun for home defense I really need a shotgun. Kind of hard to accidentally kill a neighbor with a shotgun. Razz

Posts: 145 · Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 2:42 pm

Just a sidenote, Canada has its share of violent crime. So does the UK. It's just that both countries benefit from having smaller populations relative to the US, so that it appears as less net crime statistically, because the total populations are less. But people are people wherever you go, and there's a bad apple in every barrel.

Also, crime and guns are easier to control when you have less people and less territory to keep an eye on. Take the UK, that nation is fortunate to have an easier time controlling who and what goes in or out by way of geography. It's a small island with a small population compared with the US, it's exponentially less border to watch and fewer ways to get in. So gun control is easier for them and makes more sense, with a good chance of making sure NOBODY has them, bad guys or good guys. Although I hear this is changing and the bad guys are starting to get some guns now. I read a story recently (that I can't find the link to) about how London beat officers may have start carrying.

In the US, effective gun regulation is logistically impossible. There's just no way to enforce it realistically, for various reasons. Too many people, too many folks moving in and out, far too much border to watch, too many firearms already in-country, etc. It's a pipe dream.

By the way, plenty of people still kill each other in the UK, strict gun laws or no. They just use knives. Maybe they need stricter "Knife Control Laws.":
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,364022,00.html

People who want to enact gun laws should read the above article for some perspective. Sadly, if you are damaged enough to really, really want to murder somebody over nothing, you are going to do it with whatever means come to hand. A gun is just a tool and I think gun law arguments back and forth just cloud the issue of crime as a whole.

EDITED TO ADD- Okay, I'm really depressed now! Crying or Very sad

Posts: 1439 · Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 2:50 pm

Badmike wrote:

That's very insightful because most people don't understand in comparing the UK and UK it's apples and oranges..........

Actually I think they are exactly the same... Embarassed

Perhaps it was meant to be US and UK?

Posts: 1439 · Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 3:16 pm

Kingofpain89 wrote:

..... I had to wait until my adrenaline surge wore off before I could unload the pistol as I was too nervous and thought I might accidentally fire it while I was trying to remove the round from the chamber. I think my problem there is I really dont like pistols, especially semi-automatics. I am comfortable with a rifle. But if I am going to have a gun for home defense I really need a shotgun. Kind of hard to accidentally kill a neighbor with a shotgun. Razz

That says it all right there. You are comfortable with a Rifle, not a semi-automatic pistol.
For Your specific home protection a Shotgun might be a better choice.
Everyone should be comfortable with whatever they use for home protection.
Even if it is a baseball bat.........

However, for home protection, I MUCH prefer either my wifes 9mm Glock, or my .40 Glock.
Pistols (Of course) have less mass, and they can be moved about faster and aimed faster than a shotgun, or a rifle.
Even at night or in a darkened room, especially with night sites.........
The bigger pistol will drop the bad guy with one decently placed shot, the other pistol has less kick, yet still has good stopping power.
With either one I have multiple chances to hit the bag guy and can do so very quickly.
I practice with both of the pistols on a regular basis.
The bad guy would be better off spending that night at home watching re-runs of Gilligan's Island, or Oprah.....

Posts: 1756 · Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 3:17 pm

Agent Cooper wrote:

Just a sidenote, Canada has its share of violent crime. So does the UK. It's just that both countries benefit from having smaller populations relative to the US, so that it appears as less net crime statistically, because the total populations are less. But people are people wherever you go, and there's a bad apple in every barrel.

It is certainly true that there are bad people, and I might add good people Smile

, wherever you go - but regarding murder, the UK has a dramatically lower rate per capita of murder. While the UK population is roughly one fifth that of the US, the number of murders is about one twentieth that of the US. Canada likewise has a lower per capita rate than the US.

Agent Cooper wrote:

EDITED TO ADD- Okay, I'm really depressed now! Crying or Very sad

I know!

But see point above about good people Smile

Murder will always make a much better news story than an act of altruism of generosity. I have been fortunate enough to travel quite widely in my life and there is far more that connects people than separates them. In my experience, in almost every place I have been, people's first instinct is one of helpfulness and friendship.

Posts: 1756 · Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 3:47 pm

And on a different note. I recently watched Night Watch on DVD. Tonight it is part 2 - Day Watch. Anyone else seen these?