The Astral Pulse

His head is so far up corporate america, I can smell the stink from here.

May 18, 2005 MSNBC "Eleven states sued the Bush administration Wednesday to block new rules allowing coal-burning utilities to trade rights to emit toxic mercury, adding to other lawsuits challenging the regulations."

He will go down in history as the president who isolated America from the rest of the world and put the fear of corporate democratic capitalism in the minds of the under-privileged everywhere.

To all you non-Americans out there, please know that Pres Bush does not represent the morals of a VERY LARGE portion of Americans.

Although not specifically aimed at bush, im not liking the look of this either:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0518-02.htm

Its strange how a country's government/military etc can preach peace and world stability while simultaneously developing more unique, effective and efficient ways to kill people (and causing other countries to develop the same type of technology in order to feel protected).
I know nearly ALL countries develop better and better weapons as a habit but i think taking them into space is way overboard.
Lets just hope it never happens eh.

>RooJ

Sounds like Star Wars all over again. There were great threads here some months back about Tesla and his inventions, and the way they have been militarized for experimental weapon systems, such as bouncing energy off the stratosphere and hitting the opposite side of the globe.

Tesla's story alone is fascinating though.

http://www.viewzone.com/tesla.ray.html

QuoteHe will go down in history as the president who isolated America from the rest of the world and put the fear of corporate democratic capitalism in the minds of the under-privileged everywhere.

You're being too easy on the Father.

Heil!

My desperate hope is that the day will one day come (fingers crossed) when my government (and the corporations that run it) will put health care before warfare.

2 cents,
Nick

I am getting out of here as quick as possible. (Im not to satisfied with our country as you can tell from my location)

WHAT HAPPENED TO MY POST??? ARG! (*&(^^%$&^%^&)(#())@@*$_)(#!!!

did anyone listen to C2C "the immigration problem"???
333

most ex-pat's end up moving to some third world country. wait a bit, and you won't have to move anywhere! :wink:

anyone also hear anything about japan and china no longer buying our debt? bad situation is an understatement here. no longer a viable investment. use to buy it all up to keep the illusion that the us dollar was strong, and keep us consuming their goods, but now i guess there's little point, and asia thinking about switching to the euro. anyone read anything about the PANAMERICA project? they needed to get the new national i.d.'s okayed first, but they've done that. next the AMERO.
but since i think britain bought us out of bankruptcy in the past (which i don't think we paid off yet), and they're going at it again with a "helpful" hand... maybe we should all start practicing "god save the king", and start getting use to being called south canada! at least that way you'll get your socialized medicine and fewer wars :wink:

resistance is futile!!! everyone should be canadian (in their hearts)!

PS...anyone wants to buy a finca down in argentina...i'll be the housekeeper/masseuse/gardener/resident artist :D

Quoteanyone also hear anything about japan and china no longer buying our debt?

Damn. o.o

Good thing I'm still planning on living self-sufficiently in the Appalachians!

Btw, Nick, the only problem with that is medicine doesn't make as much $$. That's all they care about. :cry:

Canada is the way to go.

(http://www.tatersr.us/td/canada.gif)

And cant forget about that sweet sweet BC bud :D

and french fries with gravy, melted cheese & ketchup mmmmmmmmmmm.

that's the first i've laughed all day! thanx

From godlikeproductions.com

Russia Threatens US With Force If Space Weapons Become Active:

Russia would consider using force if necessary to respond if the US put a combat weapon into space, according to a senior Russian official.

Vladimir Yermakov, senior counsellor at the Russian embassy in Washington, on Tuesday told a conference on space militarisation that Russia was working through diplomatic channels to urge the US not to move towards fielding weapons in space. But he said Russia would have to react, possibly with force, if the US successfully put a "combat weapon" in space.

I say again.... lets just hope it never happens eh.

>RooJ

Yeah, weapons in space = bad.

Russia has just recently developed missiles that can dart in and out of Earth's atmosphere, thus preventing us from being able to even try to intercept them. I guess this the the US's reaction. I'm rather disappointed, seeing as how Russia finally regained its ability to keep us in check.

I wish everyone could meditate at a specific day at a specific time on a specific thought and merge our collective consciousness. If it were possible, to make everyone in the Bush administration to resign.

I'm not kidding about this.


Kevin

Quote from: RooJFrom godlikeproductions.com

Russia Threatens US With Force If Space Weapons Become Active:

Russia would consider using force if necessary to respond if the US put a combat weapon into space, according to a senior Russian official.

Vladimir Yermakov, senior counsellor at the Russian embassy in Washington, on Tuesday told a conference on space militarisation that Russia was working through diplomatic channels to urge the US not to move towards fielding weapons in space. But he said Russia would have to react, possibly with force, if the US successfully put a "combat weapon" in space.

I say again.... lets just hope it never happens eh.

>RooJ

I'm hoping it does happen. Then I wont have to feel guilty about suicide :lol. I say get it the hell over with. There are too many rich people in the world that don't understand how good their life is. They are miserable and have to make others miserable because they can't understand how to be happy. They have money, power, everything but are still not happy. That's really what this is all about. Think about it.

I say just end it already and stop teasing us. I hope we go back to sticks and stones real soon. I've had it with mindless red cells operating the planet. Time for a drastic change I say. I'm ready. BRING IT.

Kevin

"They have money, power, everything but are still not happy."

When are we all going to realize that, despite popular belief, this isn't what makes you happy.

The only thing that makes them happy is trying to make us all clones of each other. When there are no more free thinkers, they have succeeded. They can take my car, my house, even my body, but the Guberment and all of it's intellegenge combined (which couldn't power a flashlight bulb) will never have my soul  :evil:

posted by no leaf clover:

QuoteBtw, Nick, the only problem with that is medicine doesn't make as much $$. That's all they care about.

Agreed (emphasis on greed)  :wink:

Quote from: Ben KCanada is the way to go.

(http://www.tatersr.us/td/canada.gif)

And cant forget about that sweet sweet BC bud :D

YES!!! you are official cool now! i LOVE living in canada

I agree that I am ready for a serious change and I think one is coming dispite the attempts by the government to suppress it and everything related to the spread of info about it.  I havent even heard about the russians threatening force or their new missiles.  I guess that could make people cry out to the Gov to do something about it, or heaven forbid start a panic.

Quote from: NeoSaturn

Quote from: Ben KCanada is the way to go.

(http://www.tatersr.us/td/canada.gif)

And cant forget about that sweet sweet BC bud :D

YES!!! you are official cool now! i LOVE living in canada

we love you Americans, come with us up here !

And what makes you think the democrats are any different?  Just as many of them are multi-millionaires and take money from corporations.  

It is just a time of "Pick Your Brand of Fanatic"  - both parties have them.  

And if someone wants to leave the country, he or she is certainly free to do so.  Free to come back too.  We are condemned to be free....big responsibility.  

Presidents come and Presidents go.  And that's a good thing.   No doubt, somebody will hate the next one, or the next five.  Others won't.  

Bush is the President.....good grief, get over it.  Some of us had to live with Clinton for 8 years, so you can certainly survive this.

QuoteSome of us had to live with Clinton for 8 years, so you can certainly survive this.

Can't argue with you there!  

QuoteAnd what makes you think the democrats are any different? Just as many of them are multi-millionaires and take money from corporations.

There either...

My problem with Bush is his outright deceit.  The guy is such a liar and manipulator he makes Clinton look like a saint.  And what gets me is half of America plays right into his rhetoric.

By the way, for the record, I am a republican.  I don't agree alot with what the democrats represent, but having Bush around is making it oh so inviting to part ways.  He is doing evil things in order to "secure our economy & security".

QuoteAnd if someone wants to leave the country, he or she is certainly free to do so

.

Its too cold in Canada anyways  :D

Jenadots, no offense, but for someone so intelligent and wise I think you have some pretty strong blinders on.

Both parties are horrible, yes, but you're missing a disgusting bigger picture here that requires disregarding your preconceptions, and it is not limited to either political party. This country is no longer a democracy, as our votes are no longer any threat to the powers that be, and our policies are making a beeline towards authoritarianism in 9/11's wake. Start researching Diebold if you want to know how incredibly democratic this country is.

QuoteBy the way, for the record, I am a republican. I don't agree alot with what the democrats represent, but having Bush around is making it oh so inviting to part ways. He is doing evil things in order to "secure our economy & security".

The heart of the problem doesn't belong to any political party, but the American system itself now. Hey, see if you recognize this quote:

"An evil exists that threatens every man, woman, and child of this great nation. We must take steps to insure our domestic security and protect our Homeland."

Know who said that? G.W. Bush? Nope, but good guess! Give up? Ok, it was Hitler. Hitler said that. But, you know, Hitler was another one of those "follow him or leave our country" kind of guys, you know?

Ok, guess who said this next one:

"Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship ... Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger."

Yep, you're catching on now! Another Nazi. Hermann Goering, to be exact.

When you come across people that present these very same policies[/b], you don't say "oh well, get over it, you can ride it out; I had to put up with your party's crap!" Instead, some ears should be raised, regardless of which party you herd to, and you should start paying attention to what these people are doing with your country! But NO ONE IS! It's easy to hate Bush, and there are plenty of good reasons, believe me, but the deeper problem is more sick than something that belongs to Bush alone. It's quickly becoming a problem of the whole system.

And 9/11 was no Pearl Harbor, either; it was a Reichstag. If you want to further discuss the specifics on that I would be more than happy, but for some reason I seriously doubt anyone who reads this will care. It's a sad state when no one cares. Our current administration is literally dwelling on it, I'm sure, but for everyone else this ignorance and apathy is becoming a real drag.

Quotebut for everyone else this ignorance and apathy is becoming a real drag.

Amen.  The American system is moving further away from democracy with capitalism leading the charge.  And those of you who deny this concept are either ignorant of the subject or working as a "higher up" with a vested interest in a large corporation.

Capitalism has become a beast of its own, and the next revolution will be global one, the obscenely rich vs. the poor and their sympathizers, the polluters vs. the humanitarians and tree huggers.

This capitalistic machine will fail in its current state because it is based on a system that relies fundamentally on the consumption of natural resources.  The reason it will eventually fail is because we are quickly nearing the end of Earth's ability to provide these resources.

The big question isn't if the system fails, it is when, and how much damage will be done in terms of resource depletion, human suffering, and environmental collapse.  

America is turning its eye away from this looming problem, ignoring it for short term gain.  We are turning our back on the world in the name of forceful peacekeeping, in the name of a strong economy no matter the cost.

We will see more fundamental change in the next couple decades (if not sooner) than humanity has seen since civilization's inception.  This change will occur by voluntary choice or will be thrust upon us by the forces of nature.

"May you live in interesting times."

You may.

Quote from: Willis


The big question isn't if the system fails, it is when, and how much damage will be done in terms of resource depletion, human suffering, and environmental collapse.  

America is turning its eye away from this looming problem, ignoring it for short term gain.  We are turning our back on the world in the name of forceful peacekeeping, in the name of a strong economy no matter the cost.

We will see more fundamental change in the next couple decades (if not sooner) than humanity has seen since civilization's inception.  This change will occur by voluntary choice or will be thrust upon us by the forces of nature.

In one of my biology course we have seen that any species that grows exponentially will sharply go down drastically, I hope that it's not true.

I'm a Canadian also and happy to live in this country but it is as corrupted as any other ones; corporate puppets are also at the head of the gov. and you have probably heard about the big scandal of the liberal party.... People are so proud of our health system but the gov. is making everything so the private sector can have a place where they can divide the rich and the poor. And just yesterday, the Supreme court have open the field in the province of Quebec for this private/public health system. Who do you think is the most happy? You know that the insurance companies are! So if you want to invest, you know what to do.... Baby boomers will get the corporate pig even fatter in the years to come. Again, this is another step toward the division of the rich and the poor.

Take care,

QuoteIn one of my biology course we have seen that any species that grows exponentially will sharply go down drastically, I hope that it's not true.

This is a biological truth.  Here is an article I wrote for www.oneplanetonelife.com.  Forgive me, its kind of long....

"We are the result of 4 billion years of the evolutionary process.

The Evolution of Life is the result of the continuing cooperation of Earth systems. Any system that does not participate in the complement of the entire system will eventually fail, without exception.

This is death.

Death in the natural world is not defined as a result of competing species. Death is the necessary ingredient life needs to remain in harmony with the bigger process of life called Evolution. If a death is not in harmony with the bigger process of life, it is not necessary, and is therefore detrimental to this process called evolution.

Darwin got it wrong in one important aspect: Survival of the Fittest. We have used this phrase to justify our slaughtering of the natural world. It has become our battle cry against nature.

Nature is a network of complimentary systems. Any system that does not participate in the complement of another system will eventually fail. "Fittest" does not mean strongest, it means the part that fits best within the whole. The system does not get rid of another part that is benefiting the system. The system gets rid of the part that becomes detrimental to the system, and replaces it with a more beneficial part, one that "fits" better.

With this new definition of the natural cycle, this process of evolution, I can say that what we are doing is not part of this natural process.

Evolution did not cease at the creation of Homo sapiens. Evolution continued on to create the mind, what Ken Wilbur calls the intangible noosphere. Through the continuation of evolution, the mind has created language, created writing, created the sciences, religions and philosophies, created society, culture, and laws. It is unique in the natural world, and it is the sole property of Homo sapiens.

The mind is the natural by-product of the Evolution of Life. But it does not end here. Evolution is and always will be at work.

The conscious decisions we make today guide the future evolution of the mind and its compliment to the rest of the system.

Our destiny is to bridge this gap that has been created between humans and the natural world, between what is the noosphere and the biosphere. To become compliments to the system called life. To participate in the creative, evolutionary process that has been guiding life for 4 billion years."

Darwin got it wrong in one important aspect: Survival of the Fittest

Actually he didn't get it wrong, he got it right. Your interpretation of 'fittest' to mean 'best able to adapt' is correct; as that was what he actually meant.

It was everyone else who was wrong as his famous quote was taken out of context and mis-interpreted, especially by 'social darwinists' like the Nazis and people like them; the social darwinism mindset, based on a mis-interpretation of Darwin's theory, was very popular throughout the late 19th and early 20th century and not only with the Nazis. Many 'educated' People held similar views in America, Britain and elsewhere is Europe at the time and used it to justify racist views.

Just goes to show 'a little knowledge is dangerous', as they say!

Doug

Wow.  I never heard of that before.  It makes sense.  "Best able to adapt" could be taken both ways, meaning competition or cooperation couldn't it?

Thanks for the info Doug!  I'll have to look into that.  It would be very relevant to some of the environmental stuff I am working on.  Where can I get some of this info from?

Will

hmm...your paper does not address the issue of complex human social "norms" and the subsequent enforcement of those norms. We will never evolve if we dont want to.

do any more child prodigies need to commit suicide?

Huh? Please explain or give an example of the social norms...

QuoteWe will never evolve if we don't want to.

No, but sometimes drastic change can be forced upon you.  And like every single event in your life, you can choose what you will do with it.

And what do you mean by

Quotedo any more child prodigies need to commit suicide?

In the interests of fairness, I would ask that you make the following threads in addition to this one:

"Pol Pot Sucks."
http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/pot.htm
http://www.time.com/time/daily/polpot/1.html

"Saddam Sucks."
http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/htimages/KurdsGassedin1988_Time3-31-03.jpg
http://www.thesandspur.org/media/paper623/news/2004/10/22/News/Mass-Graves.In.Iraq.Investigated-778044.shtml

"Kim Jong Il Sucks."
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17504
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/magazine/story/0,11913,1075267,00.html
http://flatrock.org.nz/topics/terrorism/north_koreans_eating_human_flesh.htm

"China Sucks."
http://www.ycsi.net/users/reversespins/humanrights.html
http://www.uaw.org/action/china/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/1425570.stm

"African Warlords Suck."
http://allafrica.com/stories/200505230467.html
http://www.preventgenocide.org/africa/
http://english.pravda.ru/world/2002/07/05/31830.html

Insert any other of the dozen atrocities committed on this planet, worldwide, at any time, if you so wish.

It is really nauseating how you people gloss over such blatant disregard for human life like this.  Millions murdered in Africa and East Asia, the Kurds being slaughtered by the hundred thousands in Iraq, and yet, the only person you decry on these forums (or any other one), is Bush, Bush, Bush.

A convenient scapegoat to blame for the world's problems, and your own.

Those of you who have immense personal problems and yet refuse to deal with any of them, instead equating Bush with Hitler and thinking, "Yeah, my life's a wreck... but at least I'm not BUSH!  He hurts people just like me and that makes him the same as Hitler!"

Those of you who spend so much time spewing venom at Democrats, Republicans, Evangelical Christians, Bush, Clinton, America, Canada, China, New Agers, Satanists or whatever group or country you've decided is your sole, mortal enemy.

All of you need to take a long hard look at what's really going on in the world, and at yourselves.

Glossing over the world's atrocities and focusing on a convenient enemy (and who is most convenient as the leader of the strongest nation in the world) does nothing to raise awareness for the multitude of problems out there right now.

Yes, Bush has acted terribly with many different things in our country and abroad.  He's screwing social security, the environment is suffering, and he's nipping away at homosexual rights.

But unless you can think to yourself what good traits Bush has, or what good things he has done for the world (freeing Iraq from a brutal dictator who killed hundreds of thousands, despite why the war started, to name one), and unless you can wrap your mind around the numerous atrocities happening around the world, even as we speak, you will NEVER understand the whole story.

Bringing awareness to Bush's faults is a noble act.  I applaud people for bringing them into the light, so I know what mistakes he is making and what to prepare for in the future.

However, equating him with Hitler?  Blaming him solely for problems in the world?  Ignoring his good points, and blowing up and focusing on all his faults?  Bringing no attention to other, more important, things going on in the world?

That's just pathetic.

As long as you continue to demonize Bush as your convenient enemy, you will always be running away from other problems, whether they be in the world at large or in yourselves.

And as long as you refuse to hear a Republican's point of view, adopt a Democrat way of life, or view history IN ITS ENTIRETY, rather than posting this tired old escapism "Bush Sucks" bull, you will always only have half the story.

And half the story is not sufficient to have a clear view of the world.

Grow up.  It's no wonder that many of you hate Bush and America as you do, not because of who or what they are.

For many of you, it's because they reflect that which you are not: strong, active, affecting change.  That is why you ignore murder in other countries; America is the strongest.  And more power means more evil, right?  If America kills tens of thousands as CASUALTIES OF WAR in Iraq, it's certainly much more evil than child soldiers and genocide, millions killed blatantly BECAUSE OF THEIR RACE in Africa.  After all, when has Africa ever had the strongest army in the world?

Chris

P.S. If you doubt what I say, show me links to where you decry murder, rape and other crimes with the same veracity that you do Bush and America.  Something different than the high horse, "Oh, that's terrible.  But there must have been a reason in the grand scheme of things.  God has a reason.  Heaven is showing us compassion.  *Insert more apologetics here*"

Show me one time where you afforded America and Bush, your convenient enemies, that same courtesy.

Hi:

If I may add, this thread is on the topic of "Bush" sucks. It may well be that other world political figures "suck" too. In which case you would be very welcome to discuss that topic in a suitably titled thread. But this thread is for people who think "Bush" sucks, so you will obviously see a very anti-Bush bias in this thread, as it is the very nature of the thread.

This forum is not "anti" Bush in any way. It would just appear that some members dislike his policies or his character, etc., to the extent they would like to make their voice heard. Provided they do it on-topic, in the right section and in accordance with the published AUP I see no problem with that. As I say, you are more than welcome to do the same thing with any other political figure of your choosing.

Yours,
Frank

Are you saying I'm not allowed to discuss an unhealthy fixation on a demonized Bush in a thread titled "Bush Sucks."?

Then perhaps you should explain why people discussing french fries on the first page were not given a similar warning.

Or the people on the second page discussing money and happiness.

Or the pro-Canada posts.

Or the evolution and death posts.

My point isn't that they should be silenced or warned.  I'm saying if it adds something to the conversation, it should be allowed.  Seeing as how you consider "humor" and "deep thoughts" to be fair game, I don't see why others shouldn't have the chance to defend their hatred of Bush, and only Bush, or America, and only America.

And my point isn't holding up Bush for moral judgement between dictators worldwide, despite the fact that I pointed out the difference between the two.  I lead my post off with those examples to give everyone something to think about before they continued with the rest of my post.  I want to know what makes people think they can blame only Bush for the world's problems while blatantly ignoring more pressing issues.

In that regard, I think I am firmly on topic.

Chris

Wow.  I don't know what to say about this last post, but I'll try.

I appreciate and respect your thoughts and perspective on this thread, but to be honest, I don't really understand where you are coming from.

However, I will respectfully reply to your posting and point to some of the inconsistencies I see not only in your words, but also in the attitude from which these words have been written.  This is a forum in which people can exchange their viewpoints and in no way am I wanting to disrespect yours, so please don't take offense.  I only wish to give you a better understanding of where I'm coming from, and in turn, maybe find out a little but more about your perspective.  That being said....

QuoteIn the interests of fairness, I would ask that you make the following threads in addition to this one:

...

Your list is far from complete.   You were not really trying to include these links in "the interests of fairness", because that would be an impossible task, for you omitted millions upon millions of other topics.  The reason you put them in there to try and "prove" that your thoughts on this topic are more important than the other thoughts that have been posted, and this was your illustration.

QuoteIt is really nauseating how you people gloss over such blatant disregard for human life like this. Millions murdered in Africa and East Asia, the Kurds being slaughtered by the hundred thousands in Iraq, and yet, the only person you decry on these forums (or any other one), is Bush, Bush, Bush.

This title of this topic is "Bush Sucks".  Once again, it would be an impossible task to list here all the atrocities committed by all the leaders around the world.  This topic is about sharing particular viewpoints we have concerning particular actions about the Bush Administration.  This topic at no point in no way is attempting to illustrate all the things wrong with this world!  It is beyond my understanding that someone could believe that was the goal of this topic, or that that is even possible.  Not to mention the personal attacks in the first line of that quote.  Out of respect of your viewpoint (something you don't have for ours) I will refrain from the obvious opportunities you have provided us.

QuoteThose of you who have immense personal problems and yet refuse to deal with any of them, instead equating Bush with Hitler and thinking, "Yeah, my life's a wreck... but at least I'm not BUSH! He hurts people just like me and that makes him the same as Hitler!"

Again, with the personal attacks.  You are slowly eroding the respect people who read this may have for you and your viewpoint.  And I briefly scanned over this topic and nowhere did I find someone saying "Yeah, my life's a wreck... but at least I'm not BUSH! He hurts people just like me and that makes him the same as Hitler!".  Also, nowhere did I see people say Bush is just like Hitler.  What was being pointed out is the eerily similar propaganda tactics that are being used.  It is naive to think that anybody can say that Bush is the same as Hitler.  And it is similarly naive to assume that someone is trying to say just that.  You only read what you wanted to from that post, again to try and validate your thoughts and the insecurities you may have about them.

QuoteA convenient scapegoat to blame for the world's problems, and your own.

From my perspective, the current administration is but only a part of the world's problems.  Not to say that some of the administration's policies aren't good.  But once again, this is not the place to list ALL these policies and critique every single one of them.  Depending on who you are and what you do and the perspective and knowledge you have about the world and the administration, the different policies you are going to focus on.  That specific policy/topic is outlined in the unitial posting.  As for my own problems, you haven't a clue.  With that comment you have lost all respect I may have concerning the thoughts you have about this topic.  Well, I guess I do respect it enough to comment on it, but not much more.

QuoteThose of you who spend so much time spewing venom at Democrats, Republicans, Evangelical Christians, Bush, Clinton, America, Canada, China, New Agers, Satanists or whatever group or country you've decided is your sole, mortal enemy.

Unfortunately, all of us have our enemies.  Your enemies just happen to be us and our thoughts.

QuoteGlossing over the world's atrocities and focusing on a convenient enemy (and who is most convenient as the leader of the strongest nation in the world) does nothing to raise awareness for the multitude of problems out there right now.

How can you sit there and say that bringing a topic of concern to a public forum for debate and discussion does nothing to raise awareness on world problems?  That is exactly what we are discussing!  Again, IT IS AN IMPOSSIBLE TASK TO BRING ALL THE WORLD'S ISSUES UNDER ONE TOPIC AND DISCUSS THEM!!!!!  If you believe I am wrong about this, start the thread!  Lets get it on!

QuoteAll of you need to take a long hard look at what's really going on in the world, and at yourselves.

I have been doing that for quite some time now thank you.

QuoteYes, Bush has acted terribly with many different things in our country and abroad. He's screwing social security, the environment is suffering, and he's nipping away at homosexual rights.

How can you agree with the topic of debate, yet spew venom at the people who are trying to discuss it?

QuoteBut unless you can think to yourself what good traits Bush has,

done that...

Quoteor what good things he has done for the world (freeing Iraq from a brutal dictator who killed hundreds of thousands, despite why the war started, to name one),

that is a matter of perspective...please respectfully discuss our perspectives with us...

Quoteand unless you can wrap your mind around the numerous atrocities happening around the world,

an impossible task, but one I am currently attempting...

Quoteyou will NEVER understand the whole story.

Again, for anyone, even the Bush Administration, an impossible task.

QuoteBringing awareness to Bush's faults is a noble act. I applaud people for bringing them into the light, so I know what mistakes he is making and what to prepare for in the future.

Wait a minute...  

QuoteGlossing over the world's atrocities and focusing on a convenient enemy does nothing to raise awareness for the multitude of problems out there right now.

Which is it?

QuoteHowever, equating him with Hitler? Blaming him solely for problems in the world? Ignoring his good points, and blowing up and focusing on all his faults? Bringing no attention to other, more important, things going on in the world?

We've been over and over this point, and it seems to be the intent of your posting.  Once again IT IS AN IMPOSSIBLE TASK TO BRING ALL THE WORLD'S ISSUES UNDER ONE TOPIC AND DISCUSS THEM!!!!!  If you believe I am wrong about this, start the thread!

QuoteThat's just pathetic.

Agreed.

QuoteAs long as you continue to demonize Bush as your convenient enemy, you will always be running away from other problems, whether they be in the world at large or in yourselves.

:?:   Please explain.  If you reply to this posting of mine at all, please explain this one.  Please, please, please.  You have a point in this quote to make and I don't get it.  Please explain.

QuoteAnd half the story is not sufficient to have a clear view of the world.

If it is possible to have a clear view on the whole story, someone must have already done it.  Please tell me who it is so I can get some more info on it.  I'm coming up a little short.

QuoteGrow up.

I am grown up.  I'm am quite sure that I am more grown up than you.

QuoteFor many of you, it's because they reflect that which you are not: strong, active, affecting change. That is why you ignore murder in other countries; America is the strongest. And more power means more evil, right? If America kills tens of thousands as CASUALTIES OF WAR in Iraq, it's certainly much more evil than child soldiers and genocide, millions killed blatantly BECAUSE OF THEIR RACE in Africa. After all, when has Africa ever had the strongest army in the world?

Chris, when are you running for World Leader.  You have my vote.

QuoteP.S. If you doubt what I say, show me links to where you decry murder, rape and other crimes with the same veracity that you do Bush and America.

www.oneplanetonelife.com

P.S.  That is my site.  Please show me YOURS.

Respectfully,
Will

Hello,

Thank you for the reply.  And please pardon the language.  I had someone in particular in mind when I posted, and if the post doesn't apply to you... then the jabs do not, as well.

It IS an impossible task to talk about all the world's problems.  I agree.  But please direct me to a post this angry that isn't about America or Bush.  Can you?  Can you show me a post in these forums that demonizes someone as badly as they do Bush?

I'm not saying we should talk about everything that has happened, for that is impossible.  Why you thought I would indicate we MUST write about EVERYTHING that's happened rather than what I was trying to say, that we should BALANCE the demonizing of Bush with SOME other points of the world at large, is baffling.  I blame my vagueness, which is a problem in a lot of my writing.

I never said that people said their lives were a wreck in this post.  However, I'm sure it is true for some of their private lives, which is what I was trying to point out.  The quote was meant as a personal thought, not a post.

For the Bush=Hitler analogy?  Post 4.  "You're being too easy on the Father.  Heil!"

You also say that some may have lost respect for me and my posts because of my personal attacks.  Does that mean they will refuse to listen to me?  Because I'm abrasive?  Wouldn't that be denying themselves of potential information because "someone made me feel bad?"

If Hitler said the sky was blue, should people doubt him?

You and your thoughts are not my enemy.  In fact, you have proven yourself, in this post and around the forums, to be an open-minded person who sees all sides of the issue.  I applaud you, and I praise you.

This post was meant for those who consider themselves open-minded by blaming America and Bush every opportunity they get while glossing over all the other problems of the world (not ALL, but SOME, my friend).  Their actual close-mindedness, yes, is my enemy.

This is not a pro-Bush post.  This is an anti-ignorance post.  I want to see balance... in our news media, in our forums, anywhere information is being exchanged.  I spew venom not at people who dislike Bush, but people who dislike ONLY Bush.  If you are not in this category, let me know a cafe near where you live so I can buy you some tea or a beer or whatever it is you like to drink.

Quote:
Bringing awareness to Bush's faults is a noble act. I applaud people for bringing them into the light, so I know what mistakes he is making and what to prepare for in the future.  

Quote:
Glossing over the world's atrocities and focusing on a convenient enemy does nothing to raise awareness for the multitude of problems out there right now.

Which is it?  It's both.  Bush is a problem, and other world leaders are a problem.  Focusing solely on one or the other is denying part of the story.

Quote:
As long as you continue to demonize Bush as your convenient enemy, you will always be running away from other problems, whether they be in the world at large or in yourselves.  

"Please explain. If you reply to this posting of mine at all, please explain this one. Please, please, please. You have a point in this quote to make and I don't get it. Please explain."

Oh, ok.  Let me use self as an example, so you can rightly spear me later for projecting my past failures onto a larger group of people.

I started out an evangelical Christian, Southern Baptist.  Evolution was my enemy, until I realized what they thought about women, and the illogical concept of Hell.  Eternal punishment for finite sin was my beef.

I became a scientist as a reaction, and then religion and God became my enemy.  However, I hated Islam, Judaism, Buddhism and every other religion way less than I hated Christianity, the religion "large and in charge" in our country.  I hated God, too, for my problems were great and He did nothing to help me.

Then I found a balance between science and religion and now accept both as important in my life.

Yet, I still had a multitude of problems, and needed someone to hate.  So I became a liberal, and hated Bush, America, old rich white men and all the other typical focal points of liberal rage.

After a few years of that in college, I finally came to grip with the bulk of my crippling problems in life, and eradicated my depression and suicidal tendencies.

This was my point.  Rather than dealing with my own problems rightly and directly, I instead externalized my problems onto a convenient scapegoat.  Hence my earlier quote about a wrecked life.  My life was a wreck, but as long as I keep blaming someone else for their own faults, I can forget about dealing with my own.

As long as Bush was my scapegoat, I could get away with not taking responsibility for my own life.  His faults were greater than mine, after all, which means we should deal with him first.

Later, I also found myself speaking to a few conservative people who were not the stupid, racist, homophobic people my liberal friends had made them out to be.  As a reaction, I became conservative to escape what the liberal movement had become for me: a reactionary, nay-sayer movement of hatred that was all ideals, and little actual progress.

As a Republican... I realized that that group did the same by demonizing the Democrats as stupid, short-sighted and blinded by their rage.  So I stopped being Republican and instead sought truth.  Pure information, the account of what happened.  Not colored by politics, or personal vendettas or anything else.  Just what happened.

And being in this place in my life now, it saddens and angers me to see liberal news outlets that tell us how many marines died in Iraq.  Conservative news outlets that tell us how many insurgents died.  Nobody wants to talk about the whole story, to tell us things that might be detrimental to their beliefs.

Is it so hard to ask for a news report that tells us who died, and what happened?  Leave out information for time constraints, not because the editor is a liberal who wants to see the war in Iraq end, and wants to paint his own picture of the conflict.  Let the people decide what is what with the whole picture in front of them.

So I came here and see the anti-Bush thread sitting there, and go page after page of posts that have nothing to do with any other major problems happening in the world.  And that made me mad.

That's why I posted.

Like you, I'm still searching for a source of information that isn't colored or biased.  It's not easy, and I have yet to find one.

"Chris, when are you running for World Leader. You have my vote."

:oops:

Thanks, but I'm still a bratty, immature 22 year old with a chip on his shoulder who isn't firmly in control of his emotions just yet.  I wouldn't trust myself with that much power... but I would take an advisory role. :)

Will sir, you are the exact kind of person I want to get to know more than the ones who attach their egos to a party or idea and refuse to think further on the subject.  Any insults in this post were not meant for you... and overboard for those they affected.

I hope you can understand me better now.

Chris

P.S. "I'm am quite sure that I am more grown up than you."

Aw, and after you said you wouldn't resort to personal attacks?  Tsk, tsk.

Hi Chris, nice chat!

If you have someone particular in mind, then please don't say "all of you" and things like that.  It would really help discussion.

QuoteBut please direct me to a post this angry that isn't about America or Bush. Can you? Can you show me a post in these forums that demonizes someone as badly as they do Bush

?

Why do I have to do that?  I am demonizing some of Bush's decisions.  Why do I have to show you that I also demonize other people in order to make my perspective more valid?

QuoteI'm not saying we should talk about everything that has happened,

You had said that throughout your post.  It was the main point of your argument.

Quote...we should BALANCE the demonizing of Bush with SOME other points of the world at large,

Those other points are for other topics.  This one is about Bush.  Why do I have to write about the atrocities done in Africa in order to validate what I am saying about particular Bush policy?  Respectfully, maybe your just being vague again.

QuoteYou also say that some may have lost respect for me and my posts because of my personal attacks. Does that mean they will refuse to listen to me? Because I'm abrasive? Wouldn't that be denying themselves of potential information because "someone made me feel bad?"

Yes, yes, and yes.  My point exactly.

QuoteYou and your thoughts are not my enemy. In fact, you have proven yourself, in this post and around the forums, to be an open-minded person who sees all sides of the issue. I applaud you, and I praise you.

Thank you.  Seriously, that was nice.  :)

QuoteTheir actual close-mindedness, yes, is my enemy.

I am not here to mentor, but from my view, their close-mindedness is not the enemy, for we all are close-minded to an extent.  It is a tool we develope to prevent ourselves from becoming victims.  Some more so than others.  But this path is not about their close-mindedness.  All your enemies, if you have them, are within.

QuoteWhich is it? It's both. Bush is a problem, and other world leaders are a problem. Focusing solely on one or the other is denying part of the story.

Agreed, however, in order to have a productive discussion, we cannot include ideas that are not relevant to the topic.  The topic is specific aspects of the Bush policy.  If you can point us to information concerning other world leaders that may shed light on our topic of conversation, please do so.  That's what this is all about!

Quotestarted out an evangelical Christian.... or personal vendettas or anything else. Just what happened...

OK, so you have pushed your personal problems, whether overcome or not, onto us.  You took what you despised about yourself and put that weight on our shoulders and labeled us the same, then demanded we follow the same path you have taken in order for us to overcome our weaknesses.  Please don't assume that your problems are mine.  In fact, in light your new post, they are not in any way.  This sounds harsh, but I do not mean it disrespectfully in any way.  Your comments just don't have any relevance to my perspective and you tried to force it that way by trying to make me and others look ignorant and close-minded.

I agree with all you say concerning the media and their slant on things.  You are spot on.  It makes it difficult to believe anything you read or hear, and I think we can all agree to that.

I do not claim to know all that is.  My concern is environmental and the afffects our perspective of nature is having on our home.  For me, our raping of the natural world is a symptom of our troubled spirit/beliefs, whatever moves your soul.  It is bringing society to the edge of collapse.  I am not a doomsayer, like you, I am seeking the reality of the larger picture going on.  Its not about Africa, its not about Suddam and Bush, its not about the animals, its not about Scott Peterson.  It is about what is within.  I hope I am not misquoting Frank when I say "it is all within".  From the Christian perspective, Christ only fought the enemies within, and had only love and compassion for his enemies without, even upon his crucifiction.  We all know the Buddha's battle was within.  Even Hitler's battle was within.  The difference was, with Hitler, he projected his inner enemies onto the world and fought them there.

I appreciate your kind words.  Insults should not be meant for anyone.

I understand you much better now, thank you.

P.S.  22?  Yep, I am more grown up!   :P

Hi:

Again, I stress that this thread is specifically entitled for those members here who think "Bush" sucks, which has naturally incorporated a number of side issues. Your complaint set out by stating, "In the interests of fairness, I would ask that you make the following threads in addition to this one:"

Why are you asking us???

If you wish to set up a topic on a similar theme regarding any other political figure of your choosing you are entirely at liberty to do that, provided, of course, you do so in accordance with our published AUP. Please do not complain that this thread is biased against Bush. The very nature of the way the thread was created is designed to attract people who think he "sucks".

You call for balance, but you are entirely at liberty to create a thread entitled, "I think Bush is god's gift to humanity", or similar, if you want. It's just that this thread is for people who think Bush sucks and is largely for people to discuss why they think he sucks to varying degrees and any naturally occurring side issues that may offshoot from that. If you think he doesn't suck at all, then simply open a thread saying why you think he doesn't suck at all.

If you are calling for balance, then YOU simply create the threads that provide that balance in whatever way you feel is appropriate.

Yours,
Frank

I've read other forums before and always shook my head seeing the flame wars, the insults, the anger.  I promised that should I be a forum goer, I would choose to "discuss" rather than "debate" or "argue," both of which feel to me like "I'm right, and I won't give any ground."

And then I post a flame.  I wish I could tell you I was surprised, but I'm not.  I always make promises to be more loving and friendly and to take better control of my emotions, then the next day I get carried away again.

I'm sorry for being so rude to people in the first post, generalizing and for any feelings hurt.  Please forgive me for being the close-minded, pigheaded one.

Actually after I posted my last one, I went to L.A. to take care of some passport business with that whole bureaucracy thing going on, and I felt bad about what I had said.  So, I told myself I would be kind to people and not lose my temper like I usually do in that cramped, hot, rude place.

It came more naturally than it usually does.  I was waving and smiling at people on the street, gave someone on the street some money (actually pulled an illegal U-turn to come back for him)... and get this.  A girl just randomly walked up to me, asked me to take her for a ride on my motorcycle, then for my phone number.  While I was red-faced, sweating, not exactly in my Sunday best and just standing at the light, she started talking to me.  What a difference an attitude makes.

So I hope everyone here is not upset with being my evolutionary guinea pigs, because I wouldn't have been able to find a better control over myself and a better perspective towards others without royally screwing up here.  So please forgive me, and have my thanks, if you will.

I'd like to magically turn the clock back 24 hours and restart my first post, if I may, using the new knowledge I have gained.

*Ahem*

Thanks for bringing that to our attention, Willis.  Shame on President Bush, proclaimed "Steward of the Land," for being so reckless with emissions that are already too much for us to handle!

However, not to single you out or anything, but don't you think this constant harping on President Bush's policies is calling attention away from more important issues like genocide, child prostitution, secret jailings and other issues going on in the world that have nothing to do with him?

I mean, I wouldn't normally ask, but it seems the News and Media section of this forum is not really addressing issues that many would consider important, like murder and rape by the millions in other countries.  We seem to spend an inordinate amount of time on Bush and America.

It's important to know what he is doing wrong and I thank you again for sharing with us.  Truly, his environmental record is abysmal, and we should all know what he and his corporate buddies are up to behind the scenes!

But at the same time, I would like to hear about more pressing issues from someone as informed as yourself (nice site, by the way, I had no idea Earth's extinction rate was that high), rather than fueling the already roaring fire of Bush's terrible track record.

With respect and admiration,
Chris

Hello Frank,

I don't quite understand.  You are only allowed to post in this thread if you believe the original poster is correct in his opinion that Bush Sucks?

So if I create a thread that says, "Garfield the cat is God," nobody can post in it?  I'm assuming nobody prays to a statue of Garfield... though I certainly used to when I was 8.

Thanks for clarifying,
Chris

Can't we just all suck along....I mean get along? ;)

Actually, if I may declare myself the loser of this conversation and bow out rather ungracefully, I'll do so now.

Sorry for hijacking your thread, man.

The drink offer still stands.

Chris

QuoteBut unless you can think to yourself what good traits Bush has, or what good things he has done for the world (freeing Iraq from a brutal dictator who killed hundreds of thousands, despite why the war started, to name one), and unless you can wrap your mind around the numerous atrocities happening around the world, even as we speak, you will NEVER understand the whole story.

QuoteHowever, equating him with Hitler? Blaming him solely for problems in the world? Ignoring his good points, and blowing up and focusing on all his faults? Bringing no attention to other, more important, things going on in the world?

That's just pathetic.

Unfortunately, the Republican party today is pushing for a lot of policies that are known to go hand in hand with fascism. First of all is our huge militarization (see this graph (http://www.oldamericancentury.org/fy05.gif) and this graph (http://www.oldamericancentury.org/images3/USvsWorld2004Top25.gif)). Second, and possibly most important, is the huge show of patriotism that the current administration has been able to pull in order to be able to do things with that military. Iraq is an example, seeing as how Iraq did absolutely nothing and still got invaded, and rather than any massive protesting on the part of the peasants, it's still going on.

And let me take this opportunity to dismiss the total bs excuse that goes like "Saddam was a brutal dictator". I'll present a chart here of all the genocide that continues in the world today, and you pick out the "bad dictators". You'll find Saddam was by no means the worst, and that there are much easier targets to hit if you want to knock out bad people. The facts are that Bush lied about WMDs and connections to al Qaeda to get us there. There was no "Saddam is bad" war; it was a "Saddam has WMDs" war, and he did not have them.

QuoteModern Genocide in Africa:

Sudan (2,000,000 deaths so far)
Ethiopia (1,000,000)
Burundi (475,000)
Congo (2,120,000+)
Uganda (550,000+)
Zimbabwe (20,000)
Equatorial Guinea (50,000)
Nigeria (1,000,000)
Rwanda ( 810,000+)
Somolia (100,000)
Botswana (100+)
Algeria (210,000)
Guinea Bissau (1000+)
Morocco - Western Sahara (1000+)
South Africa (1000+)

Going outside of Africa into other continents, you have...

Americas:

Colombia (upwards of 160,000)
Brazil (upwards of 300,000)
Cuba (1000+)

Asia:

North Korea (2,000,000+)
Burma (115,000+)
India (100,000+)
Nepal (6,000+)
China (35,000,000)
Pakistan (1,561,000)
Indonesia (510,000+)
Philippines (1000+)
Afghanistan (840,000+)
Sri Lanka (1000+)
Cambodia (2,310,000+ to 2,810,000+)
Vietnam (1,110,000+)
Laos (110,000+)

Europe:

Russian-Chechnya (60,000+)
Georgia (100+)

And finally..... the Middle East!

Israel-Palestine (4,000+)
Iraq (190,000 - also continuing to this day)

I'd like to especially draw attention to Africa. In the Sudan alone there have been 10x the number of people killed in a modern-day genocide than Saddam ever killed. What's more is that the forces in that part of the world are much weaker than Saddam's forces, making them much easier to defeat, and yet we do nothing. I've never heard Bush mention the Africa Genocides once. The only thing the current administration does is offer aid to keep some Africans from starving, and it seems that just detracts attention from the real problem down there. No unusual political tactics there, I can assure you.

So why did we go to Iraq? There were no WMDs, and obviously Bush cannot have had very good intelligence that there were, there were no connections to al Qaeda as even the 9/11 Commission itself will tell, and the worst excuse of all, "Saddam is BAD!", doesn't hold a bit of water in the face of all the other truly brutal regimes that Bush is utterly ignoring. I guess those countries just don't sit on enough oil?

And back on to our nation's current fascist policies.. Besides overwhelming militarization, and pulling nationalistic bs to get people to shut up about whatever the government does (As Jon Stewart said he has found.. something like, 9/11 + X = Shut up, where X is whatever the government says.), there is also discrimination and sexism, as you've mentioned in the form of homophobia, which is also a fascist policy, and using other political parties for scapegoats. It's been increasingly difficult for anyone other than an anger-blinded radio show host to pin faults on the left, but "liberal" still draws a negative connotation for many americans thanks to such media sources, and especially the incredibly biased Fox News. I guess it's coincidence that the left-wing was similarly mocked in 1930's Germany, and that the Nazi party not only had major propoganda sources in mainstream media but also blamed the Reichstag Fire on Communists (Which brings me to another point, and that is that the government perpetrated 9/11 as a Reichstag of their own, which you can discuss on this thread if you'd like (http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=17935&start=0)).

Obsession with national security... That's another big one. You can also call it 'fear mongering'. It's scaring the hell out of your citizens so that they seek comfort in the government; thus patriotism/nationalism. I think we would all agree that events like 9/11 did this wonderfully, in the same way the Reichstag Fire was wonderfully executed to fear monger the German people.

Seeing as how we're supposed to learn from history, and that history repeats itself, etc., look at the following quotes:

Quote"Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship ... All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger." - Hermann Goering, Nazi leader

And here you can see Hitler implementing the very policy:

Quote"An evil exists that threatens every man, woman, and child of this great nation. We must take steps to insure our domestic security and protect our Homeland."
- Adolf Hitler

Is it just me or does that last quote sound like something out of a George W. speech?

Quote"Now we go forward — grateful for our freedom, faithful to our cause, and confident in the future of the greatest nation on earth." - George W. Bush

Quote"Our war on terror begins with al-Qaida, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated." - George W. Bush

You'll notice another deception tactic in how the cause of all the terror that Americans feel is pinned upon al Qaeda and a vague group of other 'terrorists' (Maybe the kind that didn't exist, like the ones in Iraq? At least, didn't exist there until we invaded). That fear mongering is not coming from al Qaeda. It's coming from our government, and it should be no surprise that the fear has worked precisely in our government's favor since 9/11. It's worked because they've planned it too in the same way the Reichstag Fire was planned by the Nazis and blamed on Communists. Again, there's another thread for that if you want to discuss it.

Another tactic is putting religion and a religious ferver to the government and its actions. You can imagine the effect this has on people. The Nazis did this and were big on it too, but they didn't use Christianity. They cleverly went back to Germanic pagan religions and drew further nationalism from that. In our circumstance of having being founded from the start as a very Christian nation, Christianity works well for the current administration. Bush has already made comments as to how God told him to invade Iraq, etc. George Senior has even said that atheists cannot be patriotic and shouldn't even be considered citizens, and Grandaddy Bush, Prescott Bush, was a business partner of Hitler's and sold the Nazis something like 50% of their steel. But this connection, it must be pure coincidence, of course!

Further, corporate power is protected in Fascism, and this is really what defines Fascism as separate from Communism and other extreme leftist governments. Instead of equality for all, there is a very strong push for clearly defined social classes and powerful corporations. It's no secret that corporations virtually run this country, and they have had very close ties to government officials ever since WW2, and sometimes even earlier (Teapot Dome Scandal). I would go so far as to say all the true evil in this country comes directly from the corporations, or more specifically, money, or even MORE specifically, power, or greed. The whole system of Capitalism encourages greed, and it encourages being better off than other in terms of money, and therefore power. The atrocities that these corporations commit and engineer to create more profit are the real problems, and if you look into those they'll speak for themselves.

You can read on further fascist policies we're adopted here (http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm), including fraudulent elections (look up Diebold, if you want a peek into this), a discouragement of intellectuals and the arts, supression of labor movements, cronyism, and a sick fixation on crime and and punishing others.

Corporatism can be blamed for most every problem this world faces today, and Bush stands for corporations. Republicans in general stand for corporations, ie 'big business'. This would not be so bad as any other president we've had here in the modern world, except that with Bush we see a sudden and very frightening turn towards a suppressive government that supports its corporations maybe a bit too much, and to make it all scarier, this nation also happens to be the most powerful in the world in regards to military and economy. That such a leader should take us over (having not convincing won on his own a single election), serving such institutions, and overseeing the implementing of such policies while using fear-mongering is bad any way you might look at it! Trying to optimistic here doesn't even require you to look to the good side of Bush; it would just have you look for a way to get him out or delay the onset of fascism, unless of course you do not value your freedom and would like to see a fascist state become of the US.

QuoteIt is naive to think that anybody can say that Bush is the same as Hitler.

It is naive of you to put that over him this early into his career.

He is no Hitler now, despite all the deaths he has thus-far been the direct cause of (figures on civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan are being discouraged, and no reliable numbers are even out; something very bad in itself). But that he is implementing policies not far off from your Hitlers and Mussolinis should be a wake up call that he isn't heading in the right direction. You can cry "You can't compare him to Hitler!" now, but if you don't pay attention and figure out where exactly this bastard is going, you won't be able to cry that for much longer.

What? The discussion end before I finished posting? :(

Anyway I think I'm going out to eat. I'll bbl.

Great post no leaf.  Great post.  A significant portion of Americans feel the country has been hijacked.  Like I said, I am republican, and party lines has nothing to do with this post.  I am appalled at Bush's arrogance and the blatant finger he waves to the other leaders of the world.

I hope this country can climb out of the hole this man has dug for us.

Oh, Chris, thank you for your post.  This was not an argument in which I was trying to win.  I just wanted to have honest, mind-opening discussion.

P.S.  Please pass my link to as many people as possible.  Nobody knows how bad it has gotten.  Maybe I'll post a topic on a recent environmental news article and go off on these tree hugger issues.  That would be fun.

www.oneplanetonelife.com

Thanks again.
Willis

Nay, thanks for lightening the mood a little. This thread is very emotionally taxing to read about intellegent people arguing about something like this and makes me really want to scream "WHY CANT WE ALL BE FRIENDS?"
But anyways....
I feel Bush has his own agenda and doesn't care for the rest of the country let alone the world, as seen with the way the Bush Administration has treated the UN. So, with this in mind- I think we can safely say that stopping genocide never has been on the Bush agenda, and never will be.

Look past the political boudaries though, the government doesn't have to be the one to stop genocide, at least not completely. I think we can get something done without constantly bickering politicians.

PS: I do hate bush though.

Cool breeze...and your hatred for Bush helps the problems of the world....how?  

We all better hope he says and does the right things over the next three years.  

And I really don't beleive the problems of the world are all his fault or our collective faults....many of the people who are suffering and dying are doing so because of their own leaders, not us.  

We cannot be all things to all people....or solve all the problems in every country.  We can do what we can, but the rest of the world needs to do something too.  

And hating any one in office is a waste of energy.  Better to direct that energy outward in a more peaceful thoughtform....one that perhaps can raise the level of positive energy in the world instead of just feeding into all the negative energy that already exists.  

The bickering politicians are merely reflecting the bickering that seems to be going on everywhere in this country.  We are not a very satisfied bunch and it shows up in the oddest sorts of ways.

Nicely said Jenadots, nicely said. :D

Nay

Quote from: no_leaf_clover

QuoteModern Genocide in Africa:

Sudan (2,000,000 deaths so far)
Ethiopia (1,000,000)
Burundi (475,000)
Congo (2,120,000+)
Uganda (550,000+)
Zimbabwe (20,000)
Equatorial Guinea (50,000)
Nigeria (1,000,000)
Rwanda ( 810,000+)
Somolia (100,000)
Botswana (100+)
Algeria (210,000)
Guinea Bissau (1000+)
Morocco - Western Sahara (1000+)
South Africa (1000+)

Going outside of Africa into other continents, you have...

Americas:

Colombia (upwards of 160,000)
Brazil (upwards of 300,000)
Cuba (1000+)

Asia:

North Korea (2,000,000+)
Burma (115,000+)
India (100,000+)
Nepal (6,000+)
China (35,000,000)
Pakistan (1,561,000)
Indonesia (510,000+)
Philippines (1000+)
Afghanistan (840,000+)
Sri Lanka (1000+)
Cambodia (2,310,000+ to 2,810,000+)
Vietnam (1,110,000+)
Laos (110,000+)

Europe:

Russian-Chechnya (60,000+)
Georgia (100+)

And finally..... the Middle East!

Israel-Palestine (4,000+)
Iraq (190,000 - also continuing to this day)

The number says it all; it's not a question of Republicans, Democrats, Green Party or any other political machine. We are the zombies that let those things happened.... I wonder when we will wake up. On an international level, just don't buy gas for a day and use a bicycle, let's see how ''solid'' this globalized system is: this is where we will realize that ''we'' are the solid foundations under it and that they make us hold this enormous pressure on our backs.

Take care,

QuoteThe number says it all; it's not a question of Republicans, Democrats, Green Party or any other political machine.

You're right. It's the result of Capitalism; all of them know this.

There's no profit for them in saving the lives of the people that are slaughtered around the world every day. That's why they don't bother to say or do anything. Only in a money-driven system could you produce such pigs, and only in a money-driven system could those pigs manipulate their subjects into similarly not caring about the rest of the world and putting out deceptive pocket-change aid funds simply to keep quiet those few of us that do care.

When someone says that it's "their fault" that a 3rd-world country sucks, frankly they don't know what they're talking about. If it was simply that easy to get in on the corporate-obsessive business of having a 1st-world country, I think it's safe to say they would do that! But no one is giving those countries much money, no one is fairly trading with them, their resources are virtually stolen from them, they are in dire need of medical aid for all of the diseases rampant in those parts of the world, and no one gives a sh** that they're killing each other with our weapons (the one thing they will consistently buy) on a daily basis in Holocaust-reminiscent genocides of millions of people. Yeah, it's all their faults! Maybe that's what you would like to believe to keep yourself from feeling guilty, but it's simply not true and you are continuing to allow this to occur day after day, all over the world. That's why people hate us, by the way.

QuoteAnd hating any one in office is a waste of energy. Better to direct that energy outward in a more peaceful thoughtform....one that perhaps can raise the level of positive energy in the world instead of just feeding into all the negative energy that already exists.

I don't think 'hate' is as much the goal here as is immediate, progressive change on a very wide scale.

It won't happen if enough people aren't aware of what's going on, or if not enough people care. It similarly won't happen if we just "hope" the charade goes well. The real issues will certainly not go well because it's their very nature not to, and there's no use idly hoping. People need to understand why we need a fundamental change in our system (imperial corporations and money-driven world politics resulting in a loss of freedom and a loss of lives), and then they need to accomplish changing it. Pretending these problems don't exist isn't helping anyone, either.

QuoteCool breeze...and your hatred for Bush helps the problems of the world....how?

What I meant was that whether i like bush or not is not going to change anything in the world and that we need to look past political boundaries. You said this better than I could, but I disagree with you on one thing...

QuoteAnd hating any one in office is a waste of energy. Better to direct that energy outward in a more peaceful thoughtform....one that perhaps can raise the level of positive energy in the world instead of just feeding into all the negative energy that already exists.

Hmmm... Yes, but sometimes I think that my dislike for their policies motivates me to get something done towards what I feel is better - volunteering or something, in a positive mood. I put that hate to use in a good way. I see where you're coming from however. A "peaceful thoughtform" can still dislike Bush without verbally bashing him all the time. Most of the people I've talked to who dislike bush are putting that energy to good use, but they still hate him.

Hell, I've even put myself up on auction as a mail order bride!

I'm not kidding. This is the profile I'm using (no joke.)

JUST_GET_ME_OUT_OF_HERE

Desperate (and did I mention really sexy?) American girl dreams of life in a magical land of Health Care, Education and Low Crime. I'm surrounded by religious zealots with guns.

If you want to "hop the pond" first and become an American before making me a citizen of your country, we could work that out also.

Heck, if you're Scottish we could both get dual citizenships.

Perhaps you are really rich and want to enjoy a low tax rate while the peasent class works for laughably low slave wages - Then America is your kind of country! Write me! If I find you charming enough you can come on over!

I, however, am not obscenely wealthy and would prefer to be somewhere that the cost of one university class is not to equal my monthly rent.


***She describes her ideal match thus:***

I'm looking for an educated man, from the UK/Canada, or some other country not currently on a global domination campaign.

He should be in his late twenties to early thirties, moderately good
looking, and have a sexy accent (or lack of an accent if you're English.)

Hi:

I think you mean if you are British you can get dual citizenships as opposed to Scottish.

Health care, education and low crime, you wouldn't want to live in England then. It's noisy, polluted, and crime is soaring but guns are banned and religion is no longer on the menu in most places.

Yours,
Frank

Hey Leyla never mind what frank says about England.. Scotland is NOT polluted, overcrowded or, despite what the media hype may say, crime ridden. It also has one of the highest population rates of university education in Europe.

Yes, Scotland is still part of the political union *with* England (not PART of England like some people think!), although for how long Scotland will continue to stay with the United Kingdom of Britain is another matter, it already has its own parliament and devolved government so it may only be a matter of time before it becomes independent again, after all it was independent before and has only been part of the United Kingdom for the past 300 years.

If the people of Scotland really want to be 100% independent again all they have to do is all vote for it in the Scottish parliament tomorrow or whenever they want, but most people seem happy with the current arangement, at least for now.

Anyway, sorry for going off on a tangent: Leyla, I am Scottish, with British citizenship and 'educated' if by that you mean that I have been to university. As for the good looking bit, that's for you to decide.  If I fit the bill can I mail order you?

:wink:

Doug

I've just discovered this great thread.  I'll have to read it all later, but all I can say is that here in the UK amongst the more intelligent observers, Bush is considered to be something of a cross between a half-wit baffoon and a corrupt self-interested lying money-grabber.  How could you guys in the USA vote him back in?  Beats the hell out of us all here in the UK....  We voted Blair back in sadly, but at least Blair can string a sentence together, and has a measurable IQ.

catmeow

QuoteHow could you guys in the USA vote him back in?

I doubt seriously that we did. :(

Sorry to say though that Bush/US and Blair/England are sort of colleagues of one another to say the least. :-/  But at least you guys can actually grill your officials with hard questions on public TV. Over here it's all butt-kissing for the president on TV.

Posted by catmeow:

QuoteHow could you guys in the USA vote him back in?

Many of us did not vote for him. Unfortunately, not enough.  :(

For those of you who are interested in our last election, check the following site out:

http://www.investigatethevote.org/

Thousands and thousands of votes went missing/were mysteriously added across the country due to problems with the voting machines. When Diebold workers called in to ask why the print-outs had different results than the screens on the machines, they were told "Don't worry about it." And of course, there were all sorts of problems between both the 2000 and 2004 elections along the line of Franklin County, Ohio's: 638 people voted in that county, and somehow Bush ended up receiving 4,258 votes there. Again, similar problems will pop up if you look at the numbers behind either election.

Something else to think about is that two companies provided 80% of the country's voting machines. Both of those companies were open monetary supporters of the Republican Campaign, Diebold being very much so. The voting machines themselves were not allowed to be inspected by any federal officials, nor any of the coding examined or approved by anyone in the government, etc., for "security" reasons of course (but ours or theirs?). Diebold makes ATMs, checkout scanners, and ticket machines that all generate a paper trails that log every single transaction. Of course, the voting machines did not leave any paper trails at all, leaving no evidence that the numbers going into the machines were anything like the numbers coming back out.

One of the CEOs even remarked before the elections about how he was looking forward to delivering the vote to Bush in Ohio. The CEO of the other company, is that dude's very own brother. Lovely corporate situation, eh? It was only after immense public criticism that Diebold would later apologize for the comment, admitting it was "innapropriate"...

I say something is rotten in the state of Columbia. :(

----------

"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything." - Josef Stalin

Scotland is NOT polluted, overcrowded or, despite what the media hype may say, crime ridden.

Yes, I agree, but it's darned COLD!!!  :)

Yours,
Frank

Quote from: no_leaf_cloverThousands and thousands of votes went missing/were mysteriously added across the country due to problems with the voting machines.

We have had a similar problem with postal voting though nothing nearly on quite such a grand scale.  Not even close.  But we'll probably get to where you are eventually!

Quote from: no_leaf_cloverBut at least you guys can actually grill your officials with hard questions on public TV.

True, Bush wouldn't stand a chance here or during "Prime Minister's question time" in the House of Commons , he'd be annihilated.  Clinton... well that's a different matter, he'd do just fine...

catmeow

Bush, ha ha, he'd be laughed out of office. I remember him going on during the election about him reading the bible for 2 hours every day and all that jazz. That's really scary. Any politician in the UK who started rambling on like that would have their days numbered, and quite right too. And all that flag-waving as well, very, very scary. Just doesn't happen in the UK. As I said on another post a few days ago, England is not so much a country but a club you belong to.

Yours,
Frank

Quote from: FrankI remember him going on during the election about him reading the bible for 2 hours every day and all that jazz

You mean the guy can read?

I heard he had a fire at home... both his books were burnt to ashes, but it was okay because he'd already coloured them in....

It would be funny if it wasn't actually so serious....  we have a bible-bashing nutter with a mental age of a 12 in charge of the most powerful army in the world...

catmeow

Yes, I agree, but it's darned COLD!!! :)

Can't argue with that... but it ain't that cold all of the time  :)

What else do you expect for Northern Europe? Edinburgh is on the same latitude as Copenhagen in Denmark... you don't hear them complain about the weather... it's a British thing!

:wink:

Doug

Doug:

The wilds of Scotland are something else. I know, I've been there. The Lochs are out of this world. The stuff that love is made from, especially Loch Lomond (it's the backdrop of the mountains and the mist of the morning while watching the sun rise)... but it is FLAMING COLD!!! :)

And how you can wear a skirt in those conditions is beyond me. I guess it must be a Highland thing.

Yours,
Frank

hehe

I'll have you know, the kilt keeps you warm in winter and cool in summer, and more importantly, the girls love it, which should provide enough action to keep you warm all year round  :wink:

And remember you can always toss the caber  :wink:

Doug

It would be funny if it wasn't actually so serious.... we have a bible-bashing nutter with a mental age of a 12 in charge of the most powerful army in the world...

Catmeow:

I know, and that's what is scary.

When it comes up on TV, being English we think, no, it's just satire, like it's a "Spitting Image" style spoof. Unfortunately, what is taking place today is real over there. On the other side of that pond we call the Atlantic Ocean there is actually a bible-bashing nutter with a mental age of 12 in charge of the most powerful military force in the world. And people in America wonder why we are concerned???

We didn't mind when the big guy at the top had a brain. Like when the Russians wanted to negotiate and all went cosy and nice and "walls" started falling and all that. But now, this little garden gnome has his head screwed on the other way. He is on a PRIVATE agenda, make no mistake. It's oil, oil, oil. Just daddy's oil interests he is protecting.

I stand against the American leadership now with sore reluctance. My family fought side by side in WWII. People in the UK are so remembering of those basic things that other races may forget. But not English people. They still remember the old allegiances and standing against Americans now is not easy.

I, personally, have decided to ignore all the military messages and other propaganda. I am just going to listen to the ordinary people in America who are in touch with me on a daily basis. America is a great country, and long may it be so. I just wish they would spend about a tenth they spend on arms to feed, clothe and house the world's starving children. Nearly 40 MILLION children die every year merely through lack of basic necessities like nourishment and healthcare. Please help those children. PLEASE make those children your concern.

Put yourself in their place. Just the cost of ONE Cruise Missile would feed, house and educate about a hundred children in Africa for decades and decades. But you wouldn't have to. Give people a start in life and they will "repay" you a hundred fold. That is the grand opportunity you are not seeing.

There are no "terrorists" in the world. They are just people who have ordinary needs and they represent others with similar needs. It is just darned unfortunate that, in the history of the human race, certain people feel they have to stoop to doing such awful things as blowing up buildings and stuff. But blowing up more buildings in answer is NOT the way forward!!! We need more compassion and restraint in this world... not more WAR. Not a war against terrorism, not a war against anything. We've got enough wars.

The real world is thoroughly SICK of war and is looking to the American people, the leaders of this world (yes, like it or not you are the leaders of this world) to vote AGAINST war. Ask yourself, because this is what it all boils down to at the end of the day... is your dependence on oil really worth all those lives???

Yours,
Frank

Frank- I was certain the American actor Sean Connery has a dual citizenship to the US and Scotland?

Now wait just a minute- I was in England only a few months ago and it wasn't the nightmare you describe. It was all rolling countryside, except for London.

Gandalf - *blush* How old are you? By your picture I'm guessing mid 80's?

Frank- The US doesn't care about it's own starving uneducated children and you think we're going to care about others?

Bush's "No child left behind" program is a wolf in sheeps clothing. What it means is, that if any schools children don't score above a certain percent on a test, the govenment takes funding away from that school and shuts it down!

Supposedly this is meant to "motivate" the teachers into making sure the children score well. But really, the republicans resent having to spend money on educating the peasant class, and hope to gradually close all schools one by one.

Desperate teachers all over this country have been caught forging test grades, to prevent their school from closing.

Soon, only the wealthy upper class will know how to read and write.

Frank, unfortunately, I think your last post rang quite true.  I believe in Democracy but see it slowly being eroded away through the evils of capitalism.  Capitalism isn't all bad, it is a powerful force that needs to be guided in a direction that is beneficial for all.

We, as a world, have the ability and the knowledge today to cure the ills of society.  We just need people in office who have the balls to do it.

I once believed that America/Democracy/Capitalism had the courage to lead the world in an all out rescue of humanity and environment.  Though there are millions of people who want the same, I see our garden gnome (lol, that fits him great!) damaging that leadership role.

I only hope that the next Administration recognizes the grave threat that is looming in the very near future and does something about it.

NGO (non-governmental organizations) and citizens of America sent $550 million dollars to help rebuild tsunami ravaged Indonesia, Asia, etc. and this type of humanitarian effort needs to be a catalyst.  And us "better than poverty" people of the world need to recognize that our efforts count as well, especially when magnified through a billion people.

The time is ripe for a slow transition of the world's army's to begin a humanitarian crusade to save the world (with capitalism funding it!).

Gandalf - *blush* How old are you? By your picture I'm guessing mid 80's?


HAHA!!!! that's NOT me believe it or not! I'm 30.. bang within your target range!

Frank- I was certain the American actor Sean Connery has a dual citizenship to the US and Scotland?

Ah, this comes back to what I was trying to explain earlier:

Sean Connery is Scottish but holds *British* citizenship.

Just as Frank is English but also holds *British* citizenship.

How is this possible?

This is because *British* and Britain as in the United Kingdom, is a *political union* between two countries, England and Scotland. They are still both separate with their own laws but are united in a political partnership known as the United Kingdom of Britain (Wales and NI also are part of this union to a lesser degree as Wales is already subsumed under England BEFORE the Act of Union with England and Scotland).

Scotland is still a separate country from England though as any Scotsman or Englishman would tell you. Scotland is not just another part of England like some people think. Scotland is certainly with England in the United Kingdom, but it still retains its own laws and parliament and government, although there is a United Kingdom parliament to represent everyone at Westminster in London.

As such all citizens of Scotland, England, Wales and NI hold British citizenship, rather than citizenship of their individual countries, in order to demonstrate the allegiance to the political union of 'Britain'.
Hopefully you can see also that Britain is NOT another word of England. Britain is the collective umbrella term for England AND Scotland (and Wales and NI)

That's why Sean Connery is Scottish but holds British citizenship, not Scottish citizenship, and also why Frank holds British citizenship, not English citizenship. It is a mistake when people use the words English and British as if they were the same thing, they are not, although a lot of Americans get confused by this for some reason  :wink:

Doug

QuoteAnd all that flag-waving as well, very, very scary.

The people that are doing all that flag-waving are the scariest. The radio over here is saturated with Republican propoganda that is just as agenda-driven as our government, and it's very aggressively persuasive (they also lie frequently, distort facts, etc., all that you'd expect). Those people that wave their flags so proudly are the ones that have listened to those types of programs a bit too frequently, or watched a little too much Fox News.

QuoteI heard he had a fire at home... both his books were burnt to ashes, but it was okay because he'd already coloured them in....

LOL! I think that bit about him reading the Bible for two hours every day is just a tad of an outright lie anyway.

Gandalf- And are you a brawny highland warrior? Are you going toss me over your shoulder, carry me back to your bothy and ravish me amongst the wild heather?

What color are your eyes?

And how disappointing that I can't get multiple citizenships all across Europe. Unless I renounce my American citizenship, perhaps?

(http://www.douglas.eckhart.btinternet.co.uk/wedding.jpg)

Me at a friend's wedding last October. Eyes are blue. (I'm on the right btw!  :wink: )

Don't know about the Brawny, but I can certainly 'ravish you amongst the wild heather' lol

btw I don't see why you can't get multiple citizenship in countries in Europe and still retain your US citizenship.

Doug

Doug:

Can you play the bagpipes?

Yours,
Frank

QuoteAnd how disappointing that I can't get multiple citizenships all across Europe. Unless I renounce my American citizenship, perhaps?

You don't have to renounce your American citizenship.  I know that perpetual tourist (PT's) have multiple citizenships.  I just wish I could get one in Andorra!  It sucks that Americans are taxed on their world wide income, even if they don't live in the US.

HAN[/quote]

Frank_

I'm afraid not, takes too long to learn.

ah, there's nothing like the skirl of the pipes  the morning  :wink:

Doug

PS sorry none of this has anything to do with how 'Bush sucks' but then we all know that already!

Doug-  You're adorable.

Hmm, yes, I'm quite partial to the sound of bagpipes myself.

Scottish Highlands and bagpipes. If it were not so darned cold I could easily live in Scotland. Must have been Scottish in "another life" LOL. Not sure about wearing a skirt though. But, then again, I'm English so I guess there is a law against it where you are. Ha ha, an Englishman wearing a kilt. Kinda like the Pope reading from the Koran. :)  Anyhow, we are way off-topic so I'm gonna logoff now and give myself a severe moderating.

Good luck with Leyla, she sounds quite cute. Bit old for me though, he he he.

Yours,
Frank

How would you know how old I am?

He he, she is feisty. Well, perhaps she may be my type after all. Doug you'd better step in quick. :)

Yours,
Frank

:wink:

A NEW SPY AGENCY THAT AMONG OTHER THINGS WILL INCREASE SPYING ON AMERICAN CITIZENS!

Aptly named the NSS

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/06/30/national/w145228D02.DTL

Dont get excited though, Pres. Bush said it is for Freedom.  You do like freedom, right? :twisted:

Han

Hm... I say its about time to start buying firearms to have around the house.

Quote from: no_leaf_cloverHm... I say its about time to start buying firearms to have around the house.

I think, perhaps, it's time to move to a country where it is not a right (Bill of Rights, second amendment) for individuals to carry arms.

Having said that the Bill of Rights seems reasonable to me except for the right to carry arms.  We are in the UK, faced with the prospect of legislation which will remove fundamental freedoms such as those enshrined in the Bill of Rights.  Some freedoms threatened are freedom of speech and the right to trial by jury.  This is being rushed in under the stealthy guise of "anti-terrorism" legislation.  Never under-estimate the power of fear - politicians don't.

catmeow

The reason the right to bear arms was made a part of the Bill of Rights, was so if there were any future problems government and people, the government would not dominate in weaponry and simply massacre those who opposed its rule. Even basic policemen over here all carry firearms, and it would hard to get very far in fighting for your freedom without them.

Moving out of the country is still an option, I suppose, but I haven't really made up my mind as far as that goes.

Quote from: no_leaf_cloverThe reason the right to bear arms was made a part of the Bill of Rights, was so if there were any future problems government and people, the government would not dominate in weaponry and simply massacre those who opposed its rule. Even basic policemen over here all carry firearms, and it would hard to get very far in fighting for your freedom without them.

Well it's a matter of much debate exactly why the 2nd Amendment was drafted.  If what you're saying is correct  then surely this reason is outdated now.  Massive changes have occurred since the Bill was written, and you haven't got a chance of opposing the government by force any more.

Arming yourself for personal protection against assault is a different argument.  And I do sympathise with you here.  But it can only succeed if you are better armed than the opposition.  But the opposition will just arm themseleves too.  It's a vicious esacalating cycle.  

I'm not disagreeing with you, I just would rather not have guns.

Gun legislation will happen here in the UK within the next 20 years. Many of our police are already armed, although we don't see it.  There is a growing gun culture, and now many shootings and killings.  It's just a question of time before carrying guns becomes legalised here.  It's hard to escape.

catmeow

Yeah, I realized the problem would simply escalate about halfway through my last post. The authorities would certainly be less willing to use firearms against a mob of unarmed civilians, except maybe firearms loaded with tear gas or bean bags. But if you had a weapon, they'd have no problem shooting you down. Something tells me though, that on a personal basis there might come a time when it would be more than handy to have one around the house, just in case. Wouldn't hurt, I suppose.

This would explain the unmarked van parked outside my window.

Quote from: catmeow

Quote from: no_leaf_cloverThe reason the right to bear arms was made a part of the Bill of Rights, was so if there were any future problems government and people, the government would not dominate in weaponry and simply massacre those who opposed its rule. Even basic policemen over here all carry firearms, and it would hard to get very far in fighting for your freedom without them.

Well it's a matter of much debate exactly why the 2nd Amendment was drafted.  If what you're saying is correct  then surely this reason is outdated now.  Massive changes have occurred since the Bill was written, and you haven't got a chance of opposing the government by force any more.

Arming yourself for personal protection against assault is a different argument.  And I do sympathise with you here.  But it can only succeed if you are better armed than the opposition.  But the opposition will just arm themseleves too.  It's a vicious esacalating cycle.  

I'm not disagreeing with you, I just would rather not have guns.

Gun legislation will happen here in the UK within the next 20 years. Many of our police are already armed, although we don't see it.  There is a growing gun culture, and now many shootings and killings.  It's just a question of time before carrying guns becomes legalised here.  It's hard to escape.

catmeow

Catmeow,

I would like to enlighten you about your UK, Bobbies, and Guns.   I have had the great privilege in being an ambassador to 50 Bobbies every second summer that come to the US and meet their fellow police officers. over the past 10 years I have meet some wonder officers from the UK. We also meet in your country every other year to visit and exchange valuable information.  And in case your wondering us officers pay our own way over and vice versa.

The conference is the International Police Officers Association.  You are correct in that the UK is seeing more gun violence, but what you don't know and see is that it is attributed to the influx of Russian mafia, and other extremists. What you also are not able to see is that they don't care what laws you have and a criminal will carry a gun no matter what the consequences are because it gives them power. Laws were not written for criminals because they don't give a *hit about anything written on paper, going to jail, or dying in most cases. They don't think like you and I and have very little or no compassion. A gun gives a group the power to make whoever doesn't have a gun do what they demand.

I know it is a vicious cycle and the only real end is when we are all gone.  Many of your officers are dying because they are not well equipped, but like you said that is changing quickly.

In every area of the US that has allowed what is called a CCW or carry a concealed weapon permit to law abiding citizens the crime rate has dropped up to 59% in some areas.  

I don't have any answers to the cycle but I can tell you that it doesn't seem to be getting any better and I am glad the US has the 2nd amendment.

Remember if you think an officer is somehow going to protect you in a situation he has to be right there at that moment.  Most of the time police are only there to pick up the pieces and take a report. It is up to every individual to protect themselves first or if you are a pacifist then what I am telling you won't matter.  

There are many bad people in the world and sometimes good people have to hurt bad people to keep them at bay.

RT

Hmm, I always thought the great thing about the UK was the fact that we were moving to a total ban on guns. People carrying guns in the UK, it simply would not happen. All handguns were banned in, I forget the year exactly, but it was like 1995 or something. Even then it was illegal to carry a gun for protection.

It was only for people who belonged to places like gun clubs and for collectors. Now all that is strictly illegal. But you could not carry a loaded handgun on your person even when they were legal. It is a serious criminal offence in the UK. Anyone caught with a handgun about their person goes to jail.

The Russian Mafia, is this just not the Cold war in another guise? I mean, no disrespect, but you are speaking to people who actually live in the UK. Or at least I did until about 18 months ago. I'm not sure what the Russian Mafia are doing in the UK. There must surely be richer and far easier pickings elsewhere.

Yours,
Frank

Frank, I didn't realise the law had changed, I thought it was still possible to get a firearms licence?  I thought farmers could carry shotguns? Prince Charles and all his toffs still certainly go out shooting grouse?  Perhaps I'm wrong, don't know.  But I agree that it is still seen as a serious offence.  I'd be interested for you to point me to the legislation you mentioned.  I just realised you said handguns.  Perhaps the law is different for shotguns and rifles.

One comment which I think I would like to change is the following:

Quote from: catmeowGun legislation will happen here in the UK within the next 20 years.... It's just a question of time before carrying guns becomes legalised here.

Frank, as you say the UK has a long tradition of resistance to carrying firearms, so perhaps citizens may not be able to carry them even within the next 20 years.  But the police I feel will be routinely armed within 20 years.

RT, I hear what you say and don't really disagree.  I agree that legislation is laughed at by hardened criminals, who just ignore it.  But I still feel unease at legislation allowing everyone to carry guns.  A friend of mine is a regular vistor to the US where she has many friends.  She knows of one so-called respectable citizen who gets his guns out and shoots his mouth off, saying what he's going to do whenever he has an argument with somebody.  It's scary.

Yeah, guns might protect us from criminals but they won't protect us from ourselves.  I'd feel safer without them.  But that's a personal thing and I respect your viewpoint.  I'm not a pacifist, but I'd also rather not shoot someone if I could avoid it.

BTW, Much of UK gun culture seems to be youth gang culture, where carrying a gun makes you "cool" and respected.  The gang culture thing is getting steadily worse.  We do also have a problem as you say with imported Eastern block crime too.   This is all getting steadily worse and this is why I feel the police will be armed within 20 years.

catmeow

I'm against gun control it seems that banning guns and gun control only makes crime worse while less restrictive gun laws seems to be related to reduced crime rates.  Disarming citizens gives both criminals and the government more power over law abiding people.  The murder capitol Washington D.C. is an example of how much worse crime rates get when guns are banned while areas in the US with the least restrictive gun laws tend to have the lowest crime rates.  Allowing things like concealed carry is a good deterrent of crime.  

I understand that some people aren't comfortable with guns and that's fine but I think people who choose to should be allowed to have firearms for self-defense and other purposes like target shooting.  In the United States guns are used much more often in self-defense then they are used to take lives but we mostly hear about the misuses of guns in the news.  Most instances of self-defense with guns end without violence.    

I feel safer carrying a gun since it's nice to have just in case of a life threatening situation.  I like the saying "it's better to have a gun and not need it then to need a gun and not have it".  Chances are that I will never a gun to protect myself then there will be no harm done with me carrying a firearm, but it's nice to have since there is a lot of crime and many possible situations were having a gun could be very useful.                            

We certainly can't rely on cops for protection so having a gun is a good option.  Guns really aren't the problem crime is a social problem with those who are willing to hurt others.

Quote from: Frank

The Russian Mafia, is this just not the Cold war in another guise? I mean, no disrespect, but you are speaking to people who actually live in the UK. Or at least I did until about 18 months ago. I'm not sure what the Russian Mafia are doing in the UK. There must surely be richer and far easier pickings elsewhere.

Yours,
Frank

No disrespect taken.  The UK has allot less violent crime than the US for sure, but with the advent of many countries economies breaking down criminals come to the countries with a healthy economy. It is basic criminology.

Actually I was only giving the Russian mafia as one example.  And no the UK is a great place to run Prostitution, Drugs and extortion rings, if they are not dealing drugs directly it is one of there largest hub next to the US.

If you take away all the guns from the law abiding citizens the only people left that have the guns will be the criminals.

Again just take a minute and think about it.  What do they have to lose?  Answer is nothing in almost all cases.

I am not trying to scare anyone hear, but just present the facts that I have heard. My whole point was to being light to the fact that the UK is having a rise in gun related crimes in the past 10 years, even though it might not be talked about publicly.

In the greater picture I would much rather take a chance practicing law enforcement in the UK than the US, because of the odds of dying in the US are much greater.

RT

Quote from: catmeow


A friend of mine is a regular vistor to the US where she has many friends.  She knows of one so-called respectable citizen who gets his guns out and shoots his mouth off, saying what he's going to do whenever he has an argument with somebody.  It's scary.

Yeah, guns might protect us from criminals but they won't protect us from ourselves.  I'd feel safer without them.  But that's a personal thing and I respect your viewpoint.  I'm not a pacifist, but I'd also rather not shoot someone if I could avoid it.

BTW, Much of UK gun culture seems to be youth gang culture, where carrying a gun makes you "cool" and respected.  The gang culture thing is getting steadily worse.  We do also have a problem as you say with imported Eastern block crime too.   This is all getting steadily worse and this is why I feel the police will be armed within 20 years.

catmeow

The person that talks a big game is using just doing that talking. I listen to allot of these idiots rant.  These are the kind of idiots that shoot themselves in the foot literally. And the bigger gun they have or larger collection they have seems to be an extension of their male anatomy.
They are mostly hot air.

And yes the UK bobbies will be armed very shortly. The reason behind this is they have to call for guns to be brought to them in times of trouble.  This takes a OIC or approval from a head of the department, then the guns are driven to where the altercation is occurring. This is where I feel for the UK police.

Please don't be intimidated by guns they are only one means of harming someone. Guns make a big bang and scare people, but people often forget that there are many other ways to be mortally wound that are often forgotten.

As long as there are people in the world that are power hungry there will be the means to intimidate good human beings. The UK is a great place to live and will in my opinion be much better crime wise than the US could ever dream to be. So be proud of where you live, but always question the government.

Respectfully,

RT

Wow. This topic has had a huge range of mini-topics so far, lol.

It's true that less gun control deters crime. A city in George actually passed a law a while back requiring all residents to purchase a firearm to have around the house. Immediately, the crime rate dropped something like 80%. When criminals know the person they're about to mess with has a gun, or even might have a gun, they're obviously going to be a lot less hasty to try something. I'm sure burglaries became much rarer in that part of Georgia after that law passed. Maybe that's something unique to the US, but over here it works.

Thats soooo horrible. To solve the crime rate, we must require ppl to own guns!!!
What kinda world is this!!

RT, Makaveli and no_leaf_clover

Well I hear what you are all saying, namely that allowing ordinary citizens the chance to defend themselves deters crime, because these people are then no longer sitting duck lame targets.  Yep that strikes a chord with many people in the UK I can tell you.  The general feeling amongst the public here is that we should have the right to defend ourselves, by force or lethal force if necessary, without risk of prosecution.

But regarding guns and the UK, I think our different viewpoints stem from our different national histories (bear with me!):

At the moment the vast majority of crime in the UK does not involve firearms.  If firearms were legalised they would become easy for everyone to get hold of and then the vast majority of crime in the UK would involve guns.  This is not what we want!

But you have a different history in the US.  Nationally, you have always had guns, so you've always had gun crime, and you've always had petty crime involving guns.  At the moment, the UK doesn't have this situation.  However, legalising guns would then cause an irreversible switch to the same gun-society you are used to.

That's basically why there is such resistance to firearms here.  We don't want to make that switch.

You are probably correct in saying that "levelling the playing field" so that criminals no longer have an unfair advantage reduces the crime rate.  But at the moment our "playing field" is still fairly level, although it is beginning to tilt!

If you agree with this analysis, then I think we probably actually agree with each other more than we realise.

catmeow

Quote from: OrionsDreamThats soooo horrible. To solve the crime rate, we must require ppl to own guns!!!
What kinda world is this!!

Good point....

Quote from: OrionsDreamThats soooo horrible. To solve the crime rate, we must require ppl to own guns!!!
What kinda world is this!!

The word is chaotic world where the power hungry keep the chaos in perpetuation and view kindness and love as a weakness to exploit.

And rule by instilling fear in the masses.

RT

Catmeow:

Shotguns can still be owned, yes, but they are subject to licensing and strict controls as to their use and storage. It is handguns that are banned and I think any kind of rifle that shoots bullets. UK firearms legislation is perhaps the strictest in the world. There is now in the UK a mandatory minimum of 5-years imprisonment for anyone convicted of carrying an illegal firearm. And that is simply carrying the firearm regardless of whether it is loaded or not, or what its intended use is.

As regards the general point:

Taking account of the above, I cannot ever forsee a situation in the UK where it is legal for the general populace to carry an armed weapon. Note: It is a criminal offence in the UK for any ordinary person to carry a weapon for the purposes of self-defence of ANY description.

Hand guns were banned relatively recently. So it is not like they have always been banned and now certain elements in society are steadily beginning to campaign for their legalisation. It was elements of British society that were calling them to be banned that eventually led to their banning and the prison terms get longer as time goes on. Like I say, there is now a mandatory minimum sentence of 5 years that was introduced fairly recently. I think that is for people 21 years and over and there is a lower term for juveniles.

But again, even when they were legal it was still a serious criminal offence to actually carry a weapon whether armed or not for the purposes of self defence. Only people who belonged to a licensed gun club could transport the weapon to and from the establishment, but there were strict regulations on how this should be done. Of course, all this is now strictly illegal.

Yours,
Frank

Frank,

So what are you trying to say?

Is it illegal to carry a handgun in the UK?   :lol:


Regards,

RT

Frank

That's all rather reassuring to hear at the moment.  However it's therefore also all the more guiling to hear of people carrying and using guns as they do now, often it seems, without any repercussions.  They just seem to get away with it.  Also, in this country a 5 year sentence actually means a 2.5 year sentence, with our standard policy of remission for "good behaviour".

Quote from: FrankI think that is for people 21 years and over and there is a lower term for juveniles.

This annoys me too.  What the vast majority of people in the UK don't realise is that the age of criminal responsibility in this country is 10. Yes that's 10 years of age.  There used to be a grey area between the ages of 10 and 14 years, but that was changed recently (in the past few years) by legislation.  There is no distinction in law in criminal responsibility between a 10 year old and a 21 year old.  If you're old enough to commit the crime, you're old enough to take the punishment. I don't see why the law doesn't prosecute teenagers in the same way as it prosecutes older people.  That would stop the little b****rs...

Frank, you sound like you used to be a member of a gun club!

catmeow

Stepping back a page...

I would agree that revolution in the US is impossible by its citizens.  I live in a city of 80k and all the police here either have shotguns or AR-15's in their squad cars and carry mace, spring loaded clubs and Glocks.  Thats just the local cops!!!!  I am actually considering buying a gun simply in the event of a social meltdown situation atleast I will stand a remote chance of survival.  Being unarmed in the US is starting to seem like a bad idea.  I dont like guns and I dont like killing people, but I'm not going to get caught with my pants down.

I used to be horribly anti-gun for a long long time, but this country is all out gun crazy!

For every 1 time a person uses a gun to defend themselves or a family member from a criminal,  43 people have used a gun to kill themselves or a family member, either deliberatly or just on accident.

You have better odds playing Russian Roulette.

QuoteFor every 1 time a person uses a gun to defend themselves or a family member from a criminal, 43 people have used a gun to kill themselves or a family member, either deliberatly or just on accident.

You have better odds playing Russian Roulette.

It looks like that statistic is flawed and guns are used far more in self-defense then they are used maliciously.  

From: http://www.gunowners.org/fs0404.htm
Guns are used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year—or about 6,850 times a day.1 This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.2
1 Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense With a Gun," 86 The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, 1 (Fall 1995):164.
2 According to the National Safety Council, the total number of gun deaths (by accidents, suicides and homicides) account for less than 30,000 deaths per year. See Injury Facts, published yearly by the National Safety Council, Itasca, Illinois.

Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense with a firearm every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of "Guns in America"—a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.3
3 Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig, "Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms," NIJ Research in Brief (May 1997); available at http://www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles/165476.txt.

From: http://www.gunfacts.info
Myth: Handguns are 43 times more likely to kill a family member than a criminal
Fact: Of the 43 deaths reported in this flawed study, 37 (86%) were suicides. Other deaths involved criminal activity between the family members (drug deals gone bad).85
Fact: Of the remaining deaths, the deceased family members include felons, drug dealers, violent spouses committing assault, and other criminal activities.86
Fact: Only 0.1% (1 in a thousand) of the defensive uses of guns results in the death of the predator.87 This means you are much more likely to prevent a crime without bloodshed than hurt a family member.
85 Arthur L. Kellerman, Protection or Peril?: An Analysis of Firearm-Related Deaths in the Home, 314 New Eng. J. Med. 1557-60 1986. Kellerman admits that his study did "not include cases in which burglars or intruders are wounded or frightened away by the use or display of a firearm." He also admitted his study did not look at situations in which intruders "purposely avoided a home known to be armed." This is a classic case of a "study" conducted to achieve a desired result. In his critique of this "study", Gary Kleck notes that the estimation of gun ownership rates were "inaccurate" , and that the total population came from a non-random selection of only two cities. 87 Dr. Gary Kleck, "Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America." New York: Aldine de Gruyter. 1991

Quotefirearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.

OMG man!  Just use your common sense! How many people do you know of who have been shot? And of those people, how many of them shot the criminal in self defense?

Quote from: Leyla

Quotefirearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.

OMG man!  Just use your common sense! How many people do you know of who have been shot? And of those people, how many of them shot the criminal in self defense?

I can't think of anyone that I've met that has been shot and most of the people I know own guns.  I have heard of a few people using guns in self defense without it ending violently.  But that 43:1 statistic is a popular but extremely flawed antigun myth.  The number of times guns are used in defense may seem surprising but it's probably because most instances of self defense with guns end nonviolently and don't get much attention compared to homicides with guns in the media.  There are around 30,000 deaths a year from gunshots but there is good evidence that guns are used in self defense 1.5-2.5 million times a year which is a pretty big difference.  

If we're going to blame inanimate objects like guns for crime we might as well blame cars for drunk drivers and traffic accidents.  Trying to ban objects of fear like guns won't make things safer and does not address the problem of violence there are many examples of how much worse crime gets with gun control.

Catmeow:

No, I was never a member of a gun club but I was a person who was politically active in calling for their banning.

Personally, I detest firearms though I can appreciate the arguments from both sides. American people appear all in favour of firearms, but that is America and it is for the American people to decide what takes place in their country. Just as it is for English people to decide what takes place in England.

In England we are generally against firearms and continue to vote for their banning and seek even higher mandatory minimum prison sentences for anyone carrying a firearm. I'm not sure what the statistics are in America, but in the UK, reassuringly, firearms are involved in less than half a percent of crimes as a whole. But still, that is less than half a percent too much in many people's opinion and the only acceptable figure is zero.

The 5-year minimum means a person would actually serve two-thirds of that sentence before qualifying for parole, not half.

The 50% minimum only applies for prison sentences of up to 4 years. Up to 4 years a person can also qualify for what is called Home Detention Curfew or "tagging" as it is called. They are released on licence and are subject to a continuous minimum 9 hour, and maximum of 12 hour, home curfew in any 24 hour period.

So a person receiving a 2 year sentence, for example, would generally serve 12 months less HDC. On two years HDC qualification is currently 4.5 months, so they would actually serve only 7.5 months in prison and the rest in the community. However, HDC is not allowed with certain types of offences and firearms offences is one of them.

So a person sentenced to 5 years, they would serve 3 years and 4 months actual prison time before qualifying for parole. Now, qualifying for parole does not mean they are released. Their prison record will be taken into consideration, in particular the parole board will be looking at how the person has addressed their offending behaviour. Note: these days there are a number of courses that a person can take while in prison that seek to help people come to terms with the problems that may have led up to their conviction. For example, drug addictions, behavioural problems, anger management, etc.

Plus, as it is a firearms offence they cannot generally qualify for Category D prison status (open prison). The most lenient regime they can qualify for is Category C only. They would typically spend the first year as a Category B prisoner if they were convicted of actually using the firearm. But that would depend on circumstances.

So, on the whole, it's far from a walk in the park.

Yours,
Frank

A couple stats, articles, and a forum I was sent by a friend in the UK.

http://www.alphapatriot.com/home/archives/2005/06/28/crime_in_britain_part_1_dunblane_gun_laws_and_violence.php

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2640817.stm

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1312280,00.html

http://www.ukexpert.co.uk/vb/showthread.php?t=887

http://www.ukexpert.co.uk/vb/showthread.php?t=887

Thanks, Frank for the info. You seem to know your stuff regarding our criminal justice system.  None the less, I think, and it seems to be an observation that many of us have made, and a fair approximation, that criminals tend to be released after serving approximately half their sentence.  It is in my opinion absolutely ludicrous.  The real reason for this, and for the tagging system being introduced is not one of social welfare, but simply that our prisons are full and need to be emptied as quickly as possible.  I'm afraid you will never convince me otherwise.  It is a fact, we don't have sufficient prison space and that is why our government is finding all sorts of reasons to release offenders early, tag them (an absolute joke) etc.  It's pathetic.  I for one would be willing to pay an additional "prison tax" which would be used solely for building more prisons.  I am absolutely 100% against the death penalty, but I am in favour of a credible deterrent system which involves removing antisocial people from society.  Call me a phillistine but I believe the cause of crime is criminals, not how tough your life was as a teenager.  I've had a tough life.  My parents came into this country after the war and worked like dogs to earn a pittance, and give me an education and a chance in life. One passed over now, one still alive, but fantastic people.  None of us ever committed a crime, whilst we knew a couple of families of yobs nearby who were regularly involved in crime and also defrauding the welfare state.  Their central heating bills, were paid for by the welfare state whilst they stole from building yards and beat people up in the local pub.  I'm not exaggerating one bit. In the meantime our house was cold.  The cause of crime is criminals, nothing else.  As you can tell, I'm pretty fed up with our namby-pamby criminal justice system.  It's run by politicians, who talk and live in a well-paid fantasy world and do b**gger all other than line their own pockets and lie to us about everything.  5 years should mean 5 years.  we all know it doesn't.  Sorry Frank, I had a rant, I know you have the correct facts but I'm fed up with slime pond-life getting away with it all the time....

catmeow

Frank, by the way, I do agree you with as do most intelligent people I have talked to about it, that we should continue to legislate and resist the introduction of firearms into this country for as long as absolutley possible....

catmeow

Catmeow:

I appreciate your concerns. Much the same grates on me too. Thing is, if you do provide an incentive for "good behaviour" so to speak, then that must surely create a less potentially violent atmosphere in prisons and gives inmates an incentive to cooperate with the day-to-day regime. But I appreciate there are good arguments on both sides. It's just that I tend to fall on the more lenient side of the fence while appreciating all the arguments.

On the subject of the guns thing, while crimes involving firearms is still a very small percentage of crimes overall, it is a rising percentage. Looking at the figures and the reports it would appear the rises are mainly due to gangland-style practices surrounding the illegal supply of hard drugs. Quite an insidious practice and it is hardly surprising that firearms are also wrapped up in the equation.

Yours,
Frank

It looks like there are many people who are into spirituality that are antigun.  Many spiritualists or whatever they are called believe that we create our reality with our beliefs and thought patterns and I would agree.  To me it seems like projecting blame and fear onto external inanimate weapons takes away from the idea that we create and are responsibly for our realities.  I think guns are neither good nor bad they are just like any inanimate object or tool where their usefulness depends on the person using it.  

I think most people from both sides of the debate have good intentions of getting rid of violence and I understand why people don't like guns.  In opinion gun control tends to make crime much worse since prohibition doesn't work and it does not address the real issues surrounding violence.  

I just found an interesting article about guns and spirituality that explains what I'm trying to get at about spirituality and guns better:
http://www.consciouscreation.com/journal/articles/F11-TaoGun.htm
From the article: "Making the world a better place comes through the personal transformation of consciousness, not through external State control."

QuoteIf we're going to blame inanimate objects like guns for crime we might as well blame cars for drunk drivers and traffic accidents.

Cars are designed for transportaion, and only result in a death when an accident occurs. Guns are meant to kill.

(I know, it made sense when Rush Limbaugh said it.)

I live in Texas and there is plenty of gun play around here. In my very pro-gun state the news media is all over it when there's a self-defense story. They milk it for all it's worth.

Still, you almost never hear of one.

Personally, I can name off at least a dozen people I know who have been held at gun point, been shot at, and have been shot. (By ex lovers, criminals, drunken neighbors, ect.)

I can't say I know a single person who's defended themselves with a gun. According to your (laughably silly) "eighty to one" statistic I should know plenty.

Look, the truth is Makaveli, you like guns because they're big and phallic and make you feel powerful. You get a sexual type rush when you hold one in your hand.

You think "I have power over life and death!!!! I am GOD!!!!"

You imagine every bully you ever knew in school standing in front of you, begging for mercy.

And you're not willing to give that adrenaline rush no matter how innocents die.

Maybe you should take up sky diving.

QuoteCars are designed for transportaion, and only result in a death when an accident occurs. Guns are meant to kill.

That's not true. You're forgetting about vehicular homicide.  So how can deaths involving cars only be accidents?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicular_homicide  Cars mostly cause death from accidents but they can cause deaths from misuse like drunk driving and can be used as a weapon to do something like run someone over.  I'm not attacking cars but they kill many more people than guns.  I was also going to suggest that we blame spoons for making Rosie O'donnell fat and that is not by accident.  Guns have other uses besides for killing like self defense, target shooting, hunting, and there are many other legitimate hobbies with guns.  

QuoteI live in Texas and there is plenty of gun play around here. In my very pro-gun state the news media is all over it when there's a self-defense story. They milk it for all it's worth.

Stories like this:
http://www.tsra.com/true/sd07_10c.htm

How dare people defend themselves with firearms!  

Most self defense stories get little attention because they end without any violence and it's not as interesting for people to see on the news.  

QuotePersonally, I can name off at least a dozen people I know who have been held at gun point, been shot at, and have been shot. (By ex lovers, criminals, drunken neighbors, ect.)

I can't say I know a single person who's defended themselves with a gun. According to your (laughably silly) "eighty to one" statistic I should know plenty.

Even antigun Clinton researchers found that there were around 1.5 million instances of self defense with guns a year and the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology found 2.5 million cases a year.  If either of those studies is even remotely accurate it's a much bigger difference than the approximate 30,000 deaths from guns a year.  

Quote
Look, the truth is Makaveli, you like guns because they're big and phallic and make you feel powerful. You get a sexual type rush when you hold one in your hand.

What a compelling argument!  I'm not going to bother trying to present facts and research anymore when you are able to use this sort of brilliant logic!  

Its true target shooting can be very fun and a bit of a rush but I can't say that I've ever gotten a hardon from shooting or handling a gun.  

Quote
You think "I have power over life and death!!!! I am GOD!!!!"

That is an interesting theory or maybe I have power to take some personal responsibility for myself instead of looking to blame external objects for the world's problems.  Adopting a victim mentality and looking to blame inanimate objects rather than people sounds appealing but it's not for me.  This might sound crazy but there is a lot of violence that people get threatened with everyday so I like the idea of taking some responsibility for my own protection.  That just might be better than only relying on police who usually get to the scene after crimes occur.

QuoteYou imagine every bully you ever knew in school standing in front of you, begging for mercy.

Are you a psychic?  You seem to have us crazy "gun nuts" all figured out!    Maybe you shouldn't handle a gun if that's the sort of images your mind would conjure up from merely being around a firearm.  But I'm happy to say that inanimate objects like guns don't give me twisted violent fantasies like this.  I have more control over my thoughts than that.    

QuoteAnd you're not willing to give that adrenaline rush no matter how innocents die.

Assuming that gun control works.  If that were so it wouldn't explain why crime seems to go way up in areas where stricter gun laws are enforced and crime seems to decline with less restrictive gun laws.  Just look at what happened in Washington D.C.  By taking guns away you're mostly empowering criminals over citizens.  

If we want to blame something maybe we should blame people instead of guns.  It's not like guns have some mystical ability to go around killing people.  Although that may not be true because my 9mm just snuck out and did a drive by and robbed a gas station.      

Leyla, do you really have to be so insulting?  This is a spiritual forum and you might hurt my feelings.   :cry:  Are you not able to have a civil discussion without insults and accusing me of getting boners from firearms, thinking I'm God, and having homicidal fantasies as a result of handling guns?

Makaveli:

This "guns" debate that forever appears to be raging in the USA is a bit of an emotive one it would appear. In England there is no such argument as guns have never been legal to carry for self-defence anyway. Most people in England have simply agreed with the prevailing policy and arguing over it has never held any significance amongst the general populace.

I'm sorry you appear to be getting upset but I think Leyla was being rather tongue in cheek. Plus, I (for one) think she made a good point. What she is looking at, and I too think this is a valid approach, is the actual specific primary purpose of a handgun, as compared to some other device or thing.

For example, I enjoy preparing fresh food and have a large, razor-sharp kitchen knife that I use to chop all manner of fresh foods in the preparation of my dishes. This knife is more than capable of slicing someone to pieces, but its primary purpose is as I describe.

Now, taking the example of a handgun, what is the primary purpose of a handgun? It is to kill people plain and simple. It has no other use. It's not like a car, where it is possible to lose control due to some very unfortunate circumstance and end up injuring or even killing someone. A handgun is simply designed to kill people, full stop.

As such, I think it is only natural in contemporary society that people are beginning to seriously question the efficacy of continuing to create and promote the sale of devices, the sole primary purpose of which is to kill other human beings.

Yours,
Frank

Quote from: FrankMakaveli:

For example, I enjoy preparing fresh food and have a large, razor-sharp kitchen knife that I use to chop all manner of fresh foods in the preparation of my dishes. This knife is more than capable of slicing someone to pieces, but its primary purpose is as I describe.

Yours,
Frank

Where does the UK draw the line??? Or any government for that matter??

Maybe they should start with a ban on all alcoholic beverages if they appear to be the cause.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm

Doctors' kitchen knives ban call
A&E doctors are calling for a ban on long pointed kitchen knives to reduce deaths from stabbing. A team from West Middlesex University Hospital said violent crime is on the increase - and kitchen knives are used in as many as half of all stabbings.

They argued many assaults are committed impulsively, prompted by alcohol and drugs, and a kitchen knife often makes an all too available weapon. The research is published in the British Medical Journal. The researchers said there was no reason for long pointed knives to be publicly available at all. They consulted 10 top chefs from around the UK, and found such knives have little practical value in the kitchen.

None of the chefs felt such knives were essential, since the point of a short blade was just as useful when a sharp end was needed. The researchers said a short pointed knife may cause a substantial superficial wound if used in an assault - but is unlikely to penetrate to inner organs.

In contrast, a pointed long blade pierces the body like "cutting into a ripe melon".

The use of knives is particularly worrying amongst adolescents, say the researchers, reporting that 24% of 16-year-olds have been shown to carry weapons, primarily knives. The study found links between easy access to domestic knives and violent assault are long established.

French laws in the 17th century decreed that the tips of table and street knives be ground smooth. A century later, forks and blunt-ended table knives were introduced in the UK in an effort to reduce injuries during arguments in public eating houses. The researchers say legislation to ban the sale of long pointed knives would be a key step in the fight against violent crime.

"The Home Office is looking for ways to reduce knife crime.

"We suggest that banning the sale of long pointed knives is a sensible and practical measure that would have this effect."

Government response Home Office spokesperson said there were already extensive restrictions in place to control the sale and possession of knives.  "The law already prohibits the possession of offensive weapons in a public place, and the possession of knives in public without good reason or lawful authority, with the exception of a folding pocket knife with a blade not exceeding three inches.

"Offensive weapons are defined as any weapon designed or adapted to cause injury, or intended by the person possessing them to do so.

"An individual has to demonstrate that he had good reason to possess a knife, for example for fishing, other sporting purposes or as part of his profession (e.g. a chef) in a public place. "The manufacture, sale and importation of 17 bladed, pointed and other offensive weapons have been banned, in addition to flick knives and gravity knives."

A spokesperson for the Association of Chief Police Officers said: "ACPO supports any move to reduce the number of knife related incidents, however, it is important to consider the practicalities of enforcing such changes."

Frank,  

There is no doubt that guns were designed for the purpose of war but what is more important is that they serve many practical purposes in the hands of civilians.  Unfortunately using a gun can be an effective way of killing someone but they can be just as effective for defending life and are used that way more often.  In America guns are more often used for practical purposes like self defense than they are misused.  Like I mentioned before there are practical uses that don't involve murder like self defense, target shooting, plinking, hunting, and there are many hobbies that involve guns like collecting and reloading.  If guns are only used to kill people I wonder why mine have only been used for target practice so far.    

Guns are really just a tool and like any other tool how useful they are depends on the person using it.  They are inanimate hunks of metal, plastic, and wood and are hardly to blame for the misuses of humans.  With your example of the knife it may not be designed for purposes of war like guns were but it can be used to kill, and when that happens the knife is hardly to blame.    

Violence is a social problem not a weapons problem.  The problem is that there are so many people willing to hurt others and gun control does not address the underlying issue of violence.  Criminals will still find ways to get guns when they are banned and even without guns they will find other ways to kill.  

The main thing that we should consider when deciding whether or not to enact gun control, is whether or not it actually reduces crime.  But there seems to be a very strong correlation between enacting gun control and rising crime rates.  If gun control actually worked then it wouldn't make sense in America why states that have allowed concealed weapons permits have then seen significant drops in crime.  It also wouldn't make sense that the safest states in America tend to have the least amount of gun control while the opposite is true of states with stricter gun laws.  It looks like gun control isn't going very well in other countries like England if crime rates are going up after they are banned.    

Gun control may have good intentions and sound nice but it appears to make the problem worse because prohibition of guns and drugs doesn't work.  Criminals will always have guns despite what laws we have and if citizens can't have them then that makes it easier for criminals to prey on them.  It would be easier to get away with a mass shooting in a gun free zone then it would be to get away with robbing a gun show.  

I'm not getting upset with Leyla if she keeps up the sexual rush from guns type argument this could get quite entertaining.   It's just that the way she responded didn't warrant that serious of a response from me so I used a lot of sarcasm.    

I'm interested in hearing your opinion on guns and reality creation.  What I was trying to get at is if we create and are responsible for our reality how can external guns be blamed?  I think rather the world's problems stem from internal issues not external objects.

QuoteCriminals will always have guns despite what laws we have and if citizens can't have them then that makes it easier for criminals to prey on them.

Where do you think criminals get their guns?  Off a foggy dock, like in some movie???

They steal them from law abiding, flag-waving, citizens who bought them for home protection, then they re-sell them to other criminals.  

QuoteIt looks like gun control isn't going very well in other countries like England if crime rates are going up after they are banned.

Oh for gods sake. The crime rate goes up as the population goes up. Simply b/c there are more people.

But their shooting deaths are nearly non existant.

No guns = no gun crime

Makaveli:

Much of what you say is a moot point as far as I am concerned as I live on a continent where is has always been illegal to carry a handgun for the purposes of self defence. What happens in America happens in America. American gun-control legislation has no bearing whatsoever in Europe.

What I mean is, people in Europe are not somehow "clamouring" to carry handguns because people in America have them. We all live very happily without the need to carry handguns. Crime, of course, does happen here. But most people accept that more handguns are not the solution.

It is an interesting statistic that crime, generally, is largely the same in Europe and America. It's just a fallacy that guns protect you against crime. If I knew you had a gun I'd come up behind you and smash you over the head with something hard and heavy. You wouldn't stand a chance. By the time you came to reach for your gun you'd be unconscious, lol. How can that "protect" you. The crime protection element is pure fallacy. To me it's just ego tripping.

I've noted your comments regarding the uses of guns, but what Leyla and myself were questioning was the efficacy of continuing to create and promote the use of a device the primary purpose of which was to kill another human being. Taking your examples, it may well be the case that people enjoy collecting these devices. However, that does not detract from the fact that their primary purpose is to kill. I may enjoy collecting cars, but that does not change the primary purpose of a car. In my view, what you are doing is confusing an object's common use with its primary purpose.

I would agree, however, on your point that guns are but a tool. Yep, they are a tool that are specifically designed to kill people. Unlike other tools that have a different primary pupose but, in the wrong hands, they can kill, such as a knife, for example. But the primary purpose of a gun is simply to kill. It has no other purpose. I cannot drive to work in a gun. I cannot chop vegetables with a gun, I cannot fly to America in a gun. There is only one thing a handgun can do and that is to kill.

Again, it is only natural that in contemporary society that people are begining to question the efficacy of continuing to create and promote the sale of devices, the sole primary purpose of which is to kill other human beings.

Yours,
Frank

QuoteWhere do you think criminals get their guns? Off a foggy dock, like in some movie???

They steal them from law abiding, flag-waving, citizens who bought them for home protection, then they re-sell them to other criminals.

They get guns like that sometimes but banning guns isn't going to make them go away.  Even though guns are legal in America most criminals get their guns from illegal sources anyways so little will change with a gun ban.  

QuoteOh for gods sake. The crime rate goes up as the population goes up. Simply b/c there are more people.

That is false.  Crime has been decreasing in America despite the growing population and growing amount of guns.  So why does crime go down with things such as concealed weapons permits?  Is it because the population goes down?  In Washington D.C. in the years after guns were banned the murder rate went up 51 percent while the national murder rate went down 36 percent despite the increasing population.  

You are clearly mistaken here because the increasing population doesn't explain the increase with the stats since it's looked at in terms like deaths per 100,000 people.  For example Washington D.C. has a murder rate of 59.6 per 100,000.  Yet in a place like pro-gun Arlington Virginia they have murder rate of 1.6 per 100,00.  

From: http://www.gunowners.org/fs0404.htm
More guns, less crime. In the decade of the 1990s, the number of guns in this country increased by roughly 40 million—even while the murder rate decreased by almost 40% percent.7 Accidental gun deaths in the home decreased by almost 40 percent as well.

QuoteNo guns = no gun crime

That would be true if we were able to get rid of guns.  But that is unlikely since guns are already very widely available and there will always be a black market for selling and producing firearms.  If guns were gone there would still be killing with other weapons and the world's social problems wouldn't go away.  There was a lot of war and murder way before the invention of guns.

It looks like gun control isn't going very well in other countries like England if crime rates are going up after they are banned.

Hi:

You have to please realise that it was NEVER LEGAL to carry a handgun in England for the purposes of self defence. Carrying a gun or a weapon or anything that could be constituted as a weapon for self defence in England has ALWAYS BEEN A SERIOUS CRIMINAL OFFENCE.

There is NO SUCH THING that crime is suddenly going up because guns have been banned. In the sense that we all once had guns and we were defending ourselves and now we can't... so criminals have free reign. It simply is not the case. IT WAS NEVER LEGAL to carry a weapon for use in self defence. Whether that weapon be a firearm, a knife, a stick, a whatever.

Yours,
Frank

Frank,

In my opinion gun prohibition does make crime worse but if the people in Europe don't want guns then that's their choice and they shouldn't do it just because America has the second amendment.  

Guns are used to protect against crime it obviously happens.  Sometimes when there is a violent attack people respond using a gun by shooting the attacker and that's one type of self defense.  The more common type of defense ends with no violence.  Pointing a gun at someone can be a very good way to scare them off or make them surrender and stop the threat without violence.  

QuoteIf I knew you had a gun I'd come up behind you and smash you over the head with something hard and heavy. You wouldn't stand a chance. By the time you came to reach for your gun you'd be unconscious, lol. How can that "protect" you. The crime protection element is pure fallacy. To me it's just ego tripping.

You probably wouldn't be able to find out if I had a gun.  That's why most people who carry a gun get a permit to carry concealed instead of open carry since they have the element of surprise and can avoid something like that.  I don't have a carry permit now but I do have a concealed holster and nobody can tell that I have a gun when I'm wearing it.  A lot of houses have guns and burglars have no way of knowing which houses they could get shot in unless if they have some inside information.  

I remember posting in another topic about a survey that found criminals are more likely to avoid messing with people that they know have guns.  It's not just cases of self defense that decreases crime it's the public perception that a criminal risks being shot if civilians are allowed to have guns.  

I'm more interested in the common purpose and the way guns are used and how they impact crime.  Since guns have practical purposes such as self defense and target shooting which is far more common then malicious use I prefer to have them around even though the original purpose was for war.  How guns are used is more important to me than the original or primary purpose.  Although the primary purpose in the hands of civilians shouldn't be to kill people.  

I understand that people in England couldn't carry guns so the way it was before is still very different from America.  But couldn't guns still be used for home defense?  I don't know much about England there could be other factors but at least in America there is the strong correlation between more guns and less crime.  Whether or not gun control is partly responsible for the increase of crime in England it still looks like it hasn't improved England's crime rates.

Quote from: MakaveliI understand that people in England couldn't carry guns so the way it was before is still very different from America.  But couldn't guns still be used for home defense?  I don't know much about England there could be other factors but at least in America there is the strong correlation between more guns and less crime.  Whether or not gun control is partly responsible for the increase of crime in England it still looks like it hasn't improved England's crime rates.

Gun usage is on the increase here in the UK
A recent survey amongst the UK youth claims that one in 16 carry a firearm for protection when in their cars. These weapons range from fully functional firearms through BB guns to imitation firearms. The same survey indicates that one in ten carries a weapon such as a knife.
Legally UK citizens cannot carry self defence weapons including Mace etc. There was historically a fuller right of armed self defence based upon Magna Carta and our long forgotten Bill of Rights, carrying of swords etc. The modern era is largely shaped in the 1960s when a law was passed essentially transferring that role to the Police. The law I paraphrase says that 'reasonable' force only may be used to protect self, family and property in the case of genuine self defence, prosecutors will look to see if there is deemed to  have been excessive force used in which case the person may be prosecuted. This is sometimes considered too ambiguous and has been the subject of much debate recently especially following the shooting dead of a teenager said to have been trying to run out of a house that he had been in the process of robbing.

The theory is that "if guns were outlawed, only outlaws would have guns!"

This is totaly crap.

I have been to England, and it is not overrun by criminals, honest citizens are not  forced to baracade themselves inside their homes!

This is not the case in Japan, or in any countery where guns are banned.

As for "crime" going up- it's all in how you define "crime."

J-walking? Spitting on the sidewalk? Speeding?

It's the MURDER rate I'm interested it.

I have an challenge for all you gun nuts

Forget the internet propaganda.  Watch the news.

Since this discussion has been going on there have been about four shooting deaths in my city.

Not ONE of them was an honset citizen defending themselves.

I thought it was 80 to 1 ????

I can see with my own two eyes that's a bare-faced lie.

I CHALLENGE EVERYONE OF YOU:

Here's what I'm going to do:

I'm going to watch the news every night for the next week- and I'm going to write down every gun killing.

Then, I'm going to report back here how many were in "self-defense." (I think we all know what the results will be.)

I dare you to do the same!

Well most criminals probably aren't going to turn in their guns in the event of a gun ban it will mostly be law abiding citizens that are disarmed.  Guns are widely available so there will always be a black market for criminals to get their weapons.  

England sounds like a nice place and I'm sure it's not being overrun by criminals but it appears the gun ban has not lowered crime.  

With this sort of thing it's violent crime that gets looked at.  Most of the time statistics on gun crime looks at the murder rate in ways like per 100,000 people.  Other types of violent crime like rape and robbery are also analyzed.      

QuoteForget the internet propaganda. Watch the news.

A statistical analysis would be much more reliable.  Like I already said most instances of self defense with guns do not involve violence and that type of case rarely gets attention.

QuoteA statistical analysis would be much more reliable.

Don't you go backing down on me. You can lie with statistics.

Are you afraid to put your "80 to 1" statistic to the test?

I'm not going to let other people tell me what to believe. I'm going to see it with my own two eyes.

Believe what you want but what is on the news is hardly an accurate representation of crime and self defense numbers in this country.  Statistically studying crime is not perfect but it can give a far more accurate stats.  The news is more likely to report a drive by shooting than it is to report someone stopping a mugger with a gun and ending the situation non-violently.

What the hell?

Statistics can be manipulated to say whatever you want.

The local news reports every shooting and every killing. I'm trying to find out how many innocent people we lose in gun deaths.

You're chickening out on me because you know who's going to win this one.

Have fun but it will prove nothing.  It's convenient to say that stats could all just be a lie but statistical analysis is at least a scientific way of getting stats.  Watching the news is not a scientific way to get stats.  The news reports what they think people will find most interesting for ratings.

It will prove everything.

Every shooting and every killing makes the news.

That's what gets ratings.

And most cases of self defense with firearms involve no shooting or killing.  

I'm shocked that you are suggesting watching the news is more reliable than scientific studies on crime.

Quotemost cases of self defense with firearms involve no shooting or killing.

I know of several people who were robbed at gun point with no shooting, who were held at gun point by their jealous husband with no shooting, and who were threatened by high-school thugs with a gun to their head with no shooting.

None of those made the news either.

But what does make the news, is the actual killings.

By the way, none of these statistics you named were from "scientific studies."

They were from Pro-Gun web sites.

Quote from: Leyla

QuoteI know of several people who were robbed at gun point with no shooting, who were held at gun point by their jealous husband with no shooting, and who were threatened by high-school thugs with a gun to their head with no shooting.

None of those made the news either.

But what does make the news, is the actual killings.

That's right, and if it was reported to the police it would have been included in crime statistics in the area.  Killing is the main thing that makes the news not non-violent defense.

Quote from: LeylaThe theory is that "if guns were outlawed, only outlaws would have guns!"

This is totaly crap.

Actually, you are wrong unless you have stats to back your claims up I wouldn't make statements like that.

I am in law enforcement hear in the US. And I am the last person that would want more guns on the streets, but if they are going to be on the streets I would rather have law abiding citizen with a permit carrying and owning them then a bunch of criminals doing as they please.

Police are in most cases not their to protect people when a crime is being perpetrated they only are there to take a report and then maybe with all the crimes that were committed they may have time to get to yours if it is higher on the investigation list.

Please do be naive and live behind rose colored glasses.

Most people in the world are generally good people, but there are a small percentage that don't give a sh*t about yours or my logical way of thinking and living.  In fact these people are sociopaths with no compassion and would kill, torture, stab, shoot, rape or use whatever they can find to make your life a living hell or end......they live in a different world all together.  Most people that preach love all people, peace, love thy neighbor not matter what they do, turn the other cheek mentality have not had a sociopath pray on them and/or commit a heinous act of unspeakable crimes against their families.  

If you are looking and expecting police and the government to protect you all the time, that is naive. Just remember who is the police? Government? It is people. And many times in history and in the world things get out of balance and when they do who will protect you and your loved ones?

I have seen most anti-gun, anti-violence, and loving people turn to protecting themselves after an extremely bad experience.

I wish the world could be kisses and hugs and fantasy lands that most people view the world from, but it is not that way for most of the world.

It is OK to preach but unless you truly have been in the trenches and in the real world of criminals, but I understand there is what is called blind ignorance in the world and no matter what you truly know to be factual and try to convey, there will be the other side that will never know the real truths because they have never experienced what they are talking about and don't want to know.


Regards,

RT

Quote from: LeylaBy the way, none of these statistics you named were from "scientific studies."

They were from Pro-Gun web sites.

They were posted on a pro-gun website that was citing stats from valid sources that were not related to any pro-gun organization.  The stats I posted before were from the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology and Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig who were anti-gun researchers from the Clinton administration.  

The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology for example  is not affiliated with the NRA or gunowners.org.

*sigh* my point is, non-violent defense doesn't make the news, but niether do non violent threats. So they cancel each other out.

One thing that deeply effected me in England, was that all the time I was there there wasn't a single shooting or shooting death on the news.

There, RT, is your huggy-kissy fantasy land.

It made me realize how much I had been desensitized. I think most of us in the US are desinsitized to gun-violence.

We accept it as part of life. "So what there's a new killing every time I turn on the TV. That's normal isn't it?"

But while I was there I realized, it doesn't have to be that way.

Unlike the news the advantage of statistical analysis is it can give a good representation of all violent or non-violent crime and crime or defense.  

It's not normal that we have so many killings this country we have some serious social issues.

Look Makaveli, a gun for you is a toy.

You don't want anyone to take away your toy and ruin your fun.

You need to grow up and realize a gun is not just your fun toy. It causes terror, horror, and lots of bloody violence and death.

And "statistical analysis" from a pro-gun website doesn't count.

It is fun to shoot but there are still better reasons to have guns like for protection.  Or how about the decrease in violent crime that states that have allowed concealed weapons permits have seen.    

The study was not done by the pro-gun website they were merely posting the results of a study from a non-affiliated source.  Research from a pro-gun organization like the NRA or an anti-gun organization can't be trusted since it's then much more likely that the results could be biased to favor their cause.  For the last time the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology is not affiliated with the NRA or gunowners.org and the Clinton anti-gun researchers from the National Institute of Justice certainly weren't affiliated with anything pro-gun.  There is a pretty big difference between a website reporting a list of facts and findings from non-affiliated sources and who does the actual research.

Quote from: LeylaAnd "statistical analysis" from a pro-gun website doesn't count.

I would have to agree with your statement, but on the other side neither are stats from anti-gun site.

I myself wish that one day none of us would have the need any type of weapons to protect ourselves. I would love my children to grow up in a world that was crimeless, compassionate, non-corrupt, and everyone was happy and not afraid.  

In the world we live in showing love or compassion is a sign of weakness and called mushy for the most part. Those in society that claim to be peaceful and loving are not that at all, but true hypocrites.  I think that actions speak louder than words. It very easy to hurt someone, but the love or heal that persons takes strength. Lets hope the world will get their oneday.

I don't watch any new or TV in the US it is all negative.  I have enough I see everyday and don't need the worthless maggots at the news stations trying to stir emotions.  

I don't also think we can hide from the crime, and all the bad in the world, but on the other hand I am not exactly sure how to stop it. Does anyone truly know? Maybe we all need to just lay down and let the criminal elements rape, torture, rob then kill all of the good people, then all that will be left is a world full of scum.  I guess I don't have the answer, but I like to think there is some ultimate answer. I am not being sarcastic, but just offering a ridiculous thought.

RT

The 42 to 1 is an FBI statistic.

Gun enthusiasts claim it is "false" because it includes suicides and accidents.

Suicide is not an act of self defense. In fact, it is just the opposite.

Accidental shootings are just as tragic, especially when the victim is someones young curious child.

The 43:1 statistic isn't an FBI stat it was done by a guy named Kellerman in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1986.  There were many criticisms of this study about how severely flawed the methodology is.  I've haven't heard anyone claim that suicide is self defense it has nothing to do with it and that would make no sense to say that.

The biggest problem I see is it ignored non-violent instances of defense with firearms which ignores the vast majority of cases of defense with guns.  The author also admitted it ignored cases where the criminal was injured by a gun.  In the study the majority of the deaths were from suicide which doesn't count as a violent crime against a victim.  Most of the other deaths besides for suicides were between felons, drug dealers, violent spouses, or involved criminal activity.  Out of 397 total deaths 41 were from homicide a lot of which was from criminal activities.  Other criticisms are that the study only looked at 2 non-random cities and it had an inaccurate estimation of gun ownership.    

One criticism that pointed out how flawed it was used stats from same area and it looked at violent deaths not involving firearms.  The ratio of violent deaths without guns compared to self defense killings without guns came out to 99:1 while the ratio of deaths involving guns was 43:1.

Despite America's increasing amount of firearms we can see that violent crime is slowly decreasing in the U.S and things appear to be getting a little better.  You can view the statistics on the FBI's website here: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm

In 1990 the murder and manslaughter rate was 9.4 per 100,000 people.  In 2003 it was 5.7 per 100,000 people.

Oh  yeah. It's reeeeaaal safe around here:

Local Gun Deaths

July 17, 2005, 11:01PM
Security guard shot dead in fight outside nightclub
A security guard was fatally shot early Sunday during an altercation outside a northeast nightclub, police said.

July 18, 2005, 8:07AM
Teen wounded in drive-by shooting at apartments
A 17-year-old is recovering from gunshot wounds suffered in a drive-by shooting at a southwest apartment complex Sunday evening.

July 19, 2005, 1:26PM
Officer shoots car-burglary suspect outside his home. A suspected car burglar is in very critical condition this morning after breaking into an SUV near an off-duty police officer's home.

(Here's one for your team. Makes me feel a little funny though, because it wasn't in self defense. Don't get me wrong, I think car thieves should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law- but this man was judge, jury and executioner. )

July 19, 2005, 6:20AM
Man gunned down at shopping center
A fatal shooting in front of a southwest shopping center late Monday may have been set off by an earlier altercation between the victim and his assailant. ``The argument escalated into gunfire.''

July 20, 2005, 6:13PM
Gunman shot by police dies in surgery police shot and killed a man in southwest  early today after he reportedly threatened a wrecker driver and then officers with an automatic pistol.

(Man freaks out with automatic weapon and cops shoot him. We've probably all freaked out after having our car towed. I know I have. Without the gun he probably would have slept on it and worked it out in the morning. But now he is dead. The irony is, he probably bought it to protect his family.)

Quote from: LeylaOh  yeah. It's reeeeaaal safe around here:

Local Gun Deaths

July 17, 2005, 11:01PM
Security guard shot dead in fight outside nightclub
A security guard was fatally shot early Sunday during an altercation outside a northeast nightclub, police said.

July 18, 2005, 8:07AM
Teen wounded in drive-by shooting at apartments
A 17-year-old is recovering from gunshot wounds suffered in a drive-by shooting at a southwest apartment complex Sunday evening.

July 19, 2005, 1:26PM
Officer shoots car-burglary suspect outside his home. A suspected car burglar is in very critical condition this morning after breaking into an SUV near an off-duty police officer's home.

(Here's one for your team. Makes me feel a little funny though, because it wasn't in self defense. Don't get me wrong, I think car thieves should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law- but this man was judge, jury and executioner. )

July 19, 2005, 6:20AM
Man gunned down at shopping center
A fatal shooting in front of a southwest shopping center late Monday may have been set off by an earlier altercation between the victim and his assailant. ``The argument escalated into gunfire.''

July 20, 2005, 6:13PM
Gunman shot by police dies in surgery police shot and killed a man in southwest  early today after he reportedly threatened a wrecker driver and then officers with an automatic pistol.

(Man freaks out with automatic weapon and cops shoot him. We've probably all freaked out after having our car towed. I know I have. Without the gun he probably would have slept on it and worked it out in the morning. But now he is dead. The irony is, he probably bought it to protect his family.)

This is all happening in Bangladesh? Wow and I thought the US had problems.

Heh heh heh  *winks*

(http://users.telenet.be/eforum/emoticons4u/violent/sterb006.gif) (http://users.telenet.be/eforum/emoticons4u/violent/sterb003.gif)  (http://pages.prodigy.net/rogerlori1/emoticons/grenade.gif)

Wow. A whole tree days without a killing and then this.

July 24, 2005, 11:04PM

Girl, 2, critical after shooting
Toddler was hit in a flare-up over a broken window

A small girl remained in the hospital in critical condition Sunday from a gunshot wound inflicted by a man who had confronted a group of teenagers after one sent a football crashing through the window of his southwest apartment, officials said.

These are the ones I hate the worst. If only he'd had a baseball bat, or a knife, at least he'd have got who he was aiming for.

Glad to see this thread is still alive. While I'm at it, I hereby declare this thread  :evil: UNDEAD :evil:


F-BUSH

Guys, i hate bush, but common hes a monkey for crying out loud. The guy whos more evil is CHENEY!!! the brains behind the monkey.

grrr




P.S. how'd u get those cool 'shoot em up' and 'grenade' blastin ones? the smilies i mean.

The fact is that gasoline is going to go up to $5 a gallon and the economy is going to TANK because the USA is just not ready for this. I guarantee this will be the worst administration in US history. I really don't care. I've already employed the idea and incorporated a belief system that what is inside of me is more real than anything external and I'm unaffected by anyone or anything environment can throw at me to a large extent, short of a nuclear Armageddon. I welcome that too. Yes, I'm a little sick and tired of the limitations of human existence.

Bring it. I love change, I love chaos. It's the familiar that we really have to be afraid of. That's what kills us.

Kevin

http://dim.com/~randl/news.htm

http://www.newshounds.us/2005/07/27/prudish_media_censoring_bushs_nickname_for_rove.php


Some bush fun for ya all since I can't bring myself to actually say something intelligent on the subject.

1st link is a link too many links

and the second is Turd blossom censorship....