Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Topics not related to music
Forum Name: General Polls
Forum Description: Create polls on topics not related to music
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=67903 Printed Date: November 26 2024 at 03:19 Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Michael MoorePosted By: JLocke
Subject: Michael Moore
Date Posted: June 01 2010 at 10:34
I bring this up because a recent semi-political discussion with a forum friend put me in mind of this man. This man who by all accounts has influenced a great many Americans (and maybe even some non-Americans, as well) to see the world in the same exact way he does. Is that good or bad, in your opinion? Do you tend to agree with Mr. Moore's views more often than not, or is be bad news?
Me, I think he's right some of the time, and I certainly don't think he is intentionally pushing an agenda. However, his politics are nowhere close to my own, and I have to wonder sometimes where he is coming from. I think his stances on things such as guns, capitalism and the like are ridiculous, yet at the same time I agree with him 50% of the time on his healthcare views, and we both agree that George Bush was an idiot.
Michael Moore doesn't force people to agree with him; he simply states his opinions, and it just so happens that they make sense to a lot of people. But those people tend to know nothing of politics beforehand, and it's obviously easy to sway them. As someone who is very interested in politics already, I don't always find the guy's viewpoints realistic or even sensible. Yet I wonder if the world would be a lesser place without him.
So, what say you? Does he have it right? And even if you disagree with him, are you glad he is here to express his freedom of speech?
Replies: Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: June 01 2010 at 10:41
Alright, I see two additional votes, but no responses in the forum. Can you guys please elaborate on your votes as well so we can get a real conversation going, here?
For what it's worth, I think whoever voted the 'never' option is a drone.
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: June 01 2010 at 10:49
JLocke wrote:
For what it's worth, I think whoever voted the 'never' option is a drone.
Posted By: akamaisondufromage
Date Posted: June 01 2010 at 10:55
Epignosis wrote:
JLocke wrote:
For what it's worth, I think whoever voted the 'never' option is a drone.
Was that you Epignosis?
JLocke you made this poll I don't think calling some one a 'Drone' will help encourage healthy debate
For what it's worth I agree with him most of the time but I realise he is slightly biased and there miight just be another side to whatever argument he is proposing!
------------- Help me I'm falling!
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: June 01 2010 at 10:58
Epignosis wrote:
JLocke wrote:
For what it's worth, I think whoever voted the 'never' option is a drone.
I had a feeling.
Posted By: UndercoverBoy
Date Posted: June 01 2010 at 10:58
I've never seen any of his movies, so no vote. From what it seems, I agree with most of his points, particularly on guns and healthcare.
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: June 01 2010 at 11:01
akamaisondufromage wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
JLocke wrote:
For what it's worth, I think whoever voted the 'never' option is a drone.
Was that you Epignosis?
JLocke you made this poll I don't think calling some one a 'Drone' will help encourage healthy debate
For what it's worth I agree with him most of the time but I realise he is slightly biased and there miight just be another side to whatever argument he is proposing!
Nice answer.
I just think somebody who speaks in absolutes like that isn't truly taking into consideration all the nuances and individuality of the said person. You're bound to agree with someone on SOMETHING, even if you don't like them personally. I put the 'always' and 'never' options up there to see how many one-sided thinkers we have on this forum. One-sided = biased, which is never good, on either side. But that's just my biased opinion.
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: June 01 2010 at 11:01
akamaisondufromage wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
JLocke wrote:
For what it's worth, I think whoever voted the 'never' option is a drone.
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: June 01 2010 at 11:02
UndercoverBoy wrote:
I've never seen any of his movies, so no vote. From what it seems, I agree with most of his points, particularly on guns and healthcare.
So you think we don't have the right to defend ourselves, but the crooks have the right to shoot us at will?
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: June 01 2010 at 11:02
JLocke wrote:
akamaisondufromage wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
JLocke wrote:
For what it's worth, I think whoever voted the 'never' option is a drone.
Was that you Epignosis?
JLocke you made this poll I don't think calling some one a 'Drone' will help encourage healthy debate
For what it's worth I agree with him most of the time but I realise he is slightly biased and there miight just be another side to whatever argument he is proposing!
Nice answer.
I just think somebody who speaks in absolutes like that isn't truly taking into consideration all the nuances and individuality of the said person. You're bound to agree with someone on SOMETHING, even if you don't like them personally. I put the 'always' and 'never' options up there to see how many one-sided thinkers we have on this forum. One-sided = biased, which is never good, on either side. But that's just my biased opinion.
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: June 01 2010 at 11:03
Epignosis wrote:
JLocke wrote:
akamaisondufromage wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
JLocke wrote:
For what it's worth, I think whoever voted the 'never' option is a drone.
Was that you Epignosis?
JLocke you made this poll I don't think calling some one a 'Drone' will help encourage healthy debate
For what it's worth I agree with him most of the time but I realise he is slightly biased and there miight just be another side to whatever argument he is proposing!
Nice answer.
I just think somebody who speaks in absolutes like that isn't truly taking into consideration all the nuances and individuality of the said person. You're bound to agree with someone on SOMETHING, even if you don't like them personally. I put the 'always' and 'never' options up there to see how many one-sided thinkers we have on this forum. One-sided = biased, which is never good, on either side. But that's just my biased opinion.
Okay, I guess I should change my vote.
We both agree on eating.
Posted By: UndercoverBoy
Date Posted: June 01 2010 at 11:05
Epignosis wrote:
JLocke wrote:
akamaisondufromage wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
JLocke wrote:
For what it's worth, I think whoever voted the 'never' option is a drone.
Was that you Epignosis?
JLocke you made this poll I don't think calling some one a 'Drone' will help encourage healthy debate
For what it's worth I agree with him most of the time but I realise he is slightly biased and there miight just be another side to whatever argument he is proposing!
Nice answer.
I just think somebody who speaks in absolutes like that isn't truly taking into consideration all the nuances and individuality of the said person. You're bound to agree with someone on SOMETHING, even if you don't like them personally. I put the 'always' and 'never' options up there to see how many one-sided thinkers we have on this forum. One-sided = biased, which is never good, on either side. But that's just my biased opinion.
Okay, I guess I should change my vote.
We both agree on eating.
Seriously, though. I think that it's impossible to agree or disagree with someone 100%. Seems a little extreme.
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: June 01 2010 at 11:07
I like how you dodged my question, UndercoverBoy. You don't feel like debating today?
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: June 01 2010 at 11:10
On topic (well kind of), let me just say that I was angry to hear my sister spouting some nonsense about the health care situation only to hear that one of her teachers had been showing Michael Moore films in the classroom. I don't think that's cool.
I prided myself as a teacher in that none of students ever knew what my political beliefs were. Whenever any of them made a point about a subject, I'd play devil's advocate regardless of whether or not I actually disagreed with them.
I want students to learn to think and research, not just buy anything they are told.
Posted By: UndercoverBoy
Date Posted: June 01 2010 at 11:11
JLocke wrote:
I like how you dodged my question, UndercoverBoy. You don't feel like debating today?
I'm actually looking for resources right now, Micah.
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: June 01 2010 at 11:11
UndercoverBoy wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
JLocke wrote:
akamaisondufromage wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
JLocke wrote:
For what it's worth, I think whoever voted the 'never' option is a drone.
Was that you Epignosis?
JLocke you made this poll I don't think calling some one a 'Drone' will help encourage healthy debate
For what it's worth I agree with him most of the time but I realise he is slightly biased and there miight just be another side to whatever argument he is proposing!
Nice answer.
I just think somebody who speaks in absolutes like that isn't truly taking into consideration all the nuances and individuality of the said person. You're bound to agree with someone on SOMETHING, even if you don't like them personally. I put the 'always' and 'never' options up there to see how many one-sided thinkers we have on this forum. One-sided = biased, which is never good, on either side. But that's just my biased opinion.
Okay, I guess I should change my vote.
We both agree on eating.
Seriously, though. I think that it's impossible to agree or disagree with someone 100%. Seems a little extreme.
I assumed the topic dealt with Moore's specific politics and was not a comprehensive question. And I can't say I agree with any of his politics. Hence, my voting "Never."
Posted By: Dorsalia
Date Posted: June 01 2010 at 11:15
I tend to agree with Michael More on most of the "core issues", at least in terms of the essence of what he says, but I think he has a tendency to oversimplify issues and reach hasty conclusions without going through all the logical steps.
I can 't really enjoy his movies anymore, because I feel they've become kind of simplistic tearjerkers, even if they can have some great footage and segments. I think he probably oversimplifies in this way on purpose, but I at least find it excessive, even if I agree totally that there are some serious problems with Capitalism, the health system, gun control and foreign policy in the United States, among other things.
It's also annoying the way he portrays foreign countries as utopias, without showing the drawbacks to their systems as well.
------------- "Es ist übrigens unmöglich, eine Meinung zu haben, ohne dass es unerfreuliche Überschneidungen gibt. Die Grünen sind für den deutschen Wald, die NPD ebenfalls."
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: June 01 2010 at 11:16
Epignosis wrote:
On topic (well kind of), let me just say that I was angry to hear my sister spouting some nonsense about the health care situation only to hear that one of her teachers had been showing Michael Moore films in the classroom. I don't think that's cool.
I prided myself as a teacher in that none of students ever knew what my political beliefs were. Whenever any of them made a point about a subject, I'd play devil's advocate regardless of whether or not I actually disagreed with them.
I want students to learn to think and research, not just buy anything they are told.
As usual, I agree with you completely, Rob. However, I don't think Michael Moore himself would disagree with us, either. I honestly don't believe he is an agenda-pusher. I could be naive about that, but he truly does want what he thinks is best for his country. That's a very patriotic way to be, whether I agree with him, or not.
Any teacher who pushes somebody else's agenda to her students should be fired, in my opinion. It gets us nowhere when an entire generation is told exactly what to think and feel. What we SHOULD be telling our kids is to think and feel for themselves.
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: June 01 2010 at 11:16
UndercoverBoy wrote:
JLocke wrote:
I like how you dodged my question, UndercoverBoy. You don't feel like debating today?
I'm actually looking for resources right now, Micah.
Okay, cool. I look foreard to debating with you.
Posted By: Dorsalia
Date Posted: June 01 2010 at 11:17
Oh and, by the way, Flint, Michigan is my hometown as well.
------------- "Es ist übrigens unmöglich, eine Meinung zu haben, ohne dass es unerfreuliche Überschneidungen gibt. Die Grünen sind für den deutschen Wald, die NPD ebenfalls."
Posted By: UndercoverBoy
Date Posted: June 01 2010 at 11:22
JLocke wrote:
Any teacher who pushes somebody else's agenda to her students should be fired, in my opinion. It gets us nowhere when an entire generation is told exactly what to think and feel. What we SHOULD be telling our kids is to think and feel for themselves.
Yup. I think that showing his films in a classroom is beyond ridiculous. Still, that shows more about the teacher than it does about Michael Moore.
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: June 01 2010 at 11:24
UndercoverBoy wrote:
JLocke wrote:
Any teacher who pushes somebody else's agenda to her students should be fired, in my opinion. It gets us nowhere when an entire generation is told exactly what to think and feel. What we SHOULD be telling our kids is to think and feel for themselves.
Yup. I think that showing his films in a classroom is beyond ridiculous. Still, that shows more about the teacher than it does about Michael Moore.
Well, if you notice, I did in fact say that Michael Moore would most likely agree with us all that the teacher forcing-feeding the kids isn't cool.
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: June 01 2010 at 11:34
I agree with him a lot of time. When he took patients to Cuba to show the wonders of the cuban system was one of those times when I didn't.
-------------
Posted By: Syzygy
Date Posted: June 01 2010 at 11:35
UndercoverBoy wrote:
JLocke wrote:
Any teacher who pushes somebody else's agenda to her students should be fired, in my opinion. It gets us nowhere when an entire generation is told exactly what to think and feel. What we SHOULD be telling our kids is to think and feel for themselves.
Yup. I think that showing his films in a classroom is beyond ridiculous. Still, that shows more about the teacher than it does about Michael Moore.
I think it depends on how the film is used - if it's simply used as a substitute for actual teaching, then there certainly is an issue; if the film (or a section of it) is used to encourage students to engage with it and to explore and criticise or justify the opinions, then it's as valid as using a book or magazine article.
Broadly speaking I tend to agree with Michael Moore, but he does over simplify. However, he reaches far more people than Noam Chomsky and (to judge from the blogosphere) there's no shortage of people who disagree with him - if he's trying to brainwash people he's failing pretty dismally.
------------- 'Like so many of you
I've got my doubts about how much to contribute
to the already rich among us...'
Robert Wyatt, Gloria Gloom
Posted By: Dorsalia
Date Posted: June 01 2010 at 11:42
Syzygy wrote:
I think it depends on how the film is used - if it's simply used as a substitute for actual teaching, then there certainly is an issue; if the film (or a section of it) is used to encourage students to engage with it and to explore and criticise or justify the opinions, then it's as valid as using a book or magazine article.
I agree. There is no right or wrong in terms of the material used in a classroom. What matters is how it's used. So to judge this particular case, we'd need to know more about what the teacher did with the film in the classroom.
------------- "Es ist übrigens unmöglich, eine Meinung zu haben, ohne dass es unerfreuliche Überschneidungen gibt. Die Grünen sind für den deutschen Wald, die NPD ebenfalls."
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: June 01 2010 at 11:44
I've liked MM ever since Roger & Me. Never seen anything in any of his films or read anything on his website that I didn't agree with. He gets trashed on the right for challenging the powers that be.
I would like to add that Noam doesn't reach too many people because he writes books that are really hard to read. I have yet to finish one. The guy is extremely eloquent though.
------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
Posted By: Dorsalia
Date Posted: June 01 2010 at 11:47
Slartibartfast wrote:
I've liked MM ever since Roger & Me. Never seen anything in any of his films or read anything on his website that I didn't agree with. He gets trashed on the right for challenging the powers that be.
I would like to add that Noam doesn't reach too many people because he writes books that are really hard to read. I have yet to finish one.
And, unlike Moore, I have yet to discover that Noam Chomsky has a sense of humour . Just watch his interview with Ali G.
------------- "Es ist übrigens unmöglich, eine Meinung zu haben, ohne dass es unerfreuliche Überschneidungen gibt. Die Grünen sind für den deutschen Wald, die NPD ebenfalls."
Posted By: UndercoverBoy
Date Posted: June 01 2010 at 11:48
JLocke wrote:
UndercoverBoy wrote:
JLocke wrote:
I like how you dodged my question, UndercoverBoy. You don't feel like debating today?
I'm actually looking for resources right now, Micah.
Okay, cool. I look foreard to debating with you.
Okay, so here-a we go (pun intended):
It's true that countries with gun control have far less gun-related crime than those that don't. For example:
Gun Deaths - International Comparisons
Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):
Homicide
Suicide
Other (inc Accident)
USA (2001)
3.98
5.92
0.36
Italy (1997)
0.81
1.1
0.07
Switzerland (1998)
0.50
5.8
0.10
Canada (2002)
0.4
2.0
0.04
Finland (2003)
0.35
4.45
0.10
Australia (2001)
0.24
1.34
0.10
France (2001)
0.21
3.4
0.49
England/Wales (2002)
0.15
0.2
0.03
Scotland (2002)
0.06
0.2
0.02
Japan (2002)
0.02
0.04
0
Data taken from Cukier and Sidel (2006) The Global Gun Epidemic. Praeger Security International. Westport.
According to these statistics, the U.S. has nearly 10 times more gun-related homicides than Canada (which, if I'm not mistaken, has more guns per capita than the U.S.), 27 times more gun-related homicides than England and Wales, 66 times more than Scotland, and 200 times more than Japan (to be fair, I don't think Japan was ever steeped in gun control like Western civilizations are.) Clearly, guns have some role in the equation. I'm not asking for the outright banning of guns, like some of the countries in that chart do, but I don't think that any psychopathic lunatic should be able to get his hands on a gun. If there were stricter firearm laws for the U.S., I'm sure that your "how am I supposed to defend myself from an armed criminal" situation would be very less likely. And since I'm assuming that you are a stable person, the process of getting a gun license in Canada does not seem very difficult, and the extensive background checks and restricting activities to hunting and other sports have proven to be very effective.
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: June 01 2010 at 11:48
Dorsalia wrote:
Slartibartfast wrote:
I've liked MM ever since Roger & Me. Never seen anything in any of his films or read anything on his website that I didn't agree with. He gets trashed on the right for challenging the powers that be.
I would like to add that Noam doesn't reach too many people because he writes books that are really hard to read. I have yet to finish one.
And, unlike Moore, I have yet to discover that Noam Chomsky has a sense of humour . Just watch his interview with Ali G.
Did you see the Andy Rooney interview? I haven't seen the one with Noam. Need to look that up.
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: June 01 2010 at 11:49
UndercoverBoy wrote:
According to these statistics, the U.S. has nearly 10 times more gun-related homicides than Canada
We're number one, we're number one!!!! Uhm, number one with a bullet.
------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
Posted By: Dorsalia
Date Posted: June 01 2010 at 11:51
Slartibartfast wrote:
UndercoverBoy wrote:
According to these statistics, the U.S. has nearly 10 times more gun-related homicides than Canada
We're number one, we're number one!!!!
No but seriously, that's one of the reasons I don't live in that country anymore. It scares the hell out of me sometimes.
------------- "Es ist übrigens unmöglich, eine Meinung zu haben, ohne dass es unerfreuliche Überschneidungen gibt. Die Grünen sind für den deutschen Wald, die NPD ebenfalls."
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: June 01 2010 at 11:55
Dorsalia wrote:
Slartibartfast wrote:
UndercoverBoy wrote:
According to these statistics, the U.S. has nearly 10 times more gun-related homicides than Canada
We're number one, we're number one!!!!
No but seriously, that's one of the reasons I don't live in that country anymore. It scares the hell out of me sometimes.
Don't give Canada such a hard time or I will have to shoot you
------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
Posted By: Dorsalia
Date Posted: June 01 2010 at 12:00
Slartibartfast wrote:
Dorsalia wrote:
Slartibartfast wrote:
UndercoverBoy wrote:
According to these statistics, the U.S. has nearly 10 times more gun-related homicides than Canada
We're number one, we're number one!!!!
No but seriously, that's one of the reasons I don't live in that country anymore. It scares the hell out of me sometimes.
Don't give Canada such a hard time or I will have to shoot you
Now Canada I wouldn't mind living in. It's a beautiful country.
I mean, so is the U.S., don't get me wrong, I just don't want to live there anymore.
------------- "Es ist übrigens unmöglich, eine Meinung zu haben, ohne dass es unerfreuliche Überschneidungen gibt. Die Grünen sind für den deutschen Wald, die NPD ebenfalls."
Posted By: akamaisondufromage
Date Posted: June 01 2010 at 12:01
I'm certainly not moving to Finland. You never know what I might do if I went there!
------------- Help me I'm falling!
Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: June 01 2010 at 12:17
I think he's a talented filmaker and I enjoy his films. I disagree with him on most issues though. He's sort of the Michael Savage of the left. He's often misguided, but much more fun than Al Franken ever was.
TV Nation was awesome fun!
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: June 01 2010 at 12:21
Dorsalia wrote:
Syzygy wrote:
I think it depends on how the film is used - if it's simply used as a substitute for actual teaching, then there certainly is an issue; if the film (or a section of it) is used to encourage students to engage with it and to explore and criticise or justify the opinions, then it's as valid as using a book or magazine article.
I agree. There is no right or wrong in terms of the material used in a classroom. What matters is how it's used. So to judge this particular case, we'd need to know more about what the teacher did with the film in the classroom.
Posted By: Dorsalia
Date Posted: June 01 2010 at 12:28
Epignosis wrote:
Dorsalia wrote:
Syzygy wrote:
I think it depends on how the film is used - if it's simply used as a substitute for actual teaching, then there certainly is an issue; if the film (or a section of it) is used to encourage students to engage with it and to explore and criticise or justify the opinions, then it's as valid as using a book or magazine article.
I agree. There is no right or wrong in terms of the material used in a classroom. What matters is how it's used. So to judge this particular case, we'd need to know more about what the teacher did with the film in the classroom.
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=109446 - Let someone use the Bible
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=6067 - in a public school setting
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080418/ohio-teacher-refuses-to-remove-bible-from-classroom/index.html - regardless of the context
http://cbs11tv.com/local/bibles.aclu.gideons.2.1237242.html - and see what happens. http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=109446 -
Same goes for the Bible. Of course it should be used, at least in high schools. It should be used in the study of history, literature, philosophy and politics, to say the least. It is one of the most important books in the history of our modern world and how you could conceive of giving someone an education without analysing the bible's impact is beyond me.
------------- "Es ist übrigens unmöglich, eine Meinung zu haben, ohne dass es unerfreuliche Überschneidungen gibt. Die Grünen sind für den deutschen Wald, die NPD ebenfalls."
Posted By: ClemofNazareth
Date Posted: June 01 2010 at 12:34
I agree in principle with most of his political views, and IMHO he will likely be seen as a visionary fifty years from now after he's dead.
I do believe he intentionally oversimplifies his positions in his films, but given that he has to cover an awful lot of ground in 120 minutes or less that's understandable to a certain degree. They guy does do his homework and is quite eloquent in the interviews I've seen with him. IMHO he is truly passionate about improving our country and I do think he sees himself as a committed patriot, just one that has a different viewpoint than many of the flag-waving types who also sometimes have just as black-and-white views of the world.
Maybe we need a poll on favorite scenes from a MM film.
------------- "Peace is the only battle worth waging."
Albert Camus
Posted By: Dorsalia
Date Posted: June 01 2010 at 12:42
ClemofNazareth wrote:
I agree in principle with most of his political views, and IMHO he will likely be seen as a visionary fifty years from now after he's dead.
I do believe he intentionally oversimplifies his positions in his films, but given that he has to cover an awful lot of ground in 120 minutes or less that's understandable to a certain degree. They guy does do his homework and is quite eloquent in the interviews I've seen with him. IMHO he is truly passionate about improving our country and I do think he sees himself as a committed patriot, just one that has a different viewpoint than many of the flag-waving types who also sometimes have just as black-and-white views of the world.
Maybe we need a poll on favorite scenes from a MM film.
I'd have to go with the "Corporate Cops" segment from Bowling for Columbine.
------------- "Es ist übrigens unmöglich, eine Meinung zu haben, ohne dass es unerfreuliche Überschneidungen gibt. Die Grünen sind für den deutschen Wald, die NPD ebenfalls."
Posted By: akamaisondufromage
Date Posted: June 01 2010 at 12:46
Dorsalia wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Dorsalia wrote:
Syzygy wrote:
I think it depends on how the film is used - if it's simply used as a substitute for actual teaching, then there certainly is an issue; if the film (or a section of it) is used to encourage students to engage with it and to explore and criticise or justify the opinions, then it's as valid as using a book or magazine article.
I agree. There is no right or wrong in terms of the material used in a classroom. What matters is how it's used. So to judge this particular case, we'd need to know more about what the teacher did with the film in the classroom.
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=109446 - Let someone use the Bible
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=6067 - in a public school setting
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080418/ohio-teacher-refuses-to-remove-bible-from-classroom/index.html - regardless of the context
http://cbs11tv.com/local/bibles.aclu.gideons.2.1237242.html - and see what happens. http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=109446 -
Same goes for the Bible. Of course it should be used, at least in high schools. It should be used in the study of history, literature, philosophy and politics, to say the least. It is one of the most important books in the history of our modern world and how you could conceive of giving someone an education without analysing the bible's impact is beyond me.
What has the Bible got to do with History?
Anyway I agree with the French in that there is no place for Religion in Schools (Possibly the study of ALL the different religions in RE) but if parents want there kids to study a religion of any type then they can do it outside school. (Church might be an appropriate place for example.
Keep the Bible out of schools.
------------- Help me I'm falling!
Posted By: Dorsalia
Date Posted: June 01 2010 at 12:48
akamaisondufromage wrote:
What has the Bible got to do with History?
Nothing, mate. Absolutely nothing.
Neither do the Roman Empire, the Catholic Church, Martin Luther, Henry VIII or anything else.
------------- "Es ist übrigens unmöglich, eine Meinung zu haben, ohne dass es unerfreuliche Überschneidungen gibt. Die Grünen sind für den deutschen Wald, die NPD ebenfalls."
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: June 01 2010 at 12:52
akamaisondufromage wrote:
Dorsalia wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Dorsalia wrote:
Syzygy wrote:
I think it depends on how the film is used - if it's simply used as a substitute for actual teaching, then there certainly is an issue; if the film (or a section of it) is used to encourage students to engage with it and to explore and criticise or justify the opinions, then it's as valid as using a book or magazine article.
I agree. There is no right or wrong in terms of the material used in a classroom. What matters is how it's used. So to judge this particular case, we'd need to know more about what the teacher did with the film in the classroom.
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=109446 - Let someone use the Bible
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=6067 - in a public school setting
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080418/ohio-teacher-refuses-to-remove-bible-from-classroom/index.html - regardless of the context
http://cbs11tv.com/local/bibles.aclu.gideons.2.1237242.html - and see what happens. http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=109446 -
Same goes for the Bible. Of course it should be used, at least in high schools. It should be used in the study of history, literature, philosophy and politics, to say the least. It is one of the most important books in the history of our modern world and how you could conceive of giving someone an education without analysing the bible's impact is beyond me.
What has the Bible got to do with History?
Anyway I agree with the French in that there is no place for Religion in Schools (Possibly the study of ALL the different religions in RE) but if parents want there kids to study a religion of any type then they can do it outside school. (Church might be an appropriate place for example.
Keep the Bible out of schools.
What has the Bible got to do with history? Seriously?
It is arguably the most influential book of all time, whether you believe what it says is true or not.
Posted By: akamaisondufromage
Date Posted: June 01 2010 at 13:08
Re: What has the Bible got to do with History?
Well you might have guessed I come from a nonbeliever back ground. I was joking to a certain extent - in that I don't believe any of it. Of course it has had an effect on History but why would you need a copy in your classroom if your teaching history and if you do where is your copy of The Koran and every other important religious book?
This is like teaching Politics with a MM video (To a certain extent)
------------- Help me I'm falling!
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: June 01 2010 at 13:10
I've only seen Bowling for Columbine. I can't really remember his views on the gun issue, but after watching the travesty of an "interview" he pulled at the end of the film with Charleton Heston (which was really more of an amateurish, whiny, and pathetic attempt at character assassination) I seriously doubt he has any lick of decency, decorum, or honor. And he always has this smug ass expression on his face.
And I'm liberal.
------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want!
Posted By: Dorsalia
Date Posted: June 01 2010 at 13:17
akamaisondufromage wrote:
Re: What has the Bible got to do with History?
Well you might have guessed I come from a nonbeliever back ground. I was joking to a certain extent - in that I don't believe any of it. Of course it has had an effect on History but why would you need a copy in your classroom if your teaching history and if you do where is your copy of The Koran and every other important religious book?
This is like teaching Politics with a MM video (To a certain extent)
Of course the Koran is also important in the study of history. But whatever your viewpoint, nobody can deny that the religions the Bible has spawned have shaped our western tradition like nothing else after Greece and Rome.
And anything can be used to indoctrinate, because there are ulterior motives behind everything to a certain extent. No, I think anything is acceptable in the classroom as long as it is used to generate discussion and stimulate individual thinking.
Of course, in an ideal world....
------------- "Es ist übrigens unmöglich, eine Meinung zu haben, ohne dass es unerfreuliche Überschneidungen gibt. Die Grünen sind für den deutschen Wald, die NPD ebenfalls."
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: June 01 2010 at 13:18
Some of the time ... but usually his point of view is as biased as whatever he happens to be opposing, and I really don't like that he employs the same cheap tricks as the "enemy" to get people to agree with him.
Posted By: Syzygy
Date Posted: June 01 2010 at 13:34
Dorsalia wrote:
Syzygy wrote:
What has the Bible got to do with History?
Nothing, mate. Absolutely nothing.
Neither do the Roman Empire, the Catholic Church, Martin Luther, Henry VIII or anything else.
Small point of order - I didn't make that comment. I suppose that the misquote was an understandable hazard of copying and pasting from a stack of quotes, but please be more careful in future.
The Bible has an integral place in Western culture and as such should be incoroporated into any sane academic curriculum; how it is used or abused in that context, and the way that fundamentalists of whatever stripe react to it, is another matter entirely.
------------- 'Like so many of you
I've got my doubts about how much to contribute
to the already rich among us...'
Robert Wyatt, Gloria Gloom
Posted By: Dorsalia
Date Posted: June 01 2010 at 13:42
Syzygy wrote:
Small point of order - I didn't make that comment. I suppose that the misquote was an understandable hazard of copying and pasting from a stack of quotes, but please be more careful in future.
Sorry dude, my bad entirely. I already corrected it though.
------------- "Es ist übrigens unmöglich, eine Meinung zu haben, ohne dass es unerfreuliche Überschneidungen gibt. Die Grünen sind für den deutschen Wald, die NPD ebenfalls."
Posted By: rpe9p
Date Posted: June 01 2010 at 19:51
There was no "very rarely" or "almost never" option, so I had to go with never. Has anyone here seen the movie "an american carol"? I thought some parts of that were really funny but I wouldnt recommend it unless you are a conservative or someone who wont take it seriously.
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: June 01 2010 at 19:59
Syzygy wrote:
Dorsalia wrote:
Syzygy wrote:
What has the Bible got to do with History?
Nothing, mate. Absolutely nothing.
Neither do the Roman Empire, the Catholic Church, Martin Luther, Henry VIII or anything else.
Small point of order - I didn't make that comment. I suppose that the misquote was an understandable hazard of copying and pasting from a stack of quotes, but please be more careful in future.
The Bible has an integral place in Western culture and as such should be incoroporated into any sane academic curriculum; how it is used or abused in that context, and the way that fundamentalists of whatever stripe react to it, is another matter entirely.
Yeah, I guess I can get on board with that but only for understanding why such a large segment of the planet is absolutely nuts:
Dr
Laura's
Gay Bible Letter Either the Bible is right or it's not
On her radio show, Dr. Laura Schlesinger
said
that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination
according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be
condoned
under any circumstances. The following response is an open
letter
to Dr. Laura, penned by a US resident, which
was posted on the Internet:
Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate
people
regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from
your show,
and try to share that knowledge with as many
people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual
lifestyle,
for example, I simply remind them that
Leviticus
18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination.
End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however,
regarding
some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may
possess slaves,
both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring
nations.
A friend of mine claims that this applies to
Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify?
Why can't I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into
slavery,
as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what
do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with
a
woman while she is in her period of Menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:
19-24.
The problem is how do I tell? I have
tried asking, but most women take offense.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a
sacrifice,
I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9.
The problem is my neighbors.
They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I
smite them?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working
on
the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be
put to death.
Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or
should I ask the police to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though
eating
shellfish is an abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than
homosexuality.
I don't agree. Can you settle this?
Are there 'degrees' of abomination?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not
approach the
altar of God if I have a defect in my sight.
I have to admit that I wear reading
glasses.
Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair
trimmed,
including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly
forbidden by Lev. 19:27.
How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching
the skin
of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear
gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He
violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as
does his wife
by wearing garments made of two different
kinds
of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to
curse and blaspheme a lot.
Is it really necessary that we go to all the
trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them?
Lev.24:10-16.
Couldn't we just burn them to death at a
private
family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws?
(Lev.
20:14)
I know you have studied these things
extensively
and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I'm confident
you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's
word
is eternal and unchanging.
Your adoring fan.
James M. Kauffman , Ed.D. Professor
Emeritus,
Dept. Of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education University of
Virginia
This came up about ten years ago (It
remember
it was pre-9-11) when it was on The West Wing. President Bartlet threw some harpy out of
his White House for being so Schlessinger-ish.
To see the REAL Laura Schlessinger, http://www.bartcop.com/mengidx.htm - Click
Here
------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: June 01 2010 at 20:05
UndercoverBoy wrote:
JLocke wrote:
UndercoverBoy wrote:
JLocke wrote:
I like how you dodged my question, UndercoverBoy. You don't feel like debating today?
I'm actually looking for resources right now, Micah.
Okay, cool. I look foreard to debating with you.
Okay, so here-a we go (pun intended):
It's true that countries with gun control have far less gun-related crime than those that don't. For example:
Gun Deaths - International Comparisons
Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):
Homicide
Suicide
Other (inc Accident)
USA (2001)
3.98
5.92
0.36
Italy (1997)
0.81
1.1
0.07
Switzerland (1998)
0.50
5.8
0.10
Canada (2002)
0.4
2.0
0.04
Finland (2003)
0.35
4.45
0.10
Australia (2001)
0.24
1.34
0.10
France (2001)
0.21
3.4
0.49
England/Wales (2002)
0.15
0.2
0.03
Scotland (2002)
0.06
0.2
0.02
Japan (2002)
0.02
0.04
0
Data taken from Cukier and Sidel (2006) The Global Gun Epidemic. Praeger Security International. Westport.
According to these statistics, the U.S. has nearly 10 times more gun-related homicides than Canada (which, if I'm not mistaken, has more guns per capita than the U.S.), 27 times more gun-related homicides than England and Wales, 66 times more than Scotland, and 200 times more than Japan (to be fair, I don't think Japan was ever steeped in gun control like Western civilizations are.) Clearly, guns have some role in the equation. I'm not asking for the outright banning of guns, like some of the countries in that chart do, but I don't think that any psychopathic lunatic should be able to get his hands on a gun. If there were stricter firearm laws for the U.S., I'm sure that your "how am I supposed to defend myself from an armed criminal" situation would be very less likely. And since I'm assuming that you are a stable person, the process of getting a gun license in Canada does not seem very difficult, and the extensive background checks and restricting activities to hunting and other sports have proven to be very effective.
Okay, here's the thing, though . . . ''any psychopathic lunatic'' WILL get his hands on a gun regardless of what the laws say. A criminal by definition is someone who breaks the law. Now, if you can give me a logical explanation for how we are supposed to keep the crooks from illegally obtaining a gun, then I might be more on your side. However, we both know that isn't possible. If someone has vicious intent he will either a) Get a gun anyway, regardless of law, or b) Find some other means besides a gun to wreak his havoc.
Telling the law-abiding citizens they can't own guns merely makes the odds that much more uneven. Even if the country would 100% outlaw guns, it wouldn't matter, because the criminals would smuggle them in somehow. I don't know about you, but I would much rather have the right to legally even my odds against crooks than simply trust them to do the right thing.
Now, another argument commonly made from your side of things is the stats showing the ratio between the amount of children accidentally killed by gunfire and the amount of burglars killed by gunfire. On its face, the numbers are considerably more high in child deaths, so that can seem pretty alarming. But take this into account: what that count does NOT include is the amount of burglars that were scared away or wounded by the guns but didn't die. That count is much, much higher than you might expect, also. If the families in those equations hadn't had guns in the house, they could have been robbed and/or killed, and even more innocent people would have died.
In the end, it comes down to this: people are going to kill others no matter what, and banning the current weapon of choice only means that innocent people can't own guns to defend themselves with, and the crooks can continue to break the law and buy guns illegally. Yes, kids would no longer be in danger of accidentally dying by their parents' guns, but more people on the whole would be in danger of dying defenselessly as well.
P.S. The more peace-loving countries you listed have less killings, by gun or otherwise, because the culture and attitudes are quite different from those of us living here in the USA. Correlation is NOT causation. Just because they happen to have stricter gun control laws doesn't necessarily mean that in and of itself is the reason for the lower crime rates. Crooks here have already tasted the glory of wielding guns, and they aren't gonna give that feeling up just because some bureaucrat tells them to. Just sayin'.
Posted By: Dorsalia
Date Posted: June 01 2010 at 20:23
It's not about banning guns, it's about educating minds. The guns per se aren't the problem, it's the ignorant trigger-happy morons who tend to wield them.
And, on the other hand, I think you can understand me for not wanting to go into a bar in Arizona anywhere in the near future.
------------- "Es ist übrigens unmöglich, eine Meinung zu haben, ohne dass es unerfreuliche Überschneidungen gibt. Die Grünen sind für den deutschen Wald, die NPD ebenfalls."
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: June 01 2010 at 20:45
JLocke wrote:
P.S. The more peace-loving countries you listed have less killings, by gun or otherwise, because the culture and attitudes are quite different from those of us living here in the USA. Correlation is NOT causation. Just because they happen to have stricter gun control laws doesn't necessarily mean that in and of itself is the reason for the lower crime rates. Crooks here have already tasted the glory of wielding guns, and they aren't gonna give that feeling up just because some bureaucrat tells them to. Just sayin'.
From last month's debate:
Epignosis wrote:
According to http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita - this source , the US ranks 24th (highest murder
rate), the UK ranks 46th, but my word, Switzerland ranks 56th, and gun
acquisition there as I understand it is quite easy (especially if it is a
private sale). With a population of just over 7.6 million, it's
estimated that there are well over a million firearms (possibly over two
million) in private homes alone. Is it possible their homicide rate is
so low because young Swiss men are expected to train for the militia at
age 20 and remain in a reserve capacity until 30, and that they are
required to bear arms?
In other words, it isn't the guns,
it's something very cultural.
Posted By: UndercoverBoy
Date Posted: June 01 2010 at 20:50
JLocke wrote:
Okay, here's the thing, though . . . ''any psychopathic lunatic'' WILL get his hands on a gun regardless of what the laws say. A criminal by definition is someone who breaks the law. Now, if you can give me a logical explanation for how we are supposed to keep the crooks from illegally obtaining a gun, then I might be more on your side. However, we both know that isn't possible. If someone has vicious intent he will either a) Get a gun anyway, regardless of law, or b) Find some other means besides a gun to wreak his havoc.
Criminals are still much more likely to get their hands on a gun when there isn't any law compared to when there is one. I know I shouldn't put my faith in that one statistic, but I have found other statistics on the Internet that all show that the U.S. still has way more gun-related homicides when compared to other countries. Can you prove to me that the law is just as ineffective as no law? From what I've seen, that clearly isn't the case. I've heard about other alternatives to guns, like the knife crimes in the UK. Still, while these acts of violence are terrible, they don't compare to the amount of death caused by guns in the U.S.
Telling the law-abiding citizens they can't own guns merely makes the odds that much more uneven. Even if the country would 100% outlaw guns, it wouldn't matter, because the criminals would smuggle them in somehow. I don't know about you, but I would much rather have the right to legally even my odds against crooks than simply trust them to do the right thing.
Again, prove to me that the law is as effective as the lack of a law, because it doesn't seem that way to me. You rely more on common beliefs (dare I say dogma?) rather than actual facts on the subject of guns. Personally, I would rather go through the process of getting a license than to trust all gun owners to do the right thing.
Now, another argument commonly made from your side of things is the stats showing the ratio between the amount of children accidentally killed by gunfire and the amount of burglars killed by gunfire. On its face, the numbers are considerably more high in child deaths, so that can seem pretty alarming. But take this into account: what that count does NOT include is the amount of burglars that were scared away or wounded by the guns but didn't die. That count is much, much higher than you might expect, also. If the families in those equations hadn't had guns in the house, they could have been robbed and/or killed, and even more innocent people would have died.
I've never heard of any cases where a family had to protect themselves from an armed criminal with a gun. Maybe these stories don't get reported, but in most countries with some form of gun control, burglars are much less likely to get their hands on a gun. Even if there was a rare case of an armed burglar vs. an unarmed victim, certainly there are better ways of defending yourself rather than using a weapon to kill.
In the end, it comes down to this: people are going to kill others no matter what, and banning the current weapon of choice only means that innocent people can't own guns to defend themselves with, and the crooks can continue to break the law and buy guns illegally. Yes, kids would no longer be in danger of accidentally dying by their parents' guns, but more people on the whole would be in danger of dying defenselessly as well.
People will kill each other no matter what, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't lessen the chances.
P.S. The more peace-loving countries you listed have less killings, by gun or otherwise, because the culture and attitudes are quite different from those of us living here in the USA. Correlation is NOT causation. Just because they happen to have stricter gun control laws doesn't necessarily mean that in and of itself is the reason for the lower crime rates. Crooks here have already tasted the glory of wielding guns, and they aren't gonna give that feeling up just because some bureaucrat tells them to. Just sayin'.
Well, you are right here. Even if we did have stricter gun laws, I do realize that we will still have higher rates of gun-related crimes compared to the more peace-loving countries because the U.S. is steeped in gun culture. Still, these statistics are too big to ignore. 10x? 26x? Loose gun laws clearly have a large role in this equation, even if it's not the only factor.
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: June 02 2010 at 06:23
UndercoverBoy wrote:
JLocke wrote:
Okay, here's the thing, though . . . ''any psychopathic lunatic'' WILL get his hands on a gun regardless of what the laws say. A criminal by definition is someone who breaks the law. Now, if you can give me a logical explanation for how we are supposed to keep the crooks from illegally obtaining a gun, then I might be more on your side. However, we both know that isn't possible. If someone has vicious intent he will either a) Get a gun anyway, regardless of law, or b) Find some other means besides a gun to wreak his havoc.
Criminals are still much more likely to get their hands on a gun when there isn't any law compared to when there is one. I know I shouldn't put my faith in that one statistic, but I have found other statistics on the Internet that all show that the U.S. still has way more gun-related homicides when compared to other countries. Can you prove to me that the law is just as ineffective as no law? From what I've seen, that clearly isn't the case. I've heard about other alternatives to guns, like the knife crimes in the UK. Still, while these acts of violence are terrible, they don't compare to the amount of death caused by guns in the U.S.
Telling the law-abiding citizens they can't own guns merely makes the odds that much more uneven. Even if the country would 100% outlaw guns, it wouldn't matter, because the criminals would smuggle them in somehow. I don't know about you, but I would much rather have the right to legally even my odds against crooks than simply trust them to do the right thing.
Again, prove to me that the law is as effective as the lack of a law, because it doesn't seem that way to me. You rely more on common beliefs (dare I say dogma?) rather than actual facts on the subject of guns. Personally, I would rather go through the process of getting a license than to trust all gun owners to do the right thing.
Now, another argument commonly made from your side of things is the stats showing the ratio between the amount of children accidentally killed by gunfire and the amount of burglars killed by gunfire. On its face, the numbers are considerably more high in child deaths, so that can seem pretty alarming. But take this into account: what that count does NOT include is the amount of burglars that were scared away or wounded by the guns but didn't die. That count is much, much higher than you might expect, also. If the families in those equations hadn't had guns in the house, they could have been robbed and/or killed, and even more innocent people would have died.
I've never heard of any cases where a family had to protect themselves from an armed criminal with a gun. Maybe these stories don't get reported, but in most countries with some form of gun control, burglars are much less likely to get their hands on a gun. Even if there was a rare case of an armed burglar vs. an unarmed victim, certainly there are better ways of defending yourself rather than using a weapon to kill.
In the end, it comes down to this: people are going to kill others no matter what, and banning the current weapon of choice only means that innocent people can't own guns to defend themselves with, and the crooks can continue to break the law and buy guns illegally. Yes, kids would no longer be in danger of accidentally dying by their parents' guns, but more people on the whole would be in danger of dying defenselessly as well.
People will kill each other no matter what, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't lessen the chances.
P.S. The more peace-loving countries you listed have less killings, by gun or otherwise, because the culture and attitudes are quite different from those of us living here in the USA. Correlation is NOT causation. Just because they happen to have stricter gun control laws doesn't necessarily mean that in and of itself is the reason for the lower crime rates. Crooks here have already tasted the glory of wielding guns, and they aren't gonna give that feeling up just because some bureaucrat tells them to. Just sayin'.
Well, you are right here. Even if we did have stricter gun laws, I do realize that we will still have higher rates of gun-related crimes compared to the more peace-loving countries because the U.S. is steeped in gun culture. Still, these statistics are too big to ignore. 10x? 26x? Loose gun laws clearly have a large role in this equation, even if it's not the only factor.
You rely on statistics that do not prove what you are trying to prove. You look at the numbers and make assumptions about them. As I said in another post, the issue is American culture, not the availability of guns.
"Even if there was a rare case of an armed burglar vs. an unarmed victim,
certainly there are better ways of defending yourself rather than using
a weapon to kill." Like how? Telling the armed criminal a joke and hoping he laughs so hard he forgets why he was there? Give me a break. My dad had a gun pulled on him in our front yard when I was a little boy. I am thankful his assailant was too drunk to aim properly. I'll tell you what would deter burglars- every house having a weapon and peaceful citizens trained in its use.
When I chased down a purse-snatcher in 2008, the culprit ran into some old man's yard. The man living there promptly came out with a gun and fired into the air. That put an end to the chase until the police could arrive.
"People will kill each other no matter what, but that doesn't mean we
shouldn't lessen the chances." By this logic, we should ban automobiles.
"Loose gun laws clearly have a large role in this equation, even if it's
not the only factor." You've shown statistics, but you have not shown evidence backing up your interpretation of those statistics. So, to do what you have not:
"Again, prove to me that the law is as effective as the lack of a law,
because it doesn't seem that way to me."
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: June 02 2010 at 10:09
Epignosis wrote:
UndercoverBoy wrote:
JLocke wrote:
Okay, here's the thing, though . . . ''any psychopathic lunatic'' WILL get his hands on a gun regardless of what the laws say. A criminal by definition is someone who breaks the law. Now, if you can give me a logical explanation for how we are supposed to keep the crooks from illegally obtaining a gun, then I might be more on your side. However, we both know that isn't possible. If someone has vicious intent he will either a) Get a gun anyway, regardless of law, or b) Find some other means besides a gun to wreak his havoc.
Criminals are still much more likely to get their hands on a gun when there isn't any law compared to when there is one. I know I shouldn't put my faith in that one statistic, but I have found other statistics on the Internet that all show that the U.S. still has way more gun-related homicides when compared to other countries. Can you prove to me that the law is just as ineffective as no law? From what I've seen, that clearly isn't the case. I've heard about other alternatives to guns, like the knife crimes in the UK. Still, while these acts of violence are terrible, they don't compare to the amount of death caused by guns in the U.S.
Telling the law-abiding citizens they can't own guns merely makes the odds that much more uneven. Even if the country would 100% outlaw guns, it wouldn't matter, because the criminals would smuggle them in somehow. I don't know about you, but I would much rather have the right to legally even my odds against crooks than simply trust them to do the right thing.
Again, prove to me that the law is as effective as the lack of a law, because it doesn't seem that way to me. You rely more on common beliefs (dare I say dogma?) rather than actual facts on the subject of guns. Personally, I would rather go through the process of getting a license than to trust all gun owners to do the right thing.
Now, another argument commonly made from your side of things is the stats showing the ratio between the amount of children accidentally killed by gunfire and the amount of burglars killed by gunfire. On its face, the numbers are considerably more high in child deaths, so that can seem pretty alarming. But take this into account: what that count does NOT include is the amount of burglars that were scared away or wounded by the guns but didn't die. That count is much, much higher than you might expect, also. If the families in those equations hadn't had guns in the house, they could have been robbed and/or killed, and even more innocent people would have died.
I've never heard of any cases where a family had to protect themselves from an armed criminal with a gun. Maybe these stories don't get reported, but in most countries with some form of gun control, burglars are much less likely to get their hands on a gun. Even if there was a rare case of an armed burglar vs. an unarmed victim, certainly there are better ways of defending yourself rather than using a weapon to kill.
In the end, it comes down to this: people are going to kill others no matter what, and banning the current weapon of choice only means that innocent people can't own guns to defend themselves with, and the crooks can continue to break the law and buy guns illegally. Yes, kids would no longer be in danger of accidentally dying by their parents' guns, but more people on the whole would be in danger of dying defenselessly as well.
People will kill each other no matter what, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't lessen the chances.
P.S. The more peace-loving countries you listed have less killings, by gun or otherwise, because the culture and attitudes are quite different from those of us living here in the USA. Correlation is NOT causation. Just because they happen to have stricter gun control laws doesn't necessarily mean that in and of itself is the reason for the lower crime rates. Crooks here have already tasted the glory of wielding guns, and they aren't gonna give that feeling up just because some bureaucrat tells them to. Just sayin'.
Well, you are right here. Even if we did have stricter gun laws, I do realize that we will still have higher rates of gun-related crimes compared to the more peace-loving countries because the U.S. is steeped in gun culture. Still, these statistics are too big to ignore. 10x? 26x? Loose gun laws clearly have a large role in this equation, even if it's not the only factor.
You rely on statistics that do not prove what you are trying to prove. You look at the numbers and make assumptions about them. As I said in another post, the issue is American culture, not the availability of guns.
"Even if there was a rare case of an armed burglar vs. an unarmed victim,
certainly there are better ways of defending yourself rather than using
a weapon to kill." Like how? Telling the armed criminal a joke and hoping he laughs so hard he forgets why he was there? Give me a break. My dad had a gun pulled on him in our front yard when I was a little boy. I am thankful his assailant was too drunk to aim properly. I'll tell you what would deter burglars- every house having a weapon and peaceful citizens trained in its use.
When I chased down a purse-snatcher in 2008, the culprit ran into some old man's yard. The man living there promptly came out with a gun and fired into the air. That put an end to the chase until the police could arrive.
"People will kill each other no matter what, but that doesn't mean we
shouldn't lessen the chances." By this logic, we should ban automobiles.
"Loose gun laws clearly have a large role in this equation, even if it's
not the only factor." You've shown statistics, but you have not shown evidence backing up your interpretation of those statistics. So, to do what you have not:
"Again, prove to me that the law is as effective as the lack of a law,
because it doesn't seem that way to me."
Don't think I could have made a better response, Robert.
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: June 02 2010 at 10:25
akamaisondufromage wrote:
Re: What has the Bible got to do with History?
Well you might have guessed I come from a nonbeliever back ground. I was joking to a certain extent - in that I don't believe any of it. Of course it has had an effect on History but why would you need a copy in your classroom if your teaching history and if you do where is your copy of The Koran and every other important religious book?
The Bible is history written down by flawed men so you really have to take it all with the proverbial grain of salt. It is most certainly colored by the writers understanding of things and personal perspective, but it would be foolish to dismiss the whole thing as being a complete work of fiction, just as it is to consider it to be 100% accurate.
------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: June 02 2010 at 10:33
Slartibartfast wrote:
akamaisondufromage wrote:
Re: What has the Bible got to do with History?
Well you might have guessed I come from a nonbeliever back ground. I was joking to a certain extent - in that I don't believe any of it. Of course it has had an effect on History but why would you need a copy in your classroom if your teaching history and if you do where is your copy of The Koran and every other important religious book?
The Bible is history written down by flawed men so you really have to take it all with the proverbial grain of salt. It is most certainly colored by the writers understanding of things and personal perspective, but it would be foolish to dismiss the whole thing as being a complete work of fiction.
The majority of major events that take place in The Bible have absolutely no other historical records outside of the religious writings (The Exodus events, Tower of Babel, King David, etc.), so I don't see any reason at all why it should be presented as history. If you choose to believe in it, you're acting on faith, and nothing else. If you want your faith talked about in schools, ask for it in a theology class. Don't teach 'intelligent design' as science, and don't teach Noah's Ark as history.
Any historical facts that may cross over into The Bible already have their place in other documents and books, and of course will be taught from time to time, which is proper. But just because The Bible mixes its narrative with real places and events doesn't make The Bible itself credible enough to be considered 'history'. Spider-Man takes place in New York. Does that mean Peter Parker is real, and should be discussed in history class? Of course not.
Posted By: UndercoverBoy
Date Posted: June 02 2010 at 10:37
Epignosis wrote:
You rely on statistics that do not prove what you are trying to prove. You look at the numbers and make assumptions about them. As I said in another post, the issue is American culture, not the availability of guns.
I refuse to believe that culture is the only factor in this equation. In fact, Canada and the U.S.'s amount of gun ownership do not differ that much. In 1995, 25% of adults owned a gun in the U.S., and 22% of all households in Canada have a gun. Most of these guns are hunting rifles, which actually have a practical purpose other than to kill other humans. So clearly, gun culture is the only factor. I can only assume that if culture is the only reason why the U.S. has 10 times more gun-related homicides than Canada, then it must be because of a culture of crime, and you wouldn't want to admit that the U.S. is less moral than Canada, would you?
"Even if there was a rare case of an armed burglar vs. an unarmed victim,
certainly there are better ways of defending yourself rather than using
a weapon to kill." Like how? Telling the armed criminal a joke and hoping he laughs so hard he forgets why he was there? Give me a break. My dad had a gun pulled on him in our front yard when I was a little boy. I am thankful his assailant was too drunk to aim properly. I'll tell you what would deter burglars- every house having a weapon and peaceful citizens trained in its use.
Good, I might agree with you if we guaranteed everyone who owned a gun was peaceful, but that can't happen with this current law. It is true that Canada has more burglaries than the U.S. (about 2/7 of a difference), but it still doesn't compare to the massive difference between gun-related homicides between the two countries. I don't know about you, but I consider homicides much worse than burglaries. For alternative methods of protecting yourself, I think Walter said it best in an earlier thread:
WalterDigsTunes wrote:
Pepper spray? Knives? Self-defense classes? You know, things for personal protection rather than lobbing ammunition?
Not as effective, for sure. But these cases are still less likely to happen if these burglars don't have guns.
When I chased down a purse-snatcher in 2008, the culprit ran into some old man's yard. The man living there promptly came out with a gun and fired into the air. That put an end to the chase until the police could arrive.
Okay, but as I said, the crime of a burglary doesn't compare to the crime of a homicide.
"People will kill each other no matter what, but that doesn't mean we
shouldn't lessen the chances." By this logic, we should ban automobiles.
Automobiles have a use other than to kill.
"Loose gun laws clearly have a large role in this equation, even if it's
not the only factor." You've shown statistics, but you have not shown evidence backing up your interpretation of those statistics. So, to do what you have not:
"Again, prove to me that the law is as effective as the lack of a law,
because it doesn't seem that way to me."
Nice article, really. I think the problem is that these laws were not strict enough. Guns should be better policed, made harder to obtain, and the crime with harsher punishments. Now, for my evidence:
http://www.vpc.org/press/1006gundeath.htm
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: June 02 2010 at 10:44
JLocke wrote:
Slartibartfast wrote:
akamaisondufromage wrote:
Re: What has the Bible got to do with History?
Well you might have guessed I come from a nonbeliever back ground. I was joking to a certain extent - in that I don't believe any of it. Of course it has had an effect on History but why would you need a copy in your classroom if your teaching history and if you do where is your copy of The Koran and every other important religious book?
The Bible is history written down by flawed men so you really have to take it all with the proverbial grain of salt. It is most certainly colored by the writers understanding of things and personal perspective, but it would be foolish to dismiss the whole thing as being a complete work of fiction.
The majority of major events that take place in The Bible have absolutely no other historical records outside of the religious writings (The Exodus events, Tower of Babel, King David, etc.), so I don't see any reason at all why it should be presented as history. If you choose to believe in it, you're acting on faith, and nothing else. If you want your faith talked about in schools, ask for it in a theology class. Don't teach 'intelligent design' as science, and don't teach Noah's Ark as history.
Any historical facts that may cross over into The Bible already have their place in other documents and books, and of course will be taught from time to time, which is proper. But just because The Bible mixes its narrative with real places and events doesn't make The Bible itself credible enough to be considered 'history'. Spider-Man takes place in New York. Does that mean Peter Parker is real, and should be discussed in history class? Of course not.
You completely missed the point, my friend.
I'd advocate teaching the Bible in public schools not because of any measure of historical accuracy, but because of historical importance.
For example, how would American history students understand slave narratives and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s speeches reasonably well if they didn't understand the concepts of the Exodus, the River Jordan, the promised land, and other biblical themes that were frequently alluded to?
Let me give you an academic parallel: Any respectable university program for literature will have a course on William Shakespeare. Why? It isn't that Shakespeare is a wonderful author or the authority of all things literary, but it's because Shakespeare influenced not only legions of other writers (of fiction and non-fiction), but our culture and our very language, probably more so than any other writer.
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: June 02 2010 at 10:59
UndercoverBoy wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
You rely on statistics that do not prove what you are trying to prove. You look at the numbers and make assumptions about them. As I said in another post, the issue is American culture, not the availability of guns.
I refuse to believe that culture is the only factor in this equation. In fact, Canada and the U.S.'s amount of gun ownership do not differ that much. In 1995, 25% of adults owned a gun in the U.S., and 22% of all households in Canada have a gun. Most of these guns are hunting rifles, which actually have a practical purpose other than to kill other humans. So clearly, gun culture is the only factor. I can only assume that if culture is the only reason why the U.S. has 10 times more gun-related homicides than Canada, then it must be because of a culture of crime, and you wouldn't want to admit that the U.S. is less moral than Canada, would you?
He asks you to give specific proof, yet you simply spout off more statistics and percents. It's unreal. And yes, America has one of the most diverse cultures in the free world, so obviously the chances of violent behavior are gonna be quite high when compared to our peace-loving neighbors. And of course your stats and comparisons amount to not much of anything when you realize that the population of Canada is around 30 Million, while there are nearly 400 Million people living in the US. As is the case with all the comparisons you have made thus far.
When you rely on nothing but charts and stats to make your arguments for you, things eventually stop adding up logically. So give me a real-life situation where not owning a gun has saved someone from an assailant. And make sure that story shows beyond doubt that not owning a gun was the exact reason for the victim's survival. You find that story, and I'll jump over the moon on a flaming gay cow.
UndercoverBoy wrote:
"Even if there was a rare case of an armed burglar vs. an unarmed victim,
certainly there are better ways of defending yourself rather than using
a weapon to kill." Like how? Telling the armed criminal a joke and hoping he laughs so hard he forgets why he was there? Give me a break. My dad had a gun pulled on him in our front yard when I was a little boy. I am thankful his assailant was too drunk to aim properly. I'll tell you what would deter burglars- every house having a weapon and peaceful citizens trained in its use.
Good, I might agree with you if we guaranteed everyone who owned a gun was peaceful, but that can't happen with this current law. It is true that Canada has more burglaries than the U.S. (about 2/7 of a difference), but it still doesn't compare to the massive difference between gun-related homicides between the two countries. I don't know about you, but I consider homicides much worse than burglaries. For alternative methods of protecting yourself, I think Walter said it best in an earlier thread:
WalterDigsTunes wrote:
Pepper spray? Knives? Self-defense classes? You know, things for personal protection rather than lobbing ammunition?
Not as effective, for sure. But these cases are still less likely to happen if these burglars don't have guns.
Again, you're giving statistics and no real-life situations. And you're also counting on the bad guys not owning guns. That isn't gonna happen, friend.
UndercoverBoy wrote:
When I chased down a purse-snatcher in 2008, the culprit ran into some old man's yard. The man living there promptly came out with a gun and fired into the air. That put an end to the chase until the police could arrive.
Okay, but as I said, the crime of a burglary doesn't compare to the crime of a homicide.
No kidding. It doesn't change the fact that a gun wielded by a citizen stopped a crime. This particular incident may not have been as serious as others, but a gun was still what ultimately controlled the situation. And it happens all the time. But of course, statistics won't tell you that. All they'll tell you is how many people die by gunfire. When you over-simplify in this manner, the whole purpose of bearing arms gets lost entirely.
UndercoverBoy wrote:
"People will kill each other no matter what, but that doesn't mean we
shouldn't lessen the chances." By this logic, we should ban automobiles.
Automobiles have a use other than to kill.
When put in the hands of citizens. guns are meant for defense, not murder. I don't really see how you can put such a broad definition on them like you just did.
UndercoverBoy wrote:
"Loose gun laws clearly have a large role in this equation, even if it's
not the only factor." You've shown statistics, but you have not shown evidence backing up your interpretation of those statistics. So, to do what you have not:
"Again, prove to me that the law is as effective as the lack of a law,
because it doesn't seem that way to me."
Nice article, really. I think the problem is that these laws were not strict enough. Guns should be better policed, made harder to obtain, and the crime with harsher punishments. Now, for my evidence:
http://www.vpc.org/press/1006gundeath.htm
I haven't even looked at your article yet, but I am willing to bet money that it will either be just another faceless statistic, or a very left-leaning political article. I'll get back to you however once I read it for myself.
EDIT: Just as I suspected. More charts and not much else. Robert and I have both requested that you present us with more than just numbers to back up your position. So far you have failed to do so. Why is that? And I actually was right about both my suspicions, as that website is clearly pushing an agenda. I want non-biased reporting that gives arguments for both sides. Real arguments, not charts and numbers. You're being lazy in trying to back up your position.
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: June 02 2010 at 11:03
Epignosis wrote:
JLocke wrote:
Slartibartfast wrote:
akamaisondufromage wrote:
Re: What has the Bible got to do with History?
Well you might have guessed I come from a nonbeliever back ground. I was joking to a certain extent - in that I don't believe any of it. Of course it has had an effect on History but why would you need a copy in your classroom if your teaching history and if you do where is your copy of The Koran and every other important religious book?
The Bible is history written down by flawed men so you really have to take it all with the proverbial grain of salt. It is most certainly colored by the writers understanding of things and personal perspective, but it would be foolish to dismiss the whole thing as being a complete work of fiction.
The majority of major events that take place in The Bible have absolutely no other historical records outside of the religious writings (The Exodus events, Tower of Babel, King David, etc.), so I don't see any reason at all why it should be presented as history. If you choose to believe in it, you're acting on faith, and nothing else. If you want your faith talked about in schools, ask for it in a theology class. Don't teach 'intelligent design' as science, and don't teach Noah's Ark as history.
Any historical facts that may cross over into The Bible already have their place in other documents and books, and of course will be taught from time to time, which is proper. But just because The Bible mixes its narrative with real places and events doesn't make The Bible itself credible enough to be considered 'history'. Spider-Man takes place in New York. Does that mean Peter Parker is real, and should be discussed in history class? Of course not.
You completely missed the point, my friend.
I'd advocate teaching the Bible in public schools not because of any measure of historical accuracy, but because of historical importance.
For example, how would American history students understand slave narratives and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s speeches reasonably well if they didn't understand the concepts of the Exodus, the River Jordan, the promised land, and other biblical themes that were frequently alluded to?
Let me give you an academic parallel: Any respectable university program for literature will have a course on William Shakespeare. Why? It isn't that Shakespeare is a wonderful author or the authority of all things literary, but it's because Shakespeare influenced not only legions of other writers (of fiction and non-fiction), but our culture and our very language, probably more so than any other writer.
I was responding to Slarti, not you. He clearly said that The Bible was 'history'. I was giving the reasons why many people disagree with that statement. I have no issue with where you are coming from at all. I still think a theology section of the class would be the best place for it, but certainly The Bible is a very culturally relevant book, and presenting it in the fashion you suggest is quite reasonable, and maybe even necessary.
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: June 02 2010 at 11:31
Trying to just say something on this debate, I have a question.
I work in Best Buy, you know. The other day a guy bought like 5000 worth of tv equipment. My manager's last name is Glock. This other guy joked about the last name being the same as a famous gun. Talking for a few minutes this guy, a lawyer, ended up taking both the manager and I into a demo room to show us the gun he was packing: a glock automatic with red laser pointer (or whatever is called). He has license to carry it anywhere, even in a retail store. He even told us who to go to to get such license.
Do you really think is wise to allow people to carry firearms in the streets? I can understand inside homes, but outside? Everybody has a breaking point. Imagine this guy, apparently very reasonable, one day has a traffic incident and blows up and grabs his laser-pointer gun and shows that "he's packing". Is this what we want? A new version of the wild wild west? What do you think about carrying guns outside homes?
-------------
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: June 02 2010 at 11:41
The T wrote:
Trying to just say something on this debate, I have a question.
I work in Best Buy, you know. The other day a guy bought like 5000 worth of tv equipment. My manager's last name is Glock. This other guy joked about the last name being the same as a famous gun. Talking for a few minutes this guy, a lawyer, ended up taking both the manager and I into a demo room to show us the gun he was packing: a glock automatic with red laser pointer (or whatever is called). He has license to carry it anywhere, even in a retail store. He even told us who to go to to get such license.
Do you really think is wise to allow people to carry firearms in the streets? I can understand inside homes, but outside? Everybody has a breaking point. Imagine this guy, apparently very reasonable, one day has a traffic incident and blows up and grabs his laser-pointer gun and shows that "he's packing". Is this what we want? A new version of the wild wild west? What do you think about carrying guns outside homes?
I'll let Suzanna Hupp answer that.
For what it's worth, I'll steal a quote I read once online: if given a choice, I would rather be in a room full of law-abiding armed citizenry and one mad gunman than in a room full of law-abiding unarmed citizenry and one mad gunman.
Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: June 02 2010 at 11:44
Teo, honestly, I would prefer it if no one except police had guns in public. But that's only IF no one had guns. Given the fact that all the gangbangers and crook have them, then yes, I believe the more good people carrying the better. Because there are many documented cases of gun toting/gun using criminals being stopped by good citizens who were packing. Lives have been saved because of it.
So, figure out a way to get them away from criminals, and I'll join you. Until then, I hope you buy a gun Teo, because maybe someday you'll save me
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: June 02 2010 at 11:46
JLocke wrote:
The T wrote:
Trying to just say something on this debate, I have a question.
I work in Best Buy, you know. The other day a guy bought like 5000 worth of tv equipment. My manager's last name is Glock. This other guy joked about the last name being the same as a famous gun. Talking for a few minutes this guy, a lawyer, ended up taking both the manager and I into a demo room to show us the gun he was packing: a glock automatic with red laser pointer (or whatever is called). He has license to carry it anywhere, even in a retail store. He even told us who to go to to get such license.
Do you really think is wise to allow people to carry firearms in the streets? I can understand inside homes, but outside? Everybody has a breaking point. Imagine this guy, apparently very reasonable, one day has a traffic incident and blows up and grabs his laser-pointer gun and shows that "he's packing". Is this what we want? A new version of the wild wild west? What do you think about carrying guns outside homes?
I'll let Suzanna Hupp answer that.
For what it's worth, I'll steal a quote I read once online: if given a choice, I would rather be in a room full of law-abiding armed citizenry and one mad gunman than in a room full of law-abiding unarmed citizenry and one mad gunman.
I hate youtube videos as answers! (especially when I'm listening to music).
I'll check that out in exactly 6.14 minutes. But the problem with your point of view is, from my perspective, that we're assuming that people owning guns are law-abiding, and not even that, that they all are psychologically-stable. I think when we're in the presence of things as dangerous as firearms, is better (safer) to assume everybody is a potential lunatic.
-------------
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: June 02 2010 at 11:49
Finnforest wrote:
Teo, honestly, I would prefer it if no one except police had guns in public. But that's only IF no one had guns. Given the fact that all the gangbangers and crook have them, then yes, I believe the more good people carrying the better. Because there are many documented cases of gun toting/gun using criminals being stopped by good citizens who were packing. Lives have been saved because of it.
So, figure out a way to get them away from criminals, and I'll join you. Until then, I hope you buy a gun Teo, because maybe someday you'll save me
I'm so surrounded by guns (Florida is very open about that... I've seen a few people "packing") that just for my protection I guess one day I'll get one .
But even from my own perspective. I know I can explode. I know I shouldn't carry a gun, not in the highways at least. It's a risk for me and for the other guy. I repeat: we're assuming everybody can always keep it cool, and no, everybody can actually eventually lose it is more like it.
I see it as a danger. I understand it inside homes. I can even be for it. But not outside. Never.
-------------
Posted By: UndercoverBoy
Date Posted: June 02 2010 at 11:55
Finnforest wrote:
Teo, honestly, I would prefer it if no one except police had guns in public. But that's only IF no one had guns. Given the fact that all the gangbangers and crook have them, then yes, I believe the more good people carrying the better. Because there are many documented cases of gun toting/gun using criminals being stopped by good citizens who were packing. Lives have been saved because of it.
So, figure out a way to get them away from criminals, and I'll join you. Until then, I hope you buy a gun Teo, because maybe someday you'll save me
Yes, but is it really necessary for anyone to carry a gun? There must be better ways to protect yourself like self-defense classes or pepper spray rather than carrying a weapon whose main use is to kill. If we were stricter on gun laws, I'm sure that those gangbangers and crooks may be less likely to be carrying around firearms, having the ability to kill anyone they desire.
I think I'll just use this quote I made up: I would rather be safe knowing that, for the most part, criminals are not carrying guns than let them have one without any restrictions just so I can have more freedom.
(Don't worry, Micah. I haven't forgotten about you.)
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: June 02 2010 at 12:00
UndercoverBoy wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
You rely on statistics that do not prove what you are trying to prove. You look at the numbers and make assumptions about them. As I said in another post, the issue is American culture, not the availability of guns.
I refuse to believe that culture is the only factor in this equation. In fact, Canada and the U.S.'s amount of gun ownership do not differ that much. In 1995, 25% of adults owned a gun in the U.S., and 22% of all households in Canada have a gun. Most of these guns are hunting rifles, which actually have a practical purpose other than to kill other humans. So clearly, gun culture is the only factor. I can only assume that if culture is the only reason why the U.S. has 10 times more gun-related homicides than Canada, then it must be because of a culture of crime, and you wouldn't want to admit that the U.S. is less moral than Canada, would you?
More numbers, but no evidence to demonstrate your interpretation of those numbers. You are forgetting the huge cultural diversity in the US, as well as prolific gang activity (which constitutes a large number of our homicides).
"Even if there was a rare case of an armed burglar vs. an unarmed victim,
certainly there are better ways of defending yourself rather than using
a weapon to kill." Like how? Telling the armed criminal a joke and hoping he laughs so hard he forgets why he was there? Give me a break. My dad had a gun pulled on him in our front yard when I was a little boy. I am thankful his assailant was too drunk to aim properly. I'll tell you what would deter burglars- every house having a weapon and peaceful citizens trained in its use.
Good, I might agree with you if we guaranteed everyone who owned a gun was peaceful, but that can't happen with this current law. It is true that Canada has more burglaries than the U.S. (about 2/7 of a difference), but it still doesn't compare to the massive difference between gun-related homicides between the two countries. I don't know about you, but I consider homicides much worse than burglaries. For alternative methods of protecting yourself, I think Walter said it best in an earlier thread:
WalterDigsTunes wrote:
Pepper spray? Knives? Self-defense classes? You know, things for personal protection rather than lobbing ammunition?
Not as effective, for sure. But these cases are still less likely to happen if these burglars don't have guns.
Your assertion that homicide is worse than burglary doesn't demonstrate that higher gun ownership leads to more homicide. I am adamant that it is a cultural issue, not a gun-ownership issue.
And how do you guarantee that burglars don't have guns? Breaking and entering is illegal...but let's see here...burglars do it anyway.
By the way, I'm not looking to minimize harm on someone who poses a threat to my family. I will maim and kill before I allow the same to be done to my wife and children. I am loyal to their welfare, not that of a criminal.
When I chased down a purse-snatcher in 2008, the culprit ran into some old man's yard. The man living there promptly came out with a gun and fired into the air. That put an end to the chase until the police could arrive.
Okay, but as I said, the crime of a burglary doesn't compare to the crime of a homicide.
And what's your point? No one was murdered.
"People will kill each other no matter what, but that doesn't mean we
shouldn't lessen the chances." By this logic, we should ban automobiles.
Automobiles have a use other than to kill.
I have no problem with a device that is meant to kill. I like being protected against those who would do me or my family harm.
"Loose gun laws clearly have a large role in this equation, even if it's
not the only factor." You've shown statistics, but you have not shown evidence backing up your interpretation of those statistics. So, to do what you have not:
"Again, prove to me that the law is as effective as the lack of a law,
because it doesn't seem that way to me."
Nice article, really. I think the problem is that these laws were not strict enough. Guns should be better policed, made harder to obtain, and the crime with harsher punishments. Now, for my evidence:
http://www.vpc.org/press/1006gundeath.htm
All that article does is say the same thing you are saying without providing evidence for the claim. It is a claim which I find laughably oversimplified:
VPC Legislative
Director
Kristen Rand states, “The equation is simple. More guns lead to
more gun
death, but limiting exposure to firearms saves lives.”
Note that your article doesn't provide evidence that this is true. It merely asserts it in post-hoc fashion.
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: June 02 2010 at 12:02
^Precisely UndercoverBoy. It's so easy to get guns on the US that even armed illegal groups outside of the country (specifically, drug cartels in Mexico) benefit from it. They bring to the US the drug that people use, the US sends to Mexico the guns that the cartels use.
Also, JLocke, I heard the youtube video. I guess the attack on a guy by a mob in the midst of riots is not the answer, is it? (the rest pertains more to having guns inside homes, my question was about packing them outside). Riots don't happen that often in the US
-------------
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: June 02 2010 at 12:04
The T wrote:
I see it as a danger. I understand it inside homes. I can even be for it. But not outside. Never.
That view is dangerously inconsistent, T.
You know whom I get angry at the most out of everybody I come in contact with? My spouse. She infuriates me sometimes. My son is starting to piss me off too.
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: June 02 2010 at 12:07
UndercoverBoy wrote:
I think I'll just use this quote I made up: I would rather be safe knowing that, for the most part, criminals are not carrying guns than let them have one without any restrictions just so I can have more freedom.
It's already illegal to murder, rape, steal, drink and drive, and abuse animals.
Some people choose to do it anyway.
Illegal drugs are illegal- yet the law doesn't stop people from acquiring them.
(I love your phrase that implicitly acknowledges this by the way: "for the most part").
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: June 02 2010 at 12:08
Epignosis wrote:
The T wrote:
I see it as a danger. I understand it inside homes. I can even be for it. But not outside. Never.
That view is dangerously inconsistent, T.
You know whom I get angry at the most out of everybody I come in contact with? My spouse. She infuriates me sometimes. My son is starting to piss me off too.
No, I'm not going to shoot them.
Well, but outside of your home usually is not your wife and son whom you confront.
And don't believe you can always be 100% cool. Never believe that. None can. You also can break.
-------------
Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: June 02 2010 at 12:08
UndercoverBoy wrote:
Finnforest wrote:
Teo, honestly, I would prefer it if no one except police had guns in public. But that's only IF no one had guns. Given the fact that all the gangbangers and crook have them, then yes, I believe the more good people carrying the better. Because there are many documented cases of gun toting/gun using criminals being stopped by good citizens who were packing. Lives have been saved because of it.
So, figure out a way to get them away from criminals, and I'll join you. Until then, I hope you buy a gun Teo, because maybe someday you'll save me
Yes, but is it really necessary for anyone to carry a gun? [not necessary, but I support their right to if they choose] There must be better ways to protect yourself like self-defense classes or pepper spray rather than carrying a weapon whose main use is to kill. If we were stricter on gun laws, I'm sure that those gangbangers and crooks may be less likely to be carrying around firearms, having the ability to kill anyone they desire. [as I said, if you can get the guns from their hands, I'll join in the euphoria of the gun free street. solving the problem will require some tough choices on the front end. we'll need to allow coppers to "get it done" without hampering them with political correctness. that will never happen.]
Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: June 02 2010 at 12:09
That's a great point. If you carry such a temper, that bad drivers or other jerks could cause you to take their life, then you have anger management issues that go beyond the gun debate.
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: June 02 2010 at 12:12
The T wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
The T wrote:
I see it as a danger. I understand it inside homes. I can even be for it. But not outside. Never.
That view is dangerously inconsistent, T.
You know whom I get angry at the most out of everybody I come in contact with? My spouse. She infuriates me sometimes. My son is starting to piss me off too.
No, I'm not going to shoot them.
Well, but outside of your home usually is not your wife and son whom you confront.
And don't believe you can always be 100% cool. Never believe that. None can. You also can break.
Very well. But then it becomes a question of degree. How often would people snap, and would a few people snapping outweigh the benefit of people carrying weapons to protect themselves?
After all, some people snap while driving a car, and use their cars to cause physical harm to others. Should cars outside your home be banned?
I mean, after all, police officers and army men sometimes lose their cool. Should they be prohibited from carrying weapons as well?
Posted By: Dorsalia
Date Posted: June 02 2010 at 12:12
Arizona approves bill allowing guns in bars
updated 11:43 a.m. ET,Wed., July 1,
2009
PHOENIX - The Arizona
Senate has given final approval to a bill that would allow people with
concealed weapons permits to carry a gun into a business that serves
alcohol.
The 19-8
vote completes legislative action on the bill and sends it to Republican
Gov. Jan Brewer. She has not said whether she will sign it, but she has
long been a supporter of gun rights.
The measure has pitted powerful groups representing
gun and bar owners against each other, sparking a debate about whether
guns and alcohol can coexist without bloodshed.
(...)
Like I said, you won't be seeing me going into any bars in Arizona in the near future. Especially with my loud mouth. I still remember one incident with an inebriated ex-soldier who had supposedly served in Iraq shouting at me that he "f**ked for America and killed for America".
Cheers.
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: June 02 2010 at 12:18
Finnforest wrote:
Teo, honestly, I would prefer it if no one except police had guns in public. But that's only IF no one had guns. Given the fact that all the gangbangers and crook have them, then yes, I believe the more good people carrying the better. Because there are many documented cases of gun toting/gun using criminals being stopped by good citizens who were packing. Lives have been saved because of it.
So, figure out a way to get them away from criminals, and I'll join you. Until then, I hope you buy a gun Teo, because maybe someday you'll save me
Well, if this is going to turn into a gun discussion I will offer up the following: 1. The Second Amendment to the US Constitution does not say people can have whatever guns they want under any circumstances. It is about a form of national guard in a time where we had no national guard...militia. We have a national guard now or at least we did until they were mostly sent overseas to fight pointless wars. 2. I think people should have the right to bear arms for self defense. I'm a bit leery about giving people unbridled rights to have concealed weapons in public places. It's a recipe for havoc. Let's just hope the non crazy people are better armed than the crazy ones. 3. I'll tell y'all number 3 as soon as I think of it. Oh wait, thanks to Dorsalia, as long as everyone is sufficiently drunk all the time, there should be no problems.
------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: June 02 2010 at 12:20
^Yeah, alcohol and guns, fantastic combination.
-------------
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: June 02 2010 at 12:22
The T wrote:
^Yeah, alcohol and guns, fantastic combination.
Yeah, I'm thinking people should also be required to be dosed with LSD while using guns and alcohol.
------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
Posted By: A Person
Date Posted: June 02 2010 at 12:25
Slartibartfast wrote:
The T wrote:
^Yeah, alcohol and guns, fantastic combination.
Yeah, I'm thinking people should also be required to be dosed with LSD while using guns and alcohol.
I don't know if that would be much better. Maybe tranquilizers would work.
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: June 02 2010 at 12:25
Epignosis wrote:
The T wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
The T wrote:
I see it as a danger. I understand it inside homes. I can even be for it. But not outside. Never.
That view is dangerously inconsistent, T.
You know whom I get angry at the most out of everybody I come in contact with? My spouse. She infuriates me sometimes. My son is starting to piss me off too.
No, I'm not going to shoot them.
Well, but outside of your home usually is not your wife and son whom you confront.
And don't believe you can always be 100% cool. Never believe that. None can. You also can break.
Very well. But then it becomes a question of degree. How often would people snap, and would a few people snapping outweigh the benefit of people carrying weapons to protect themselves? So what was that benefit? Anyway, there should be high standards and requirements to allow people to carry guns, if such a decision is impossible to repel.
After all, some people snap while driving a car, and use their cars to cause physical harm to others. Should cars outside your home be banned? Please Robert that comparison is not up to your standards!
I mean, after all, police officers and army men sometimes lose their cool. Should they be prohibited from carrying weapons as well? At least the first one are subject to tests and checks. Of course every now and then even those can snap, but it's relatively a minor occurrence.
-------------
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: June 02 2010 at 12:26
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: June 02 2010 at 12:26
A Person wrote:
Slartibartfast wrote:
The T wrote:
^Yeah, alcohol and guns, fantastic combination.
Yeah, I'm thinking people should also be required to be dosed with LSD while using guns and alcohol.
I don't know if that would be much better. Maybe tranquilizers would work.
Guns and xanax... or better, guns and weed, so people end up hugging each other
-------------
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: June 02 2010 at 12:28
Epignosis wrote:
The T wrote:
^Yeah, alcohol and guns, fantastic combination.
Damn, should I not be owning a gun?
You shouldn't be carrying a gun when you're drinking in a room full of drunk people who are probably also carrying guns...
-------------
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: June 02 2010 at 12:30
The T wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
The T wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
The T wrote:
I see it as a danger. I understand it inside homes. I can even be for it. But not outside. Never.
That view is dangerously inconsistent, T.
You know whom I get angry at the most out of everybody I come in contact with? My spouse. She infuriates me sometimes. My son is starting to piss me off too.
No, I'm not going to shoot them.
Well, but outside of your home usually is not your wife and son whom you confront.
And don't believe you can always be 100% cool. Never believe that. None can. You also can break.
Very well. But then it becomes a question of degree. How often would people snap, and would a few people snapping outweigh the benefit of people carrying weapons to protect themselves? So what was that benefit? Anyway, there should be high standards and requirements to allow people to carry guns, if such a decision is impossible to repel. The benefit of being able to adequately defend yourself and your party wherever you go. And I have no problem with standards and requirements so long as the average, law-abiding citizen can acquire a gun in a timely manner.
After all, some people snap while driving a car, and use their cars to cause physical harm to others. Should cars outside your home be banned? Please Robert that comparison is not up to your standards! I thought it made for a funny image.
I mean, after all, police officers and army men sometimes lose their cool. Should they be prohibited from carrying weapons as well? At least the first one are subject to tests and checks. Of course every now and then even those can snap, but it's relatively a minor occurrence. I would argue that anyone snapping would be a relatively minor occurrence, but I could be wrong.
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: June 02 2010 at 12:40
Robert, you have said it yourself in many times: this new generation of kids and youngsters think they can do everything, think they're entitled to everything, and are much less aware of the other person's rights than previous generations. You have talked about how in schools kinds cannot be made to feel sad or bad because of low grades, of how we teach everything but empathy (that last one is mine, but it's true). Now, giving free access to guns to un-empathetic self-absorbed people is the answer? That's the people who ina few days will benefit of freedom to access guns after all...
-------------
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: June 02 2010 at 12:43
The T wrote:
You shouldn't be carrying a gun when you're drinking in a room full of drunk people who are probably also carrying guns...
What could possibly go wrong? Actually I'm OK with that as long as the establishment puts a really big sign out front warning/inviting you in.
------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: June 02 2010 at 12:44
Slartibartfast wrote:
The T wrote:
You shouldn't be carrying a gun when you're drinking in a room full of drunk people who are probably also carrying guns...
What could possibly go wrong?
Someone might be served vodka instead of bourbon!
-------------
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: June 02 2010 at 12:51
The T wrote:
Robert, you have said it yourself in many times: this new generation of kids and youngsters think they can do everything, think they're entitled to everything, and are much less aware of the other person's rights than previous generations. You have talked about how in schools kinds cannot be made to feel sad or bad because of low grades, of how we teach everything but empathy (that last one is mine, but it's true). Now, giving free access to guns to un-empathetic self-absorbed people is the answer? That's the people who ina few days will benefit of freedom to access guns after all...
I'd like you to notice that I don't disagree with setting basic regulations for gun ownership. My point about banning guns is that if we do, only criminals can get guns, and that makes me a little nervous.
But regardless of how young people fare in school, they have a right to life and therefore a right to protect themselves from those who would take it from them.
Yes, I disagree with this generation's attitude at large, but I still support their right to own a gun if they so choose. If a young person is not a felon, I would not have them penalized just because his overall demeanor is distasteful.
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: June 02 2010 at 12:56
I'm on the side of prevention and I think not allowing guns outside of homes helps that goal, but maybe I'm wrong too. If guns are to be allowed, there have to be high standards, not of wealth, but of psychological well-being, to grant licenses. I think our disagreement is more a matter of degree.
-------------
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: June 02 2010 at 13:00
The T wrote:
I'm on the side of prevention and I think not allowing guns outside of homes helps that goal, but maybe I'm wrong too. If guns are to be allowed, there have to be high standards, not of wealth, but of psychological well-being, to grant licenses. I think our disagreement is more a matter of degree.
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: June 02 2010 at 13:04
I've heard that Hapenis is a warm gun, bang bang shoot shoot.
------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: June 02 2010 at 13:04
I guess you've made my point. Of course we all need assault weapons in the supermarket! (lest that damn light-blue-wearing woman take too long to read soda's nutrition facts)
-------------
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: June 02 2010 at 13:13
The T wrote:
I guess you've made my point. Of course we all need assault weapons in the supermarket! (lest that damn light-blue-wearing woman take too long to read soda's nutrition facts)
It's a picture of a Swiss militiaman. Swiss men are to be trained for service at 20 and remain in reserves until 30. They carry weapons everywhere and can keep their service weapon after age 30, only having the automatic capability removed.
For those interested in the stats, Switzerland is one of the lowest ranking countries in the world in terms of murders.
We have major cultural issues to overcome before any violence is diminished here in the US. Legislation won't really help this (and, as has been seen, can make it worse).
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: June 02 2010 at 13:23
Epignosis wrote:
The T wrote:
I guess you've made my point. Of course we all need assault weapons in the supermarket! (lest that damn light-blue-wearing woman take too long to read soda's nutrition facts)
It's a picture of a Swiss militiaman. Swiss men are to be trained for service at 20 and remain in reserves until 30. They carry weapons everywhere and can keep their service weapon after age 30, only having the automatic capability removed. I think I understand why their cheese has holes.
For those interested in the stats, Switzerland is one of the lowest ranking countries in the world in terms of murders. Look dude it is a small country. I really don't think guns deserve any credit for the murder rate there. I really think country size does.
We have major cultural issues to overcome before any violence is diminished here in the US. Legislation won't really help this (and, as has been seen, can make it worse). I'm kind of thinking a diverse nation such as ours will never overcome our cultural issues, not that we shouldn't try to all get along.
------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: June 02 2010 at 13:31
Slartibartfast wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
The T wrote:
I guess you've made my point. Of course we all need assault weapons in the supermarket! (lest that damn light-blue-wearing woman take too long to read soda's nutrition facts)
It's a picture of a Swiss militiaman. Swiss men are to be trained for service at 20 and remain in reserves until 30. They carry weapons everywhere and can keep their service weapon after age 30, only having the automatic capability removed. I think I understand why their cheese has holes.
For those interested in the stats, Switzerland is one of the lowest ranking countries in the world in terms of murders. Look dude it is a small country. I really don't think guns deserve any credit for the murder rate there. I really think country size does.
Nope. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita - The stat is weighted for population.
We have major cultural issues to overcome before any violence is diminished here in the US. Legislation won't really help this (and, as has been seen, can make it worse). I'm kind of thinking a diverse nation such as ours will never overcome our cultural issues, not that we shouldn't try to all get along.
There's more than our diversity contributing to our problems though.
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: June 02 2010 at 13:36
Epignosis wrote:
Slartibartfast wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
The T wrote:
I guess you've made my point. Of course we all need assault weapons in the supermarket! (lest that damn light-blue-wearing woman take too long to read soda's nutrition facts)
It's a picture of a Swiss militiaman. Swiss men are to be trained for service at 20 and remain in reserves until 30. They carry weapons everywhere and can keep their service weapon after age 30, only having the automatic capability removed. I think I understand why their cheese has holes.
T
For those interested in the stats, Switzerland is one of the lowest ranking countries in the world in terms of murders. Look dude it is a small country. I really don't think guns deserve any credit for the murder rate there. I really think country size does.
Nope. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita - The stat is weighted for population. Yeah I don't think it has anything to do either. Imagine the murder rates in Russia then...(for size), or in China (for population)...
We have major cultural issues to overcome before any violence is diminished here in the US. Legislation won't really help this (and, as has been seen, can make it worse). I'm kind of thinking a diverse nation such as ours will never overcome our cultural issues, not that we shouldn't try to all get along.
There's more than our diversity contributing to our problems though. A too-stressed life, not teaching people empathy, among so many other things...
JLocke wrote:
