While already one was mentioned by another poster, I can give you another one.
A couple of months ago in germany, a 17 year old boy went to his high school and killed 15 people before he got killed in a shootout with the police. How he got the weapon?
His father was part of the local shooting club and kept guns in his house.
So a seventeen year old, who was not legally allowed to be in possesion of a gun anyway, steals his father's gun and we blame the gun? Didn't his dad own a gun safe? Didn't his dad keep strict control over the access to that safe? Didn't the father teach his son early on to stay the fuck away from guns except in very controlled circumstances?
A seventeen year old boy broke the law to obtain the guns used in the massacre. This simply proves that criminals don't give a shit about words on paper. By your logic, we should all be punished because someone else may potentially use our property to commit a crime.
Do we ban cars because someone may steal a car and use it as a getaway car for a bank robbery? Do ban weedwackers and hedge trimmers because a serial killer may steal them and then commit terrible murders with them? Maybe I should apply for a license to go to the hardware store or the gas station because I could use the material purchased there to make IEDs.
For future reference, informal fallicies are bad and you should try to avoid them.
This only helps in my argument that people are unable to handle the responsibility of a gun. Indeed, the fact many can't even keep their weapon out of their childs hands is one of the many things that can go wrong if an unresponsible person gets their hand on guns, and without gun control laws, unresponsible people WILL be able to get their hands on guns much more easily.
I don't agree with your other examples. All of them have benefits that far outweigth the potential damage they can cause to society. Can you imagine what a modern society without cars would be? With guns, however, this is not the case. They exist for only one reason: killing, and they happen to be the most effective tools at that. None of the things you mentioned are as effective at killing as a gun is.
Last I checked, cars kill several magnitudes more folks in this country than guns do... and most of those are suicides.
The majority of car deaths in the country are suicides and more than gun suicides?
The majority of gun deaths in this country are suicides. 16K gun deaths? 8K or more are suicides.
Automobile accidents kill 30K-40K people per year. And these aren't just "oops" accidents. These are people who are drunk or high around 40% of the time. Even if around 50-60% of these people are only killing themselves in single vehicle accidents- they are still killing- murdering- more than twice as many folks as guns do.
So some dumb ass hypocrites need to get their shit straight and learn to prioritize when it comes to preaching about problems the USA faces.
Hope you got your things together. Hope you are quite prepared to die. Looks like we're in for nasty weather. ... There's a bad moon on the rise.
The number of deaths from suicide attributed to firearms is overwhelming.
The real tragedy is that people who use firearms are, unfortunately, successful in killing themselves. People who do not use firearms to commit suicide and survive tend to not attempt to commit suicide again.
I do not, however, necessarily see a reasonable means (gun control) to achieve the legitimate end (prevent suicides).
Originally posted by goneglockin Originally posted by popinjay
Originally posted by goneglockin
Last I checked, cars kill several magnitudes more folks in this country than guns do... and most of those are suicides.
The majority of car deaths in the country are suicides and more than gun suicides?
The majority of gun deaths in this country are suicides. 16K gun deaths? 8K or more are suicides. Automobile accidents kill 30K-40K people per year. And these aren't just "oops" accidents. These are people who are drunk or high around 40% of the time. Even if around 50-60% of these people are only killing themselves in single vehicle accidents- they are still killing- murdering- more than twice as many folks as guns do. So some dumb ass hypocrites need to get their shit straight and learn to prioritize when it comes to preaching about problems the USA faces.
Again, you seriously are saying that more people commit suicide by AUTO than gun deaths without any fact/link/proof to support it while everything credible from any private and governmental source says you are about as wrong as breast implants on a 96 year old grandmother?
Do you and Vemoi live down the road from each other or something?
Gun's take more lives than they save, I say get rid of them.
If you really feel you need to defend your home, then get in shape and get yourself a pair of knuckles or a combat knife. Heck get a baseball bat if thats your calling, and start practicing with it. Learn some martial arts, anything of that sort
To many people are not responsible with their guns, and having a friend who nearly took her own life with one, I cannot see any reason people should be keeping them in their house, especially with children around.
While already one was mentioned by another poster, I can give you another one.
A couple of months ago in germany, a 17 year old boy went to his high school and killed 15 people before he got killed in a shootout with the police. How he got the weapon?
His father was part of the local shooting club and kept guns in his house.
So a seventeen year old, who was not legally allowed to be in possesion of a gun anyway, steals his father's gun and we blame the gun? Didn't his dad own a gun safe? Didn't his dad keep strict control over the access to that safe? Didn't the father teach his son early on to stay the fuck away from guns except in very controlled circumstances?
A seventeen year old boy broke the law to obtain the guns used in the massacre. This simply proves that criminals don't give a shit about words on paper. By your logic, we should all be punished because someone else may potentially use our property to commit a crime.
Do we ban cars because someone may steal a car and use it as a getaway car for a bank robbery? Do ban weedwackers and hedge trimmers because a serial killer may steal them and then commit terrible murders with them? Maybe I should apply for a license to go to the hardware store or the gas station because I could use the material purchased there to make IEDs.
For future reference, informal fallicies are bad and you should try to avoid them.
This only helps in my argument that people are unable to handle the responsibility of a gun. Indeed, the fact many can't even keep their weapon out of their childs hands is one of the many things that can go wrong if an unresponsible person gets their hand on guns, and without gun control laws, unresponsible people WILL be able to get their hands on guns much more easily.
I don't agree with your other examples. All of them have benefits that far outweigth the potential damage they can cause to society. Can you imagine what a modern society without cars would be? With guns, however, this is not the case. They exist for only one reason: killing, and they happen to be the most effective tools at that. None of the things you mentioned are as effective at killing as a gun is.
So if "people" are unable to handle the responsibility of owning a gun then "people" would also be unable to handle the responsibility of deciding who, and under what conditions, should be allowed to handle guns. Do you see the problem of your arguement?
Since you're a European I'll spell out the aspect that you seem to be missing here: FREEDOM IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN SAFETY!!!
It's an American attitude that seems to be beyond you. Those that would trade liberty for security deserve neither. Think on that for a bit.
So if "people" are unable to handle the responsibility of owning a gun then "people" would also be unable to handle the responsibility of deciding who, and under what conditions, should be allowed to handle guns. Do you see the problem of your arguement? Since you're a European I'll spell out the aspect that you seem to be missing here: FREEDOM IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN SAFETY!!! It's an American attitude that seems to be beyond you. Those that would trade liberty for security deserve neither. Think on that for a bit.
Not logical.
The original framers of the Constitution were people. They were lawmakers. Since they allowed laws where ordinary, untrained individuals could just go out and purchase an assault rifle, it shows that more thought is needed in this day and age on this. Being people and not gods, they were fallible. This is a time where a law (or right) is simply no longer needed in the modern, civilized age. So it's time to take a comprehensive look at this and not just say "It was made hundreds of years ago, so it's golden."
It was included because there simply wasn't as many people around back then to defend a NEW nation against possible attack from Great Britian or any other unknown external threat. This situation does not exist today. We have the best military in the world able to defend the United States ably. We have local, state and federal police to protect the citizens. The need for "home defense" as a gun argument is passe. It's time for neanderthals to join the 21st century along with the rest of us modern forward thinking citizens.
Oh Kobie, they only want an inch. Just give them an inch. Whats the big deal? Its just a little inch! Hop on this slippery slope, government loves you and everything is going to be ok!
"Teh gumbint comin' ta getcha!"
Is that tin hat made of foil, by any chance?
So I started to walk into the water. I won't lie to you boys...I was terrified. But I pressed on, and as I made my way past the breakers, a strange calm came over me. I don't know if it was divine intervention or the kinship of all living things, but I tell you, Jerry, at that moment ... I was a marine biologist.
Oh Kobie, they only want an inch. Just give them an inch. Whats the big deal? Its just a little inch! Hop on this slippery slope, government loves you and everything is going to be ok!
"Teh gumbint comin' ta getcha!"
Is that tin hat made of foil, by any chance?
You and your tin foil references! I never tire of them! SO funny!
"If you can't out wit them, report them till they're banned!"- PopinJ'
Oh Kobie, they only want an inch. Just give them an inch. Whats the big deal? Its just a little inch! Hop on this slippery slope, government loves you and everything is going to be ok!
"Teh gumbint comin' ta getcha!"
Is that tin hat made of foil, by any chance?
You and your tin foil references! I never tire of them! SO funny!
Well, when people have been so warped by right-wing hate radio screaming at them that the government is out to get them that they start to believe it and spout it off every time someone looks at their precious little overcompensations -- er, guns -- I think it's rather fitting. Besides, IT'S HIS FORUM HANDLE.
So I started to walk into the water. I won't lie to you boys...I was terrified. But I pressed on, and as I made my way past the breakers, a strange calm came over me. I don't know if it was divine intervention or the kinship of all living things, but I tell you, Jerry, at that moment ... I was a marine biologist.
So if "people" are unable to handle the responsibility of owning a gun then "people" would also be unable to handle the responsibility of deciding who, and under what conditions, should be allowed to handle guns. Do you see the problem of your arguement?
Since you're a European I'll spell out the aspect that you seem to be missing here: FREEDOM IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN SAFETY!!!
It's an American attitude that seems to be beyond you. Those that would trade liberty for security deserve neither. Think on that for a bit.
Not logical.
The original framers of the Constitution were people. They were lawmakers. Since they allowed laws where ordinary, untrained individuals could just go out and purchase an assault rifle, it shows that more thought is needed in this day and age on this. Being people and not gods, they were fallible. This is a time where a law (or right) is simply no longer needed in the modern, civilized age. So it's time to take a comprehensive look at this and not just say "It was made hundreds of years ago, so it's golden."
It was included because there simply wasn't as many people around back then to defend a NEW nation against possible attack from Great Britian or any other unknown external threat. This situation does not exist today. We have the best military in the world able to defend the United States ably. We have local, state and federal police to protect the citizens. The need for "home defense" as a gun argument is passe. It's time for neanderthals to join the 21st century along with the rest of us modern forward thinking citizens.
I think you missed my point. I never claimed that the second amendment was golden because it was old. I am also very much aware that times have changed. So I'm really not sure where you're comming from with that line of statements.
As for the argument that we have a military and police to protect us.... At the end of the day, the barber shaves his own face. The foil of freedom is responsibility. In Escape From Freedom, Eric Fromm describes mass psychology that leads to dictatorships and tyranical government. In a nutshell, people don't like the responsibility that freedom requires and proceed to give up their freedom in order to alleviate themselves of personal responsibility. Gameloading's argument was based on the idea that people can't be trusted to be responsible so they need to have their freedom restricted. The catch-22 is that if "the masses" can't be trusted with the decision to own firearms, then how can their leaders, who were pulled from "the masses" be trusted with the responsibility of distributing rights?
Furthermore, protecting the public safety is a straw man since we allow people to drink alchohol even though it kills more people than cancer every year. And there really isn't any constructive use for drinking alchohol either. I can at least hunt for food with a gun.
While already one was mentioned by another poster, I can give you another one.
A couple of months ago in germany, a 17 year old boy went to his high school and killed 15 people before he got killed in a shootout with the police. How he got the weapon?
His father was part of the local shooting club and kept guns in his house.
So a seventeen year old, who was not legally allowed to be in possesion of a gun anyway, steals his father's gun and we blame the gun? Didn't his dad own a gun safe? Didn't his dad keep strict control over the access to that safe? Didn't the father teach his son early on to stay the fuck away from guns except in very controlled circumstances?
A seventeen year old boy broke the law to obtain the guns used in the massacre. This simply proves that criminals don't give a shit about words on paper. By your logic, we should all be punished because someone else may potentially use our property to commit a crime.
Do we ban cars because someone may steal a car and use it as a getaway car for a bank robbery? Do ban weedwackers and hedge trimmers because a serial killer may steal them and then commit terrible murders with them? Maybe I should apply for a license to go to the hardware store or the gas station because I could use the material purchased there to make IEDs.
For future reference, informal fallicies are bad and you should try to avoid them.
This only helps in my argument that people are unable to handle the responsibility of a gun. Indeed, the fact many can't even keep their weapon out of their childs hands is one of the many things that can go wrong if an unresponsible person gets their hand on guns, and without gun control laws, unresponsible people WILL be able to get their hands on guns much more easily.
I don't agree with your other examples. All of them have benefits that far outweigth the potential damage they can cause to society. Can you imagine what a modern society without cars would be? With guns, however, this is not the case. They exist for only one reason: killing, and they happen to be the most effective tools at that. None of the things you mentioned are as effective at killing as a gun is.
So if "people" are unable to handle the responsibility of owning a gun then "people" would also be unable to handle the responsibility of deciding who, and under what conditions, should be allowed to handle guns. Do you see the problem of your arguement?
Since you're a European I'll spell out the aspect that you seem to be missing here: FREEDOM IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN SAFETY!!!
It's an American attitude that seems to be beyond you. Those that would trade liberty for security deserve neither. Think on that for a bit.
There isn't any problem with my arguement, you're just trying to make connections that aren't there. In my opinion, only groups of people that have been proven to run at risk (think of police officers etc) should be allowed to have private gun ownership. That way, only people who have proven they are able to handle the responsibility of a firearm can get them.
I love your catchy line, and how I should "think on that for a bit".
Unfortunately, the real world doesn't work that way. A good society is a society that balances freedom and safety. Thats why there are speed limits and rules for traffic, thats why there are many laws prohibiting you to do things.
As for the argument that we have a military and police to protect us.... At the end of the day, the barber shaves his own face.
Maybe so, but every two weeks, that same barber has ANOTHER barber give him a haircut, because he's unable to cut his own properly.
And so should the American people. I have more than enough ability in the police services of this country as trained professionals to do their jobs. At the end of the day, it's good old fashioned police work that gets their man.
We are definitely at a point in history where too much television and movies like Rambo, Death Wish and Red Dawn has gotten certain individuals to feel they can ward off armies of commies and anyone looking to steal their virginity. Most people buying guns for home defense do not even use them. They don't take training and retraining on their guns. At least law enforcement types go anywhere from once a year to 4 times a year MANDATORY, and that's not accounting how much training they put in on their own time. The average private gun owner buys it, shows it around, then takes it out once in awhile whenever they see the Homeland Security chart go to fuscia.
Hunting food with a gun for an argument? Well yeah, you can do that. But I doubt people commenting in this particular thread are concerned with putting food on the table with firearms, especially given the title of it so that's your straw man right there. Nor are the vast majority of gun owners int America buying guns to hold cookouts of squirrel meat kabobs.
I won't try and explain what Gameloading was bringint to you as a point. I understood it well enough to get the point.
As for the argument that we have a military and police to protect us.... At the end of the day, the barber shaves his own face.
Maybe so, but every two weeks, that same barber has ANOTHER barber give him a haircut, because he's unable to cut his own properly.
That's very nice and snarky... but in what way does this invalidate my point?
And so should the American people. I have more than enough ability in the police services of this country as trained professionals to do their jobs. At the end of the day, it's good old fashioned police work that gets their man.
But there never seems to be cop around when you actually need one. The police can take care of business after the fact, but they don't act as much of a deterrent. They also don't put protecting witness on top priority either.
We are definitely at a point in history where too much television and movies like Rambo, Death Wish and Red Dawn has gotten certain individuals to feel they can ward off armies of commies and anyone looking to steal their virginity.
And this means that people are completely helpless? You're painting with a very broad brush here.
Most people buying guns for home defense do not even use them.
And are very thankful for that.
They don't take training and retraining on their guns. At least law enforcement types go anywhere from once a year to 4 times a year MANDATORY, and that's not accounting how much training they put in on their own time. The average private gun owner buys it, shows it around, then takes it out once in awhile whenever they see the Homeland Security chart go to fuscia.
In most states, you have to take gun safety in order to get a license to carry a firearm. Most law abiding gun owners do not object to this. I take it that you not only have never owned a gun, but have little contact with those that do.
Hunting food with a gun for an argument? Well yeah, you can do that. But I doubt people commenting in this particular thread are concerned with putting food on the table with firearms,
Well you know what they say about assuming....
especially given the title of it so that's your straw man right there. Nor are the vast majority of gun owners int America buying guns to hold cookouts of squirrel meat kabobs.
Most of the people where I grew up used their guns primarily for hunting. Some of hunted and fished because we were poor and some of us hunted because we like the taste of wild game like deer and pheasant. There are many people that hunt for food and I don't see any reason why they should be excluded from the debate just because you want to focus on the self defense angle.
I won't try and explain what Gameloading was bringint to you as a point. I understood it well enough to get the point.
Gameloading is trying to push the very European viewpoint that "our betters" should be making our decisions for us. The basic assumption is that the leaders of state are granted with some kind of divine insight the rest of us plebs are bereft of and are therefore more qualified than "Joe Average." In a democracy, even a representational democracy such as ours, the leaders are taken from the general populous. There are more than a few congressmen that started out life as factory workers, plumbers, construction laborers, etc.
Don't get me wrong, I found Plato's The Republic to be great overview of the primitive politics of a dead empire. But we need to keep the idea of a ruling elite buried with the Greeks and Romans that came up with the idea.
Maybe so, but every two weeks, that same barber has ANOTHER barber give him a haircut, because he's unable to cut his own properly. That's very nice and snarky... but in what way does this invalidate my point? you bring up a point suggesting someone can do something by themselves (shaving). I bring up a point showing that same person needs help (haircuts). That invalidates your point about personal grooming.
And so should the American people. I have more than enough ability in the police services of this country as trained professionals to do their jobs. At the end of the day, it's good old fashioned police work that gets their man. But there never seems to be cop around when you actually need one. The police can take care of business after the fact, but they don't act as much of a deterrent. They also don't put protecting witness on top priority either.I don't know where you live, but I've got a police station and a state police barracks not far from where I live. You might want to think about moving if your local law enforcement cannot protect you, even though you pay their salary.
We are definitely at a point in history where too much television and movies like Rambo, Death Wish and Red Dawn has gotten certain individuals to feel they can ward off armies of commies and anyone looking to steal their virginity.
And this means that people are completely helpless? You're painting with a very broad brush here.Not sure what you are talking about here. I didn't mention defenseless people
Most people buying guns for home defense do not even use them.
And are very thankful for that.Same, we agree. Thanks for putting the defense issue to rest. Now all you have left to talk about is hunting and fishing.
They don't take training and retraining on their guns. At least law enforcement types go anywhere from once a year to 4 times a year MANDATORY, and that's not accounting how much training they put in on their own time. The average private gun owner buys it, shows it around, then takes it out once in awhile whenever they see the Homeland Security chart go to fuscia. In most states, you have to take gun safety in order to get a license to carry a firearm. Most law abiding gun owners do not object to this. I take it that you not only have never owned a gun, but have little contact with those that do.I think you failed to see the point and are digressing. We are talking about PURCHASING firearms. Who's talking about carrying? That was not the issue. You cannot "carry" an assault rifle. You know people who do that? The majority of states have no required safety class to purchase weapons, not sure how you got this uniformed on that. Again, I'd suggest moving.
Hunting food with a gun for an argument? Well yeah, you can do that. But I doubt people commenting in this particular thread are concerned with putting food on the table with firearms,
Well you know what they say about assuming....Speaking of "snarky"..
especially given the title of it so that's your straw man right there. Nor are the vast majority of gun owners int America buying guns to hold cookouts of squirrel meat kabobs. Most of the people where I grew up used their guns primarily for hunting. Some of hunted and fished because we were poor and some of us hunted because we like the taste of wild game like deer and pheasant. There are many people that hunt for food and I don't see any reason why they should be excluded from the debate just because you want to focus on the self defense angle.The majority of people do not live in the mountains under that backdrop of banjos. Most people live somewhere close to a supermarket where food is readily available. If you are that poor that you have to eat possum, I'd suggest agsin.. moving to civilization. there are not "many people hunting for food", that is a minority of people. I won't try and explain what Gameloading was bringint to you as a point. I understood it well enough to get the point. Gameloading is trying to push the very European viewpoint that "our betters" should be making our decisions for us. The basic assumption is that the leaders of state are granted with some kind of divine insight the rest of us plebs are bereft of and are therefore more qualified than "Joe Average." In a democracy, even a representational democracy such as ours, the leaders are taken from the general populous. There are more than a few congressmen that started out life as factory workers, plumbers, construction laborers, etc.
Don't get me wrong, I found Plato's The Republic to be great overview of the primitive politics of a dead empire. But we need to keep the idea of a ruling elite buried with the Greeks and Romans that came up with the idea.
Originally posted by zanbanz This may have already been said but im not reading 5 pages on a debate, simply if they ban guns the only people they affect is the people who wouldnt do anything with them anyway, criminals will always have access to guns its like drugs, they ban them yet my best friend can make a phone call and get some its ridiculous.
In scotland a man killed many children in a primary school the dunblaine massacare, britain ban handguns, the only people with hand guns in the UK are armed police, or criminals.
Not true. It would also affect the number of children killed each year by accidental gun deaths, it would limit the number of gun suicides a year, it would limit the number of legally purchased guns in incidents like the recent killing of the Jewish girl upstate, it would limit the TOTAL overall amount of guns on the streets for available crime.
Of course some guns always get through to criminals, that's with anything in life. But it would limit the irresponsible behaviour of most citizens in the United States. You were quick to cite one case of a man in Scotland I see. But you know, that case popped up in your mind right away because that simply doesn't happen a lot because of the guns laws there.
Same with Japan. Same with France. Same with the U.K. Same with Canada. Same with Italy. Same with Poland. Same with Australia. Same with China. Same with Ireland. Same with Iceland. Same with Sweden. Same with Thailand. Same with Honk Kong. Same with Belgium. Same with Denmark. Same with Egypt. Same with Israel. Same with India. Same with Saudi Arabia. Same with Norway. Same with New Zealand.
You don't live in the Unites States I guess, where we see so many of these shootings that we are numbed by it, turn the channel, and pump out more guns for sale to counter the already tons that are already out on the street. Fighting fire with fire makes no friggin sense when all you need is a water hose.
Again, you seriously are saying that more people commit suicide by AUTO than gun deaths ...
Kid what are you smoking? Put the pipe down and listen. I tried to slow it down for you but apparently you still dont get it.
Im saying that drivers kill more innocent victims with cars than criminals/maden with guns do.
Im also saying that guns dont kill nearly as many innocent victims as cars do. Half or more of all gun deaths are suicides. In my mind that is not as tragic as someone dying from a single vehicle accident- even if they were drunk and it WAS an accident. my feelings are if you KILLED YOURSELF ON PURPOSE, YOU DONT COUNT.
So I'll spell it out for you reeeeeeeeeeal slow like.
Guns kill somewhere around 8,000 innnocent people in this country every year.
Motor vehicles kill somewhere around 20,000 innocent people in this country every year. 40% of those overall involve drugs or alcohol. I dont know if they attribute cell phones as a percentage of driver inattentiveness- but I'm sure people driving cars while talking on cell phones kill at least 2,000 people per year.
P.S.
around 1/3rd of all gun deaths that are NOT suicides are drug/gang related. So really... guns only kill around 5,000 truely innocent people per year... and then there's a 1,000 accidents... so really... only 4,000 real "victims." I'm embellishing now but you get the picture...
Basically the number of innocent people who are shot and killed by a criminal or muderer each year is small in comparison to the number of people who's lives are snuffed out every year by other assholes on the highway.
Hope you got your things together. Hope you are quite prepared to die. Looks like we're in for nasty weather. ... There's a bad moon on the rise.
So sick and tired of the baseless anti-gun sentiment in this country. It's getting downright stupid.
I had some folks invite me out to a lakeside cabin in northern michigan last summer. That's bear country. The guy a mile down the road was feeding the bears and we suspected he was trapping/poaching. They said they'd had several run-ins with bears where they had to wait them out in the car.
Did they have a firearm? No. Could I bring my firearm? No.
Ok- you're staying in the freaking woods with wild animals that are unpredictable and tremendously dangerous should they be in a bad mood that day. Mother nature is not soft and cuddly, mother nature kills shit.
These are the same people who don't think twice about doing illegal drugs every day and/or drinking and then hopping in a vehicle. Last I checked, cars kill several magnitudes more folks in this country than guns do... and most of those are suicides.
People are so f**cking stupid.
I'm sick and tired of gun advocates shamelessly lying and throwing around non-existent statistics just to win internet arguments. What have you been smoking?
The majority of car deaths in the country are suicides and more than gun suicides?
Firearm suicides caused 16,883 deaths and account 50.7% of all suicides.
Wow, what a terrible argument for gun ownership. A Yogi the Bear and Booboo "pickanick basket" feeding the bear story and some lies. Before debating with adults, please turn off Boomerang.
Kid what are you smoking? Put the pipe down and listen. I tried to slow it down for you but apparently you still dont get it.
So I'll spell it out for you reeeeeeeeeeal slow like.
Motor vehicles kill somewhere around 20,000 innocent people in this country every year. 40% of those overall involve drugs or alcohol. I dont know if they attribute cell phones as a percentage of driver inattentiveness- but I'm sure people driving cars while talking on cell phones kill at least 2,000 people per year. P.S. around 1/3rd of all gun deaths that are NOT suicides are drug/gang related. So really... guns only kill around 5,000 truely innocent people per year... and then there's a 1,000 accidents... so really... only 4,000 real "victims." I'm embellishing now but you get the picture... Basically the number of innocent people who are shot and killed by a criminal or muderer each year is small in comparison to the number of people who's lives are snuffed out every year by other assholes on the highway.
You shouldn't get so spasmotic about your own ambiguous posting. This is what you said:
Originally posted by goneglockin:
Last I checked, cars kill several magnitudes more folks in this country than guns do... and most of those are suicides.
If this is what you meant:
Originally posted by goneglockin:
Im saying that drivers kill more innocent victims with cars than criminals/maden with guns do. Half or more of all gun deaths are suicides.
In my mind that is not as tragic as someone dying from a single vehicle accident- even if they were drunk and it WAS an accident. my feelings are if you KILLED YOURSELF ON PURPOSE, YOU DONT COUNT.
...then perhaps being more specific and less vague might help your arguments.
You're deluded to think a death doesn't count. Dead is dead one way or the other. Your mind apparently works different than most people when it comes to the subject of human life and innocent people. Some innocent death is less noble than others and therefore doesn't count? Weirdness with a capital "W".
Guns kill somewhere around 8,000 innnocent people in this country every year according to you. Why have 8,000 innocent deaths every year? That's just plain dumb thinking. We are never banning cars because its impractical as they are the main source of transportation used by citizens in the United States daily. But we CAN ban guns. They are not used by the vast majority of individuals and most of those don't even use them, but have them lying around waiting for disaster to strike. Or retards shooting at plates, beer cans and melons with zombie pictures on it. Doesn't inspire confidence or good arguments for open gun selling.
First you claim above guns kill 8,000 innocent people, then later mitigate it down to 5,000 innocent people, and then about 4,000 innocent people. Yep, you are embellishing and I'm glad you recognize your embellishment is the MAIN POINT of your flaccid argument, lol. And I'm the one who's smoking? ------------------------------------
em?bel?lish verb
To add ornamental or fictitious details to: a fanciful account that embellishes the true story.
And you too are embellishing, pop. If you were to ban guns, would it turn that 30,694 number into a zero? If you did ban guns, would those 17,002 suicides by firearms become zero and not fall into another category? You also generalize about an entire group of people. Forming conclusions about a demographic you obviously know very little about. You realize there are nearly as many known firearms owners as there are minorities in the US? Yes minorities top 100 million (projected) and known firearms owners hovers around 80 million. So basically, your generalizations about firearms owners is analogous to someone making statements about blacks, hispanics, asians, etc. You already have the sources.
Your point though is that we can ban guns. But can we really? And I am not joking or being sarcastic. Can we really disregard the 2nd Amendment? Because that is what banning guns would mean. And as far as I can tell, you'd prefer to do it without properly amending the Constitution to abolish the 2nd Amendment.
And you too are embellishing, pop. If you were to ban guns, would it turn that 30,694 number into a zero?
Did I claim that it would turn the number into a zero? If I said it would, then that would be embellishment. I said no such thing. An embellishment is the claim, not you putting words into my mouth as a claim. In fact, if you had read my comment to an earlier poster, I said quite the opposite of what you are suggesting:
I posted:
Of course some guns always get through to criminals, that's with anything in life. But it would limit the irresponsible behaviour of most citizens in the United States. You were quick to cite one case of a man in Scotland I see. But you know, that case popped up in your mind right away because that simply doesn't happen a lot because of the guns laws there.
There is not any embellishment in there. But as for you:
Originally posted by daeandor:
If you did ban guns, would those 17,002 suicides by firearms become zero and not fall into another category?
Second, that's a straw man. We are not talking about where the other deaths are going to come from. That suggests that those deaths would have occured either way even without guns. We were talking about all deaths, not just suicides.
There is no way that 700 9-year old kids are going to get their parents keys, get in the car with their friend and go down the interstate and accidentally kill themselves. You cannot even suggest that a accidental gun death by a 9 year old was simply "Fate" and that that death would have mysteriously popped up in some other place to keep the chi flowing in the circle of life and end up in another category.
Also, a gun suicide is most popular because it's a thing of convience. Pills are not reliable. Someone driving off a bridge isn't reliable. Knives certainly aren't. Guns are probably the most reliable form of suicide available to man. And if you have a gun, it's the quickest and most convienient form the average gun owner has.
You on the other hand, are certainly embellishing about me embellishing.
As for the argument that we have a military and police to protect us.... At the end of the day, the barber shaves his own face.
Gameloading is trying to push the very European viewpoint that "our betters" should be making our decisions for us. The basic assumption is that the leaders of state are granted with some kind of divine insight the rest of us plebs are bereft of and are therefore more qualified than "Joe Average." In a democracy, even a representational democracy such as ours, the leaders are taken from the general populous. There are more than a few congressmen that started out life as factory workers, plumbers, construction laborers, etc.
Don't get me wrong, I found Plato's The Republic to be great overview of the primitive politics of a dead empire. But we need to keep the idea of a ruling elite buried with the Greeks and Romans that came up with the idea.
Making decisions about gun laws and having the responsibility of a gun are two entirely different things. If you hand out guns only to people who
1: Have proven themselves to be capable of having the responsibility of a firearm. Think Ex - police officers
AND
2: Are an endangered group
Then there is no talk of responsibility, Only logic. I also love how you continue to call it an "European viewpoint", as if that somehow takes away my credibility. It's a viewpoint many Americans, as well as people all over the world, have as well.
Comments
While already one was mentioned by another poster, I can give you another one.
A couple of months ago in germany, a 17 year old boy went to his high school and killed 15 people before he got killed in a shootout with the police. How he got the weapon?
His father was part of the local shooting club and kept guns in his house.
So a seventeen year old, who was not legally allowed to be in possesion of a gun anyway, steals his father's gun and we blame the gun? Didn't his dad own a gun safe? Didn't his dad keep strict control over the access to that safe? Didn't the father teach his son early on to stay the fuck away from guns except in very controlled circumstances?
A seventeen year old boy broke the law to obtain the guns used in the massacre. This simply proves that criminals don't give a shit about words on paper. By your logic, we should all be punished because someone else may potentially use our property to commit a crime.
Do we ban cars because someone may steal a car and use it as a getaway car for a bank robbery? Do ban weedwackers and hedge trimmers because a serial killer may steal them and then commit terrible murders with them? Maybe I should apply for a license to go to the hardware store or the gas station because I could use the material purchased there to make IEDs.
For future reference, informal fallicies are bad and you should try to avoid them.
This only helps in my argument that people are unable to handle the responsibility of a gun. Indeed, the fact many can't even keep their weapon out of their childs hands is one of the many things that can go wrong if an unresponsible person gets their hand on guns, and without gun control laws, unresponsible people WILL be able to get their hands on guns much more easily.
I don't agree with your other examples. All of them have benefits that far outweigth the potential damage they can cause to society. Can you imagine what a modern society without cars would be? With guns, however, this is not the case. They exist for only one reason: killing, and they happen to be the most effective tools at that. None of the things you mentioned are as effective at killing as a gun is.
The majority of car deaths in the country are suicides and more than gun suicides?
The majority of gun deaths in this country are suicides. 16K gun deaths? 8K or more are suicides.
Automobile accidents kill 30K-40K people per year. And these aren't just "oops" accidents. These are people who are drunk or high around 40% of the time. Even if around 50-60% of these people are only killing themselves in single vehicle accidents- they are still killing- murdering- more than twice as many folks as guns do.
So some dumb ass hypocrites need to get their shit straight and learn to prioritize when it comes to preaching about problems the USA faces.
Hope you got your things together. Hope you are quite prepared to die. Looks like we're in for nasty weather. ... There's a bad moon on the rise.
The number of deaths from suicide attributed to firearms is overwhelming.
The real tragedy is that people who use firearms are, unfortunately, successful in killing themselves. People who do not use firearms to commit suicide and survive tend to not attempt to commit suicide again.
I do not, however, necessarily see a reasonable means (gun control) to achieve the legitimate end (prevent suicides).
And the debate whether citizens in a democracy have the right to be armed enters its.... what? 3000th year?
The majority of car deaths in the country are suicides and more than gun suicides?
The majority of gun deaths in this country are suicides. 16K gun deaths? 8K or more are suicides.
Automobile accidents kill 30K-40K people per year. And these aren't just "oops" accidents. These are people who are drunk or high around 40% of the time. Even if around 50-60% of these people are only killing themselves in single vehicle accidents- they are still killing- murdering- more than twice as many folks as guns do.
So some dumb ass hypocrites need to get their shit straight and learn to prioritize when it comes to preaching about problems the USA faces.
Again, you seriously are saying that more people commit suicide by AUTO than gun deaths without any fact/link/proof to support it while everything credible from any private and governmental source says you are about as wrong as breast implants on a 96 year old grandmother?
Do you and Vemoi live down the road from each other or something?
"TO MICHAEL!"
Gun's take more lives than they save, I say get rid of them.
If you really feel you need to defend your home, then get in shape and get yourself a pair of knuckles or a combat knife. Heck get a baseball bat if thats your calling, and start practicing with it. Learn some martial arts, anything of that sort
To many people are not responsible with their guns, and having a friend who nearly took her own life with one, I cannot see any reason people should be keeping them in their house, especially with children around.
While already one was mentioned by another poster, I can give you another one.
A couple of months ago in germany, a 17 year old boy went to his high school and killed 15 people before he got killed in a shootout with the police. How he got the weapon?
His father was part of the local shooting club and kept guns in his house.
So a seventeen year old, who was not legally allowed to be in possesion of a gun anyway, steals his father's gun and we blame the gun? Didn't his dad own a gun safe? Didn't his dad keep strict control over the access to that safe? Didn't the father teach his son early on to stay the fuck away from guns except in very controlled circumstances?
A seventeen year old boy broke the law to obtain the guns used in the massacre. This simply proves that criminals don't give a shit about words on paper. By your logic, we should all be punished because someone else may potentially use our property to commit a crime.
Do we ban cars because someone may steal a car and use it as a getaway car for a bank robbery? Do ban weedwackers and hedge trimmers because a serial killer may steal them and then commit terrible murders with them? Maybe I should apply for a license to go to the hardware store or the gas station because I could use the material purchased there to make IEDs.
For future reference, informal fallicies are bad and you should try to avoid them.
This only helps in my argument that people are unable to handle the responsibility of a gun. Indeed, the fact many can't even keep their weapon out of their childs hands is one of the many things that can go wrong if an unresponsible person gets their hand on guns, and without gun control laws, unresponsible people WILL be able to get their hands on guns much more easily.
I don't agree with your other examples. All of them have benefits that far outweigth the potential damage they can cause to society. Can you imagine what a modern society without cars would be? With guns, however, this is not the case. They exist for only one reason: killing, and they happen to be the most effective tools at that. None of the things you mentioned are as effective at killing as a gun is.
So if "people" are unable to handle the responsibility of owning a gun then "people" would also be unable to handle the responsibility of deciding who, and under what conditions, should be allowed to handle guns. Do you see the problem of your arguement?
Since you're a European I'll spell out the aspect that you seem to be missing here: FREEDOM IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN SAFETY!!!
It's an American attitude that seems to be beyond you. Those that would trade liberty for security deserve neither. Think on that for a bit.
The original framers of the Constitution were people. They were lawmakers. Since they allowed laws where ordinary, untrained individuals could just go out and purchase an assault rifle, it shows that more thought is needed in this day and age on this. Being people and not gods, they were fallible. This is a time where a law (or right) is simply no longer needed in the modern, civilized age. So it's time to take a comprehensive look at this and not just say "It was made hundreds of years ago, so it's golden."
It was included because there simply wasn't as many people around back then to defend a NEW nation against possible attack from Great Britian or any other unknown external threat. This situation does not exist today. We have the best military in the world able to defend the United States ably. We have local, state and federal police to protect the citizens. The need for "home defense" as a gun argument is passe. It's time for neanderthals to join the 21st century along with the rest of us modern forward thinking citizens.
"TO MICHAEL!"
"Teh gumbint comin' ta getcha!"
Is that tin hat made of foil, by any chance?
So I started to walk into the water. I won't lie to you boys...I was terrified. But I pressed on, and as I made my way past the breakers, a strange calm came over me. I don't know if it was divine intervention or the kinship of all living things, but I tell you, Jerry, at that moment ... I was a marine biologist.
"Teh gumbint comin' ta getcha!"
Is that tin hat made of foil, by any chance?
You and your tin foil references! I never tire of them! SO funny!
"If you can't out wit them, report them till they're banned!"- PopinJ'
"Teh gumbint comin' ta getcha!"
Is that tin hat made of foil, by any chance?
You and your tin foil references! I never tire of them! SO funny!
Well, when people have been so warped by right-wing hate radio screaming at them that the government is out to get them that they start to believe it and spout it off every time someone looks at their precious little overcompensations -- er, guns -- I think it's rather fitting. Besides, IT'S HIS FORUM HANDLE.
So I started to walk into the water. I won't lie to you boys...I was terrified. But I pressed on, and as I made my way past the breakers, a strange calm came over me. I don't know if it was divine intervention or the kinship of all living things, but I tell you, Jerry, at that moment ... I was a marine biologist.
I think you missed my point. I never claimed that the second amendment was golden because it was old. I am also very much aware that times have changed. So I'm really not sure where you're comming from with that line of statements.
As for the argument that we have a military and police to protect us.... At the end of the day, the barber shaves his own face. The foil of freedom is responsibility. In Escape From Freedom, Eric Fromm describes mass psychology that leads to dictatorships and tyranical government. In a nutshell, people don't like the responsibility that freedom requires and proceed to give up their freedom in order to alleviate themselves of personal responsibility. Gameloading's argument was based on the idea that people can't be trusted to be responsible so they need to have their freedom restricted. The catch-22 is that if "the masses" can't be trusted with the decision to own firearms, then how can their leaders, who were pulled from "the masses" be trusted with the responsibility of distributing rights?
Furthermore, protecting the public safety is a straw man since we allow people to drink alchohol even though it kills more people than cancer every year. And there really isn't any constructive use for drinking alchohol either. I can at least hunt for food with a gun.
While already one was mentioned by another poster, I can give you another one.
A couple of months ago in germany, a 17 year old boy went to his high school and killed 15 people before he got killed in a shootout with the police. How he got the weapon?
His father was part of the local shooting club and kept guns in his house.
So a seventeen year old, who was not legally allowed to be in possesion of a gun anyway, steals his father's gun and we blame the gun? Didn't his dad own a gun safe? Didn't his dad keep strict control over the access to that safe? Didn't the father teach his son early on to stay the fuck away from guns except in very controlled circumstances?
A seventeen year old boy broke the law to obtain the guns used in the massacre. This simply proves that criminals don't give a shit about words on paper. By your logic, we should all be punished because someone else may potentially use our property to commit a crime.
Do we ban cars because someone may steal a car and use it as a getaway car for a bank robbery? Do ban weedwackers and hedge trimmers because a serial killer may steal them and then commit terrible murders with them? Maybe I should apply for a license to go to the hardware store or the gas station because I could use the material purchased there to make IEDs.
For future reference, informal fallicies are bad and you should try to avoid them.
This only helps in my argument that people are unable to handle the responsibility of a gun. Indeed, the fact many can't even keep their weapon out of their childs hands is one of the many things that can go wrong if an unresponsible person gets their hand on guns, and without gun control laws, unresponsible people WILL be able to get their hands on guns much more easily.
I don't agree with your other examples. All of them have benefits that far outweigth the potential damage they can cause to society. Can you imagine what a modern society without cars would be? With guns, however, this is not the case. They exist for only one reason: killing, and they happen to be the most effective tools at that. None of the things you mentioned are as effective at killing as a gun is.
So if "people" are unable to handle the responsibility of owning a gun then "people" would also be unable to handle the responsibility of deciding who, and under what conditions, should be allowed to handle guns. Do you see the problem of your arguement?
Since you're a European I'll spell out the aspect that you seem to be missing here: FREEDOM IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN SAFETY!!!
It's an American attitude that seems to be beyond you. Those that would trade liberty for security deserve neither. Think on that for a bit.
There isn't any problem with my arguement, you're just trying to make connections that aren't there. In my opinion, only groups of people that have been proven to run at risk (think of police officers etc) should be allowed to have private gun ownership. That way, only people who have proven they are able to handle the responsibility of a firearm can get them.
I love your catchy line, and how I should "think on that for a bit".
Unfortunately, the real world doesn't work that way. A good society is a society that balances freedom and safety. Thats why there are speed limits and rules for traffic, thats why there are many laws prohibiting you to do things.
Freedom is great. An Anarchy, however, is not.
Maybe so, but every two weeks, that same barber has ANOTHER barber give him a haircut, because he's unable to cut his own properly.
And so should the American people. I have more than enough ability in the police services of this country as trained professionals to do their jobs. At the end of the day, it's good old fashioned police work that gets their man.
We are definitely at a point in history where too much television and movies like Rambo, Death Wish and Red Dawn has gotten certain individuals to feel they can ward off armies of commies and anyone looking to steal their virginity. Most people buying guns for home defense do not even use them. They don't take training and retraining on their guns. At least law enforcement types go anywhere from once a year to 4 times a year MANDATORY, and that's not accounting how much training they put in on their own time. The average private gun owner buys it, shows it around, then takes it out once in awhile whenever they see the Homeland Security chart go to fuscia.
Hunting food with a gun for an argument? Well yeah, you can do that. But I doubt people commenting in this particular thread are concerned with putting food on the table with firearms, especially given the title of it so that's your straw man right there. Nor are the vast majority of gun owners int America buying guns to hold cookouts of squirrel meat kabobs.
I won't try and explain what Gameloading was bringint to you as a point. I understood it well enough to get the point.
"TO MICHAEL!"
--
"TO MICHAEL!"
Of course some guns always get through to criminals, that's with anything in life. But it would limit the irresponsible behaviour of most citizens in the United States. You were quick to cite one case of a man in Scotland I see. But you know, that case popped up in your mind right away because that simply doesn't happen a lot because of the guns laws there.
Same with Japan. Same with France. Same with the U.K. Same with Canada. Same with Italy. Same with Poland. Same with Australia. Same with China. Same with Ireland. Same with Iceland. Same with Sweden. Same with Thailand. Same with Honk Kong. Same with Belgium. Same with Denmark. Same with Egypt. Same with Israel. Same with India. Same with Saudi Arabia. Same with Norway. Same with New Zealand.
You don't live in the Unites States I guess, where we see so many of these shootings that we are numbed by it, turn the channel, and pump out more guns for sale to counter the already tons that are already out on the street. Fighting fire with fire makes no friggin sense when all you need is a water hose.
Stop selling guns.
"TO MICHAEL!"
Kid what are you smoking? Put the pipe down and listen. I tried to slow it down for you but apparently you still dont get it.
Im saying that drivers kill more innocent victims with cars than criminals/maden with guns do.
Im also saying that guns dont kill nearly as many innocent victims as cars do. Half or more of all gun deaths are suicides. In my mind that is not as tragic as someone dying from a single vehicle accident- even if they were drunk and it WAS an accident. my feelings are if you KILLED YOURSELF ON PURPOSE, YOU DONT COUNT.
So I'll spell it out for you reeeeeeeeeeal slow like.
Guns kill somewhere around 8,000 innnocent people in this country every year.
Motor vehicles kill somewhere around 20,000 innocent people in this country every year. 40% of those overall involve drugs or alcohol. I dont know if they attribute cell phones as a percentage of driver inattentiveness- but I'm sure people driving cars while talking on cell phones kill at least 2,000 people per year.
P.S.
around 1/3rd of all gun deaths that are NOT suicides are drug/gang related. So really... guns only kill around 5,000 truely innocent people per year... and then there's a 1,000 accidents... so really... only 4,000 real "victims." I'm embellishing now but you get the picture...
Basically the number of innocent people who are shot and killed by a criminal or muderer each year is small in comparison to the number of people who's lives are snuffed out every year by other assholes on the highway.
Hope you got your things together. Hope you are quite prepared to die. Looks like we're in for nasty weather. ... There's a bad moon on the rise.
The majority of car deaths in the country are suicides and more than gun suicides?
The most recent statistics from the American Association of Suicidology, Suicide.org, and the CDC.
Firearm suicides caused 16,883 deaths and account 50.7% of all suicides.
Wow, what a terrible argument for gun ownership. A Yogi the Bear and Booboo "pickanick basket" feeding the bear story and some lies. Before debating with adults, please turn off Boomerang.
Troll elsewhere.
Firearm Total Deaths: 30,694
Motor Vehicle Traffic Deaths: 43,667
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr56/nvsr56_10.pdf
Pages 78 & 79 if you want specifics on total deaths for US residents in 2005 (latest information)
Get your facts right, especially if you link a source with the correct information.
"TO MICHAEL!"
You shouldn't get so spasmotic about your own ambiguous posting. This is what you said:
If this is what you meant:
...then perhaps being more specific and less vague might help your arguments.
You're deluded to think a death doesn't count. Dead is dead one way or the other. Your mind apparently works different than most people when it comes to the subject of human life and innocent people. Some innocent death is less noble than others and therefore doesn't count? Weirdness with a capital "W".
Guns kill somewhere around 8,000 innnocent people in this country every year according to you. Why have 8,000 innocent deaths every year? That's just plain dumb thinking. We are never banning cars because its impractical as they are the main source of transportation used by citizens in the United States daily. But we CAN ban guns. They are not used by the vast majority of individuals and most of those don't even use them, but have them lying around waiting for disaster to strike. Or retards shooting at plates, beer cans and melons with zombie pictures on it. Doesn't inspire confidence or good arguments for open gun selling.
First you claim above guns kill 8,000 innocent people, then later mitigate it down to 5,000 innocent people, and then about 4,000 innocent people. Yep, you are embellishing and I'm glad you recognize your embellishment is the MAIN POINT of your flaccid argument, lol. And I'm the one who's smoking?
------------------------------------
em?bel?lish verb
To add ornamental or fictitious details to: a fanciful account that embellishes the true story.
To lie.
"TO MICHAEL!"
And you too are embellishing, pop. If you were to ban guns, would it turn that 30,694 number into a zero? If you did ban guns, would those 17,002 suicides by firearms become zero and not fall into another category? You also generalize about an entire group of people. Forming conclusions about a demographic you obviously know very little about. You realize there are nearly as many known firearms owners as there are minorities in the US? Yes minorities top 100 million (projected) and known firearms owners hovers around 80 million. So basically, your generalizations about firearms owners is analogous to someone making statements about blacks, hispanics, asians, etc. You already have the sources.
Your point though is that we can ban guns. But can we really? And I am not joking or being sarcastic. Can we really disregard the 2nd Amendment? Because that is what banning guns would mean. And as far as I can tell, you'd prefer to do it without properly amending the Constitution to abolish the 2nd Amendment.
Second, that's a straw man. We are not talking about where the other deaths are going to come from. That suggests that those deaths would have occured either way even without guns. We were talking about all deaths, not just suicides.There is not any embellishment in there. But as for you:
There is no way that 700 9-year old kids are going to get their parents keys, get in the car with their friend and go down the interstate and accidentally kill themselves. You cannot even suggest that a accidental gun death by a 9 year old was simply "Fate" and that that death would have mysteriously popped up in some other place to keep the chi flowing in the circle of life and end up in another category.
Also, a gun suicide is most popular because it's a thing of convience. Pills are not reliable. Someone driving off a bridge isn't reliable. Knives certainly aren't. Guns are probably the most reliable form of suicide available to man. And if you have a gun, it's the quickest and most convienient form the average gun owner has.
You on the other hand, are certainly embellishing about me embellishing.
"TO MICHAEL!"
Gameloading is trying to push the very European viewpoint that "our betters" should be making our decisions for us. The basic assumption is that the leaders of state are granted with some kind of divine insight the rest of us plebs are bereft of and are therefore more qualified than "Joe Average." In a democracy, even a representational democracy such as ours, the leaders are taken from the general populous. There are more than a few congressmen that started out life as factory workers, plumbers, construction laborers, etc.
Don't get me wrong, I found Plato's The Republic to be great overview of the primitive politics of a dead empire. But we need to keep the idea of a ruling elite buried with the Greeks and Romans that came up with the idea.
Making decisions about gun laws and having the responsibility of a gun are two entirely different things. If you hand out guns only to people who
1: Have proven themselves to be capable of having the responsibility of a firearm. Think Ex - police officers
AND
2: Are an endangered group
Then there is no talk of responsibility, Only logic. I also love how you continue to call it an "European viewpoint", as if that somehow takes away my credibility. It's a viewpoint many Americans, as well as people all over the world, have as well.