Gun Control

[General Zod]

The perception is that a lot of gun-rights advocates in the US do have a problem with any regulation beyond the most basic background checks.

Yeah, banning guns won't solve the crime problem in the US. The data posted by Alyrium earlier indicates gun restrictions don't do anything to reduce crime anyway. However, I wonder how much of that ineffectiveness is due to the pre-existing surplus of guns circulating around the US?

The availability of guns doesn't really seem to make a difference. I posted data in another thread that seems to show states with high amounts of gun ownership were mostly evenly split between having relatively low crime and relatively high crime. If the surplus of guns mattered why would Oregon have less gun crime than Florida when the ownership is higher? (For example.)

But people like Jub would rather bury their heads in the sand and pretend that doing away with weapons would solve everything.

Regardless, if we're being realistic, the only long term solution to violent crime is through increased opportunity/social mobility. But I think we need to separate the issue of gun control from the issue of reducing violent crime. To me, the debate over gun-control is more a debate about the role government should play in regulating hazardous devices.

As long as the regulation is reasonable and makes sense, that's fine. Stupid shit like banning collapsible stocks is neither.

[TheFeniX]

Oh yeah, sorry. I should know better than to sling valid points in a gun control debate. Stupid of me.
I actually wasn't aware that we have more 'long-gun' killings here.
My Google-fu is letting me down- does this statistic still stand if we discount Port Arthur?
Now there's an example of piss-poor gun control...

I posted this in response to another post in an unrelated thread. The interesting thing about Aussies is that the most common "crime" committed with guns in Austrailia is suicide and it's mostly performed with long guns. I posted a link showing that the actual suicide rate had stayed consistent (Aussies merely switched to hanging as the most common form of suicide). That link was eaten by time or moved somewhere else on the site.

Conversly, the poor are also the most likely to commit a violent crime- so disarming the poor is somewhat a two-edged sword, at the very least. However, this is all pointless wishwash without addressing the underlying social issues. Two-third of homocides are commited with guns- the other third are done by other means (mostly sharp objects). It seems if someone really wants another person dead, they can actually achieve that effect without even using a gun?
I believe this is why Britain manages to have a higher stabbing rate than countries where guns are readily available.

It's one bad downhill spiral. Most violent crime (I've seen statistic range from 60% to 85%) is committed by felons against other felons. Being poor increases your chance to not only commit crime, but also be convicted and sentenced to jailtime at a much higher rate than a person with money.

This is getting a bit off-topic, but the drug war seems to account for a lot of this. Non-violent (but poor) casual or habitual users of drugs are thrown into jail for X amount of time. When they are released, the US prison system almost guarantees they come out as violent offenders because prisons here are just that shitty.

If you remove blowback from the War on Drugs and the violence that perpetrates poor urban sprawls, America looks like a very safe place to life (and it is even now). We should be focusing on those areas, not guns themselves.

it just personally annoys me that pro-gun people talk about gun ownership in terms of their rights as opposed to their privileges. Owning a gun isn't necessary for most people.

Discounting the 2nd amendment, I still have the basic right to property. It's up to the government to prove I don't have the responsibility to own said property or that the mere ownership and use is somehow deadly to the general population. There's over 46 million gun owners in the U.S. and more than double that many legally owned guns. Of those, less than a 1/5th of 1% will use said guns in the commission of a crime or do something stupid and accidentally shoot themselves or others.

EDIT: Typo on 146.

It's estimated that there were around 500,000 or so CHL holders in Texas in 2009 (there was a huge jump in applications that year). Look at the conviction rates for that year (or even 2010) for every conviction, even those that have nothing to do with the carry of a concealed weapon. It's about 100-120. Actually murders? 1. The conviction rates keep going down and the amount of license holders keeps going up.

Yep, huge problem right here what with us violent gun nuts and all.

So I just don't buy that most people in the suburbs or rural areas really need a personal firearm to protect themselves or their family. That's what the fucking police are for.

No it isn't. Their job is to protect the public, in general. They are under no liability to protect an individual citizen, as it should be because it would be stupid otherwise.

Gun advocates should have to make the case that they need a gun, or at least that they're responsible enough to own one, NOT that they are entitled to own one just because it's their right or their hobby or whatever. This is a sick country indeed where so many people believe that gun ownership is more of a basic human right than fucking free healthcare.

I don't have to justify myself to you or the government. You have to justify yourself when you take access to property away. And even with the current number of "entitled" gun owners in this country, we aren't running around killing each other.

They have concealed carry, a very high amount of guns in circulation and a high murder rate. They ARE a bit like the wild west

I know you're being coy, but to quote Demolition Man "The Wild West wasn't the Wild West." The average "Western" town was (un)lucky to see 1-3 murders a year. I think Philadelphia saw more murders per year than the entirety of the US west of the Mississippi.

[Purple]

Discounting the 2nd amendment, I still have the basic right to property. It's up to the government to prove I don't have the responsibility to own said property or that the mere ownership and use is somehow deadly to the general population.

Why is that? After all there are plenty of precedents for the opposite. Like say your drivers license. You have to prove to the government that you are responsible enough to own and operate a vehicle safely. Why should the same thing not be true for a device whose single purpose for existence is to kill stuff?

[TheFeniX]

Why is that? After all there are plenty of precedents for the opposite. Like say your drivers license. You have to prove to the government that you are responsible enough to own and operate a vehicle safely. Why should the same thing not be true for a device whose single purpose for existence is to kill stuff?

They still cannot stop me from purchasing a vehicle, merely license me to operate it on public property. Kind of like a CHL program......

Whereas property like "lawn darts" or 3-wheeled ATVs have become illegal to purchase and sell because their intended use makes them dangerous. That said, there are many firearms made today that are not "designed" to kill such as "target pistols." They are certainly capable of killing someone, but it wasn't their intended design. The design was to fire a bullet out of a barrel.

[His Divine Shadow]

Seems to me like their 'intended purpose' is some vague and subjective notion that's an irrelevant factor anyway in deciding what kind of regulation an object ought to receive or not receive. I just don't see why it's brought up except some kind of clunky appeal to emotion by trying to give guns a sinister air about them, as if they where evil things who are out for blood (they totally are though).

[TheFeniX]

I used to take offense to comments like "single purpose for existence" WRT firearms. But you just get so used to it, you kind of chuckle instead. I own/have owned dozens of firearms. With the exception of my shotgun (which I went dove hunting with once... ugh), I've never shot or even aimed at a living thing even after 1,000 - 10,000 rounds through each of my "weapons." Millions of gun owners do the same thing.

Well, I did point my 9mm at what I thought was a rabid possum. It turns out he was just really pissed off.

[Beowulf]

Conveiently, The Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy published an article on whether banning guns would have any effect on murder or suicide. TL;DR version: at best, no, at worst, an inverse effect (less guns = more deaths).

[Channel72]

I don't have to justify myself to you or the government. You have to justify yourself when you take access to property away. And even with the current number of "entitled" gun owners in this country, we aren't running around killing each other.

And... this sort of stupid shit is where the perception of entitled gun nuts comes from. Why exactly do you think you have the right to just own any property? The government routinely places restrictions and regulations on hazardous devices and substances in terms of ownership, transport and storage, in the interest of public safety. So, you don't have the right to just own anything without justifying it to the government, and if you don't like that perhaps you shouldn't participate in civilization.

BTW, the total nitric-acid related deaths per year is probably a lot less than accidental gun deaths, but state and federal governments routinely attempt to regulate how nitric-acid is obtained, transported and stored. I'm not sure why you think owning a gun should be significantly different, other than the fact that you personally don't want the damn government telling you what to do.

[General Zod]

I don't have to justify myself to you or the government. You have to justify yourself when you take access to property away. And even with the current number of "entitled" gun owners in this country, we aren't running around killing each other.

And... this sort of stupid shit is where the perception of entitled gun nuts comes from. Why exactly do you think you have the right to just own any property? The government routinely places restrictions and regulations on hazardous devices and substances in terms of ownership, transport and storage, in the interest of public safety. So, you don't have the right to just own anything without justifying it to the government, and if you don't like that perhaps you shouldn't participate in civilization.

Are you saying that people should be accountable to the government, and not the other way around? Because that certainly sounds like what you're saying and it's pretty funny if you are.

BTW, the total nitric-acid related deaths per year is probably a lot less than accidental gun deaths, but state and federal governments routinely attempt to regulate how nitric-acid is obtained, transported and stored. I'm not sure why you think owning a gun should be significantly different, other than the fact that you personally don't want the damn government telling you what to do.

Regulate != ban completely.

[TheFeniX]

And... this sort of shit is where the perception of entitled gun nuts comes from. Why exactly do you think you have the right to just own any property?

Hey asshole, can you fucking read?

The government routinely places restrictions and regulations on hazardous devices and substances in terms of ownership, transport and storage, in the interest of public safety. So, you don't have the right to just own anything without justifying it to the government, and if you don't like that perhaps you shouldn't participate in civilization.

Nope, guess you can't.

Discounting the 2nd amendment, I still have the basic right to property. It's up to the government to prove I don't have the responsibility to own said property or that the mere ownership and use is somehow deadly to the general population.

Holy shit. It's like I just said that! And no one here has done jack-shit to prove that the average gunowner is a danger to themselves or others or that firearms are hazardous in of themselves. You merely keep stating they are and backing it up with a fair amount of condescension and smug.

I don't have to justify my desire to own something to you. You don't ask me "why do you need/want X?" That's irrelevant. If you're going to remove people's rights to property, you're the one who needs the reason and it needs to be something other than a bad case of smug and panic. If this isn't how you envision government to work, then there's no point in continuing the argument. I believe that my government answers to the people, not the other way around.

BTW, the total nitric-acid related deaths per year is probably a lot less than accidental gun deaths, but state and federal governments routinely attempt to regulate how nitric-acid is obtained, transported and stored. I'm not sure why you think owning a gun should be significantly different, other than the fact that you personally don't want the damn government telling you what to do.

Hazardous materials have many regulations because there's a high-chance of killing/disabling yourself just by actually working with them, which is why we have HAZWOPER training (among other things) and require MSDSs for all produced hazardous materials which can also be found for gunpowder.

Guns wouldn't require this type of regulation because steel doesn't kill you if you touch it or breath near it. Nitric acid will wreck your shit. Even if we went this route, you've shown nothing that proves guns are actually dangerous when used properly. Further, an 18-wheeler full of guns flipping on the highway doesn't require a Hazmat team for clean-up, nor does the shipper need to know about the dangerous amounts of steel and plastic he's transporting. Dumping a barrel full of guns down a stormwater drain doesn't contaminate groundwater for 2-miles around the site (although the rust might not taste great).

It's the person using the gun that makes it dangerous and, as I've said a hundred fucking times, we need to find out why they're murdering people and try to stop that rather than wasting (even more) money targeting merely a tool that's one of many used to commit these crimes.

[His Divine Shadow]

As a euro living with a buncha useless red tape laws, it's my opinion that the US gun laws are already the very definition of " meaningful, useful regulation". The instant background check system is a wonder of a properly effective gun control system. I don't really see the need for more than making that system more comprehensive and free from loopholes.

If only we had such sensible laws here, rather than wasting millions of euros and countless police hours on things like making sure there is a mile of red tape just to buy a spare barrel for a gun (it actually requires a police officer involved, he has to personally witness it after its been purchased, not like already owning the gun should entitle you you to a few spares automatically?), or to put a bunch of weird regulations on gun owners that seem intended to just dick with them, like the ridiculous psych test that everyone considers a joke, that requires a police officer watching over you while you do it (Q: Would you like to be a florist? Do you smell strange odors from time to time?). The only thing anyone gets out of the current system is a politician saying he's "done something".

About the only thing I'd wanna add to the US system would be something about storage requirements, or at least some kind of campaign to encourage ownership via tax breaks etc, if everyone had a gun safe that'd really reduce the amount of guns being stolen. But pretty much all the other stuff I hear is just buerocratic bullshit spouted mostly by people who have never held a gun or only spent a fe wminutes thinking up some arbitrary ideas on a forum that to them sound 'neat'.

[TheFeniX]

As a euro living with a buncha useless red tape laws, it's my opinion that the US gun laws are already the very definition of " meaningful, useful regulation". The instant background check system is a wonder of a properly effective gun control system. I don't really see the need for more than making that system more comprehensive and free from loopholes.

You find people freaking out about quick-buys at gun shows, but It's telling when you see the data.

In 1997 among State inmates possessing
a gun, fewer than 2% bought their firearm at
a flea market or gun show, about 12% from
a retail store or pawnshop, and 80% from
family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal
source.

About the only thing I'd wanna add to the US system would be something about storage requirements, or at least some kind of campaign to encourage ownership via tax breaks etc, if everyone had a gun safe that'd really reduce the amount of guns being stolen. But pretty much all the other stuff I hear is just buerocratic bullshit spouted mostly by people who have never held a gun or only spent a fe wminutes thinking up some arbitrary ideas on a forum that to them sound 'neat'.

See, this is where things got hairy for me. The DoJ says most guns are bought off the streets and/or stolen from legal gun owners (either strangers or family), but you can find reports (supposedly from the BATF, who I would hope knows more about this) saying:

Because when they want guns they want them immediately the wait is usually too long for a weapon to be stolen and find its way to a criminal. In fact, there are a number of sources that allow guns to fall into the wrong hands, with gun thefts at the bottom of the list. Wachtel says one of the most common ways criminals get guns is through straw purchase sales.

ATF officials say that only about 8% of the nation's 124,000 retail gun dealers sell the majority of handguns that are used in crimes. They conclude that these licensed retailers are part of a block of rogue entrepreneurs tempted by the big profits of gun trafficking.

This begs a few comments:
1. Dealers who allow straw buys and those who perform them for friends need a straight ass-kicking. I wouldn't be adverse to a law that requires all people "involved" in a gun sale pass a background check. Texas requires this for buying beer and getting kegs filled (they require ID from all people in the group, not just the purchaser).
2. Do guns bought through a straw buy (a technically legal sale, but done illegally) count as illegal guns in the statistics? Should they be listed as such?
3. Should we mandate gun safes that would basically force us to pay upwards of $1,000 to a private entity when it's not even clear if gun thefts are a problem?
4. It doesn't seem to be a wide-spread problem, but I just don't see why it's so hard to crack down on these stores since they're basically black-market dealer's themselves, but with the drawback of operating in one location. I don't think even a "3-day waiting" period would stop these stores since they'd likely just forge the documents anyway since they're already routinely committing felonies.

[His Divine Shadow]

Like I said I would just as fine with a system that encouraged it, rather than forced it. A good gunsafe here starts at 400-500, about as much as a Glock.

[Darth Tedious]

The issue is that America as a whole doesn't consider this an issue. The fact that there are loads of unregistered guns is a thing that people shrug at. Doesn't that seem an odd stance to take when it comes to things that can kill you?

Actually it's pretty normal. We're surrounded everyday by things which can kill us.
I just went to my kitchen drawer, and there are no less than 7 knives which could easily kill people.

Never had to register a single one of them.

I even pull them out in front of guests when I'm preparing food, not once have any of my houseguests ever been freaked out or worried that I was holding something which could kill them.

It's not an odd stance at all to shrug your shoulders at things which can kill you. It is the norm.

[Purple]

I don't have to justify my desire to own something to you. You don't ask me "why do you need/want X?" That's irrelevant. If you're going to remove people's rights to property, you're the one who needs the reason and it needs to be something other than a bad case of smug and panic. If this isn't how you envision government to work, then there's no point in continuing the argument. I believe that my government answers to the people, not the other way around.

I think you reached a fundamental point here. You feel that owning firearms is a "right" that the government has to justify taking away while plenty of people feel it is a "privilege" that you have to justify gaining. People have said this before thou. And honestly I tend to agree with the later. A firearm is fundamentally unique in that it is a tool designed explicitly for harming living creatures. Yes you have target shooting weapons and stuff like that. But if you ignore these (since they should be covered by separate regulation IMHO) everything else is a pure weapon just like the mace or sword were in the middle ages. There is no alternative use for them other than hurting stuff or collecting them like stamps. It's not like say a car or a knife that has an alternative primary purpose but can turn deadly if abused. So it does make sense that you would have to justify to the state that you will NOT be using it for the one thing it is designed for.

I am not talking about baning weapons here, any type of weapons. But you should be able to see the perspective it is coming from.

[General Zod]

I think you reached a fundamental point here. You feel that owning firearms is a "right" that the government has to justify taking away while plenty of people feel it is a "privilege" that you have to justify gaining. People have said this before thou. And honestly I tend to agree with the later. A firearm is fundamentally unique in that it is a tool designed explicitly for harming living creatures. Yes you have target shooting weapons and stuff like that. But if you ignore these (since they should be covered by separate regulation IMHO) everything else is a pure weapon just like the mace or sword were in the middle ages. There is no alternative use for them other than hurting stuff or collecting them like stamps. It's not like say a car or a knife that has an alternative primary purpose but can turn deadly if abused. So it does make sense that you would have to justify to the state that you will NOT be using it for the one thing it is designed for.

I am not talking about baning weapons here, any type of weapons. But you should be able to see the perspective it is coming from.

So how do you feel about eminent domain? At some point you have to tell the government that they just can't take things away from people for some nebulous greater good. The only question is how much authority do you trust them with? Why is taking something away the best solution?

[Channel72]

Are you saying that people should be accountable to the government, and not the other way around? Because that certainly sounds like what you're saying and it's pretty funny if you are.

Um, yes, people are accountable to the government. That's why if you kill someone, or get caught driving while drunk, you'll be punished by people who work for the government. And there's nothing wrong with that, considering that the people are the ones who designate who should be running the government. (It's called "voting".)

Regulate != ban completely.

I've already said a complete ban isn't even practical. I'm mainly talking about attitude and culture, not policy here.

I don't have to justify my desire to own something to you. You don't ask me "why do you need/want X?" That's irrelevant. If you're going to remove people's rights to property, you're the one who needs the reason and it needs to be something other than a bad case of smug and panic.

The reason is that a gun is prima facie a dangerous device designed specifically to efficiently kill or incapacitate a living target. I don't care that you use it for letting off steam or whatever, or even if the fatality rate is ZERO per annum - the government still regulates dangerous devices and substances in the interest of public safety. The point of my nitric acid analogy above was that the nitric-acid fatality rate is negligible at best - yet it's still regulated by the government because it's still dangerous. So yeah, you don't necessarily have the right to purchase or transport nitric acid (depending on where you live) without first proving to the government that you have good reasons for doing so, and that you're responsible enough to do it.

If this isn't how you envision government to work, then there's no point in continuing the argument. I believe that my government answers to the people, not the other way around.

Please. That's pure meaningless jingoistic bullshit. The reality is that the balance of authority in a democracy between people and government is recursive. The government answers to the people in the form of elections. But the people answer to the government through enforcement of legislation.

[General Zod]

Um, yes, people are accountable to the government. That's why if you kill someone, or get caught driving while drunk, you'll be punished by people who work for the government. And there's nothing wrong with that, considering that the people are the ones who designate who should be running the government. (It's called "voting".)

So you don't have any problem with the concept of eminent domain? Or do you think there should be some limitations on how much the government can take away? The idea that people shouldn't have the right to own any property at all is pretty absurd.

I've already said a complete ban isn't even practical. I'm mainly talking about attitude and culture, not policy here.

The problem is you seem to think people are against regulation. Pretty much nobody in this thread is against regulations that make sense.

[TheFeniX]

The reason is that a gun is prima facie a dangerous device designed specifically to efficiently kill or incapacitate a living target. I don't care that you use it for letting off steam or whatever, or even if the fatality rate is ZERO per annum - the government still regulates dangerous devices and substances in the interest of public safety. The point of my nitric acid analogy above was that the nitric-acid fatality rate is negligible at best - yet it's still regulated by the government because it's still dangerous. So yeah, you don't necessarily have the right to purchase or transport nitric acid (depending on where you live) without first proving to the government that you have good reasons for doing so, and that you're responsible enough to do it.

Really reaching here, huh? Murders and/or accidental deaths with legally owned firearms are actually pretty negligible in the scheme of things and the American government actually does regulate them. So, I'm not exactly seeing your point here other than that I guess you want more regulations of firearms even though America really has about the most sane you can when it comes to ownership.

I think you reached a fundamental point here. You feel that owning firearms is a "right" that the government has to justify taking away while plenty of people feel it is a "privilege" that you have to justify gaining.

"Plenty of People" say lots of stupid shit. The Daily Show was at the DNC and you had such thrilling comments as "the Democrats don't label, unlike those rednecks and T-baggers." They also portrayed every gun owner as a bible-thumping lunatic (so they'd fit in great here). 50+% of Americans think flag-burning should be illegal. I don't give a shit what those people think: People have a right to own property. Suck it up. The government obviously has the right to limit property, for good reason. It's the "for good reason" that always worries me.

People have said this before thou. And honestly I tend to agree with the later. A firearm is fundamentally unique in that it is a tool designed explicitly for harming living creatures. Yes you have target shooting weapons and stuff like that. But if you ignore these (since they should be covered by separate regulation IMHO) everything else is a pure weapon just like the mace or sword were in the middle ages.

Totally, it's not like fencing and other forms of martial combat were used as sports. Anyone who swung a sword before the invention of the firearm was doing it solely to learn to kill..... in bizarro world. Hey, let's regulate who can learn wrestling and boxing, because they're skills obviously only used to kill people.

There is no alternative use for them other than hurting stuff or collecting them like stamps.

Don't take this the wrong way, but you're a fucking moron if you honestly believe that. It's funny in another way because antique guns lose a shitload of value if they don't fire.

It's not like say a car or a knife that has an alternative primary purpose but can turn deadly if abused. So it does make sense that you would have to justify to the state that you will NOT be using it for the one thing it is designed for.

You mean like with background checks to ensure you aren't a violent felon or insane?

I am not talking about baning weapons here, any type of weapons. But you should be able to see the perspective it is coming from.

I see your perspective and it's dumb. Sorry. I'll stay over with the facts that show that firearm ownership has shot through the roof since Obama got elected and still the violent crime rate has been dropping. And I'll ask that my tax dollars not be spent placating people that not only don't understand a fucking thing about firearms or where violent crime comes from, but also freak out at the idea that the average person can own a gun and not be a mass-murderer waiting to happen. Seriously, you guys scare the shit out of me (well, not me. Actual gun grabbing will likely be something my kids have to deal with). I see massive parallels between your arguments and the same people who push against vaccinations and pulling fluoride out of the water supplies. You literally know nothing about anything related to firearms and you want to have an opinion on it and ask that other ignorant people in power write laws based on your ignorance.

[Purple]

Um, yes, people are accountable to the government. That's why if you kill someone, or get caught driving while drunk, you'll be punished by people who work for the government. And there's nothing wrong with that, considering that the people are the ones who designate who should be running the government. (It's called "voting".)

So you don't have any problem with the concept of eminent domain? Or do you think there should be some limitations on how much the government can take away?

Should he?

Also, you people seem really scared of the government. Seeing them as some sort of Orvelian force. What is up with that? As he said, the government is responsible to the people via elections. As in they can do what ever the fuck they want to the people who have to obey. But come election day if the people did not like what the government was doing they can elect a new one. That's how it works. How can you even function in society if you do not have the basic faith in that feedback system?

Totally, it's not like fencing and other forms of martial combat were used as sports. Anyone who swung a sword before the invention of the firearm was doing it solely to learn to kill..... in bizarro world. Hey, let's regulate who can learn wrestling and boxing, because they're skills obviously only used to kill people.

As I said, sporting firearms should be regulated by completely separate legislation. Just like fencing is regulated separately from the right to carry a sword in public.

Don't take this the wrong way, but you're a fucking moron if you honestly believe that. It's funny in another way because antique guns lose a shitload of value if they don't fire.

If firing a weapon is what is required to maintain it in prime collecting condition than that is part of the function of collecting it. Just like cleaning it would be.

You mean like with background checks to ensure you aren't a violent felon or insane?

Among other things.

[General Zod]

Also, you people seem really scared of the government. Seeing them as some sort of Orvelian force. What is up with that? As he said, the government is responsible to the people via elections. As in they can do what ever the fuck they want to the people who have to obey. But come election day if the people did not like what the government was doing they can elect a new one. That's how it works. How can you even function in society if you do not have the basic faith in that feedback system?

Are you for real or have you not been paying attention to the numerous human rights abuses committed by the US government over the last . . . oh, say 20 years? The idea that you should trust your government implicitly and never question them is utterly bizarre. If people never questioned them they'd keep on going. And frankly you people seem really scared of guns.

[Purple]

Also, you people seem really scared of the government. Seeing them as some sort of Orvelian force. What is up with that? As he said, the government is responsible to the people via elections. As in they can do what ever the fuck they want to the people who have to obey. But come election day if the people did not like what the government was doing they can elect a new one. That's how it works. How can you even function in society if you do not have the basic faith in that feedback system?

Are you for real or have you not been paying attention to the numerous human rights abuses committed by the US government over the last . . . oh, say 20 years? The idea that you should trust your government implicitly and never question them is utterly bizarre. If people never questioned them they'd keep on going. And frankly you people seem really scared of guns.

You do question them. But you do so through the mechanisms provided to you via the system you live in. As in, elections, various ways of protest and complaint etc. You don't do so by claiming that the government is bad by default. I mean, if the government is bad and should have to explain it self for every little thing to the citizens at all times how would such a society function? Indeed if the government is bad by default as you seem to suggest why does such a society persist at all? Why don't you tear it down?

Maybe it's because I am from Europe but I am always surprised at how little trust Americans have for not only their government but the political system that is supposed to help them control it. But let's not derail this thread by that.

[General Zod]

You do question them. But you do so through the mechanisms provided to you via the system you live in. As in, elections, various ways of protest and complaint etc. You don't do so by claiming that the government is bad by default. I mean, if the government is bad and should have to explain it self for every little thing to the citizens at all times how would such a society function? Indeed if the government is bad by default as you seem to suggest why does such a society persist at all? Why don't you tear it down?

That's not my argument, but keep tilting at those windmills.

Maybe it's because I am from Europe but I am always surprised at how little trust Americans have for not only their government but the political system that is supposed to help them control it. But let's not derail this thread by that.

So how about that rioting in Greece?

[Purple]

That's not my argument, but keep tilting at those windmills.

No it is not, you are right. I am sorry if I made that impression.

My post was more or less a comment of my impression of the general American public. Now I know this is my personal impression of you people and it is colored by coming from the internet. But it just seems that the whole American public has a dislike for a strong government. Some times it looks to me like Americans feel that they are desperately clutching at their freedoms and that if they let the government do anything (like say set standard laws on even the most basic things like education across the whole country or set up any sort of realistic health are system) the whole setup would immediately turn into a Stalinist hellhole.

This said, to actually reply to an argument you did make. Allow me to ask you a question. You asked the other guy if he has a problem with the concept of eminent domain. Could you please explain to me why you think he should (if you think so)?

So how about that rioting in Greece?

Rioting is just an extreme form of protest. Most of the time it's what happens when people are disgruntled or feel threatened by the situation around them and need to take it out on something. At these times it has very little to do with politics as such but rather with showing the government in the most extreme way possible that they need to shape up. So in that respect it is just one of the mechanisms of society that I was talking about. Some times thou it is what happens when a government has been shown to be untrustworthy and the mechanisms for controlling it fail. However in this case the fact that the people are rioting shows that they feel betrayed by a system they trusted. As opposed to being jaded and expecting the worst from the start.

[General Zod]

You asked the other guy if he has a problem with the concept of eminent domain. Could you please explain to me why you think he should (if you think so)?

It's not hard to reason it out. If you think you have no right to own property at all then you shouldn't have any problems with the thought of the government having the ability to take away your home whenever they feel like it with no compensation and leaving you homeless. If you do have a problem with it then the whole argument starts to unravel, and you have to explain where you draw the line and what methods you use to justify it. But frankly if someone's completely fine with the thought of eminent domain I don't think there's much point in arguing any further with them.

As opposed to being jaded and expecting the worst from the start.

Because there's absolutely no historical precedent of governments fucking over their populace because they've gotten too complacent about what the government does.