What's wrong with our country, and how're you gonna fix it?
POSTED BY: Cuda
UPDATED: Thursday, December 11, 2025 19:41
VIEWED: 28394
PAGE 10 of 12
The second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution has nothing to do with hunting. It is there because the founding fathers wanted to ensure that the populace would ultimately have a means of defending itself against an over-agressive, lying, thieving government. This fact goes right to the heart of this thread.
Again, there are two kinds of people in the world, those who are informed and those who are not. If you are informed, i.e., not "thinking" with your emotions (as in, "I don't like guns; therefore no one should have a gun), the issue of firearms is incredibly simple.
The various posters who have gone on record here against guns, no matter what country you hail from, have NOT had the courtesy to do what I requested. Therefore they are IGNORANT, not opinionated. Put "John Lott" and "Gary Kleck" into Google, as I requested, and START READING. Only after you have done so will you have begun to become educated, and only then will your opinion be worth mentioning.
John Lott wrote "More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws" He found that "States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crimes." This ain't OPINION, it's FACT borne out by massive and length studies. Repeat: This is NOT opinion. Lott's analysis was based on data for all 3,054 counties in the United States during 18 years from 1977 to 1994. Rather than clutter up this thread with quotes, go to the interview with Lott and READ.
About Gary Kleck: There are approximately two million defensive gun uses per year by law abiding citizens. That was one of the findings in a national survey conducted by Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist in 1993. Look it up!
"Bowling for Columbine" was rife with massive distortions, misquotes, and pure b/s. It is not a clear picture of anything except an anti-gunner's agenda.
Someone said, "...even if guns are made illegal in our country, it won't have much impact on the crime rate." On the contrary. Crime will skyrocket, as it did in England where private ownership of firearms was recently banned.
Another poster attempted to trivialize rape. Shame on you. The chances for anyone in the U.S. being involved in a violent crime during his/her lifetime is at least one in three. Do your homework before emoting here. I've tried to be civil, but such bullheaded massive refusal to look things up simply creates a waste of time for us all.
Thank you all for your time. I must leave this thread for awhile because of pressing business.
........Ruxton
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ruxton,
I tried politely to change the subject from this very polarizing subject matter.
I am not IGNORANT, I am not uninformed, I am also smart enough to know that broad brush simplifications are never the truth. Only those with nothing to say trivialize another's opinion with comments like it is b/s rife with misinformation.
You maybe the only poster here who has moved beyond the civility we have maintained so far.
So thanks for your rant, I am done.
God gave us one mouth and two ears to be used in that proportion.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SciFido, why do you refuse to look up Kleck and Lott?
Also, why do you think I singled your generally insightful comments out as being misinformed? Other than Columbine, I can't argue with most of what you've said on this thread.
Rather than broad-brush generalizations, my comments were directed to readers seeking the truth, and I directed them where to look, concerning this most important topic. If a reader can't be bothered to check my references out (any expertise I have on anything in this world is most emphatically focused on firearms), he can hardly have a clear-cut opinion of anything, don't you agree?
Because you claimed my thoroughly researched and referenced thoughts to be a "rant," and also indicated I had "nothing to say," I ask the rest of the readers who has cast the first stone.
........Ruxton
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm only replying because what I mention not only applies to the current topic.
Geezer, of course I don't think that there is just one perfect solution to any problem. More of one good start that will lead to a comprehensive solution. I'll try to be more clear in the future as sometimes the inside voice doesn't make it to the hands typing, sorry.
Ruxton, you seem to be of the opinion that if someone doesn't hold the opinion that you hold (ie what you consider truth) then they are miss-informed or ignorant. I've said it before:
"Remember, truth is relative and any statistics can be cooked."
Also, one cannot take something that happened in England and assume that the same thing would happen in the states if the US did the same thing. The English and US cultures are too different to do that. For god sakes, I had culture shock when I moved to the US and the culture of Canada and the US is much closer than England and the US.
Who trivialized rape?
And to quote Ruxton "I've tried to be civil..."
This implies that in that particular post you are not being civil. This combined with the aggressive tone of that post = rant. Therefore I must agree with SciFiDo on that point.
Quick frankly I am baffled that you don't see that this is a matter of opinion. Even if everything you said is fact there still is the fact of increased accidents. So, in someones opinion which matters more? Which is more significant? Not to even mention any other factors.
I am also amazed that with all my points this is the one that hit the nerve. I think it would be a very interesting sociological study to figure out exactly why.
----
If you truly love the memory, you must set it free()!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ruxton,
First let me pull back the stone, or back the truck up. I apologize to everyone on the thread and you in particular if I went too far.
I just had trouble with the way you approached the previous commentary. You undoubtedly have facts to back up your positions, and since you work in the firearm industry your credentials as an expert on one side of this discussion are untouchable.
Facts though, are just one small piece of this very emotional debate. Like any strongly polarizing topic most folks do not consider info that opposes their opinion. They use info to help them further their individual belief system. That’s just human nature.
I have no facts on this issue, and I am not in any way an expert, but I have an opinion born of my particular unusual circumstances. I have tried to see both sides of this and every hot topic, but sometimes I just can’t.
I just do not want anyone telling me that I am less than they are, for any reason. Debate and discussion are healthy so long as we don’t get personal. I assume there are no stupid people on this thread. We all like Firefly afterall.
I bet the founding fathers sat around in much the same way and pounded out the bill of rights trying to accommodate varying and entrenched positions.
So, how about we agree to disagree on this one and move on.
Suggested Topics:
Freedom and Security
Litigation out of control
Pharmaceutical advertisements on TV
Big Business overpowering democracy (one of my fave focus points)
Etc, Etc.
I leave this in everyone else’s court…
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SciFido:
So, how about we agree to disagree on this one and move on.
Here here!
How about retinal scans for passports. Now this is more up my ally, being a IT guy and all.
I know that the US has tried (still trying?) to get retinal scans on passports. They tried to get Canada to go along with it but we flatly refused. Why? They just don't work. They are horribly inaccurate. The numbers vary from article to article but they tend to be aprox. 66% accurate over a few hundred person sample. IMHO that just isn't good enough.
What do you guys think?
----
If you truly love the memory, you must set it free()!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
How about retinal scans for passports. Now this is more up my ally, being a IT guy and all.
I for one have a retinal condition that would guarantee that my scans would not work. My retina changes every time I visit my specialist. I even have the pics to prove it.
I think that DNA scanners, like in Gattaca, will be the final choice. Nothing else that I am aware of has proven effective. Not that such a thing exists today.
I just don't think I will be convinced that an embedded chip or other ID system forced upon me is safe. Plus faces and fingerprints can be forged, can't they?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SigmaNunke, you said:
"Ruxton, you seem to be of the opinion that if someone doesn't hold the opinion that you hold (ie what you consider truth) then they are miss-informed [sic] or ignorant. I've said it before:
"Remember, truth is relative and any statistics can be cooked."
--------------------
Well, call it an opinion if you persist. However, I've studied firearms intensely for over fifty years. So, it's sort of like telling you my opinion is, the sky is blue. My opinion is that oranges are generally orange. My point is that those who argue against firearms, and not only on this thread, are ignorant of many facts that I knew and forgot forty years ago.
If I tell you my opinion is that George Bush lied to start the Iraq war, and can back that up with solid references, but the next guy believes TV news and doesn't look anything up, and loves the current occupant of the White House, can his thoughts be considered an opinion? I think not. Is there any "relativity" to that truth? No, there's not.
As with all the discussions of government on this thread, either you have the facts or you do not. There are no "opinions" that firearms in law-abiding hands prevent crime (whether or not they're used), only facts that they do. I urge folks to read the references I quoted. One more reference, look up Kennesaw, GA, and go the the police report on that town's crime.
Neither can those who don't like guns and have no familiarity with them -- or know the first thing about them -- can be said to have anything like an informed opinion on them. They are, shall we say, IGNORANT. I am ignorant of the taste of turtle soup. I have no opinion on it. I don't like strawberries. My opinion on them is they are not for me. If you like them, fine, but don't tell me my taste buds are wrong.
What happened in England also happened in Australia. What happened there also happened in the U.S. where guns were outlawed. Crime went UP. This is uniform, not regionalized.
This information is once again not opinion nor is it localized. Either you know, or you don't. Before you make any further comments about firearms, please have the courtesy to look into the matter. Before you comment that Bush didn't lie, look into the matter. Before you comment that the U.S. government doesn't lie to the people, look into the matter. Ignorance is one of the biggest problems we are faced with, and why this country has such corrupt government. People don't want to know the truth. It's out there, and it sure as hell is not relative, nor is it "cooked" if you just look hard for answers.
Also, there is no FACT of increased accidents with guns in the home. Your child is 14 times more likely to be hurt in a car accident than by accidental firearm usage. His danger of drowning, etc., are also far higher. And finally, the responsible gun owner takes time to secure his home and his children. To clarify this, anyone who owns a gun without having had training in its use and who has an accident, ought to be hanged for murder. There are very few gun accidents among those who know and obey four very simple rules. If you don't know them, don't own a gun.
I suspect you think nerves were struck because this so-called difference of opinion comes closest to the whole point of this thread. What can we do to make our country better? Read things. Study problems as though you really care about them. Look stuff up. If you don't, yet still claim to have an "opinion," you're deceiving yourself. Isn't that what we've been trying to get to the root of here? I expressed my thoughts because in this case I'm probably better informed on this subject than any of our participants, (thirty years ago I got letters from all over the world on my comments about firearms in a muli-million-readership journal, and I've been at it ever since) and felt it was my duty to point out the real facts, as separated from emotion.
Once more, I've tried to be civil. But why have you persisted in slinging mud while clinging to your ill-informed opinions? Why have you not looked up the clear referen
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Seems to me dealing with retinal scans and the like is to overlook the wide-open border with Mexico. I've walked some of those deserts, though many years ago now, and saw the free influx of people coming north. There was no stopping them.
I think the Spaniards had the right idea, when they voted out Asnar. The people had enough of government lies, and did something about it. BTW, Kerry seems to be a close clone of Bush. I haven't followed, but does Kucinich still have a chance? Or is there anyone worthy of being president still in the running? Help!
.........Ruxton
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
RUXTON, your major fallacy here is that I haven't looked things up. I have. Never assume things. I have also chosen a different side of the fence when it comes to this issue than you have. Am I ignorant? No, just have a different take on things is all.
Linus Torvalds said it quite well in "Just For Fun". I'll paraphrase here because I don't feel like going through an entire book for 1 quote.
To have an extreme opinion you by default must discount the possibility of any other opinion. And then you have become unreasonable.
And yes, all truth is relative since reality is relative. We will all see the same thing but will never agree on what exactly happened. That is fact.
More assumptions, you think that I don't know that Bush lied about Iraq, to the general populace? I read the news, I watch it. I don't even stick to just Canadian news channels. I currently get new from Canada, the US, the UK and Germany. You imply that I am ignorant. Quite frankly I'm rather insulted by that as that implication is based on bad assumption.
Please quote my mud slinging as I am quite baffled by what you are referring to.
---
I do agree that the Spaniards had the right idea. Making clear another thing that would improve the US, getting rid of the two party system and give the people
a real choice when I comes time to vote.
Now I think that the whole point of the two party system was to have one on the extreme right and the other on the extreme left. That way they'd balance each other out. What the US has right now (as I see it at least) is a party on the extreme right and the other slightly less right.
One other thing that I noticed when I was down there is that whenever someone had an opinion that was even slight left or right of what they thought it was attacked as if the persons opinion came from across the great divide! It gave me the impression that the general populace in the US sees the world in black and white instead of shades of gray.
----
If you truly love the memory, you must set it free()!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME