The Ban on Flag Burning

[FullAuto]

Wherever you go, it seems like there's always quite a few gun owners who simply don't care about gun safety. I'd bet that more people are injured/killed in firearms-related accidents in the home than intruders harmed intentionally, simply because instruction on gun safety and gun usage seems to go exactly as far as getting a licence and no further.

It just seems odd to me that liberals want to crack down on a right of the people, though I understand there's a lot of argument about the second amendment still.

[Accounting Troll]

This topic's wandering all over the place

 

With regard to gun control, I don't have a problem with the private ownership of firearms, providing you have to pass a test to show that you would use the gun safely, rather like when you have to pass a driving test. If you are convicted of a crime then you lose the right to own a firearm.

[Strong Bob]

It just seems odd to me that liberals want to crack down on a right of the people, though I understand there's a lot of argument about the second amendment still.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Guns are dangerous, that's a give in. But with the nigh constant misuse of firearms, some people are just sitting down and saying to themselves "We are not ready for this right yet." And the numbers themselves make sense... Since thousands die every year from accidental discharge of firearms, including small children that simply located their parents gun and decided to fool around with it.

 

I agree, there should be a defensive measure against an intruder. But it's a very rare occurance, you might as well fortify your basement for nuklear war, it's so ridiculous a reason. Whenever someone here in the states manages to fight off someone in their home with a gun, it just about makes national news. It's something of reknown. There should be a better reason for it than that. Especially when it's safer just to get martial arts training, or design your household to be difficult enough to break into that nobody would even try. (Yes, there are ways to fortify your house from a break in. Quite mundane procedure too.)

 

I do not have much problem with gun control, unless it turned into a gun ban. Once you ban it, then comes in the criminal syndicates handing out the same stuff for cheap.

[Jman4117]

The problem with licensing would be that the government gets to decide who can have a gun and who cannot. They could make it so stringient that practically no one would have a legal firearm. Then things could go down a slippery slope where rights are simply destroyed without a safegaurd such as an armed populace to keep things in check.

 

As for flag burning, I wouldn't do it in protest....but I damned sure will not discard my old flags in a rubish heap...

[Strong Bob]

The problem with licensing would be that the government gets to decide who can have a gun and who cannot. They could make it so stringient that practically no one would have a legal firearm.

 

Wouldn't that be a good thing? If that were the case, if you saw someone with a gun, you would know that that person knows how to use it, and won't unless necessary. It would also mean that most people who shouldn't have a gun, won't have a gun. It sounds like a good policy to me. Except it does open up that black market problem, and eventually guns would start getting treated like drugs.

 

Then things could go down a slippery slope where rights are simply destroyed without a safegaurd such as an armed populace to keep things in check.

 

How many intruders/criminal aggressors have you fended off/deterred with a firearm? Less than 20 just events of that type happen each year. I don't think civilians possessing guns is helping with crime all that much... (Although, I only speak for the United States here.) Those same guns kill more innocent people on accident, than attackers on purpose. Something needs to be done about a "safeguard" that kills more innocent than the guilty.

 

As for flag burning, I wouldn't do it in protest....but I damned sure will not discard my old flags in a rubish heap...

 

Indeed. But the ban will not apply to flags being disposed of "honorably".

[Jman4117]

Wouldn't that be a good thing? If that were the case, if you saw someone with a gun, you would know that that person knows how to use it, and won't unless necessary. It would also mean that most people who shouldn't have a gun, won't have a gun. It sounds like a good policy to me. Except it does open up that black market problem, and eventually guns would start getting treated like drugs.

 

Things tend to get rather bad when only the government has guns.

 

How many intruders/criminal aggressors have you fended off/deterred with a firearm? Less than 20 just events of that type happen each year. I don't think civilians possessing guns is helping with crime all that much... (Although, I only speak for the United States here.) Those same guns kill more innocent people on accident, than attackers on purpose. Something needs to be done about a "safeguard" that kills more innocent than the guilty.

 

It's more the threat of being shot if you break into a house that actually deters it. Take away the vast majority of the guns and intruders have little reason not to break in.

[FullAuto]

I doubt widespread gun ownership has much of an effect on burglaries/B&E etc.

[Strong Bob]

Things tend to get rather bad when only the government has guns.

 

Are you saying that if civilians no longer had guns that the government would be more inclined to become tyranical? Keep in mind, the government possesses weapons and personal defenses (Having recently acquired liquid kevlar) that it makes no difference what kind of firearm we have. Unless us civilians have our own personal army, then the government IS the only one with guns here.

 

Funny, it sounds almost as though the people and the government would be in a personal arms race if you follow that logic...

 

It's more the threat of being shot if you break into a house that actually deters it. Take away the vast majority of the guns and intruders have little reason not to break in.

 

On the contrary. If somebody is stupid enough not to scope out a house and choose the right time to break in, then they're likely not smart enough to think about being shot. Guns are not a deterrent by any means whatsoever until they're pointed right at you.

[Jman4117]

Are you saying that if civilians no longer had guns that the government would be more inclined to become tyranical? Keep in mind, the government possesses weapons and personal defenses (Having recently acquired liquid kevlar) that it makes no difference what kind of firearm we have. Unless us civilians have our own personal army, then the government IS the only one with guns here.

 

Funny, it sounds almost as though the people and the government would be in a personal arms race if you follow that logic...

 

That's generally the case. It's much easier to subjugate a population that can't fight back. Once they take away the power of the citizens to defend themselves/revolt all other rights can be taken on a whim.

 

As for the body armor, I have my doubts wheather it would stand up to rifle fire all that well without seriously hampering mobility. The current vests are only built to take pistol fire and fragments and maybe smaller rifles with trauma plates inserted and you probably won't me getting up to fight for a while after your ribs are broken from the shock after absorbing the blast.

 

The whole citizen's army bit is also covered in the 2nd Amendment when it refers to the militia.

 

On the contrary. If somebody is stupid enough not to scope out a house and choose the right time to break in, then they're likely not smart enough to think about being shot. Guns are not a deterrent by any means whatsoever until they're pointed right at you.

 

Sure..not much difference when no one is at home to actually fire....but what is your baseball bat really going to do to stop someone from breaking in with their .38 while you are at home? No real need to even bother staking out the neighborhoods then.

[FullAuto]

Sure..not much difference when no one is at home to actually fire....but what is your baseball bat really going to do to stop someone from breaking in with their .38 while you are at home? No real need to even bother staking out the neighborhoods then.

 

Not many criminals do that. It elevates the crime from a simple B&E/burglary to armed robbery (if there's someone in the house). Few people, even criminals (who aren't usually very bright) are that stupid.

[Strong Bob]

Sure..not much difference when no one is at home to actually fire....but what is your baseball bat really going to do to stop someone from breaking in with their .38 while you are at home?

 

If there was a gun ban, and someone had just the right connections to own a gun, I doubt he would be so stupid as to attempt breaking and entering. Can you show me one example of someone breaking into a house where the ownership of a gun would've helped the situation?

 

Seriously... That's like saying people should be allowed to own rapid fire automatic weapons, like M16s, just in case someone broke into the house with a P-90.

 

That's generally the case. It's much easier to subjugate a population that can't fight back. Once they take away the power of the citizens to defend themselves/revolt all other rights can be taken on a whim.

 

In one way, that's true. But a government is designed to require it's people to function. Meaning that people need to be happy, otherwise things will not turn out well for the government. This happened to the British when they settled Thirteen Colonies separate from Europe...

 

As for the body armor, I have my doubts wheather it would stand up to rifle fire all that well without seriously hampering mobility. The current vests are only built to take pistol fire and fragments and maybe smaller rifles with trauma plates inserted and you probably won't me getting up to fight for a while after your ribs are broken from the shock after absorbing the blast.

 

Okay then. I'll just run over your house with a tank.

 

I'd also recommend looking up liquid kevlar. I don't quite have a link for information right now, but in my next post I will very likely have one.

 

The whole citizen's army bit is also covered in the 2nd Amendment when it refers to the militia.

 

Good. Then we should have special training schools for a civilian militia, instead of allowing just about any redneck to own a shotgun to fend off those pesky robbers. That way, after a nice long course in all the safety rules regarding guns of all kinds. I'd say a 1 year course would do the trick... Spend a few hours each week on gun safety rules, the proper way to fire, and the accurate way to fire.

 

Maybe then, when someone breaks in, it's a lot less likely he'll possess a .38. Since he's risking breaking and entering while you're home, it's not likely he was smart enough to see the course through.

[Jman4117]

If there was a gun ban, and someone had just the right connections to own a gun, I doubt he would be so stupid as to attempt breaking and entering. Can you show me one example of someone breaking into a house where the ownership of a gun would've helped the situation?

 

There's roughly 200 million guns in the US, I doubt even half could be rounded up. Steal one from someone that has one.

 

As for the breaking and enterings, take your pick:

https://www.davekopel.org/2A/LawRev/LawyersGunsBurglars.htm

Quite some interesting data in there, such as the rates of breakins with the owner preset being much higher where there is gun control.

 

In one way, that's true. But a government is designed to require it's people to function. Meaning that people need to be happy, otherwise things will not turn out well for the government. This happened to the British when they settled Thirteen Colonies separate from Europe...

 

My guess is something like 2 billion people people living under totalitarianism.

 

I'd also recommend looking up liquid kevlar. I don't quite have a link for information right now, but in my next post I will very likely have one.

 

Do you have any actual strength stats on this? All I was able to find were references to it's flexibility and it being used with ceramic plate armour.

 

Good. Then we should have special training schools for a civilian militia, instead of allowing just about any redneck to own a shotgun to fend off those pesky robbers. That way, after a nice long course in all the safety rules regarding guns of all kinds. I'd say a 1 year course would do the trick... Spend a few hours each week on gun safety rules, the proper way to fire, and the accurate way to fire.

 

Yes, it would be great if people would actually go to safety and marksmanship schools, but if it were manditory for you to do so it would no longer be a RIGHT for you to posess a firearm but a PRIVILEGE.

[Strong Bob]

Yes, it would be great if people would actually go to safety and marksmanship schools, but if it were manditory for you to do so it would no longer be a RIGHT for you to posess a firearm but a PRIVILEGE.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You would have every right to earn that previlige. Just like you have every right to apply for a driver's license. Are you saying people should not take driving classes before recieving a license to drive? Guns are a hell of a lot more dangerous...

 

Oh, and here are some quotes directly from your link...

 

It is axiomatic in the United States that burglars avoid occupied homes. As an introductory criminology textbook explains, "Burglars do not want contact with occupants; they depend on stealth for success."

 

Only thirteen percent of U.S. residential burglaries are attempted against occupied homes.

 

In Quebec, the provincial police (Sureté du Québec) are under orders from their commander to reduce arrests for burglary, because the jails are full. (Of course the crime rates would be higher, because of this!)

 

Thirty-four percent of the interviewees admitted to owning a firearm. This figure is low compared to dozens of other national studies of household firearms ownership. Perhaps the telephone interviewers encountered an especially high number of people who were unwilling to disclose their ownership of a gun (and would therefore be unwilling to disclose, later in the interview, their use of that gun). Thus, the burglary researchers are more likely to have underestimated anti-burglar firearms use than to have over-estimated it. (I like how they only admit to possible falsehood when it works to the article's advantage...)

 

Regardless, I do not argue that a gun could potentially ward off an intruder or even stop it. But this article neglects to point out the ratio of how many innocent people die when compared to the amount of halted burglaries. It concentrates on one aspect.

 

Although... I'm left very skeptical. I know a lot of people that have has their houses broken into, myself included. The, by far, most notably effective deterent is having an attack dog or wolf wybrid in your home. The ghetto downtown from me... Everybody has guns. But believe it or not, the crime rate down there is higher than it is in my own neighborhood. One of my neighbors has a paint ball gun. I have a pellet gun. One neighbor has a crossbow. Other people in my neighborhood? I only know ONE person in possession of a pistol. Everyone else around here seem to either be afraid of, or simply not interested in, any guns.

 

So why isn't the crime rate here much higher than the slums where owning a gun is so common? I admit, there could be plenty other people in my neighborhood that own guns. But that means nothing. The thing is, it's readily known enough for it to be a deterent.

 

And in regards to liquid kevlar...

 

https://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,1331..._042104.00.html

 

Not much data here... Just that it has the likely potential to be superior to normal kevlar.

 

I went looking for the old article, but my time on this PC is up. I am VERY certain it had comparison tests on BBC, since that's the only news site I've looked at in a long time, it would most likely be where I discovered it.

[Jman4117]

Only thirteen percent of U.S. residential burglaries are attempted against occupied homes.

 

It also gave one for the UK, and it was nearly 60%.

 

A 1982 British survey found fifty-nine percent of attempted burglaries involved an occupied home. [FN16] The Wall Street Journal reported: 

   Compared with London, New York is downright safe in one category: burglary. In London, where many homes have been burglarized half a dozen times, and where psychologists specialize in treating children traumatized by such thefts, the rate is nearly twice as high as in the Big Apple. And burglars here increasingly prefer striking when occupants are home, since alarms and locks tend to be disengaged and intruders have little to fear from unarmed residents. [FN17]

In Britain, seventy-seven percent of the population was afraid of burglary in 1994, compared to sixty percent in 1987. [FN18] The London Sunday Times, pointing to Britain's soaring burglary rate, calls Britain "a nation of thieves." [FN19] In the Netherlands, forty-eight percent of residential burglaries involved an occupied home. [FN20] In the Republic of Ireland, criminologists report that burglars have little reluctance about attacking an occupied residence.

 

Edit: (Called away)

You would have every right to earn that previlige. Just like you have every right to apply for a driver's license. Are you saying people should not take driving classes before recieving a license to drive? Guns are a hell of a lot more dangerous...

You also do not have driving an automobile listed as a "God given and inalienable right" by the US founding documents.

[sir-roosio]

Okay, I want to put in my two pence worth about guns, then I'll go on to the topic of flag burning.

 

GUNS

 

Firstly gun control. Very strict measures on gun control were bought in in the UK during the 90's after an incident in Dunblane, Scotland See here for info effectivley banning the ownership of handguns by individuals in mainland UK. However al this served to do was remove handguns from those who used them legitamatley for sporting reasons. The last two years have seen a huge rise in figures for gun crime in the UK see here for one example . All that happens when gun control laws are introduced is that those who are willing to break the law, are the ones who control the firearms. you think

Things tend to get rather bad when only the government has guns.

you see what it's like when the average British booby has no guns and the criminals do!

 

"Guns don't kill people; Rappers do" Goldie Lookin' Chain

 

FLAGS

 

As for flag burning, this seems like a completely stupid law to me. Firstly "you can't burn the flag 'cos it represents free speech" HELLO? OXYMORON ANYONE? but secondly, it seems superfluous in a democracy. I understand how a dictator may need to pass a law stopping people protesting against his/her decisions, but in a democracy the desicions should be made BY THE PEOPLE and FOR THE PEOPLE. If your democracy is so fantastic, then no one will WANT to burn the flag. So the aim of the democracy should be to reach a state where flag burning is never seen, not because it's illegal, but because nobody wants to demonstrate against their country.

 

That said, I wouldn't want to burn the Union Flag, I believe in what the flag stands for and what it means. However, I'll spark up a Blair effigy anytime you like!

 

p.s.

 

In one way, that's true. But a government is designed to require it's people to function. Meaning that people need to be happy, otherwise things will not turn out well for the government. This happened to the British when they settled Thirteen Colonies separate from Europe...

 

Full auto, please note: I am biting my lips NOW

 

p.p.s. had to edit that as i was having Quote trouble.

[FullAuto]

It's ok SR, they'll learn.

 

There are probably more guns in London, both illegal and legal, than in the rest of the UK put together. Pretty much everyone is still entitled to own a shotgun or rifle, though if you have a conviction for a violent crime you can kiss that chance goodbye. Handguns are illegal, but still owned by quite a few individuals. Not all of them criminals, most of them collectors who just 'forgot' to turn them in.

 

I doubt very much whether having an armed populace would make any difference to a country becoming a totalitarian state, or not. An unarmed populace is still capable of effective resistance, in fact, I'd say passive resistance (just sitting on your arse and not going to work, say) would be more effective than taking your trusty rifle and putting a hole in someone. It involves a lot less killing, for starters, and if enough people did it, it would cripple the country's economy.

Weapons don't really matter. It's willpower that counts.

Does anyone really think that the US armed forces would turn around and enforce totalitarian laws on US soil? Maybe they already are, the Patriot (subtle, George, subtle) Act seems like a bit of a bugger.

Much better to just not go to work in your millions, grind the country to a halt and insist upon a new government again.

Isn't that what you Yanks are supposed to do, anyway? Just overthrow your government if it gets nasty and get a new one? I thought you'd do that the first time Bush got in, but apparently not.

[sir-roosio]

in fact, I'd say passive resistance (just sitting on your arse and not going to work, say) would be more effective than taking your trusty rifle and putting a hole in someone

 

So THATS what you've been doing since you left uni!

 

Vive la revolution!

[FullAuto]

Not true! I'm self-employed. Besides, I have no interest in starting a revolution. People still think 'communism' is a dirty word. Sadly, pretty much every style of government that people think are viable are reliant upon concentration of power and influence, instead of it's dispersal.

[Strong Bob]

Isn't that what you Yanks are supposed to do, anyway? Just overthrow your government if it gets nasty and get a new one? I thought you'd do that the first time Bush got in, but apparently not.

 

So far, just about nobody has noticed. If you tried to convince someone to do this their attitude would be more like: "Why fix something that isn't broke?"