Oh god, read this on slashdot:
- "Geeks, what are you using for home defence ?",
- first answer: "Buy a gun .."
Here in France, quite nobody have a gun, and guess what .. if you kill an intruder you will go in jail! and that’s fine. I’m wondering if you look at me as a love-and-peace smoker, but i’m not. That’s the law, you can imagine killing an intruder just because he has break your car ? I’m not.
I have the feeling that U.S.A is a country where:
- you can kill for a cigarette
- you have to believe in Jesus
- vote for Bush
- forbid cigarettes, alcohol..
- eat junk found
Slahdotters are you killers ?
I think, I should ask for everybody reading this blog:
"Do you have a gun ?", and ban people that say: yes
Shawn why do you want the right to "bear arms"?
I know they’d probably be cool looking, being furry and everything, but depriving a bear of his (or her) arms is fairly cruel.
I mean, I know bears ‘can’ walk upright but as far as I know it’s only for a short period of time, with them preferring to walk/amble along on four limbs.
Plus how are they supposed to feed themselves without arms…
Anyway, I think Americans should give up the right to bear arms and let the bears keep their limbs.
ps. There’s also the problem of not enough bears for _everyone_ to have their own set of bear arms. Well, unless you amend the constitution to allow the right to bear legs as well. But that’d just be silly, I mean, what could you do with a bear leg?
The right to keep guns (“bear arms”) was put in the American Constitution to make sure people would be able to protect themselves, in particular, that they would always be able to rise up against a government that became tyrranical. Hunting and sport shooting is all well and good, but that’s not the freedom that the Constitution is protecting.
I seem to remember being taught that the Swiss all receive obligatory military training and are required to keep a gun at home, in order to be able to mobilize an army quickly, when required. Is that no longer true?
Have you done your due diligence?
You don’t live in the US, thus you are just guessing when you make your conclusions about what the US is like. To save us all a lot of trouble why not:
There is nothing more annoying then someone having an uneducated and baseless opinion
@anonymous american from above.
You’re offended by Jkx’s entry, because he expresses some opinion about the wrongs of USA.
Ah you see, would the USA stick to solve their own problems first, and not blow up people all over the world instead, claiming even they had a right to do so, when they hadn’t…
There wouldn’t be this shitrain of comments on USA in the first place.
IMHO by electing the goverment americans have now, they’re not in the position to whine about comments, qualified or not.
Hi Jkx,
I would like give you my humble opinion as an American who has travelled quite a bit around the world!
Yes, you can kill for cigarettes. I’m pretty sure you can in France as well. In both countries, you will be punished when caught.
Without spending too much time on this, let’s just use the World Factbook as a reference (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html).
United States: Protestant 56%, Roman Catholic 28%, Jewish 2%, other 4%, none 10% (from 1989).
France: Roman Catholic 83-88%, Protestant 2%, Jewish 1%, Muslim 5-10%, unaffiliated 4%.
These numbers don’t look that different to me, which isn’t surprising considering the majority of our ancestors came from western Europe :)
Meanwhile, we Americans see religious behavior in Europe that seems disturbing. For instance, the portion of taxes in Germany that must go to either the Roman Catholic or the Lutheran churches. If I were Muslim or a Buddhist I would be unhappy to be forced to give a portion of my income to those faiths. In France, there is the issue with banning wearing of the Hibab. Sure you may feel you have good reasons to ban it, but it is still preventing people from practicing their own faith, which is a freedom we guard jealously in America.
Bush did not win a majority of the votes in the previous election. In fact, not many American presidents of the last century won with a majority vote. So it’s safe to say less than 50% of Americans voted for Bush (or Clinton, etc.)
Yes, there used to be local communities that forbid cigarettes and alcohol completely. I’m not sure how many of those are still around though :) Places like California and New York City now forbid smoking in public areas, but that’s not the same as completely forbidding those acts. It’s only a matter of time before this happens in Europe as well. I’ve seen the groundwork being laid in Germany. By the way, I’ve also lived in areas of America where the smoke is just as thick as anywhere I’ve been in Europe.
Yes, we eat way too much junk food in America. But should the government pass a law tell me what I must eat? Or pass a law to forbid fast food as well as cigarettes? :)
Personally, I eat more fast food every time I travel to Germany (5-6 weeks every year) than when I am home. When at home I prefer to eat French cooking, but that’s because I like it… not because the government says I must.
Finally, to address your main point about guns: it seems to me there is a primary difference between most Americans and most Europeans. Most Americans (but not all) believe the government cannot defend us from criminals. The government can only track down the criminals later and punish them for a crime already committed. This doesn’t help the victim if they are raped or killed. Most of us also have a basic distrust of government. Our constitution designed a government with a system of checks and balances to prevent a single group or person from gaining too much power. A right to own guns is seen by some to be the last resort "check" against a government that becomes a tyranny.
I should add that I don’t own a gun and don’t feel a need to own a gun. In fact, I don’t even lock my house.
However, I strongly believe I should be allowed to buy a gun should I want one. I also strongly believe I should be allowed to smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol, and worship Haile Selassie if I so desire.
Florian: do you honestly believe we don’t criticize ourselves, or try and fix problems? Or that all we want to do is blow up people?
Speaking as somebody who has lived in the US, France, Germany and the UK, I’d like to correct one misconception: the German ‘Church Tax’ is only required of people that actually register as worshipping at a church (although by default you are assumed to be registered at the local church – you have to answer the ‘religion’ question correctly on the Tax forms).
Hence Moslem, Buddhists, and Atheists (like me) are not required to pay the tax – it’s merely a government-required tithe for Christians.
I want to chime in with my perspective on firearms here in the US. I am a gun owner, an avid sport shooter and licensed to carry concealed firearms in the state that I live in.
Did you ask why? Well, it is because I have accepted responsibility for the safety the people that I love and for the people that I come in contact every day. It is a responsibility that we all have. The majority of people just ignore it.
The words “just be a good witness” ring kind of hollow when you have just found your mother being beaten by an estranged husband, or when you find a childhood friend shortly after being raped. If either had been armed they would have probably been much better off.
I really think that a person’s view on firearms is a pretty good indicator of how they feel about their fellow man. You don’t trust me. You fear me and what I might do to you. You are defenseless and afraid. I, on the other hand, believe that the man next to me is responsible until proven otherwise. He can safely protect his family, and I can protect mine. In the end we have no reason to fear each other. I am not afraid. You live in fear and I live in peace.
If guns kill people mine must be defective.
Gun attitudes depend on geography as well. In most major urban areas (at least in the North) the political climate is much more anti-gun, and people generally support gun control. This might have something to do with the way crime is different in urban areas, or it might be that urbanites are generally more "liberal", or that there aren’t many reasons to own a gun in the city except for violent reasons, or it may simply be a cultural difference.
Of course, the police in urban areas are armed to the teeth, despite there being few valid reasons for many of their arms. You simply can’t safely use large arms in the city, ever, no matter how violent the crime is. While they also often have other non-lethal weapons that are only useful for beating people up. But that’s another issue entirely.
Ian, it is interesting that you mention the differing values in different regions of the US. Have you noticed that the cities that have the tightest gun control (Chicago, DC, NYC) have the highest murder rates? While the states that have the most generous concealed carry legislation (most notably Vermont) have the lowest crime?
Many times more people die each year in swimming accidents than die from firearms related crime and accidents. Yet we continue to allow the private ownership of “assault swimming pools.” This must be stopped. If it saves the life of one child the ban on ownership of private bodies of water should is totally worth it. look, it’s for the children! And you can trust your government to keep all natural water and swimming pools in trust for you. Think of how safe from drowning you will feel! So I guess that the next thing would be the banning of private bathtubs and we would have to regulate and monitor all water wells and water bills to make sure that there are not any covert swimming operations going on.
In the US firearms are statistically one of the safest things you can own.
Darias, could you please back your argument with links to the cited statistics?
Ok, this post tend to be a troll ! ..
So, I won’t argue a long time here but:
– Democatric: "Rule by the People and for the people."
Van Gale: Since the USA have this "blowing up people" business going practicaly without interruption the last 60 years, the ones who like to change things, and disaproove of it, are either a minority or have a gross misconception of democratic goverment.
Public saying has it the USA have such a democratic goverment, and as such, I am led to believe that the common people are actualy responsible who rules and how they do it. If you speak for the reasonable and decent majority of people, why does the country run the way it runs?
Huh, why is everyone talking about guns?
I thought we were discussing the cruelty of removing bear arms.
First off, why do u think animals should be protected? They were put here for our benifit and not for us to love. Second, every type of gun should be allowed just so u have a background check and a simple liscence. Strict gun control is pretty much useless. As you should know that cities that have the strictest gun rules also have the highest gun crime rates. Criminals seem to enjoy breaking laws, and with new ones that just means more for them to break. I am not a liberal i just think that people with some common sense should make the rules and not the kind of people that started this thread.
First off, why do u think animals should be protected? They were put here for our benefit and not for us to love. Second, every type of gun should be allowed just so u have a background check and a simple license. Strict gun control is pretty much useless. As you should know that cities that have the strictest gun rules also have the highest gun crime rates. Criminals seem to enjoy breaking laws, and with new ones that just means more for them to break. I am not a liberal i just think that people with some common sense should make the rules and not the kind of people that started this thread.
Yeah, I live in America. Here it is enumerated in the law of the land, the Constitution, that the citizens have the right to bear arms. Some people do use guns for crime, but many more use guns for hunting, for protection, and for sport.
As for your bullets (no pun intended):
I’m a practicing Buddhist.
Just wanted to clarify things. If you wish to ban me, that’s fine. It’s your blog.
I come from switzerland, and here you can carry a gun if you have a license, or if you serve military time.
Military service here is obligatory, meaning that every man has to perform it in his life as a "good" citizen.
Since 1990 the standard weapon handed to almost every solder is the http://swissarms2.ath.cx/index.php?id=68&lang=de">SIG 550
You have to take this rifle home when not in the military. So practicaly almost every swiss man has a fully automatic assault rifle ( optionaly with 44mm granade launcher ) at home.
And before you ask, yes there are incidents, once a few years ago, somebody shot 16 regional politicians with this rifle, with munition he shouldn’t have been able to obtain.
Comparing breaking into a car and breaking into a home is the fallacy of false comparison.
US law generally sees a “man’s home as his castle”. This works out well because it lets people protect their family and loved ones from criminals. It acknowledges that people are generally most vulnerable inside their homes — think children, think showering, sleeping, etc. Criminals are aware of this law and know what they are getting into when they home invade. And most US states don’t allow you to kill unless you fear for your life or others’ lives, but realistically no jury is going to convict a home owner for killing a criminal that breaks in. How would you propose people protect themselves from people breaking in looking to harm people?
As for shooting someone breaking into your car, the law distinguishes between protecting property (can’t use lethal force) and protecting lives. If your wife and kids are in a car that is broken into (car jacked) by a dangerous criminal, you can most definitely use lethal force to protect them.