Why americans scare me

[Mister Frag 0]

You can go to ANY country in the world and find airplanes designed and built in North America, Europe, Asia, and South America.

They don't all come from the United States, you know...

[Assault (CAN) 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Some values (homocides/100,000 people):

USA - 9

Sweden - 1

Canada - 2

<span id='postcolor'>

That's all well and good, but how many of those were caused by guns? It's obvious that the U.S. has a violence problem, but a gun problem?

We in Canada have easier access to guns than in most European countries, yet our rate of homicides are comparably low. It all depends on the society. How do you think those stats would have been 40 to 50 years ago? I venture to guess that they would be a bit lower in the U.S. than they are now.

Tyler

[§nake 0]

*cough* *cough*

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The Americans

written by Gordon Sinclair

The United States dollar took another pounding on German, French and British exchanges this morning, hitting the lowest point ever known in West Germany. It has declined there by 41% since 1971 and this Canadian thinks it is time to speak up for the Americans as the most generous and possibly the least-appreciated people in all the world.

As long as sixty years ago, when I first started to read newspapers, I read of floods on the Yellow River and the Yangtse. Well, Who rushed in with men and money to help? The Americans did, that's who.

They have helped control floods on the Nile, the Amazon, the Ganges and the Niger. Today, the rich bottom land of the Mississippi is under water and no foreign land has sent a dollar to help. Germany, Japan and, to a lesser extent, Britain and Italy, were lifted out of the debris of war by the Americans who poured in billions of dollars and forgave other billions in debts. None of those countries is today paying even the interest on its remaining debts to the United States.

When the france was in danger of collapsing in 1956, it was the Americans who propped it up and their reward was to be insulted and swindled on the streets of Paris. And I was there. I saw that.

When distant cities are hit by earthquakes, it is the United States that hurries into help... Managua Nicaragua is one of the most recent examples. So far this spring, 59 American communities have been flattened by tornadoes. Nobody has helped.

The Marshall Plan... the Truman Policy... all pumped billions upon billions of dollars into discouraged countries. And now, newspapers in those countries are writing about the decadent war-mongering Americans.

I'd like to see one of those countries that is gloating over the erosion of the United States dollar build its own airplanes.

Come on... let's hear it! Does any other country in the world have a plane to equal the Boeing Jumbo Jet, the Lockheed Tristar or the Douglas 10? If so, why don't they fly them? Why do all international lines except Russia fly American planes? Why does no other land on earth even consider putting a man or a women on the moon?

You talk about Japanese technocracy and you get radios. You talk about German technocracy and you get automobiles. You talk about American technocracy and you find men on the moon, not once, but several times ... and safely home again. You talk about scandals and the Americans put theirs right in the store window for everybody to look at. Even the draft dodgers are not pursued and hounded. They are right here on our streets in Toronto, most of them... unless they are breaking Canadian laws... are getting American dollars from Ma and Pa at home to spend here.

When the Americans get out of this bind... as they will... who could blame them if they said 'the hell with the rest of the world'. Let someone else buy the bonds, let someone else build or repair foreign dams or design foreign buildings that won't shake apart in earthquakes.

When the railways of France, Germany and India were breaking down through age, it was the Americans who rebuilt them. When the Pennsylvania Railroad and the New York Central went broke, nobody loaned them an old caboose. Both of them are still broke. I can name to you 5,000 times when the Americans raced to the help of other people in trouble.

Can you name to me even one time when someone else raced to the Americans in trouble? I don't think there was outside help even during the San Francisco earthquake.

Our neighbours have faced it alone and I am one Canadian who is damned tired of hearing them kicked around. They will come out of this thing with their flag high. And when they do, they are entitled to thumb their noses at the lands that are gloating over their present troubles.

I hope Canada is not one of these. But there are many smug, self-righteous Canadians. And finally, the American Red Cross was told at its 48th Annual meeting in New Orleans this morning that it was broke.

This year's disasters... with the year less than half-over... has taken it all and nobody... but nobody... has helped.

<span id='postcolor'>

[Assault (CAN) 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 03 2002,03:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Assault (CAN) @ April 03 2002,03:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In these debates alot of stupid hypothetical situations arise to help out someones debate. It's common sense that only criminals commit crime, most of the guns criminals own are illegally bought because they can't buy one legally. So they steal one or buy one off the streets for some cash.

It is also common sense that criminals do not obey the law, so when you go making a bunch of stupid laws to help 'end crime', only law abiding citizens will follow those laws. So in the end, it's the average law abiding guy who is getting screwed over. Laws are not good when they screw you over, all laws big or small need to have a use, 'gun control' is not one of them.<span id='postcolor'>

If there are no guns around to buy, the criminals will have a harder time to get them.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There are also alot of myths that gun grabbers throw around to make guns look bad. For any myth there is a fact to counter it. For any questions you guys may have about guns, go here.<span id='postcolor'>

Oh yes. From gunnery.net. I am sure that they are not biased in any way. But ok. Let's see what they have to say:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Myth: 58% of murder victims are killd by either relatives or acquaintances.

Fact: Only one city, Chicago reports a precise breakdown on the nature of acquaintance killings: Between 1990 and 1995 only 17% of murder victims were family members, friends, neighbors and/or roommates. The rest were people with criminal records, killed by other criminals.

<span id='postcolor'>

My god - 17% !! I didn't know that it was that bad. And this is a gun propaganda FAQ, so it's probably worse. Apply that to the figures of 1995 (approx 20000 homocides) = 3400 people were murdered by gunshot in one year by somebody in the family. The majority of those people would probably be alive if their dear relatives had not had guns at home. And you are saying that it is worth those deaths - for what?

.. I feel that I am being outgunned here by the Americans since most people here in Europe are asleep.. so I'm off to bed too but I'll be glad to continue this debate tomorrow...<span id='postcolor'>

Oh god, here we go.

Those facts were not created by gunnery.net, merely posted by them.

Allow me to quote the opening page:

The facts in Gun Facts are painstakingly researched and professionally detailed with all sources and external references noted or included.

In my opinion, Gun Facts is the finest single source document available pertaining to gun ownership and our Second Amendment rights. It dispels the many myths of firearms ownership and gives an objective and factual representation of lawful gun ownership and gun crime in this country. Gun Facts is a must read for all citizens, reporters, elected representatives and scholars alike.

So there you have it, I'll be back later when I have more time to waste. I knew that I should have stayed out of this debate, I have too much homework to do.

[rpc007 0]

just look at wobble's sig

[rpc007 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Assault (CAN) @ April 03 2002,03:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Some values (homocides/100,000 people):

USA  - 9

Sweden - 1

Canada - 2<span id='postcolor'>

well as of 1999, and it is lower now, the US had 5.7 homicides / 100,000 peeps

[§nake 0]

just stay away from the suicide topic... I've had 1 person kill himself with a .22 because he was drunk.. another one had to have his skull rebuilt because he firing a .357 mag that skimed the side of his skull just missing hsi brain.. and I stopped my best friend from eating a 12 gauge slug last year...

When times get tough, ignore the pain and remeber your past.. and just keep pushing forward. No matter what happens, you'll always end up on top. Never give up.

[Major Fubar 0]

Wobble, you didn't answer my hypothetical back on page 6....

If some thug comes at you with a knife, and you whip out your pistol and fire away, what happens if you accidentally hit an innocent bystander? Do you just chalk it up? "Oh well, at least I wasn't harmed."

Guns in homes for defence, yes, I can agree with that. In effect, they have performed an invasion, and like any invasion (of a country for example), can be met with armed resistance.

Packing heat on the street is a different ballgame, opening up all sorts of nasty possibilities. You get jumped from behind and the gun is wrestled away from you. All of a sudden a criminal either unarmed or carrying a blade suddenly has a gun. Someone comes at you with a gun and a running gun battle ensues, putting anyone in the vicinity in danger. You (not you personally Wobble) come accross a situation where you get really pissed off and pull out your pistol to scare someone, then things escalate from there.

To sum up my point: guns for sporting purposes or home defence = OK. Concealed weapons on the streets in the hands of civilians = not OK.

[Wobble 1]

If there are no guns around to buy, the criminals will have a harder time to get them

this is just rearded.. there will ALWAYS be guns to buy..  you think there are tons of full auto non regestered AK-47s here in the US for sale in legit gun shops??  NO! well who is giving them to all these damn gangs then? the Kalashnikov fairy?  no.. the black market, gun runners.. etc etc..

where there is a demand there will ALWAYS be a supply..

and as long as there are criminals there will always be a demand..

what stores sell crack? none? well where do people get it?

As for the US's crime stats..  remember one fact.. crime gravitites to MONEY.. and per capita Americans are the most wealthy people in the world..

lots of crome COMES to america.. Triads, the Russian Mafia came here after the soviet collapse becuase the place was so damn poor they couldent even steal enough to pay off the police and still turn a profit anymore..

culture is culture is culture.. but crime goes where the money is.

and yes homicides have nothing to do with money... but how many of those shootings took place during a robbery, a hold up, a mugging, a carjacking. etc etc..

wealth draws all kinds.. those who want to earn and thos who want to take.. and the US has lots of wealth for the taking..

If some thug comes at you with a knife, and you whip out your pistol and fire away, what happens if you accidentally hit an innocent bystander? Do you just chalk it up? "Oh well, at least I wasn't harmed."

well

A: innocent bystandards dot just stand around and watch a mugging

B: if he had a knife he would be close.. close enough to shoot without much risk of missing..

Packing heat on the street is a different ballgame, opening up all sorts of nasty possibilities.

an encounter with a deranged mugger/killer/rapist with no effective means of defence opens up alot worse possabilities

[USSoldier11B 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">well as of 1999, and it is lower now, the US had 5.7 homicides / 100,000 peeps <span id='postcolor'>

Uh, yeah what is the population of your country? More people means more criminals. Also take into account that we have more urbanized areas (inner city slums) than you do, hence more crime. Most of these crimes are commited with weapons that were obtained illegally. (Like Columbine)

In the town I grew up in almost everyone owned guns. # of homicides in a 20 year period = 0.

[Major Fubar 0]

You must be one helluva marksman to be sure that you'll never miss an assailant (not to mention bullets passing through people, not often with pistol rounds, but it does happen)...and innocent bystanders don't stand around watching a mugging: true,  some lady with a pram might flee, to catch a 9mm slug that just sailed right on thru Mr Mugger in the back of her skull.  

Thee is a reason cops do everything they can to avoid firing in public places, and I'm willing to bet most experienced cops are far better pistol marksmen than you Wobble.

Also, if it's gun vs. gun, in most cases, wont the perp have the drop on you, since he will most likely have his pistol aimed at you before you can draw yours?

Anyway, not trying to put you down man, just raising some points.

[LauryThorn 0]

What would you guys btw do with a semi-automatic?

Hunt?

Someone told that he has taken a 12-gauge out of his friend's

mouth..

When I was a teenager, 17 or so, I was at a party, which took place at some half-strangers house.

So one of my "mates", who was pretty tired and drank too

much, decides that he doesn't want to live no more.

That is kind of usual, so no one paid attention.

Until..

He found some pistol from some locker I guess, and starts

pointing it at his head, looking not so stabile.

After painfully long 15 minutes, he made up his mind and

put the pistol back.

But I can't support hand guns at people's homes after that.

[Oligo 1]

All this got me thinking:

What if everybody had guns at home? Would the criminals just decide that it is too dangerous to do home invasion and stop? I seriously doubt it.

Let's consider why all those gang people in U.S. have illegal AK47s, like Wobble said: Since you can get pistols legally, you have to escalate to (illegal) assault rifles to counter the threat of (legal) pistols. In Europe, most armed crime is done with pistols, since they are enough have the edge over the general populace. So what if the citizens were wielding assault rifles? The criminals would probably get frag. grenades, LAWs and AAMGs...

The criminals apparently follow the +1 strategy. They are always a step above the legal status. However, as escalation proceeds, more and more situations are resolved with the use of deadly force. So a higher level of armament means more deaths per incident.

[LauryThorn 0]

It would be amusing to see someone rob a bank

using 12.7 anti-air mg

I support your theory oligo, the picture just is so amusing.

[Guest]

6--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wobble @ April 03 2002,056)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If there are no guns around to buy, the criminals will have a harder time to get them

this is just rearded.. there will ALWAYS be guns to buy..  you think there are tons of full auto non regestered AK-47s here in the US for sale in legit gun shops??  NO! well who is giving them to all these damn gangs then? the Kalashnikov fairy?  no.. the black market, gun runners.. etc etc..

where there is a demand there will ALWAYS be a supply..

and as long as there are criminals there will always be a demand..<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, there is a supply if there is a demand. I never said that gun control would remove all the guns from the criminals. It will however reduce it significantly. It is a very simple equation - if you have less guns in the country the harder it will be for anyone to get a gun.

You have a demand for nuclear weapons too, but you don't see them being sold to anybody who has the money.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As for the US's crime stats..  remember one fact.. crime gravitites to MONEY.. and per capita Americans are the most wealthy people in the world.. <span id='postcolor'>

Not true. Luxemburg for instance has a higher GDP/capita and much less homocides. As a matter of fact, all the countries in the top GDP list (Like Switzerland, Singapore, Norway, Belgium, Denmark ....) have a much lower crime statistics then USA. Actually the world's highest crime statistics comes from poor countries.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">lots of crome COMES to america.. Triads, the Russian Mafia came here after the soviet collapse becuase the place was so damn poor they couldent even steal enough to pay off the police and still turn a profit anymore..

<span id='postcolor'>

Nothing personal, but please, try to grow a brain. According to that pro-gun FAQ that Tyler posted 17% of the homocides were commited by relatives. Just that gives a USA a higher homocide/capita count then the total counts for any European country. And they didn't count self-inflicted gunshots which inevitably comes when people who can't handle guns are allowed to operate them.

I think that the school shootings in the US are a prime example of what can happen when you let civilians have guns. It is not the gun's fault that it happened, but they provided the means to make it happen. And for what? Is crime really such a problem in the US so that it's citizens need to be armed? What does your police do?

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Assault (CAN) @ April 03 2002,03:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Oh god, here we go.

Those facts were not created by gunnery.net, merely posted by them.

Allow me to quote the opening page:

The facts in Gun Facts are painstakingly researched and professionally detailed with all sources and external references noted or included.

In my opinion, Gun Facts is the finest single source document available pertaining to gun ownership and our Second Amendment rights. It dispels the many myths of firearms ownership and gives an objective and factual representation of lawful gun ownership and gun crime in this country. Gun Facts is a must read for all citizens, reporters, elected representatives and scholars alike.<span id='postcolor'>

Oh dear. Now you have me convinced. And I who thought that they were biased and selected facts that suited their purpouses. Little did I know that they had said in the openings statement that it was all true. That makes all the difference.

Come on - you can't seriously try to convince me that they are not biased, just because they say that they are not. It is not a question of fabricating facts - it is a question of selecting facts that suit your goal and ignore the other.

[Oligo 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (LauryThorn @ April 03 2002,08:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It would be amusing to see someone rob a bank

using 12.7 anti-air mg

I support your theory oligo, the picture just is so amusing.<span id='postcolor'>

Well, they'd probably attach it to a truck, drive to the front of the bank and slaughter all the people inside the bank and in the nearby buildings with fire from the 12.7mm baby.

The way I see it, most of the criminals aren't THAT stupid and thus they would want to maximize their chances of succeeding in the crime. Therefore, always better armament than the Joe on the street...

One thing I'd like to know, though: Why has sniper cover never been used in bank robberies or such crimes (AFAIK)? I mean, a high power 7.62mm hunting rifle with a good scope is one of the easiest weapons to get. You send most of your men in to rob the bank, but also have some snipers with spotters located nearby. If the cops come, the snipers can shoot at the cops and cover the exit of the bank robbers, before displacing themselves.

What comes to mind is the American Bank incident. The robbers were very well prepared, wielding assault weapons and body armor. Why the hell didn't they plant snipers in overwatch positions? Then it would have been impossible for the cops to surround the bank, because it is hard to do that while eating fire from concealed sniper positions.

[LauryThorn 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">: Why has sniper cover never been used in bank robberies or such crimes <span id='postcolor'>

Hey!

That sounds like a good idea.

I'll give it a try today!

[Oligo 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (LauryThorn @ April 03 2002,10:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hey!

That sounds like a good idea.

I'll give it a try today!<span id='postcolor'>

Oh, come on, theoretically of course!

[Longinius 1]

"One thing I'd like to know, though: Why has sniper cover never been used in bank robberies or such crimes (AFAIK)? I mean, a high power 7.62mm hunting rifle with a good scope is one of the easiest weapons to get. You send most of your men in to rob the bank, but also have some snipers with spotters located nearby. If the cops come, the snipers can shoot at the cops and cover the exit of the bank robbers, before displacing themselves."

It has, actually. About ten years or so ago in Sweden there was a band of bankrobbers called "Militär ligan" which translated means "The Military Gang". They used military weapons (Assault rifles, HMG's and sniper rifles) when they robbed the banks. I am not sure they ever had to kill anyone during the robberies. The sight of the immense gunpower alone was enough to supress any resistance.

At one robbery where they hit two or three banks in one strike they had a van parked out front. The sunroof was opened and one of the gang members was positioned there with an HMG (the Swedish KSP 58). An elderly man approached the van, unaware that a robbery was in progress.

Elderly man: Hey there, this some kind of exercise or what?

Gang member: Shut up and stand clear. This is a robbery.

The old man left. Quite quickly I might add.

[Oligo 1]

So what happened to the Military Gang, do you know? Did they get caught or did crime pay? It seems to me their use of firearms was disciplined, although their actions were... dubious.

[Longinius 1]

They got caught, because of greed. It started out as a means to solve economic problems. They noticed that it was easy and that they were good and continued to do robberies. It ended with three gang members getting caught doing a hit of their own. They ratted the rest out.

And yes, they were very disciplined and very smart. If they had stopped in time they would probably never have been caught. And unlike recent gangs they didn't attack civilians in the banks. They even let young and weak of heart leave the scene so they shouldn't suffer from the stress. In a way, they were Robin Hoods. Except, they kept it all for themselves, ofcourse.

[LauryThorn 0]

Killing a police officer is really ugly, I think.

Just had to add that, because my "joke" was little

untasteful..

[Longinius 1]

"Killing a police officer is really ugly, I think."

Ofcourse it is, it is an attack on society itself. On the other hand, its a part of their job.

[Oligo 1]

"They got caught, because of greed. It started out as a means to solve economic problems. They noticed that it was easy and that they were good and continued to do robberies. It ended with three gang members getting caught doing a hit of their own. They ratted the rest out."

Aww... Greed, the one thing to bring down empires. The way I see it, they should have done just a few good paying jobs and then disappeared. You don't have to have THAT much money to live very nicely for the rest of your life. But they got greedy, so they lost the game.

"And yes, they were very disciplined and very smart. If they had stopped in time they would probably never have been caught. And unlike recent gangs they didn't attack civilians in the banks. They even let young and weak of heart leave the scene so they shouldn't suffer from the stress. In a way, they were Robin Hoods. Except, they kept it all for themselves, ofcourse."

They definitely weren't Robin Hoods, having purely selfish motives. But they definitely weren't from the worst lot either, having a lot of discipline and good ROE. All this shows very neatly how vulnerable our society is to disciplined, decisive action. I'm surprised why so few criminals use such methods.

"Killing a police officer is really ugly, I think.

Just had to add that, because my "joke" was little

untasteful.."

Killing a police officer is exactly equal (no better, no worse) to killing any human being. Besides, using sniper cover doesn't mean you actually HAVE to kill the cops. You could just pin them down and/or make them retreat.

The problem is, though, that the police are not (AFAIK) trained to realize when they are outgunned and outmaneuvered. So some cop lacking any common sense might just believe blindly into his authority and not give up, even when faced with overwhelming opposition. There are not many options but to wound or kill those cops.

All this is of course just theoretical discussion about the 'war' between the cops and the robbers.