Sirex, if you can cite actual evidence that guns in the hands of law abiding citizens causes significantly more deaths, that would actually help your argument. Right now, what you are saying is contrary to fact. Less than 1% of accidental deaths are caused by firearms. That's a *fraction* of 1%. The Australian Institute of criminology shows statistics for weapons used in violent crimes such as assaults, homicides, and robberies. Figures for 2004-05 show more people were killed by knives and "hands and feet" after the ban. Firearms was the second highest with blunt instrument and "other" (which includes poisoning, fire, drugs, explosives, vehicles, and other weapons) coming in with small percentages.

How did the gun ban decrease overall violent crime? All these weapon figures from 2005 come with the homicide rate staying relatively stable after a few large spikes. The numbers for 2006 where overall homicides increased again showed 16.5% of murders were commited with firearms while 36.9% were commited with *no* weapon. That is more than double the number of firearms deaths and even more than knives at 33.7%. People are still being killed with guns, and violent crimes continue with different weapons. Prior to the ban, the leading weapon used in homicides as cited by the Australian Intitute of Criminology was a knife. It's no surprise then that a gun ban didn't achieve much. In the US, the Bureau of Justice Statistics shows a substantial and continuing decline of violent crimes involving firearms since 1998 without a ban.

So, now to recap what you are suggesting as I see it. You say "ban the damn things" with no scientific backing. You suggest that your personal opinion that guns serve no purpose should dictate law. Finally, you say that the government should be allowed to force someone to give up perfectly legal hobbies for no reason other than a false claim of deaths "left right and center." What hobbies do you enjoy? Perhaps someone else that fears it is dangerous would like to ban it for you to ensure your saftey and the saftey of others. You think that doesn't apply because you view a gun as a scary instrument of death and nothing more. Like Sketch said, the world is made up of more than just modern suburbia. Part of living in a free country is accepting that just because you don't like something doesn't mean there should be a law against it.

The first amendment could be considered to be dangerous too. I have a Korean friend who was recently talking about some band some time ago that made disparaging comments about Koreans during the riots in LA. She felt that they shouldn't be allowed to say what they did (stuff about killing the store owners or something). I'm certain that there are plenty of other people who feel the same way.

Well, fine then. Let's just get rid of all of these pesky amendments! Who needs them anymore?

No thanks. I may not hunt, I may not own a gun, but I'll purchase one if I have to to defend the rights guaranteed to us by the founders of this country who were greater and smarter men than most. I'll fight for the rights of people to be able to say what they want (other than libel and slander) whether I like what they say or not, and yes, one of those freedoms is the second amendment. To say that people say such things without giving reason means that you weren't listening. Guns have been tools for centuries now, just because you don't need one in modern suburbia doesn't mean other people don't. And because a government's military might be strong doesn't mean that a people should just lay down and take oppression AFTER peaceful protesting and diplomatic channels have been exhausted. If they had in the past, then we never would have gained our freedoms from England in the first place. I don't know what's so difficult to see about that.

I know, discussion's over and I'm probably rehashing. Day late and a dollar short for me.

....looks like I jumped the joint on this one, a different sift with the same video has already been published. My apologies, sir! You may discard at will.

Damnit, Legacy

Go back and read the entire thread, and watch the video again.. I mean seriously.

1) No one said invalidate. We said DEGRADE, COMPROMISE.

2) HILTER WAS NOT ELECTED, he was appointed. So for the love of sushi, stop saying he was elected.

3) Badnarik(Spelled 'BAD' narik) places blame on the Jews for the holocaust....period, end of story.

4) You equate getting almost the entirety of WWII history wrong to a few spelling errors. Are you kidding me?

Damn straight, you are doomed repeat history, especially if you don't even know it.

Drachen,

Comparing anything to rape in a debate, for me is right up there with comparisons to evil dictators, making up words, and name calling. You should rethink you terrificly bad analogy and try another one.

You are operating under the consistent and false assumption that the Jews did not try to stop Hitler. You are unequivocally wrong on that point.

As for analogies, I got a better one.

A man gets carjacked, in the middle of suburbia. Would you blame him for being carjacked?

It's interesting to note that Aussie slang varies considerably from state to state. Here in Adelaide we use quite different slang to those in Melbourne. I've never even heard the term 'wakka' before.

And that girl also got the definition of 'Bogan' wrong. A 'Bogan' is much closer to the American 'trailer trash' or 'rednecks' and lives in lower-class suburbia, not the country.

pt 3

Personal Issues?

''You'd be surprised how many personal issues can crop up,'' he says, laughing.
''Sometimes the debates can get a bit heated and I might have to step in. There are rules on the site about the kind of
content that can go up, for example we don't allow racist or super violent or 'adult' content at all - there are a lot of other
sites doing that.
''Sometimes there will be debate about whether a clip breaks the rules. Ultimately I get the final call on that but the
high-level users have the power to ban other users if someone is blatantly breaking the rules.''

He said the site was a meritocracy where high-level users who contributed popular content could acquire site moderation privileges. ''There's about 50 to 60 people with full site privileges and they are all power-users,'' he said.

''People who are posting a lot of videos that are getting good reviews can get a higher rank on the site.''
Surprisingly, USA-born Mr Houston didn't take the traditional path to his role as a geek grandmaster.

''When I went to university, computers didn't seem to be the big thing so I actually did a degree in international
relations,'' he said.

''I wanted to be a diplomat or work in the foreign service. But in '95, '96 I went to Osaka and got a job managing an
internet cafe and I kind of got into it that way.''

''While I was in Japan, I met my wife, who is an Aussie,'' he said. ''We eventually moved back to Australia because she wanted to be near her family. At some point a got a bit frustrated with the corporate life. When I turned 36 I decided I didn't want to be in a cube for the rest of my life, tied to a mortgage, insurance and little things in suburbia.''

So in a bold move, the couple sold the family home and took their daughter Sophia, then seven years old, and son
Sage, then four, on a round-the-world trip.
''We went back-packing and obviously we couldn't do long treks because of the kids so we did little walks,'' he said.
''I showed my kids where I grew up in Alaska and we also went to Canada, Spain, Ireland - where we visited some of my wife's relatives - and Japan. On their return, Mr Houston couldn't face going back to the corporate world.
''I decided to do some consultancy work for Brainmates, which is a new media product management company, rather than working full-time,'' he said.

''That gave me time to work on other ideas.''

The real problem is who is actually muddling the argument on climate change. The line of diction coming from the fringe and the corporate sponsored media has been of the following nature, that global warming is not caused by man, it's natural and doing anything about it will only mean famine and death for the American economy. Suddenly global warming is up to debate, the most recent data figures and scientific consensus become 'debatable'?

Who exactly has to lose from environmental laws? The American corporations that have for years swinged by on deregulation and stringent fights against goverment legislation and control when it comes to the safety of the society. Examples? Oh seat belts until Ralph Nader, cigarettes until the late 90s practically, these companies don't want to suddenly change overnight, they will fight environmental legislation with tooth and nail because it cuts into profitability, because they know it will take them alot of reinvestment to modernize instead of actually giving away large bonuses the size of small goverment budgets to their departing CEOs.

To say that global warming doesn't happen is to have a lack of basic common understanding about the world, that what effects occur in micro scale occur in macro scale as well, ask anyone who has been to L.A. about the smog that covers the city so much so that it's nearly impossible to see the famous Hollywood sign from most locations of the city, California tried to institute stricter emission laws, you can find out for yourself what happened with that. Ask anyone who has seen an oil tanker spill its guts all over a pristine bay and basically poison life there. Visit the cities in America built on expanses of flat concrete that just burn daily because there is nothing to take the heat of the sun away, the concrete just absorbs it and radiates it right back pushing the temperatures higher then they should normally be.

Now ask yourself what will happen in 50 to 100 years time, how will life be when population will be larger, there will be less fuel to power our nice sleek SUVs of today, and more reliance on dirty fuels like coal as seen in China at the moment, no more oil to burn for energy supplies. The blame now is being laid at the 3rd world, the 3rd world has said that time and time again that it is willing to adopt modern technologies. So obviously the solution is just to give up and burn the furnace for a bit longer. The cities will need to expand, suburbia will press further and further out into the lands. Drive around any US state today, almost row after row of nearly identical neighborhoods, with their own complexes of cinemas, fast food and Starbucks. All they need. Civilizations end because the means to sustain them end. We are reaching the end of our oil economy, lots of alternatives are being thrown about but really they don't understand that most alternatives actually really on a oil based economy to sustain them. Such that investment needs to be now, instead of later when resources will be tighter and harder to attain. Most probably by then there will be small scale energy wars over control of oil wells and other sources of energy.

Frankly why do I bother. Nothing will really happen until shit starts really hitting the fan and our complacency in the current comforts will give way to urgent need for assuring survival. The free people sleep.

Suburbia, and all it promises, has become the American Dream. With brutal honesty and a touch of irony, The END of SUBURBIA explored the American Way of Life and its prospects as the planet enters the age of Peak Oil.

In ESCAPE From SUBURBIA director Greg Greene once again takes us “through the looking glass” on a journey of discovery – a sobering yet vital and ultimately positive exploration of what the second half of the Oil Age has in store for us.

Through personal stories and interviews we examine how declining world oil production has already begun to affect modern life in North America. Expert scientific opinion is balanced with “on the street” portraits from an emerging global movement of citizen’s groups who are confronting the challenges of Peak Oil in extraordinary ways.

The clock is ticking. ESCAPE From SUBURBIA asks the tough questions: Are we approaching Peak Oil now? What are the controversies surrounding our future energy options? Why are a growing number of specialists and citizens skeptical of these options? What are ordinary people across North America doing in their own communities to prepare for Peak Oil? And what will YOU do as energy prices skyrocket and the Oil Age draws to a close?

http://escapefromsuburbia.com/

A funny British documentary interviewing various cannabis users (hilarious to see grandmas talking about being arrested for growing etc!) From the Google Video description: "Stoned In Suburbia is a social history film, examining the change in people's opinions to cannabis over the past 50 years. Discussing the impact of the 60's sexual revolution, the Hippie movement, the emergence of the Punks right up until the modern day."