*requeue

Re-queueing this video for one more try; last queued Tuesday, January 15th, 2008 8:06pm PST - requeue requested by submitter eric3579.

*nsfw

This video has been flagged as being Not Suitable For Work - declared nsfw by deedub81.

I can't call long, but these 3 linked videos are way more than 10 minutes total.

Upvote for hot lawmaker. Almost made me forget about the fur shop owner. Almost.

I tend to agree with most of the things on these programs by Penn and Teller, but I always wonder whether they could be spinning the facts the same way they purport others to.

Agreed, Aemaeth. When the show first came out I loved it and they did some good work, but eventually it seemed they ran out of solid complaints and started to oversimplify issues such as the GM debate, second hand smoke or nuclear power. Rather than an examination of the issues it's too often poking fun at one extreme or another as if they represent the real argument, ignoring the underlying issues or other and more valid concerns.

On edit and after watching this one it gets a vote though. Most police at lower levels support what they call a responsibly armed citizenry, it's not until you get to the higher and more political levels you hear much noise in the other direction. Trying to restrict ownership or types of weapons based just on looks like the assault weapons ban doesn't accomplish much and criminals don't have much problem getting them anywhere in spite of some tough laws. Still wish they'd spent more time talking about the issues and less on theatrical reenactments though.

it's dead...

Agreed, drattus. They typically stick to one side, and hardly acknowledge that there is room for debate (utility of assault rifles? statistics on guns as deterrent?). This one at times seems like they flipped a coin and just argued on the side it landed on. Its their show, but if they're spinning their own bullshit by misrepresenting an issue, well,...

I remember the recycling one being great, except that similarly they didn't give the few useful reasons to have recycling centers more than two seconds of acknowledgment (properly dispose of toxic chemicals, profitably recycle aluminum to require less bauxite mining, reuse old goods which would otherwise be land-filled, etc.)

Pretty good. Its simplified and uses a lot of sarcasm, yes, but has a lot of truth in it aswell.
That story of the woman who might have saved her parents if she had her gun with her, but couldnt because of the new law, was really horrible.
Also the argument that the government has to be afraid of its citizens, is pretty good. Especially if they are going towards a police state.

*long

This video has been flagged as being at least 10 minutes in length - declared long by Zifnab.

Okay, made it through the whole thing now;

They disregard the standard 'X number of people are killed or maimed accidentally', but then spend 3 minutes outlining the murdering spree victim's story as if this happens all the time? And then spend half the show talking about the possibility of armed militias overthrowing our government, like its something we should encourage? The elected government should be afraid of its citizens because of the guns they have? Hold the phone. I call wtf on that. What do you think this is, Kenya? Jesus Christ, they really need to teach critical thinking in highschool.

Yeah, that's why I thought the reenactments were wasted time. If it got bad enough we might manage a resistance somewhat like in Iraq but the days of the citizens taking on a modern military straight up have been over for a while now. The main use as far as I can tell is just in the criminal never knowing which home they'll face a gun in, or in concealed carry States the same argument could be made for confronting people on the streets or carjacking.

There's always the good old Constitutional rights thing too. Fully automatic weapons are available under some circumstances and most outside of the movie studios don't have a real use past entertainment so use hasn't been the real legal test so far, though some argue that it should be. We've had a vid or two here showing them fired at ranges I'm pretty sure.

I still find the argument that you could even suggest that guns are beneficial ludicrous. Instead of looking at the actual facts they scrutinise the etymology of the 2nd amendment. Penn talks about armed rebellions, and about revolting against government but does he actually give one good reason we would need this in this day and age? No, because it's ridiculous. Not like you could rebel against a plutocratic kleptocracy anyway.

Additionally, anyone who were to propose that guns should be allowed to be carried by citizens in schools and universities, in a developed country outside of the US would be ridiculed. Why is it that gun advocates always ignore the fact that they could be funding security guards in these locales? No doubt, handing them out to some erratic, potentially emotional cornered and irrational youth is a far better solution. Instead they make ludicrous arguments suggesting that just because extending gun laws to allow concealed firearms hasn't enveloped a region in a bloodbath that they are somehow justified. Well yes, not everyone is a vicious murder and mentally unstable person, but some are.

Guns don't deter people from robbing a store, they empower them. Anyone unable to conceptualise the fact that a criminal will inevitably have the upper hand by carrying a gun and pointing it first with free gun ownership and not the other way around is fooling themselves. Any odd criminal who would have previously been hard pressed to acquire a firearm from the black market can just go into a store and buy an AK. Better yet just go to a gun show, I heard they don't require any background checks. There, now you're more than capable of suppressing a number of people of better physical stature than yourself while you clean out the cashier instead of brandishing around a knife.

All I know is that if the Bush administration (which can be argued to have stolen the elections) had stolen more of my rights or had somehow managed to weasel it's way into a third term through one of their many tactics based on fear and lies, then I would be more than willing to take up arms against my country in order to put it right. And if Huckabee or Romney get elected and try to instill a theocracy, then I still may. Hell, if Hilary gets elected and tries to turn the country into a whiny little bitch nation where she steals my rights and freedoms so that all of the corners get rounded lest we hurt ourselves on the sharp edges, then I still may.

This IS what the 2nd amendment is for. Crimes committed with guns are an unfortunate side effect but is solved with education and getting people out of situations where they need to commit crimes. You can't take guns away from criminals. What are they afraid of, being caught with a gun? They are already criminals! It would work just as well as the drug war (hint: it doesn't work). Guns didn't create criminals, they were around long before the first matchlock.

If you're concerned about safety in your own home, humans figured out the best solution long, long ago. Get a medium to large sized dog, get it trained, and let it sleep inside. Three german shepherds barking from inside the house are the best criminal deterrent money can buy. Criminals don't know that you have a shotgun in your closet, and killing some kid because he were stealing $200 in electronics can be a very psychologically hard thing to deal with after the fact.

If you're concerned about safety outside the home, buy a couple mace spray devices. Use one up practicing getting used to how to operate it safely and effectively by touch (as if it were night time). If you can find the time, get some hands-on, real-world self defense training (which can be a lot of fun).

If you're concerned about the safety of our country, educate yourself, your friends and your family on the local, state, and federal election candidates (their voting records, their funding base, their previous employment, etc.). A well informed, highly participatory citizen is a patriotic citizen; an anti-government militia member, in this day and age, is typically just a misguided person with an agenda.

Personally I don't own one, did for a time but we weren't comfortable with both that and kids. I'm not in any way afraid of them either though. I do have three dogs ranging between 50 and 115 or so pounds though only the smallest of them is at all territorial. Meter man comes into the yard and the smallest barks his head off, next biggest just ignores him and the biggest goes and leans on him asking to be petted. Aggression isn't something I've encouraged.

What I do for myself and what others can do aren't the same thing, before we even tried to reduce the number of guns I'd think we should work on that prison system and try to make people feel they have less need for them. Emotion plays as large a role as anything and can be more powerful than real need. At the moment we're the biggest jailer of our own people by a long shot both per capita and in raw terms and with our emphasis on security and "get tough" as a people guns aren't going anywhere anytime soon. If anything the system just increases the self defense need for them, you learn to do things and think in ways on the inside that honestly should scare the hell out of the average person. Might be an idea to stop taking non-violent offenders and sending them to school for aggression, reduce those numbers and maybe we wouldn't feel such a need.

Rather than go into the whole complex issue, I'll just quote Jackie Mason, to say that "Jackie Mason is a fucking moron." The rest of the video may have dealt with facts and statistics and argued sides each with valid points, but that idiot only threw out completely inane crapola: "more people are killed with chairs than guns" - what? Comedy FAIL.

The point of that episode was that the government shouldn't have a say in whether or not you can own a gun. You should be able choose to defend your home with a shotgun, pepper spray, dogs, or sharks with laser beams on their heads. If you don't want to keep a firearm in the house that's your right, but that doesn't mean everyone else shouldn't be allowed to by law. That was the basic message even though Penn and Teller tend to go over the top for some laughs.

In my opinion, none of the other things mentioned here really have any bearing on that ultimate point. You can argue until you are blue in the face about how you think certain defense concepts are outdated, or that firearms being beneficial is ludicrous, but the fact still remains that the government should not be allowed to take away the right of a law abiding citizen to own a firearm in a free country.

>> ^bamdrew:
If you're concerned about the safety of our country, educate yourself, your friends and your family on the local, state, and federal election candidates (their voting records, their funding base, their previous employment, etc.). A well informed, highly participatory citizen is a patriotic citizen; an anti-government militia member, in this day and age, is typically just a misguided person with an agenda.


To be fair, nearly every totalitarian state that has emerged in the Western world in the 20th century came from a democracy where the citizenry was overwhelmingly "well informed, highly participatory", from Spain pre-Franco to Weimar Germany. They were not, however, well-armed.

And to whomever made the comment about the unlikely nature of a slightly armed, poorly trained populace resisting a modern military... Chechnya? Bosnia? Uh... Iraq?

Lurch, the problem is, you can't blankly argue it from a libertarian point of view in that individual rights and freedoms must be protected above all else, as you'd be ignoring the externalities of your freedom. Excuse the horrible analogy, but it's like arguing that freedom of speech means you have the right to have your voice heard. Well no, you only have the right to not have it discriminated against, everyone can ignore you at will.

It doesn't take an especially libertarian view to support ownership even if we don't own one though I wouldn't go as far as he did, sharks and such You're right that nothing is absolute, free speech doesn't mean you can yell fire in a crowded theater and start a stampede just to amuse yourself for instance. But we do need a justification a hell of a lot better than "it makes sense to me" before we infringe on a Constitutional right.

Where one right infringes on another we can and do make compromises including with guns but we'd better take the time to examine and justify that compromise first or we're also making the rest of it more open to compromise as well, intended or not. Opinion and preference should have nothing to do with it outside of the question of do we want to change the Constitution itself. That we can do if you can raise the votes for it but as long as it stands that Amendment means just as much as the rest of the document does. Used to at least, I'm not sure how much the whole document means after the last few years.

The points in gun control is ineffective.
Gun control doesn't work and it will NEVER work.
Look at the thousands of people who have guns illegally even though there is a gun control law. The only people who don't have a gun are the people who are LAW ABIDING. And if you are law abiding you wouldn't want to murder or shoot other people because that is also against the law.
Does this make sense?
There will always be an underground supply for anything that is banned... Like satellite tv in Cuba and Iran.
Yeah it might be safer in a world where no one and absolutely no one can get access to a gun, but the reality is, there will always be a way for someone who wants to break the law to get a gun. You just can't control that!
So the only thing you can do is defend yourself and what is better defense against gun than a gun?
As Penn pointed out, if you gave the entire female population access to a gun, whether they choose to carry it or throw it away, what is the likelihood that someone will rape them?

Roger Rosenblack or whomever that journalist was suggested call a cop. Hahahahaha. How laughable. By the time they get there, the criminals would have rape, skinned and chopped you up into a pot of boiling water.

Just look at the UK. Recently gun crime has suffered a massive increase, despite the handgun ban. Know why that is? Because we were never allowed to carry loaded guns on our person anyway, so they were never a defensive mechanism. Removing them did nothing. Modern gun crime in the UK is committed by people who wouldn't have been able to gain legal access to a firearm in the first place and all of them are black market goods.

What do you think would happen in the US if you introduced a handgun ban? Suddenly a lot of criminals would be armed while the populace would become defenceless. Its not like the UK where very few people have guns, so only the gangs get them, nearly any criminal is likely to be armed because they have been so freely available before.

The most telling point in this show was that killing sprees tend to occur in "Gun free zones". Now make the entire country a "gun free zone" and see what happens

Redsky, I think we're just misunderstanding each other. Individual rights and freedoms should be protected. You have the right to own a firearm. Like your analogy about having the right to free speech, but not to have your voice necessarily heard; you have the right to own a firearm, but not to use it indiscriminately. Like drattus said, yelling fire in a crowded theater just for fun is an abuse of your speech that can lead to injuring others, and you've broken the law. If you use a firearm to murder someone, you abused your right to own a firearm and will be punished accordingly. As far as I'm concerned, telling a law abiding citizen that they can't own a firearm because it could be used for harm is the same as legislating out any other freedom you have if it can be deemed harmful by the government. Working towards a safer society is a great goal that should be encouraged, but achieving that end with the removal of freedoms because the government wants to be our collective nanny is just plain wrong.

I'm torn about the gun issue. I wish we could get rid of all weapons all over the planet, but so long as that's impossible, it seems to make more sense to allow good law-abiding people to carry.

The argument that we need guns to keep the government afraid is absolutley ridiculous. The laws as they are prevent that. It is much more likely that the members of the military itself would turn on our leaders if such a catastrophic change were necessary. After all, they are citizens too, and they are dedicated to the constitution. But if there were to be a time where the military were pitted against the citizenry? The idea that a few handguns and illegally converted automatic rifles would be any threat to the modern weaponry of our army and marines is simply laughable. Not to mention the absolute domination by our air force and navy in their respective domains.

The best argument is that it keeps the criminals afraid of their victims. But then again, a good can of pepper spray will defuse most any situation that comes up without killing anyone.

I don't want a nanny state, but at the same time, I don't want that crazy fur store lady to have 7 guns laying around her store where any jackass might pick them up. And I don't want to get shot just because I'm 6'4", and happen to be parked next to you outside of the mall.

Ahem: "If you outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns."

People intent on killing others don't need firearms to do so. Almost anything surrounding you as you read this is capable of causing fatal damage to a human body.

MarineGunrock is right, and the UK (and arguably some U.S. states) has shown what happens when firearms are outlawed. Gangs and other criminals become the only ones using firearms. It's the same argument against the War on Drugs, IMHO. Prohibition in the U.S. taught us volumes worth of democratic knowledge, yet we make the same mistakes ad nauseam. You can't rationalize "crazy" and you certainly can't control it without mandated asylums. The recent church shootings that were ended by a brave female security guard in Denver (http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/14808321/detail.html) are an example of the sad times we live in: we may have to defend ourselves with professionally trained counter-terrorist security forces in public places. Banning these weapons won't do anything to stop insane people from causing harm, just as my aunt won't stop doing meth if her dealer is arrested for cooking it. There is something to gain for these sick people, and laws won't stop that. We can only defend ourselves by proper education and applied force where it is needed. I do not own a gun, but I will acquire one to fight to protect the rights of my fellow citizens to own one, if it ever comes to that. In the end I am still in the middle for a modicum of gun control, as long as it doesn't infringe upon the basic right of self-defense. I try to follow the doctrine of my hero, Brock Samson (shameless plug http://www.videosift.com/video/Brock-Samson-Kicks-A-TON-of-Ass) and avoid using guns, opting for the more Zen-like approach of being resourceful with my surroundings.

This video I posted a few days back can be seen, as the next step, in taking guns from Americans.
http://www.videosift.com/video/The-law-which-takes-away-guns-from-all-Americans

A gun is a tool. A book is a tool.A government is a tool.
Defective humans are tools, we are surrounded by tools fer crissakes, our brains are big and connected to hands......surprised to see only one, "Guns are bad" person on this thread...encouraging-

The paranoia shown in this thread is amazing. From what's been written it sounds like people here are fully prepared to be carjacked or wake up and find someone in their bedroom.

I'm also amazed that the UK is being used as a negative example of what happens when strict gun control is enforced - gun crime was rising even before the recent legislation was passed, so to suggest that its introduction created a dangerous new gun culture is misleading. Even so to put this in perspective, of the 755 recorded murders in 2006/07 barely 7% involved a gun.

In fact, in the Home Office's 2006/07 British Crime Survey, crimes involving firearms decreased pretty much across the board - due to gun control, knives are still by far the most popular weapon. These figures are on page 78 of the survey.

Gun crime in the UK (and I expect the US) is predominately concentrated in a few urban centres and more often than not is linked to some form of inter-gang activity i.e. it's 16-24 year old males from ethnic minorities killing each other. I'd say I'm fairly safe in assuming that the majority of the people who have commented here are white and of European origin, which automatically means the likelihood of you being involved in a gun crime are statistically and comparatively small.

As a non-US citizen the whole debate over an anachronistic right to bear arms mystifies me.

i for one am glad the iraqis have well organised militias with guns to protect their freedom when overrun by a tyrant. no, wait, i mean... er... guns are .. .er...

Thank you for enforcing my point about people intent on killing others, gorilla.

There was a program in Florida, I believe in the 70s, where a police department trained and armed 2,000 women with handguns, and publicized it very well. It was shown that crimes committed against women dropped it think 70% after the program was announced to have started.

Reason? Criminals think twice about attacking someone where there's a good chance they have a gun.

"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.

Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty... and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer?

Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. They ought to be designated as laws not preventive but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree."

-Cesare Beccaria

some of the first videos they did were good, but this one is a crock of shit.

15 years ago the Lithuanians stood up to the Soviet Army with peaceful protest. I guess P&T never went to Lithuania. Maybe they were working on "Bullshit: Peaceful Protest"... 30 minutes of ignoring the existence of Gandhi and Rosa Parks, interviewing some guy from a Tai-Chi club instead, editing it to make him look like a fruitcake.

Once again, that still has no bearing on whether or not the government should be able to pass legislation preventing law abiding citizens from owning firearms. If a peaceful protest worked in that instance that's wonderful... but totally unrelated to the issue. If you want to cite random events, Tiananmen Square 1989. That would be the other end of the peaceful protest spectrum.

Videosift says it doesn't post whole episodes of tv shows. We violate it a lot with documentaries, and we let that pass, but Penn and Teller are on record saying it shouldn't happen for BullShit, and this seems pretty extreme. I got called on it for a British Show. This seems to be a pretty clearcut violation. What I did was dump the player and just put links to the other two parts.
*discuss

This video is being sent to Sift Talk for discussion - discuss requested by oxdottir.

Agreed oxdottir. I suggest we just dump the rule, though, because to enforce it would remove lots of good stuff from the sift.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

"Penn and Teller are on record saying it shouldn't happen for BullShit"

Just curious what that means Oxdottir- do you mean that P&T have given tacit permission for distribution?

The rule has always been that unless we have some indication that the episode is in the public domain, or released for free distribution- we shouldn't post them. Mainly because these are the ones we tend to C&D letters for ... and I hate dealing with lawyers... (and their flunkies)

When I say they are on the record, I mean they have said that while they understand the urge, they wish people would not put Bullshit! on youtube, that it is harmful to their relationship with Showtime.

To fulfill the rule, all Eric would have to do is dump the player, put up the first clip, and link to the other two. I think there are actually good, not just rule-obsessed, reasons to do this, as a nod towards not doing it at all.

OK, I found the clip, and they didn't come right out and say don't do it, but they sure didn't say it was ok (if you are a fan of hearing teller talk, he does here): http://youtube.com/watch?v=8iJ-m6e-F-I

I feel a hell of a lot safer being in a country where I don't feel like I need a fun to sleep soundly.

I'm absolutely FOR gun control and I pity people who feel they need one to feel safe.

I pity people even more that discover too late how dangerous it is to have a firearm around the house... accidental deaths by firearm are not the way to learn how ridiculous it is to be armed.

Spoco2, it's not about "needing" a gun to feel safe. It's about not allowing the government to have a say in whether you can or not. That's it. By the same logic, you shouldn't "need" guns to be banned to feel safe. See the quote above. Accidental deaths? Hell, drowing is the second leading cause of accidental death according to the National Center for Health Statistics. Six people accidentally drown in pools every day according to the CDC. You don't see an outcry for the government to legislate you out of owning a pool. Granted it's a poor comparison in terms of a firearm to a pool, but it's following the same reasoning if you want something removed because you fear it or it can kill you accidentally. Firearm deaths are way down the list of leading causes of accidental death. Accidental firearm deaths were beat out by motor vehicles, drowning, poisoning, falls, fires, medical complications, and many others. Motor vehicle accidents alone cause between 50% - 80% of deaths in every age group while accidental firearm deaths are barely a fraction of 1%. This information is coming from the National Vital Statistics report in 2005. You can't save everyone from themselves. It's not the governments job to place us in a bubble without choice for our own protection when it's specifically stated in the constitution that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." What would be nice is if instead of focusing on scaring everyone with arguments about how we'll all either die and be raped without guns, or die in killing sprees with them, people should start thinking about what it means to open the door for the government to become your babysitter.

I don't know what to think about their response... and I don't think THEY know what to think either, heh. Perhaps you should just email them Dag. The sift gets enough hits to warrant just plain asking them. If you lay down who we are and the weight we carry, $5 says they or their lawyers will give you a straight up yae or nay.

God help us if they claim full rights on their B/S that's like 20 vids we need to discard and TRAGICALLY SO.

"Just look at the UK. Recently gun crime has suffered a massive increase, despite the handgun ban." -- yea, it went from "not a chance in hell of ever seeing one" to "maybe a chance in seeing one if your in a dark alley, alone, once in a blue moon, with £5000 in cash in your hand".

Lurch... ok... here goes:

"Spoco2, it's not about "needing" a gun to feel safe. It's about not allowing the government to have a say in whether you can or not. That's it. By the same logic, you shouldn't "need" guns to be banned to feel safe.

See the quote above. Accidental deaths? Hell, drowing is the second leading cause of accidental death according to the National Center for Health Statistics. Six people accidentally drown in pools every day according to the CDC. You don't see an outcry for the government to legislate you out of owning a pool. Granted it's a poor comparison in terms of a firearm to a pool, but it's following the same reasoning if you want something removed because you fear it or it can kill you accidentally. Firearm deaths are way down the list of leading causes of accidental death.

Accidental firearm deaths were beat out by motor vehicles, drowning, poisoning, falls, fires, medical complications, and many others. Motor vehicle accidents alone cause between 50% - 80% of deaths in every age group while accidental firearm deaths are barely a fraction of 1%. This information is coming from the National Vital Statistics report in 2005.

You can't save everyone from themselves. It's not the governments job to place us in a bubble without choice for our own protection when it's specifically stated in the constitution that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." What would be nice is if instead of focusing on scaring everyone with arguments about how we'll all either die and be raped without guns, or die in killing sprees with them, people should start thinking about what it means to open the door for the government to become your babysitter."

Your opinion is that you don't need a gun. That is fine. The US constitution states that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." To pass legislation banning ownership of a firearm is a violation of this right. It doesn't matter what you feel about the necessity of owning one in your personal daily life. It doesn't matter that you personally see no practical use for it. You imply, willingly or not, that anything you consider dangeous that does not meet your standards for practicality could also be banned. It's not up to the federal government to decide to ignore a constitutional right because of personal feelings. Restricting military hardware such as your extreme example of nukes is an entirely seperate issue from the outright banning of private gun ownership. Yes, motor vehicles are useful and are not banned outright. What we have are traffic laws and violaters are punished. Currently, guns are not outlawed. There are laws governing their use and violaters are punished. The basic point of all this being, you should never remove someone's rights because they are inconvienient to you, or just because you don't understand their necessity.

**EDIT**
I just wanted to add a few things now that I have more time to sit down and write. While it's getting repetitive, it can't be stated enough in this case. Your statement that, "the government has no say in you owning a gun or not, because, well, you just should be able to dangit" is just plain trivializing the issue. It's not an arbitrary statement like "I wants me sum gunz!" It's the 2nd amendment to the contitution, the document this country is founded on. Australia never had a right to bear arms. The United States does. Banning firearms in Australia was not trampling on a guaranteed freedom for the people of that country, even if I personally find it objectionable. Different story in the US.

just get rid of the damn things. 20-30 years from now you'll wonder what all the fuss was about.

"Restricting military hardware such as your extreme example of nukes is an entirely seperate issue from the outright banning of private gun ownership."

Why? Just because you can see the lunacy in allowing grenade launchers and the like to be legal but somehow think that guns are ok doesn't immediately make the distinction clear. Why is it ok for those things to be rightly illegal, but not guns? Neither have any useful place in a modern society.

" It's the 2nd amendment to the contitution, the document this country is founded on."
I'm sorry, but this blind adherence to a text written in the 18th Century is quite simply baffling to the rest of the world. It's no better than bible bashes picking certain texts from the bible and focusing on them with great fervor.

Yes Amendment 2 says
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

So, it was written in an age when they felt they needed a Militia to stay safe... and Amendment 3, right after that one is:
"No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."

Which really does set the light in which the document was written, it was a time of fighting, of bloodshed and the like, and to BLINDLY try and use the second amendment to justify any and all gun ownership is plainly a cop out. I'm sorry, but rational reason is required here, not just saying 'Well, a 217 yr old document says so'.

So then you open the door to deconstruct any other freedoms because the document is "just old." First you avoided the idea of guaranteed freedoms and talked about feelings of safety without guns, or in essence needing overwatch in specific areas of life. Now you say that because the constitution is old, it's contents no longer have merit. This is just plain wrong. The US Supreme Court has defined the 2nd amendment as protecting "from infringement by the federal and state governments the right of the individual to keep and to bear a weapon which is part of the ordinary military equipment or which use could contribute to the common defense."

That is not very ambiguous. Ordinary military equipment does not include weapons of mass destruction by the way. Yes, grenade launchers are legal in the US. Yes, an AR-15 which is quite close to the weapons issued to US troops is legal. Civilian versions are no different than any other semi-automatic rifle. One round for each pull of the trigger. What does that matter? Your argument basically follows that since the constitution is old, and guns kill, it's perfectly acceptable to forcibly disarm the population of an entire country without even having actual data to backup claims that it will reduce crime. I just can't agree with that. Look for reports on the results of gun bans and see if you can find a conclusive scientific study that proves a notable increase or decrease in public saftey. What you end up with is spikes in burglaries, assaults, and home invasions. This can't positively be linked to gun bans either since crime was usually on the rise before the bans and no one can seem to agree on the how of it. Crime in the UK doubled in the years following the 1997 ban and is now only in recent years beginning to decrease. Crime continued to rise independent of the gun ban. Your own country saw a drastic rise in home invasions and assaults following the final removal of all guns. Was it related? It's very difficult to tell with many outside factors involved.

Having a decrease in shooting deaths, but an increase in stabbing deaths solves nothing. You take away a gun? No problem, get a knife. Take away knives? No problem... plenty of big rocks and sticks laying around. The idea that passing legislation to ban a weapon will make an area safer is not taking human nature into account. Someone determined to commit a crime will do so with or without the help of a gun. If there was notable scientific data to prove that gun bans created a safer society with actually less violent crime, then that might at least make it appear more justified for a country like Australia that didn't have a guaranteed right to bear arms in the first place. That data just doesn't exist. In fact, in 1996, John Lott from the University of Chicago Law School published 15 years of FBI analysis on over 3,000 countries to find a correlation, if any, between violent crime and the prevalence of concealed weapons on law-abiding citizens. The results showed a major decrease in countries where citizens were more likely to be armed.

The point I've been trying to make over and over again is that none of that even matters anyway. Removing something with good intentions doesn't make it the right decision. This goes beyond just rights to firearms. When you make it acceptable for the government to alter your fundamental rights, for whatever reason, that is like opening Pandora's box. What prevents the same logic that bans a previously guaranteed right from applying to anything else that is deemed a threat? Dramatizing everything by calling people gun nuts, or thinking in terms of extremes, like having shootouts over a fender bender with depleted uranium rounds, is just trivializing an important issue.

In regards to your example of the 3rd amendment, it still has merit today. There are still scenerios where National Guard troops could be deployed within the borders of the United States (although this is increasingly rare). Disaster relief comes to mind as a recent example. This amendment prevents the government from tossing you to the curb to use your home or forcing you to shelter a soldier. Is it likely to be used anytime soon? Probably not, but every citizen is still constitutionally guaranteed the freedom to have a say in soldiers using their property. You seem to view this issue as something almost inconsequential. As if it's just common sense that all guns should be banned regardless of prior laws and in total disregard to individual freedoms because it would secure you peace of mind. I personally consider this to be ignorant of the future consequences involved with allowing the government that kind of control. There is no possible way to enact a complete ban of all personally owned firearms in this country without violating the law.

>> ^spoco2:
Neither have any useful place in a modern society.


That couldn't be further from the truth. I keep a rifle under my bed. For protection? No. I have it for sport. What you're saying is that firearms have no place in society. Screw the millions of people that love to hunt? I like my deer, thank you.

Problem by and large solved right there... kids can't wander in.

Another completely false statement. No, kids can't wander in from the outside, but there's still a LOT of homes that have a pool right next to the house, and there is no fence between the patio door and the pool. You're saying that a kid can't walk out the back door into the pool?

>> ^spoco2:
I'm sorry, but this blind adherence to a text written in the 18th Century is quite simply baffling to the rest of the world. It's no better than bible bashes picking certain texts from the bible and focusing on them with great fervor.

If we want to argue that the document could use updated there might be a point to that but we can't just ignore one 18th century aspect without ignoring and weakening the other 9 articles of the Bill of Rights as well. Free speech, due process, and so on. We've tried that with drug war exceptions for search and seizure among other things as well as with efforts to outlaw rather than control guns in some cities and not only did it not offer the positive results we intended but it also made it so much easier to get away with other apparent violations of the Constitution that we've seen so much of in recent years.

The problem is that once we decide to ignore one part of it for our own reasons the precedent is set and others can just as easily ignore other parts for their reasons too. Either the document means something or it doesn't. If it does mean something one Amendment means as much as the next, it's all the law.

Compromises between various rights where they might conflict with each other we can and do make, gun control in simple terms can mean something as basic as they can't carry one without a license to carry or they don't need a tripod mounted automatic weapon on their roof. But to try to carry it to the next step and restrict the right to own one at all, we really do need to adjust the Constitution itself unless we are willing to risk major damage to the whole document and I don't believe the majority of the nation really wants either.

Ok, nothing is happening with this in ST. can we finally *return this? Because all people are doing now is whining over why we should take away guns from sensible people and continue to let the creations of society obtain them illegally regardless of these unenforced laws that don't do shit to deter crime.

Edit: If there was ever a need to overthrow our country's government, do you honestly think that a corrupt system would listen to a gathering of peaceful protesters? Every revolution that has given birth to a new form of government has been obtained by the shedding of blood and born in violence and uncertainty. It's not ideal for anyone but it's the truth and it's the way the world works. I'll die with my last line of protection in defense of my family, and freedom before I'll see someone take away the only thing standing between me and a life of misery and hopelessness.

Returning this video from Sift Talk - return requested by gorgonheap.

I wasn't saying that the constitution should be ignored because it's old, I was saying that people use it as a blanket excuse "Well, it's in the constitution", in the same way they use the bible "It says gays are bad mkay"... without then using any reason to back themselves up.

I don't care if it's in the constitution or not, I want rational discussion on why guns are good for your average Joe to own.

Look, there's no way I'm ever going to sway one inch those people who love their firearms, so I'm just going to bow out now, happy that I live in Australia, and not the US.

oh, and
Another completely false statement. No, kids can't wander in from the outside, but there's still a LOT of homes that have a pool right next to the house, and there is no fence between the patio door and the pool. You're saying that a kid can't walk out the back door into the pool?
Except that in Australia you are not allowed to have any building access to the pool area except where said access is a child proof door that self latches and has handles out of reach of children.

I know from many online arguments that Americans just love their guns and really do get ultra shitty at anyone who suggests that their 'freedom' to own them is ever impinged upon, so I'll just stop now...

Well, thanks at least for the civil discussion. Although you really can't have a rational discussion about why guns are good because that's too subjective. Your "average Joe" doesn't meet one specific stereotype. There are too many different people to make assumptions about good reasons. Then you open up the issue of who gets the authority to make that decision by law. Who gets the right to say that your reason isn't good enough? Citing the constitution isn't a blanket excuse to run to when you want something without reason. It contains an enumerated list of government powers, not restrictions for the people. Anything not listed is a power that the government does not and should not have. It was crafted by men who had experienced a tyrannical government first hand. The basic principles laid down all those years ago still carry just as much weight today. It's important to learn from history to avoid repeating it's mistakes. You don't personally own a gun and appear to have no interest in changing that. That's fine, but how can you say that it's rational to have the government be the arbiter of good reasons in a free society?

i really cant see any reason at all besides "the government shouldnt say we cant have them" as a reason for owning guns. they serve no perpose, are not needed for your saftey, and legal owners ? - let them get a new hobby. it's not worth the deaths of people left right and center because you like to shoot at targets.

just ban the damn things. i dont understand why any normal rational thinking person would defend the right to own a GUN. its in your constitution ? so what ?

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.

Sirex and Spoco - What about hunting? You keep telling me that there's no reason for ordinary people to own a gun. I think hunting is plenty good of a reason to own a gun. How else do you propose I kill a deer or moose from a hundred yards? Even 75 or 50 yards? What do you want me to do? Get all Splinter Cell and sneak up and knife the bitch from behind? Go Rambo and drop out of a tree and tackle it to the ground? YeahIdon'tthinksonotgonnahappen.

"let them get a new hobby."

How about people that like to race? Or swim? Or snowmobile? Or ride ATVs? Or (insert name of hobby here). People have died in each one of those activities, so you to telling me to get a new hobby just because other people (a comparatively SMALL number) have died from firearms is ridiculous.

If there are children in the home, simply lock your shit up. I can't think of a gun case in existence that can't be locked.
While we're at it, let's ban all knifes in the house too.

It's the same reason why people put up gates on stairs at houses or put those plastic things in outlets or have locks on the cupboards under the sink - kids will get into any and everything - so if you simply lock up the stuff that's dangerous - Problem solved.

P.S.

What makes you even think that outlawing them will stop criminals from getting them?
Just because something is illegal doesn't make them disappear.

Oh, wait, my bad. There's no such thing as weed or acid in the U.S. I mean, how could there be? It's illegal.

Q.E.D.

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.

after precisly ten seconds of digging....

MURDER (LATE-1990s)
EUROPE AND USA CITY MURDERS
PER 100,000
(1) Washington, D.C., USA 69.3
(2) Philadelphia, USA 27.4
(3) Dallas, USA 24.8
(4) Los Angeles, USA 22.8
(5) Chicago, USA 20.5
(6) Phoenix, USA 19.1
(7) Moscow, Russia 18.1
(8) Houston, USA 18.0
(9) New York City, USA 16.8
(10) Helsinki, Finland 12.5
(11) Lisbon, Portugal 9.7
(12) San Diego, USA 8.0
(13) Amsterdam, Netherlands 7.7
(14) Belfast, N.Ireland, UK 4.4
(15) Geneva, Switzerland 4.2
(16) Copenhagen, Denmark 4.0
(17) Berlin, Germany 3.8
(18) Paris, France 3.3
(19) Stockholm, Sweden 3.0
(20) Prague, Czechoslovakia 2.9

so whatever your doing, isnt working.

now, we have deer here, and i've no inclination to go kill them. If you said to protect against bear then maybe i could see the argument, but then a handgun isnt going to cut it anyhow. And arguming that why arnt knifves and blunt instruments banned ? why should they be ? their job isnt to kill. The floor will kill you if you hit it hard enough.

besides which (after anouther ten seconds of digging - right from your own doj.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/weapons.png

number of crazy fucking shootouts in UK shopping centres and schools in the last twenty years: one i think. then handguns were banned. hasn't been another one.

"if you outlaw guns only the criminals will have them"
GOOD because there's less criminals than law abiding people, and they tend to shoot each other, not us.

If i am mugged by a guy with a gun, and I don't have a gun, what are the chances of my getting shot? Like, zero. I just hand him my wallet and phone and that's that. I am not gonna get all medieval on someone's ass for taking a small amount of money and a phone which is insured. I am not gonna "defend my property" by risking my life. Take my property. I can get some more later.

As for defending my home from an evil government, well, how about you GET REAL. It's already been said, they got nukes and apaches and clusterbombs and shit, look at Iraq, they have millions of AK's and suicide bombers and it doesn't save them from being colonised.

What are you gonna do, sit on your roof with your Magnum .44 and shout "DEATH TO THE FASCIST OVERLORDS" as a cruise missile targets your town hall?

And to those who dismiss peaceful protest... LOL. As if it's never been tried and never worked before. LOL!

Someone invoked Tiananmen Square as an exammple of the failure of peaceful protest. Erm... have you noticed something called the market economy in China lately?

Sirex, you just completely sidestepped what I was saying.

1.) You ignored the overall decrease of violent crime in the US since 1998
2.) You addressed number of homicides, not how the gun ban caused no decrease in the homicide rate.
3.) You skipped over how firearm homicides were replaced with other weapons and kept the numbers steady with occasional spikes.
4.) You ignored how there is *no* consensus from the scientific community that tracks these numbers that gun control has any effect. I doubt we're going to prove something like that by citing someone else's data.
5.) Finally, the most important point of all, you didn't address why guns should be banned based on your opinions and not facts.

I never said ban knives and blunt instruments. You inferred that from reading the Australian numbers. I just showed how stabbings and beatings, not only with blunt instruments, but with "hands and feet," increased after the removal of guns. So, now tell me why the government should intervene against the constitution of the United States to ban all firearms without conclusive proof that it will even achieve anything? You may not like the constitution, but then again, you don't like guns either, and your personal opinions don't shape policy.

MINK, you just argued the point of the other side. "If you outlaw guns only the criminals will have them. GOOD because there's less criminals than law abiding people, and they tend to shoot each other, not us." Right. So if you bar a law abiding citizen from owning a gun, how does that prevent a criminal from going outside the law to aquire one and continue using it as before? Does that mean you think that currently lawful citizens decide to commit crimes just because guns make them want to? All of these arguments we've made mean nothing. The constitution is the ultimate authority in the United States. You can't arbitrarily pass laws that are contrary to what it states. Citizens have the right to bear arms. There is no proof that banning guns will prevent crime. Why would you try and remove a fundamental right, in a free country, that is guaranteed to all citizens, without even having evidence to back up your claims? You just can't ban something because you don't like it or fear it.

yes, but like i said, i didnt feel the need to spend a vast amount of time trying to prove statistically that guns in 35% of homes is a bad idea, because, frankly, the entire argument is utterly retarded.

I'm not saying you should ignore the constitution day in day out, but in this one case i think the foundatation which existed when the constitution was written no longer exist, and in fact it's now detrimental to your society, and thats the point where change is needed.

the mere fact that 8 of those top 10 cities are in the US shows that running a safe society isnt an american strong point, so frankly, im not suprised you've no conception of a world in which guns arnt needed.

on a side note (and yes, this will detract from previous statements, but thats the nature of a fair debate) i should mention that the one thing shown from the tobacco / drinking / mobile phone industries, is that statistics usually come good for those that want to spend the most. Seeing as you're pumping your gun industry along, i wouldnt be suprised if their lobbying and paying for as many studies to be done as possible, thats what asshole industries do.

So, the argument is "retarded" because you don't agree. You say I'm arrogant while suggesting that you know better than everyone else what's good for them. That you need to protect people from themselves. I see we'll never agree because you believe in selective freedoms. If you can't get actual data to back your opinions, then someone must be conspiring to supress and alter the facts. If it's arrogant not to want the government to have the power to take away a law abiding citizen's firearms, then I'll proudly bear that title.

In October 1987, Florida enacted concealed right to carry laws. Many in the media predicted wild west style shootouts and nicknamed Florida the "Gunshine State." None of the predictions came true. Homicide rates decreased 41%, and in the 10 years since then only 0.02% of permits were revoked for crimes commited by licensed holders. According to the FBI, all nine states with the lowest violent crime rates in the country have right to carry laws. The downside to this? Crime spiked on tourists. Since the citizens were now more likely to be armed, tourists definitely weren't.

if you hadn't noticed. the media predict doomsday scenarios for every event, it's what sells papers. It's also more often than not, total bullsh*t.

There's comments in this thread trying to state that in countries where guns are banned, criminals can still get them and "gun crime in the UK has exploded" -- yes, it has exploded. There's now three times more gun crimes than a few years ago. It's now about 900 crimes a year involving firearms. In america in 2002 there were 3,012 child deaths due to gun crime. Thats just children, and the UK stats is for crimes, not deaths. So what the hell ?

anyhow, i can see that no amount of reasoning is going to convince you otherwise, so you can have your twenty fold more likely chance of getting murdered. i wont argue the point, but god im glad i dont live in the "land of the free". (quotes used in this instance as the universal sign of fallacy).

Sirex, I think you are missing the big picture. I completely agree with you that whatever we are doing here isn't working. But to blame the guns for it all is short sighted. In order to stop crimes involving guns, you don't take away the guns, you take away a person's reason for being a criminal in the first place. So the focus should be on providing better education, jobs, social programs and the like to keep people off of the streets. That is where we Americans fail. Not because we are allowed to own a gun, but because we haven't provided a system where everyone is able to benefit to a standard of living that is acceptable for all. There will, of course, always be psycho pricks out there who will be violent criminals no matter what you do. But for the rest, if we can start providing a proper education for them instead of the mess we have now, then they won't turn to crime to eek out a living.

Oh, and Mink, I seriously doubt that if our own government were to go rogue that they would nuke their own land... And bringing up Iraq seems counterproductive to your argument since they seem to be doing a pretty damn good job of keeping us at bay despite our supposed military superiority. No one (I don't think) has ever suggested that peaceful protest should not be the first step. Of course it should. Diplomacy and politics should of course be the proper way of fixing what isn't right, but in a crisis, having exhausted all of those options, and this is a highly theoretical situation we're talking about here, the citizenry has the right to take up arms against tyranny.

The iraqi resistance is not "keeping the USA at bay".

and here's a nice story of peaceful protest:
http://religion.videosift.com/video/Hill-of-Crosses-Peaceful-resistance-to-the-Soviet-Union

I admit, its possible to imagine a scenario where it's advantageous to have an armed citizenry, i just don't think it's a big percentage of possible scenarios, and the disadvantages outweigh the advantages.

Theres millions of people living without guns and they seem to have less chance of getting shot. go figure.

And anyway, hellLLO! America has been taken over by a crusading war criminal, your dollar's fucked, so where's your armed militia to overthrow the tyrant?

Voting for another 4 years of the same shit.

Yes, things are going swimmingly in Iraq. In and out, mission accomplished and all that. =/

And yeah, it has been taken over. And many people are still trying those peaceful options. The current administration has been outed as incompetent and it's power has been lessened. Thankfully we do have term limits, but I've already said way above that if that were to somehow change and the Bush regime were to somehow stay in power I would certainly be ready to fight against it.

It doesn't have to be a big percentage of a possibility to still remain a possibility and have a chance of actually happening. And one day, maybe generations from now, perhaps it will all go south and those people will need it. Who knows?

looking forward to the day bush leaves office. it's been a bad spell for the country and the world at large ever since he got in.

That's something most of us can agree wholeheartedly on.

*dead
7wGPd2UPv7k

This published video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by MINK.

heh

Those links are dead. CBS news copy right claim.

*dead =( Sorry, just helping to clean up http://www.videosift.com/playlists/eric3579/dead (this is a recorded message!)

This published video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by mintbbb.

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by critical_d.