Why are you voting for your candidate?

[Krynn72]

The next president of the United States of America. Who are you voting for, and why? Be specific. Lets get the decision-making facts out here. No personal reflections, no bullshit opinions on the quality of each man. This thread is about the real reasons why you should be voting for a candidate, POLICY.

In terms of their POLICY and ideas on how to fix the nation, what makes your candidate better than the other? Discuss.




EDIT: You can talk about the prospective vice presidents as well, so long as you abide by the same rules. Policy talk only, no personality opinions.

 

[Raziaar]

I'm voting for Barack Obama because I have had a complete ideology change over the two years about. I feel that Barack Obama and the policies he will support will best represent how I feel our government should operate.

Reducing our military aggression in the world, improving our tattered relations with our allies and friends and even the people who were indifferent about us in the world.

Also, I feel Obama will be best to help us reclaim some of our lost liberties that were stripped away by the Bush Administration and this era of fear from Terrorism.

And of course, I feel Obama will best help us work to recover our economy.




As for Biden... lol. Ironically I said that I would like to see Biden as president, back before I had the complete switch that I had, back when I was entertaining the idea of a Democratic president.

http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?t=108176&highlight=biden

I want to see Joe Biden as president.

 

[OmegaX]

I'm voting for Obama because of George W. Bush. Good reason, eh?

 

[SIGbastard]

I am voting on mainly issues but also on leadership ability.

In no particular order the issues important to me are:

-fiscal policies
-gun rights
-abortion
-foreign policy views
-social policies

One candidate clearly works better for my views on these issues and he happens to have better leadership qualities imho.

I am not keen on his views for some domestic issues though.

I'm voting for Obama because of George W. Bush. Good reason, eh?

I didn't know Bush was running for a 3rd term...

 

[Raziaar]

One candidate clearly works better for my views on these issues and he happens to have better leadership qualities imho.

Don't you just love his wildly erratic back and forth leadership capabilities? If there's one thing I can say positively about Bush, is that he was at least consistent in his terrible leadership... not all over the place.

I didn't know Bush was running for a 3rd term...

Well... McCain represents Bush. He represents the Republican Party's failures. We don't want any more of that.

 

[DEATHMASTER]

war = fail, better energy = win, not contradictory on every statement or lying blatantly = ideal, **** whitey.

 

[Qonfused]

Because he's black!

Because he's an old mother ****er!

 

[Krynn72]

I'm voting for Barack Obama because I have had a complete ideology change over the two years about. I feel that Barack Obama and the policies he will support will best represent how I feel our government should operate.

Reducing our military aggression in the world, improving our tattered relations with our allies and friends and even the people who were indifferent about us in the world.

Also, I feel Obama will be best to help us reclaim some of our lost liberties that were stripped away by the Bush Administration and this era of fear from Terrorism.

And of course, I feel Obama will best help us work to recover our economy.




As for Biden... lol. Ironically I said that I would like to see Biden as president, back before I had the complete switch that I had, back when I was entertaining the idea of a Democratic president.

http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?t=108176&highlight=biden

I am voting on mainly issues but also on leadership ability.

In no particular order the issues important to me are:

-fiscal policies
-gun rights
-abortion
-foreign policy views
-social policies

One candidate clearly works better for my views on these issues and he happens to have better leadership qualities imho.

I am not keen on his views for some domestic issues though.




I didn't know Bush was running for a 3rd term...

My main intention of this thread was to try and get some factual information on both candidates. Could the both of you explain what each candidates plans are for each of the major points you bring up in your posts, and why you agree or dont agree with them?

 

[Kadayi]

-gun rights

Are either candidate looking at gun control? Also what's the need in all seriousness?

 

[SIGbastard]

Are either candidate looking at gun control? Also what's the need in all seriousness?

Barack makes the blanket statement that he supports the second ammendment and won't take our guns away. He doesn't go into details though. His history of the stuff he has supported speaks for itself.

Here is what his actual views are and what he supports:

Sen. Barack Obama has supported, in the past or present, these 10 ?changes? to the Second Amendment:

1. Ban use of firearms for home defense.

2. Pass federal laws eliminating your right-to-carry.

3. Ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns.

4. Close down 90 percent of the gun shops in America.

5. Ban rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting.

6. Increase federal taxes on guns and ammunition by 500 percent.

7. Restore voting rights for 5 million convicts, including those who have been convicted of using a gun to commit a violent crime.

8. Expand the Clinton semi-auto ban to include millions more firearms.

9. Mandate a government-issued license to purchase a firearm.

10. Appoint judges to the U.S. Supreme Court and federal judiciary who share his views on the Second Amendment.

Well... McCain represents Bush. He represents the Republican Party's failures. We don't want any more of that.

:rolling:

 

[DEATHMASTER]

Barack makes the blanket statement that he supports the second ammendment and won't take our guns away. He doesn't go into details though. His history of the stuff he has supported speaks for itself.

Here is what his actual views are and what he supports:

Sen. Barack Obama has supported, in the past or present, these 10 ?changes? to the Second Amendment:

1. Ban use of firearms for home defense.

2. Pass federal laws eliminating your right-to-carry.

3. Ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns.

4. Close down 90 percent of the gun shops in America.

5. Ban rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting.

6. Increase federal taxes on guns and ammunition by 500 percent.

7. Restore voting rights for 5 million convicts, including those who have been convicted of using a gun to commit a violent crime.

8. Expand the Clinton semi-auto ban to include millions more firearms.

9. Mandate a government-issued license to purchase a firearm.

10. Appoint judges to the U.S. Supreme Court and federal judiciary who share his views on the Second Amendment.



:rolling:

What a load of horseshit.

 

[OmegaX]

Why are gun rights so important? I'm more worried about the economy and the war then whether or not I can carry an AK-47 in my back pocket.

 

[Jintor]

Because once the economy fails everybody's gonna need their guns.

 

[Krynn72]

With the exception of maybe the firearm-using criminal's voting rights, I'd have to agree with most of his positions there. :|

 

[unozero]

Raz is the perfect Obama tron

 

[Ennui]

I'm voting Obama, mostly because I think he's going to be able to do a lot more to help the economy than McCain, because I'm sick to death of the Good Old Party and their bullshit, and because his views on most political and social issues largely reflect my own (pro-choice, anti-net neutrality, gun control, etc).

 

[DEATHMASTER]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZhiLjwioY8

 

[unozero]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vJcVgJhNaU

 

[Eejit]

In no particular order the issues important to me are:

-fiscal policies
-gun rights
-abortion
-foreign policy views
-social policies

One candidate clearly works better for my views on these issues and he happens to have better leadership qualities imho.

You're anti-abortion? -.-

Why?

 

[SIGbastard]

What a load of horseshit.

No actually it is quite accurate.

The one about banning hunting and sporting calibers could be said differently though. He supported a bill that would have banned any caliber that can penetrate body armor similar to that police officers use in their vests. The problem is almost any centerfire rifle round will do that as most of them are rated for handguns. It also had some provision banning anything over like a certain caliber. I don't remember the specifics but it would have actually made most shotguns illegal and some muzzle loaders because of how big the bores are.

The main flaw was the people who wrote the thing had no knowledge of what they were trying to regulate at all which let to an irrational bill that had no chance.

He supported an outright handgun ban in IL. He supports a total semi-auto ban.

See he will tell people he doesn't want to take their guns away. He just wants "common sense" laws. Anytime a politician trys to pass off some BS is going to coin up some term like that.

That is but one issue though. His work with ACORN is unacceptable. The stuff he did with them is the type of actions that led the US into this mess allowing people who have no business getting mortgages get loans with no problems.

Obama's idea to tax "big oil" to provide $1000 stimulus checks for families is retarded. Here's a decent explanation I am copying and pasting to explain why:





Ok, this is pretty interesting. Senator Obama told us a few weeks ago that John McCain?s proposal for a summer-long Federal tax holiday on gasoline was nothing but empty political theater.

So now The One has given us a gesture with quite a bit more theater to it. He wants to give every adult American $500, right now. You can read his plan here.

So figure that?s about $100 billion, give or take. Not as big as this year?s fiscal stimulus which gave a momentary and already-fading bump to personal consumption expenditures. But in the same ballpark.

But this is no ordinary piece of political theater. Obama is telling us in so many words that it?s a ?down-payment? on Obama?s long-run plans to restore tax fairness.

As it turns out, that means Obama intends to get the 100-or-so billion dollars not from where President Bush got the money for his fiscal stimulus (foreign central banks). Obama has a very different source in mind for the funds: Oil companies.

Let?s do the math.

Keep reading?

Obama is promising to fund an immediate disbursement of roughly $100 billion, with a tax to be assessed over five years on the profits of oil companies.

So he still has to borrow the money now. And he will fund the borrowing by (in essence) forcing oil companies to give a coupon security to the government.

I?ll take a guess here and assume that what Obama has in mind is the equivalent of a five-year note with a zero principal amount, and a annual coupon payment. That seems to be the closest match for his stated intention to assess a ?five-year windfall profits tax.?

Ok, so that means that he?ll take regular payments from entities defined as ?oil companies? (more on that in a moment) over a five year period. And the discounted present value of those cash flows will need to add up to $100 billion plus interest over five years (the current five-year Treasury rate is about 3.375%).

I have no idea how you?d risk-adjust these cash flows since that would be equivalent to predicting the earnings of a large range of businesses, five years ahead, in a very uncertain economy. So let?s just make up a SWAG.

I?m going to say that to fund the Obama Emergency Economic Plan, the oil industry will need to cough up about $25 billion a year for the next five years. Maybe 23 or 24.

Let?s assume they?ll stay more or less as profitable as they are now. Which companies are we looking at? Well, the largest integrated majors with a US domicile are Exxon-Mobil, Chevron-Texaco, and Conoco-Phillips. (Filling out the top five are British Petroleum and Royal Dutch Shell, neither of which is an American company.)

Add up the current annual profits at our Big Three, based on their current results. I get a number in the very rough neighborhood of $80 billion. And that annual profitability is supporting a market capitalization of the Big Three of about $720 billion.

I don?t know how Obama intends to define the oil companies exposed to his windfall tax. I can?t imagine adding in downstream companies like Valero, but I can see adding in smaller upstream companies and integrateds like Anadarko and Sun. Let?s swag that the Big Three will amount to 75% of the tax base for Obama?s mega-coupon.

So you?re going to whack out at least 30%, maybe more, of the total profitability of the Big Three in each of the next five years. That?s assuming they stay profitable. If they stumble along with the weakening economy, the percentage will be even larger.

So let?s apply the haircut to the stock prices of these companies. $720 billion would fall to the rough neighborhood of $500 billion, nearly immediately. That?s a net destruction of about $200 billion in current wealth owned by the pension funds and insurance companies that Americans depend on to pay for their retirements.

All to fund a current expenditure of about $100 billion.

Yeah. Let?s do this. At the very least, we?ll prove to everyone once and for all that Democrats shouldn?t be allowed to run the economy.

Full disclosure: I'm an XOM shareholder. I used to own a lot more, but I sold most of it a few weeks ago when I sensed that oil prices were going to start falling. What can I say? I'm good.

-Francis Cianfrocca

 

[Jintor]

-Francis Cianfrocca

Ok boys, get the tar and feathers out! We're goin' on a FIELD TRIP!

 

[Geogaddi]

I've decided to vote for Bob Barr because I want to waste my vote.

I mean

The Libertarian party/Barr's policies match up with my ideas much better than either of the other two's. Things likes limited gov't, increased civil liberty, less interventionism etc...

Also, neither big party candidate would allow marriage rights for homosexuals. People who would legislate rights away from other people are f*cked in the head.

 

[SIGbastard]

Ok boys, get the tar and feathers out! We're goin' on a FIELD TRIP!

Does this guy have a bad history or something? I don't know much about him to be honest. I've read many articles showing how the math for Obama's plan doesn't add up and this was just the first thing I could google up quick that explains some of the fallacies.

Tell you what I will spend some more time tomorrow finding a better source as I do not have one at my tips right now.

I forgot to mention that Obama supports a nation wide ban on CCW except for retired/active LEO. Pretty much everything in that post about his gun views is accurate.

 

[Laivasse]

I've read many articles showing how the math for Obama's plan doesn't add up and this was just the first thing I could google up quick that explains some of the fallacies.

Speaking of fallacies, I'm not an economist nor do I even know the details of Obama's economic plan but I can pick one major fallacy right out of the analysis you posted. (Or maybe not...)

The guy talks about Obama's tax credit plan being costed based on the windfall profits tax he proposes for oil companies. However we have no reason to believe that this is the only place the money is going to come from; I don't recall Obama saying 'I am going to fund this one particular proposal only with the money I get from the windfall profits tax.' Lest we forget - I know the Republicans won't forget, because this part probably haunts their dreams - Obama also proposes a tax increase for those who earn over $250k. He wants to decrease military spending by ending the Iraq war sooner rather than later. He wants to eliminate/decrease certain tax breaks for larger corporations. His economic bods probably have a whole host of money-raising schemes up their sleeves that I and most other people are as yet oblivious to.

This guy you've quoted just says '$100 billion?? From just OIL COMPANIES?! Preposterous!' and then reels off a bunch of authentic sounding bullshit in order to maintain credibility, completely ignoring the fact that any government is able to use more than just one revenue stream to budget their proposals. This is a deliberate distortion of reality by someone with an ulterior motive, and you should distrust the message and methods of anyone who does so.


Edit: ...Okay, slight backtrack, just had a look at the full economic plan for the first time, and it turns out it does make the claim that the rebate would be 'fully paid for' by the windfall profits tax. For a start I think that's likely to be BS, since there would be no need to fund the rebate exclusively from a single 5-year initiative when you'll be doing other things in that 5-year period to generate revenue simultaneously. Claiming that it is 'fully paid for' by a single measure makes everything looks a lot neater and flashier though, particularly when you add in the poetic justice of 'Big oil are paying for it all...!' Factcheck.org backs up my view of this as a bit of Obama campaign PR to make the plan seem slicker. Secondly it doesn't change the fact that the analysis guy is just pulling figures out of his ass: 'I figure that'll be about $100 million...' (note: $65 million is what I've read...), 'I'll take a guess here...', 'Let?s swag that the Big Three will amount to 75%...' etc. - none of it sourced, all of it carefully engineered to arrive at a conclusion which makes the plan unprofitable... not that it's necessarily expected to be out-and-out profitable anyway, since even Bush's rebate cheques apparently cost over 6x what they generated for the economy. In fact, according to factcheck, both the candidates' plans will increase the deficit, but McCain's will increase it more.

Plus the author has a declared interest in Exxon's profits not being taxed.

 

[Kadayi]

Why are gun rights so important? I'm more worried about the economy and the war then whether or not I can carry an AK-47 in my back pocket.

My point exactly. I'm sorry but gun fetishists need to wake up to the 21st century. The necessity to carry fully automatic rifles around on the pretext of 'hunting' needs to go the way of the dinosaur. Want to carry guns? either become a drug dealer, soldier or law enforcement.

 

[SIGbastard]

Ok I really don't need an article to know that Obama clearly did say that he would tax big oil to pay for another round of stimulus checks. The problem is the math doesn't work. Either Obama is a blatant lier that will say whatever it takes to get votes or he made an idiotic comment that he didn't research. It really seems like he will say anything to get elected. His whole sudden revelation about the 2nd amendment is just a good example which is why I brought it up.

I didn't want McCain as a candidate but that's who the republicans nominated. He speaks the truth when he talks though even if it hurts him. For instance in the primaries he was blunt with Michigan and told them those car manufacturing jobs were not going to come back. Nobody there wants to here that but it's the truth. I'm not a bog McCain fan but I trust what he says which says something in my book.

As far as guns I'm not going to debate besides saying it's an inherent right in the US, 21st century and all. It's not going to change soon. Oh and nobody hunts with full auto rifles so please stop spreading bullshit. People do hunt with semi-auto's such as ar15's which have gained popularity but for good reason. They are accurate, dependable, and customizable in every aspect. You can get them in just about any caliber now also.

 

[Laivasse]

Ok I really don't need an article to know that Obama clearly did say that he would tax big oil to pay for another round of stimulus checks. The problem is the math doesn't work. Either Obama is a blatant lier that will say whatever it takes to get votes or he made an idiotic comment that he didn't research.

Oooor... it's just an incomplete description of his proposals in order to make them seem shinier (and for the moment we only have one partisan analyst's half-baked assumptions that it doesn't add up, anyway, but I would be inclined to agree that the money would have to come from more than just one source). Kind of like how the always-honest McCain doesn't mention how he'll make employer-sponsored health benefits taxable when he's claiming his health policies are so great.

'Blatant lier that will say whatever it takes to get votes' is synonymous with 'presidential candidate,' regardless of what party you're talking about. The trick is to see which one misrepresents facts the least, which can't be done through cherry-picking isolated policy statements. If that were the case then you could end any debate on the issue by pointing out how McCain tried to scare people away from Obama by insinuating that he's a terrorist. In fact... you can end any debate on the issue by pointing that out, since McCain's fallacious smearing of Obama's character has actually been the focal point of his campaign recently, whereas the minutiae of the stimulus package has not been the focal point of Obama's.

 

[DEATH eVADER]

This is the Comedians Analyisis of Sarah Palin

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_xMSqU3SD4

 

[The Monkey]

Because I choose to.
- Neo

 

[nurizeko]

My point exactly. I'm sorry but gun fetishists need to wake up to the 21st century. The necessity to carry fully automatic rifles around on the pretext of 'hunting' needs to go the way of the dinosaur. Want to carry guns? either become a drug dealer, soldier or law enforcement.

First thing Kadayi has said in a while I agree with.



Most of the civilized world functions well enough without everyone having an uzi for "hunting" I really cant see why its a serious issue, other then middle-American moronity.


Its like, you wouldn't vote for the second coming of Christ because he might demand that everyone puts down their arms and embraces peace, even though the rest of his demi-godly "policies" could build a utopia.

 

[repiV]

It's a serious issue because people want to own guns - simple really. In a free society people are allowed to own and do the things that they want, not just the things they need. Telling Americans they have to give up their guns is just like telling Brits they have to give up their alcohol - and this is without even delving into the fact that gun control does **** all for public safety anyway.

Your condescending arrogance astounds me, and if you actually want to live in a place where people are told how to live and in which hobbies and interests they are allowed to partake, I suggest you emigrate to North Korea.

 

[Eejit]

What if people want to own Ethyl methanesulfonate? Or Agent Orange? Mustard Gas?

If you support the idea of control of any dangerous substances it would be hypocrisy to reject gun control on the grounds that you shouldn't take people's rightz away.

And if you think no substances should be controlled at all... well you must be a VERY trusting person.

 

[repiV]

What if people want to own Ethyl methanesulfonate? Or Agent Orange? Mustard Gas?

If you support the idea of control of any dangerous substances it would be hypocrisy to reject gun control on the grounds that you shouldn't take people's rightz away.

And if you think no substances should be controlled at all... well you must be a VERY trusting person.

Why would anyone want to own any of those substances? They are of no use to anyone whatsoever, unlike firearms which have a variety of legitimate uses. Regardless of which, if someone really wanted to get their hands on some Agent Orange or mustard gas, the law certainly wouldn't stop them. All gun control does is take legal firearms away from law abiding people.

 

[Llama]

It's a serious issue because people want to own guns - simple really. In a free society people are allowed to own and do the things that they want, not just the things they need. Telling Americans they have to give up their guns is just like telling Brits they have to give up their alcohol - and this is without even delving into the fact that gun control does **** all for public safety anyway.

Your condescending arrogance astounds me, and if you actually want to live in a place where people are told how to live and in which hobbies and interests they are allowed to partake, I suggest you emigrate to North Korea.

While I'm not going to get into the argument about gun control full stop, I think that you didn't really address what was said.
There is no reason whatsoever for allowing someone to own an automatic weapon.

Pistol, shotgun, hunting rifle? Sure, you can at least try to justify those with the self defence / hunting argument. An automatic weapon is not designed or used for either of these things, its sole purpose is to make killing other people easier.

 

[repiV]

While I'm not going to get into the argument about gun control full stop, I think that you didn't really address what was said.
There is no reason whatsoever for allowing someone to own an automatic weapon.

Pistol, shotgun, hunting rifle? Sure, you can at least try to justify those with the self defence / hunting argument. An automatic weapon is not designed or used for either of these things, its sole purpose is to make killing other people easier.

It's not a case of allowing someone to own an automatic weapon, everything is permissible by default unless specifically outlawed. You don't ask Gordon Brown's permission before you do anything, do you?

Many people would enjoy collecting automatic weapons, or shooting them at gun clubs. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, and there are already laws against brandishing a weapon in public or using them against another person. How about enforcing those laws instead of making up new ones all the time?

 

[DEATH eVADER]

Most of the civilized world functions well enough without everyone having an uzi for "hunting" I really cant see why its a serious issue, other then middle-American moronity.

Its their inadequacies in markmanship skills the reason they go around hunting with an Uzi in the first place.

If your crap at hunting, just don't do it

 

[Kadayi]

First thing Kadayi has said in a while I agree with.

It's always about the issues.

As far as guns I'm not going to debate besides saying it's an inherent right in the US, 21st century and all. It's not going to change soon. Oh and nobody hunts with full auto rifles so please stop spreading bullshit. People do hunt with semi-auto's such as ar15's which have gained popularity but for good reason. They are accurate, dependable, and customizable in every aspect. You can get them in just about any caliber now also.

Right? The right to bear arms was written in a completely different time period, when times were a lot more dangerous. It's an archaic and mostly irrelevant historical hangover these days. I can understand people maybe needing guns in the house to protect themselves from bears up in remote areas such as Alaska, but the need to have semi-auto rifles or handguns for sale in Urban areas seems a bit less of a necessity.

It's a serious issue because people want to own guns - simple really. In a free society people are allowed to own and do the things that they want, not just the things they need. Telling Americans they have to give up their guns is just like telling Brits they have to give up their alcohol - and this is without even delving into the fact that gun control does **** all for public safety anyway.

Rep have you read up on the figures on Gun related Homicides in the US?

In 2004, there were 29,569 gun-related deaths in the United States, including almost 12,000 homicides, more than 16,750 suicides and approximately 650 unintentional deaths. This adds up to about 80 gun-related deaths in the United States every day?or almost 2.5 times of the number of persons killed at Virginia Tech each day.

There were also approximately 70,000 non-fatal gun shot injuries in 2005 serious enough to require at least an emergency room visit. In addition, there were 477,040 victims of gun-related crimes in the United States in 2005.

From here:-


http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/articles/2007/vernick_gun_trafficking.html


12000 homicides, that's 4 times the number of people killed in 9/11.

Let's compare to the UK which despite it's Geographical size size has a 6th of the population of the US, but does have strict gun controls.:-

Firearms were used in 73 homicides in 2004/05 (under one in ten of all homicides), five more than the previous year.

http://www.crimeinfo.org.uk/servlet...factsheet&factsheetid=102&category=factsheets

So as a base figure for population comparison, 73 homicides caused by guns x 6 = 438 homicides. That's a big step down from 12000 I'm sure you'll agree. That's even less than the number of unintentional deaths in the US per year. In fact that's less deaths in UK per year Vs the number of deaths per day in the US, and the UK has a 6th of the US population. Pretty compelling stuff I'd say given the UK is a much more densely populated country than the US and the potential for friction is that much higher.

Personally I'll take gun control impinging on peoples 'right to bear arms' over the prospect of 'look at me ma' social rejects going Postal every couple of years and destroying entire communities in the process. People are always going to go crazy that's a given, but it's when they have ready and easy access to high velocity weapons that the killing becomes that much easier for them. Crazy man with a knife might stab 2 or 3 people on a spree before being apprehended and taken down. Crazy man with a bagful of guns...well we all know how well that normally turns out.

 

[repiV]

Rep have you read up on the figures on Gun related Homicides in the US?



From here:-


http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/articles/2007/vernick_gun_trafficking.html


12000 homicides, that's 4 times the number of people killed in 9/11.

Let's compare to the UK which despite it's Geographical size size has a 6th of the population of the US, but does have strict gun controls.:-



http://www.crimeinfo.org.uk/servlet...factsheet&factsheetid=102&category=factsheets

So as a base figure for population comparison, 73 homicides caused by guns x 6 = 438 homicides. That's a big step down from 12000 I'm sure you'll agree. That's even less than the number of unintentional deaths in the US per year. In fact that's less deaths in UK per year Vs the number of deaths per day in the US, and the UK has a 6th of the US population. Pretty compelling stuff I'd say given the UK is a much more densely populated country than the US and the potential for friction is that much higher.

The US is a very violent country for a whole myriad of reasons, none of them a great deal to do with the right to bear arms. In fact you'll generally find that the most crime-ridden parts of the US are those with the strictest gun control laws, and vice versa.

What you're not taking into account is that there are many other countries where firearms are as easily accessible (or near as damnit) as in the US but where there is not a gun crime epidemic - Canada and Switzerland for example. Handguns were only banned here in 1997, but it was as ever a kneejerk reaction which had absolutely no effect on gun crime (in fact it got worse for a period) and served only to take away the hobbies and livelihoods of many people.

It's also misguided to draw comparisons between the UK and the US, because guns are generally quite hard to obtain in the UK. The US is full of guns and no law will ever change that - it would serve only to empower criminals. For that matter, law is almost always the least effective way of accomplishing anything. Cultural factors are the root cause of any social ill, and fighting the symptoms will never solve the problem, only take away self-determination.

Personally I'll take gun control impinging on peoples 'right to bear arms' over the prospect of 'look at me ma' social rejects going Postal every couple of years and destroying entire communities in the process. People are always going to go crazy that's a given, but it's when they have ready and easy access to high velocity weapons that the killing becomes that much easier for them. Crazy man with a knife might stab 2 or 3 people on a spree before being apprehended and taken down. Crazy man with a bagful of guns...well we all know how well that normally turns out.

It's fundamentally wrong to deny people basic freedoms to lead their lives in the way they choose because something bad might happen somewhere along the line. Life is not risk-free and it is neither possible nor desirable to try and make it so. I neither want nor need the government to protect me, I'm perfectly capable of doing that for myself.

 

[unozero]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kL0kExzjvmk

 

[Laivasse]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kL0kExzjvmk

Utter ****ing nonsense from beginning to end. I'm irritated that you even thought this was meaningful enough to post.