The western world has banned the death penalty,hand guns,why can't the USA

[Swede]

You can't argue with stats. Nra bulshit doens't hide 10,000 gun deaths a year except in America.

[jhfenton]

1. Oh you can make a superficial case for almost anything with statistics.

You can even blur the lines between correlation and causation and call that an argument.

Unfortunately for you, some of us know the difference.

[izzie]

4. We have more people in prison than any country so,,,,,,

we are cutting it down by killing off a few?????This is good reasoning for the God loving people we are.

[genius]

15. The death penalty is a form of racist genocide.

It's more than statistics. It's fact. Check out the article "Where Has the Compassion Gone?" The truth makes us look really bad. http://debateusa.com/featured/hull_richter.htm

[TexasMexican]

23. IMO.

The problem isnt that so many blacks are being put to death via the death penalty.

The problem is that not enough whites are being executed.

[HEyHEY]

27. the numbers are too great for your argument to be effective

too bad for you

[Silverhair]

44. Those numbers are also skewed. They do not include...

the number of lives saved by defensive use of handguns. Of course, the exact number is unknowable, but reasonably good estimates can be made and should be included in those statistics.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

2. Probably because we have the best politicians money can buy.

The NRA spends a lot of green preaching paranoia to the weak minded and greasing the palms in Washington.

[jhfenton]

8. Or, in other words:

The NRA spends a lot of money educating the public on firearm usage and safety and reminding politicians of the meaning of the Second Amendment.

Me <-- NRA-certified volunteer instructor in Basic Pistol, Basic Rifle, Basic Shotgun, and Personal Protection in the Home

[politicat]

20. JHFenton, Can we divide the two arguments, please?

Since you obviously have very strong feelings about firearms, what say you about capital punishment?

There are some pretty strong arguments that capital punishment is not effective as a deterrant, that it is excessively expensive, that it breeds more violence within the prison (after all, they're going to kill me anyway, right? thinking), that the margin of error is far too wide for an irrevocable decision..... What are your arguments against eradicating it?

Or did you see that part of the title?

Politicat (who thinks the whole guns-noguns quagmire is going to take a lot of work on both sides of the issue before we have anything even remotely resembling resolution)

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

3. America leads the Western World for a reason

Try to figure out why. Hint, an old commie dictator once told us where political power came from. Most Americans, like the Swiss, support our right to keep and bear arms.

[TexasMexican]

7. definately.

its not right, but might does make right.

[TexasMexican]

5. because...

most Americans want murderers to be put to death and they would rather take thier chances in a firefight with criminals than to have no chance if they are disarmed.

I'm with the majority of Americans on this one.

[Silverhair]

6. Many of us here on DU have used guns to defend ourselves.

I have, as have a number of others. That no shots were fired means it doesn't get included in your statistics. Also, gun crime is risine in Europe. Criminals do prefer to have helpless victims. Intended victims that might shoot back make criminals rather nervous.

Nor can you deny that criminals will get guns anyway. Drugs are outlawed, yet easily available.

There have been numerous thread on that topic. You may want to review them.

[Silverhair]

9. Death Penalty.

I have a problem with the death penalty as it is currently administered in the U.S. But it is also a problem that a LIFE sentence rarely actually means LIFE in prison. I can't remember the name, but there was a multiple child molestation/murderer in Texas who was sentenced to death. His guilt was beyond all question. The SCOTUS overturned all the death penalties, so he was then given life. Then, as a result of a lawsuit involving prison overcrowding, he was released. Within a few months he had again killed some kids. Same MO even. He was again arrested, the evidence was plain. There was not the slightest bit of doubt that he was guilty. He has since been executed. I, for one, have no pity for him.

In the 1880's one of my own ancestors was murdered and his wife was wounded. She lived a few days before dying from the wound. She positively IDed the killer. They both had known him. He was tried and convicted to hang. His sentence was commuted to life. He was released in 20 years. So it isn't a new problem.

I have no problem with doing away with the death penalty if the death penalty opponents will allow a life sentence to absolutely mean every single day until you drop dead to be spent in jail with no paroles, or furloughs. I don't care if that convict lives to be 130, he still stays in jail. But the same people that are against the death penalty then, after a few years in jail start playing their violins again.

[elperromagico]

10. Louisiana has a pretty tough parole system

The result is that prisons are filling up with a bunch of old men and women being kept alive by the state.

I don't know; I find it very hard to develop a stance on the death penalty that fits me at all times.

[Silverhair]

12. OK, As they get really old, & infirm they can be transferred to

a lesser security system, but they still don't go free. When bedridden they can be sent to a special wing of a nursing home.

[elperromagico]

14. Still

taxpayers foot the bill for keeping them alive.

[fujiyama]

17. Tax payers

would otherwise be paying for all the appeals for the murderer.

I agree with Silverhair that murderers, child molestors, rapists, and other extremely violent criminals should be locked up for life, with no paroles, furloghs, etc. These are people whose reabilitative value is meaningless because they have committed crimes society finds so shocking, there is use for them in society.

But we have to realize why our prisons are overcrowding.

That has to do partly with the war on drugs, and three strikes laws, and other stiff punishments for stealing candy bars or video tapes, or possession of crack cocaine or making the mistake of being a youth and selling the stuff.

I don't understand why a stiff solitary confinement life sentence of prison without access to TV, the radio, books, or any other entertainment or recreation would be any less a punishment than a death sentence of a prick of a needle and being put to sleep. The latter sounds like it would be much to easy a punishment for some crimes. That said, the death penalty itself carries too many unknowns, and there is no possibility of looking at new evidence year later, and reversing a mistake. If a person is still alive (and new evidence were to clear them of the crimes they commited) that person could still be released. The death penalty offers no such option. The death penalty is also capricious, and if the victim is white, it is MUCH more likely the defendant will be put to death.

As for guns, I think there should be some regulations, but I definetely wouldn't ban them.

[elperromagico]

19. I agree

I particularly agree with the assertion that the War on Drugs is crowding our prisons.

Look at Tommy Chong. He's in prison for selling marijuana pipes. Not marijuana, but pipes! Does Tommy Chong really need to be taking up space in a prison cell, when our prisons are already overcrowded? I doubt it.

[Silverhair]

42. Yes, We need alternatives to prison for non violent crimes.

Take the case of a CEO who is a crook & gets caught. Instead of putting him in jail, take all of his worldly possessions from him, except the basics needed for life, and have him do community help, and pay him a stipend. Discreet radio anklet to control where he goes.

Let the victimless crime convicts go completely free. Use the jails for the violent offenders.

It is obscene that we waste so much of our potential and our treasure on personal morals offenses.

[lynndew2]

18. Agreed 100%

If they would make the life sentences mean Life, I say no death penalty. Otherwise I think it needs some reforms but it is neccasary.

[genius]

11. Here is the best article I've read on the subject.

This article is a must-read.

http://debateusa.com/featured/hull_richter.htm

[Egnever]

13. No thanks

I would like to keep my right to bear arms, and I hope malvo fries!

[moondust]

16. In a word, ignorance.

Relatively few U.S. citizens have lived in the unarmed countries where guns are unimportant. They have no comprehension of life without the gun culture and the violent crimes it promotes.

[NickB79]

21. Because I would rather own a gun

Than to have watched my father continue beating and choking my mother when I was 17.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

22. Are you advocating paternicide over a phone call to the police?

[TexasMexican]

24. sometimes

it might be a better decision.

I've never really had any problems like that in my family. Nor do I know his specific circumstances, however how many times have you heard of the police breaking up a domestic dispute, wife gets a restraining order or some bullshit like that and the husband comes back anyways and kills them.

IMO men who beat women, really beat them, dont deserve to live.

[NickB79]

56. Some more details of what happened

My father started beating and choking my mother after both of them had been arguing all day long, and my dad finally snapped. My little sister (14 yrs old) hit him on the back/side of the head with a glass, making him release my mom and lunge for her. She and my little brother (13 yrs old) ran into the bedroom, where I had been when I heard my mom start screaming "call 911!!!" when he first started hitting her. When I heard that, I had grabbed my .22 rifle out of the closet. A couple seconds after my siblings ran into the bedroom and shut the door, my dad practically kicked the door off the hinges coming in, at which point I aimed my rifle at his face. He stopped, and I will never forget the look on his face, like he realized for the first time what he was doing. His eyes got so big. He turned around, walked past my mom, who was on the phone with the police, and walked out the front door. He stayed outside in the barn until the police arrived. It took the police 45 MINUTES TO ARRIVE!!!!! We lived on a farm 20 miles from the nearest "city" with a police station. I didnt have to fire a shot, thank God, but if he had taken one more step, I know I would have. So, yes, I guess in some situations, I would advocate paternicide if it meant defending my family.

The kicker is that, despite the bruises on my mom's face and neck (you could even see the fucking finger impressions where he was choking her), and the testimony of my mom, me and my brother and sister as to what happened, the police refused to arrest my dad. My dad claimed the cuts on the side of his head (where my sister had hit him with that drinking glass) were caused by my mom, and he only reacted in self-defense. My mom finally got enough sense to divorce the bastard a couple years later, but not before he wailed on her once more, this time after I had left for college.

[slaveplanet]

60. quite the Eye-opener N/T

[Bombtrack]

25. because there is no need for the US to copy countries for copying sake

I absolutly dispise the NRA, and Dean supporters who have turned into NRA fans because they are so easily manipulated but I digress

Before the US is ever going to ban handguns, first we need to implement gun control like national registration, liscencing, mandatory gun locks, madatory restrictions on multiple purchases and increased waiting periods.

None of those take peoples guns away, but it would curb violence, and it does not support the moronic line of NRA types that gun control = gun confiscation.

The death penalty is a completly seperate issue which I completly support and I don't need to be told that any country is somehow better than the US because they banned the death penalty.

[TexasMexican]

26. hmm...

"Before the US is ever going to ban handguns,..."

You summed it up right there.

In order to ban guns you need to do those things first, that is exactly the reason people who care about thier right to keep and bear arms wont support those measures.

[HEyHEY]

28. can I call you texmex?

welcome to DU

[TexasMexican]

29. sure

thats the nick I was going to use, but apparently it was already taken.

[Bombtrack]

30. I meant WOULD ever ban handguns

.

[DoNotRefill]

34. That's EXACTLY why...

"Before the US is ever going to ban handguns, first we need to implement gun control like national registration, liscencing, mandatory gun locks, madatory restrictions on multiple purchases and increased waiting periods."

I refuse to support such measures. Registration is a necessary precursor to confiscation. Thanks, but no thanks.

It's foolish to think that banning guns will solve our violence problem. Prohibition has NEVER worked, be it for booze, drugs, or guns. In fact, each time such a thing has been banned, we've seen a SERIOUS increase in violence in this country, as a black market for the banned items is formed. Remember Al Capone? How about the Crack Cocaine wars of the late '80's?

If you want to work to solve the violence problem, fine, there are loads of ways to do it that will work. Registering and eventually banning the legal possession of guns ain't one of those.

BTW, I don't know if you caught this, but §922(o) was recently struck down in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals as being unconstitutional. So how exactly will you pass the legislation required?

[Bombtrack]

45. I don't think we should ban guns

but I also think it's moronic for democrats to start regurgitating absurd NRA talking points and slippery slope/conspiracy theories because the candidate who most strategists know would be crushed outside of the northeast says he can win the gun-nut vote and thus the general election.

[TexasMexican]

48. slippery slope.

I dont see what is wrong about mentioning the slippery slope.

As you pointed out, it is a fact that if you want to ban and confiscate handguns you will need to have them registered first.

So if we dont give ground on gun registration we will not have to worry about gun confiscation.

[Bombtrack]

58. no, that's not what I was saying at all

that was one of a half dozen as yet unimplemented possible forms of gun control that the NRA has successfully stopped from being implemented both nationally and in various states. Any one of them would be a good thing on there own or together.

I was saying that it's stupid to ever think this country is ever going to ban handguns, and that fighting or hoping for it is stupid, because much less drastic gun control measures(like the ones I stated) CAN'T even get passed because of the right-wing gun groups.

[DoNotRefill]

62. If there's no slippery slope....

then why get upset when they ban infrequently used abortion procedures? Or is the slippery slope OK for the issue of women's reproductive freedom, but not for the Second Amendment? And if the "registration leads to confiscation" argument is conspiracy theory, then isn't the "partial birth abortion ban will lead to abortion being banned" argument also a conspiracy theory, too?

You can't have it both ways. I'm against registration of firearms, and against any infringement of a woman's right to choose. It's called "consistency".

[REP]

31. How About Switzerland?

Last I heard, they were part of the western world, and fully automatic military assault gun ownership is compulsory for men eligible for military service in Swtizerland. Private handgun ownership is Switzerland is second only to the US. France has no ban on handgun ownership.

There is an argument to be made, but it is better made using facts.

[Q]

32. The US is a country where the Bill of Rights...

...has been almost completely abolished...but seldom do you hear such passionate arguments for the other amendments as you do for the second.

- We've lost our right to free speech and the wall separating church and state has been torn down...but we still have a right to pick up a gun and kill someone.

- Americans have their guns....not much else seems to matter.

[DoNotRefill]

35. Hogwash.

I'm pro-second Amendment, pro-choice, pro-4th Amendment, anti-drug-war, and pro-abunchofotherstuffthat'dtaketoolongtogetinto. I speak out on each issue as I come to it.

BTW, you said "but we still have a right to pick up a gun and kill someone." Would you care to cite the Amendment that gives us the right to kill someone without cause? I've read the BoR and other amendments quite a bit, but can't remember ever seeing that one.

[Q]

38. I'm saying that 'Americans' have done little while almost every other...

...'right' has been taken from them. The NRAers have nothing to say about this UNTIL someone suggests controlling the use or ownership of their GUNS.

- Yet...they support the fascists running this country...as they take away one right...one liberty after another.

- Many are avoiding the pivotal issue here. The US is one of the most violent countries in the world...with thousands killed each year. Common sense would suggest that a civil country would try to do something about it besides locking people up AFTER the fact.

[DoNotRefill]

40. you're wrong.

NRAers often speak out about this stuff...we just don't say "I'm the NRA and I'm defending the 4th amendment!" while doing it.

Case in point: The NRA's challenge of campaign finance reform. The NRA is one of the plaintiffs in a case which is NOT about the Second Amendment. Care to wager a guess who else is a plaintiff? The ACLU. Bob Barr is on the BoD of the NRA. He also is currently working for the ACLU on non-second Amendment issues. Eugene Volokh is one of the top Second Amendment legal scholars in the country. He's also an expert on the First Amendment, and is often quoted in that context. Lawrence Tribe thinks the Second Amendment enumerates an individual right. He was Al Gore's attorney in 2000.

The NRA is a one-issue organization. Their reason to be is two-fold: Firearms training purposes (the reason the organization was originally founded by a bunch of Union Generals after the Civil War) and to work to protect the Second Amendment (a relatively new sideline, since attacks on the Second are relatively recent in origin.)

Sure, the NRA has a LOT of far-right members. But it's got a lot of moderates and even a fair number of staunch Democrats in it, too. Remember Jimmy Carter? How about JFK? Both Democratic presidents, both NRA members. How about blue-collar Union folks? A lot of them own guns and belong to the NRA.

Want to neutralize the NRA as a conservative lobbying force? It'd be easy to do, and is BEING done as we speak. Just ask Howard Dean. If you don't attack what the NRA holds sacred, they will not attack you. If you support the Second Amendment, they will support you. Expecting them to do anything different is like expecting the AARP to involve itself in child care for kids. It's quite simply not their rice bowl. that doesn't mean that AARP members wouldn't support such measures, and work FOR such measures, just not while playing up their AARP membership.

[DoNotRefill]

33. Because we don't WANT to.

Public opinion is pretty strong on both issues.

America has a violence problem. It's not because there are guns here. How can I say that? It's simple, really. Compare the rate of homicides in the US that do NOT involve guns to the rest of the Western world's homicide rate with and without guns. You'll find that even if there were no gun-related homicides in the US, we'd still lead the western world in homicides. That makes a pretty airtight case that there's a violence problem here, and that guns are not the cause of it.

[Kamika]

36. Did the "western world" vote about that

I'm curious did Sweden have a vote about the death penalty or did your socialist leaders just decide what was "best" ?

[0rganism]

37. We can't even elect our president by majority vote, and you want What?

The USA is one FUCKED UP country. If you looked for a list of ways in which the USA lags the rest of the western world, you'd be disgusted at how long it is. The legal presence of handguns is not the worst of our problems, by far.

Try our lack of socialized health care, or our dismal public education system, or our lack of environmental protection, or our incompetent foreign policy, our classist justice and penal systems, or any number of other issues. Do NOT, repeat, do NOT look to the USA as a shining example of ANYTHING.

This is a diseased country rotting from within.

[DoNotRefill]

41. Coming from a poster with a Cthulu .sig....

isn't that a GOOD thing??? :evilgrin:

[Pontus]

39. håll tyst! Jag vill ha min gevär!

I know that knifings and gang rapes are the crime of the moment in Sweden. Here in the USA gang rapes are a bit less common because the rapist might just get shot by the victim or a bystander. Oh, and how many people just stood there at NK and watched a guy knife to death foreign minister Anne Linde? How many lifted a finger to help out of over two dozen witnesses? None!

[leftofthedial]

43. because we are a third-world nation

we just don't know it yet

[funkyflathead]

46. HANDGUNS ARE LEGAL IN EUROPE, CANADA

Only Britian has banned them. Denmark hasn't, Spain hasn't. The rest of the EU hasn't. Heck they are still legal in Northen Ireland and Australia.

:shrug:

Edited to add: I support the death penalty too, just not for the mentally retarted.

[snoochie]

47. Whored-out Democrats

I don't think most liberals want to ban guns. We just want effective gun laws.

But by having 'spoilers' that make ridiculous arguments, they get a nice excuse to avoid doing their jobs.

And as another post pointed out, there are other issues on the liberal agenda that have gone nowhere or have actually regressed in the last 30 years.

The Death Penalty is unfair and has definitely resulted in the murder of innocents.

There is no excuse.

[mvd]

49. Because of the influence of the old west

The mentality is still hanging around. We need a chance to evolve out of it - we're still a young country compared to many. That said, I'm more for banning guns that are the most dangerous assault-oriented.

[TexasMexican]

50. rifles.

So you want to ban semi-automatic rifles with baynet lugs, flash suppressors, detachable magazines, and pistol grips?

[mvd]

51. Well IMO..

There's no need for anything automatic. I'm not a gun owner, and would like it if there were none, but I think people should have the right to own hand guns and hunting rifles that aren't automatic.

Edit: oops, this was supposed to be a reply to post #50.

[TexasMexican]

59. single shot or bolt action?

So you are saying that rifles be limited to single shot and bolt action models?

And handguns should be limited to single shot and revolvers?

[slaveplanet]

52. Why doesn't Sweden ban knives

you can't argue with that....someone might have been able even her odds had she the right to pack....

[mvd]

53. Certain guns really mostly have the purpose of killing people..

And I only advocate banning some of them. Knives are used in other ways a lot.

[slaveplanet]

54. so do guns-

"Certain guns really mostly have the purpose of killing people.."
"Certain guns really mostly have the purpose of defending people.."


Knives are used in other ways a lot.
so are guns-

from the walls of the Georges Pomidou center- Paris France:

YOU GET AMAZING SENSATIONS FROM GUNS. YOU GET RESULTS FROM GUNS. MAN IS AN AGGRESIVE ANIMAL. YOU HAVE TO HAVE A GOOD OFFENSE AND A GOOD DEFENSE.TOO MANY CITIZENS THINK THEY ARE HELPLESS. THEY LEAVE EVERYTHING TO THE AUTHORITIES AND THIS CAUSES CORRUPTION. RESPONSIPILITY SHOULD GO BACK WHERE IT BELONGS. IT IS YOUR LIFE SO TAKE CONTROL AND FEEL VITAL. THERE MAY BE SOME ACCIDENTS ALONG THE PATH TO SELF EXPRESSION AND SELF DETERMINATION. SOME HARMLESS PEOPLE WILL BE HURT. HOWEVER G U N SPELLS PRIDE TO THE STRONG.SAFETY TO THE WEAK, AND HOPE TO THE HOPELESS. GUNS MAKE WRONG RIGHT FAST.



© Copyright  2003 The Canadian Press

More people were killed with knives than guns in 2002, says Statistics Canada 
Canadian Press
Wednesday, October 01, 2003
OTTAWA (CP) - More people were killed with knives than guns last year, Statistics Canada says.
And Canada's homicide rate rose after two years of relative stability, the agency reported Wednesday. "At the same time, the proportion of homicides committed with firearms fell to an all-time low." Stabbings, the most common method in 2002, accounted for 31 per cent of homicides, followed by shootings at 26 per cent, beatings, 21 per cent, and strangulation or suffocation 11 per cent.
"Handguns accounted for two-thirds of the 149 firearm homicides in 2002, up from about one-half during the 1990s and one-third prior to 1990. The 98 homicides committed with a handgun last year were consistent with the annual average over the past decade.
"There has been a declining trend in the use of rifles and shotguns; they now account for only one-quarter of all firearm homicides," the agency said.
Thirty-seven homicides were committed with a rifle or shotgun in 2002, substantially fewer than the previous 10-year average of 67. The remaining 14 firearm homicides were committed with other types of firearms.
The agency said police reported 582 homicides, 29 more than in 2001.
"As a result, the national homicide rate climbed four per cent to 1.85 homicides for every 100,000 people, compared with 1.78 in 2001."
The 26 per cent of homicides committed with a firearm last year was the lowest proportion since statistics were first collected in 1961.
"Last year's increase in homicides was driven by a large jump in British Columbia, where there were 126 homicides reported in 2002, up from 84 in 2001. Contributing to the increase in British Columbia were 15 homicides of missing women that occurred in previous years in Port Coquitlam and that were reported by police in 2002."
Winnipeg, with 23 homicides, and Saskatoon, with eight, each had a rate of 3.41 per 100,000 residents, the highest among metropolitan areas.
"Although Toronto had the most homicides (90), its homicide rate (1.80) was still slightly below the national rate of 1.85. Oshawa, Ont., was the only census metropolitan area not to have a homicide in 2002."
Statistics Canada also found that:
- For a second consecutive year, gang-related homicides dropped substantially.
- As usual, most homicides were committed by someone known to the victim.
- Almost half of the 182 victims killed by a family member were killed by their spouse.
- Forty-four per cent of female victims and eight of all male victims were killed by someone with whom they had a relationship.
- Men are more likely to be killed by a stranger than women.
- Almost two-thirds of the 523 people accused of committing homicide in 2002 had a criminal record.
- Consistent with previous years, men accounted for nine in 10 accused, and about two-thirds of all victims.
Homicides by city for 2002. The first number represents the number of victims; in brackets is the rate per 100,000 inhabitants:
Population 500,000 or more
Toronto: 90 (1.80)
Montreal: 66 (1.87)
Vancouver: 69 (3.26)
Calgary: 15 (1.52)
Edmonton: 27 (2.79)
Ottawa: 8 (0.93)
Quebec: 3 (0.44)
Winnipeg: 23 (3.41)
Hamilton: 13 (1.97)
Population 250,000 to 499,999
Kitchener, Ont.: 3 (0.65)
St. Catharines-Niagara region, Ont.: 8 (1.88)
London, Ont.: 4 (1.05)
Halifax: 5 (1.33)
Windsor, Ont.: 7 (2.16)
Victoria: 3 (0.93)
Oshawa, Ont.: 0 (0)
Gatineau, Que.: 6 (2.21)
Population 100,000 to 249,999
Saskatoon: 8 (3.41)
Regina: 4 (2.00)
St. John's, Nfld.: 1 (0.57)
Sudbury, Ont.: 2 (1.26)
Saguenay, Que.: 1 (0.66)
Sherbrooke, Que.: 1 (0.68)
Saint John, N.B.: 2 (1.37)
Trois-Rivieres, Que.: 2 (1.38)
Thunder Bay, Ont.: 1 (0.79)

[mvd]

63. As a cop in Canada once said to me..

violence begets violence. More guns = more violence. And I still am right that knives have a greater purpose. Guns can be collected, but many guns, whether used for defense or offense, are designed to kill people.

That said, bigger government helps reduce crime more tham gun control IMO. But certain measures are reasonable in our country's climate.

I rest my case. I don't have the time right now - but to be continued later, in the gun dungeon maybe..

[Unforgiven]

55. Give it up

We've got bigger problems in this country right now besides gun control.( in case you haven't noticed.) Every time someone starts this non-sense about gun control the RepubliCONs beat us up on this issue, unless of course that is your plan? The only reason, and I mean the only reason, the corporate criminals haven't taken over this country and completely shut it down, is that it is full of guns and people would be out in the streets shooting anything that moved should they try. So as far as I'm concerened any one for gun control of any kind is just begging for that last bit of protection to be stripped from the population of this country.
And no I don't belong to the NRA so don't hand me that crap. I own guns and when you or someone comes to take them from me rest assured they won't get the butt end handed to them.

[slaveplanet]

57. you've got it right-seems

Our swedish friend is a bit of a provocatuer...he hasn't bothered to address any threads here, nor did he include these stats about his homeland.

www.observer.guardian.co.uk/print/ 0,3858,4753167-110406,00.html

Such is the enviable but vulnerable way in which Sweden conducts its life - laudable almost to the point of naivety. For there lurks within this breezy, confident society a nether world, which it chooses to deny rather than confront.
There is the stark fact that following the murder of Prime Minister Olof Palme in 1986, Europe's most 'civilised' country now overtakes Italy as the continent's foremost arena for top-level political assassination. Unknown to most Swedes is the fact that their country has the highest number of homicides per capita of any in Europe (1.94 per 100,000) and is second only to the US (6.26 per 100,000) among those countries keeping accurate records.
There is a notion that Sweden does not know where to draw the line: just as super-tolerance of the young has spawned a crisis in teenage alcoholism, violence and drug abuse, so Sweden's political civility has now given rise to an assassination marked for its unusual relish of the kill itself, not just the result. There was an especially bloody brutality in the murder Anna Lindh, in an age when politicians are more likely to be assasinated by remote means, with bombs or bullets, than with the cold steel of a knife. And there was a singular brutality in the fact that this was a burly man stabbing a woman, and a woman of that kind.

[Scott Lee]

61. Cuz 'twon't be no fun if they stop the hangin's, Ma!

What am I supposed to do with the family on Sundays if we can't go down to the park and watch some guy dance on the end of a rope??

[AnnabelLee]

64. Locking--profanity

Please see rule #2 here
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=463744

2. The subject line of a discussion thread and the entire text of the message which starts the thread may not include profanity, excessive capitalization, or excessive punctuation. Inflammatory rhetoric should also be avoided.

Thank you
AnnabelLee
DU Moderator