Most of them will say that they are happy about guns being banned , and that the crime rate would soar even higher , possibly to USA levels , if guns were not banned.
While it is difficult to compare crime rates from county to country for many reasons (culture, reporting criteria, etc.), it is not debatable that the violent crime rates went up dramatically in Britain, Australia, and Canada after their gun bans. The overal rate may have gone down, but violent crime, the kind of crime that hurts people and society the most, is on the rise.
Additionally, the biggest violent crime rate reductions in the USA are in the state that have passed conceal carry laws. Again, doing something that feels good without examining the real consequences is counter productive. Sometimes it is better to carry a gun, go to war, deny entitlements, deport illegal aliens, etc. It may cause short term suffering, it may be hard to do, but in the long run, in many instances, the long term benefits outweigh the short term harm.
wazmankg, Presidential politics is still rather two sided. By law equal time must be given to canidates and the canidates themsleves control their message to a degree not seen in other reporting. Yes, I believe the American people are smart, but any decision must be made on the available information. All I am saying is that if the media, as a whole, is reporting the failures in Iraq, for example, focusing on civilian casualities, military deaths, etc. people will feel the war is going badly and base their decision on that information. Many people don't have the time to do our own research, we rely on the media to report the events and issues to us. If that media slants one way or the other, so would our opinion as a whole. Again, can you envision the popular opinion on Iraq being as negative as it is if the media was touting our successes, focusing on the great work our military is doing and highlighting the deaths of the insurgents (by the way, the good and bad about Iraq are both happening, it is the reporting that slants towards failure or success). I can't.
wazmankg, Presidential politics is still rather two sided. By law equal time must be given to canidates and the canidates themsleves control their message to a degree not seen in other reporting. Yes, I believe the American people are smart, but any decision must be made on the available information. All I am saying is that if the media, as a whole, is reporting the failures in Iraq, for example, focusing on civilian casualities, military deaths, etc. people will feel the war is going badly and base their decision on that information. Many people don't have the time to do our own research, we rely on the media to report the events and issues to us. If that media slants one way or the other, so would our opinion as a whole. Again, can you envision the popular opinion on Iraq being as negative as it is if the media was touting our successes, focusing on the great work our military is doing and highlighting the deaths of the insurgents (by the way, the good and bad about Iraq are both happening, it is the reporting that slants towards failure or success). I can't.
danmcmartin, I still don't think you give the American public as much credit as they deserve. Foreign affairs and the events around the world usually aren't of much concern to a large segment of the American public. I think this changes when our soldiers start dying in significant numbers. It tends to sharpen peoples focus on the issues when they have friends and/or relatives who are at risk. The progress being made in Iraq is being reported. I see and read of it daily, along with the rising casualties, both military & civilian. You're not suggesting that our military casualties and the suicide bombings not be reported, are you ? I think when we first went into Iraq, public opinion was divided 3 ways. Those who thought it was the wrong move at the wrong time. Those that thought it was the right thing to do and the time was right. The largest segment, I think, were those who supported our involvement because they trusted the judgement of the administration, based on the intelligence used as a supporting argument. As much of the pre-war intelligence has been shown to have been overstated, if not completely discredited, public opinion among that 3rd middle-ground group has shifted and confidence in the administration has waned. Fair minds can disagree about the wisdom of our invasion of Iraq, but I think any comparison to our rationale for fighting WWII is a bit over the top to say the least.
This is what happens when it gets too cold to play golf. We start talking politics. I've said my right-wing, neo-con piece and I respect everyone's right to disagree with me. I think we all can agree that this is truly a great country, where we can log onto the internet, speak our minds and engage in friendly debate and not one of us was collected by the secret police and thrown in prison. But I do enjoy a good political debate.
On that note, I wish everyone a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. I hope our troops come home soon and they can enjoy their familes and the prosperity and freedom they helped defend and maybe get in a little golf.
Ok, so Lennon opposed Vietnam. Who didn't? We shouldn't have been there to begin with. We had thousands of our troops dying for a cause that didn't exist, especially when the people we were "trying to help" didn't want us there.
Oh wait, that's Iraq. Sorry, I got my baseless wars mixed up.
Lennon may have "preached" charity, but he did'nt practice it a lot. The Beatles blew hundreds of millions of dollars on drugs, sex, partying and every other rich man's wasteful vice and whim known to man, and that by their own admissions in later years. If they REALLY had put their money where their mouths were, they could have done a lot of good for humanity with only a fraction of the money they wasted. I'm sick of so called celebrities criticizing the rest of us and turning around and indulging themselves in the very things they were publicly critical of. Most of them are two faced, self indulgent misfits. I'm sorry for what happened to Lennon, but that's history.
Lennon may have "preached" charity, but he did'nt practice it a lot. The Beatles blew hundreds of millions of dollars on drugs, sex, partying and every other rich man's wasteful vice and whim known to man, and that by their own admissions in later years. If they REALLY had put their money where their mouths were, they could have done a lot of good for humanity with only a fraction of the money they wasted. I'm sick of so called celebrities criticizing the rest of us and turning around and indulging themselves in the very things they were publicly critical of. Most of them are two faced, self indulgent misfits. I'm sorry for what happened to Lennon, but that's history.
But Lennon's protests were directed mostly towards a cause that left our country even more hated by our allies, enemies, and even ourselves. I doubt he ever claimed to be perfect, I'm pretty sure he knew he was 25% responsible for the break up of one of the best bands in history. 75% always goes to the woman, nothing can be done about hormones. ;)
Just proves that we are all human, despite the glamor and celebrity status of some. I was in college during the mid 60s Vietnam debacle. I blame Kennedy for getting us into it in the first place and that insane, egotistical Lyndon Johnson for thowing away 55,000 American lives in that nightmare. To me, he will always be the most hated and despised President in history.
...the mid 60s Vietnam debacle. I blame Kennedy for getting us into it in the first place and that insane, egotistical Lyndon Johnson for thowing away 55,000 American lives in that nightmare...
No shortage of blame in that tragedy, that's for sure. Truman had been helping the French. When the French finally lost in 1954 and the Republic of South Vietnam was created, Eisenhower was there to send in the first American "military advisers" and prop up a government that was dubious at best. After the aforementioned Kennedy and Johnson, there was Nixon, elected in 1968 with a "secret plan" to end the war. Took him about 4 or 5 years, during which time ~21,000 of the ~58,000 American deaths occurred. So, pick your bad guy, I guess.
This is what happens when it gets too cold to play golf. We start talking politics. I've said my right-wing, neo-con piece and I respect everyone's right to disagree with me. I think we all can agree that this is truly a great country, where we can log onto the internet, speak our minds and engage in friendly debate and not one of us was collected by the secret police and thrown in prison. But I do enjoy a good political debate.
On that note, I wish everyone a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. I hope our troops come home soon and they can enjoy their familes and the prosperity and freedom they helped defend and maybe get in a little golf.
I'm not one to back away from a political debate, but I think danmcmartin tied a nice bow on this thread last week... I added the bold.
Ya, I am abstaining from heated political debate until at least January 3rd. Now if we want to debate which reindeer is the best (Blitzen), bring it on.
December 16th, 2005, 02:32 PM
I must be better off than I thought!
Linear Mode
Similar Threads
