Re: safety and politics
 

No. That is another inappropriate analogy.

Try to find one where the intended use is the same or close.

Re: safety and politics
 

I understand why some would feel this way. I don't trust our representatives any more either.

But what this comes down to is probability and practicality, as I said before. I don't believe the people claiming guns can all be taken away are thinking this through.

There are just too many guns in the hands of American citizens for that to happen. And while I'm cognizant of frog boiling and slippery slopes, I am also aware of tipping points-- and one would come into play here.

If the government started enforcement action on confiscating guns, then there would be a degree of rebellion. Military force would be required to suppress that. At that point even citizens with no "dog in the hunt" would protest. Things would get bloody-- and on a much larger scale than Kent State was.

The US government would be seen worldwide as just as evil as the regimes we have attacked for doing what we would be doing.

I just don't think we would reach THAT point. We have had evil people in office, true, but they tend to be sneaky. Overt action on their part would have repercussions they could not handle.

And remember: the military soldiers are humans, too. They won't all go for attacks against their brothers for long. There would not be the same polarization that allowed that in the Civil War.

Re: safety and politics
 

But surely the intended use of a gun (for a normal person, that is) is not to randomly kill people off? It is to be an instrument of deterrent in home and personal defense.

Re: safety and politics
 

Just like a car, right? :rolleyes:

Come on Karel, did you even think before typing?

Re: safety and politics
 

Now we're talking about the motivation of the war in Iraq?

First of all, it is always misleading to talk about the motivation of any group of people. There is no one motivation. People have a bunch of ideas and manage to agree on a course of action.

As is the case with many ideologues (see this thread we are in), the Bush administration was living in a dream world. I think they actually believed: (a) establishing a Santa Monica-style democracy in Iraq would have a ripple effect throughout the region, as other countries would want to emulate the idyllic government in Iraq; (b) they really believed it would be a cakewalk, so why not?, and (c) the rules of war had changed, and they didn't need as many troops as those pessimists and naysayers in the military said they did, because shock and awe meant you could do the whole thing on a shoestring. Besides, (d) the presence of wmds provided a convenient pretext for the invasion.

Unfortunately for us in the US, the real world doesn't follow theory very well, especially when the theory is much simpler than the reality.

Though it would have been much easier for us to wait for Saddam to die (see my comments on Franco earlier), now that we are in Iraq, I hope that we manage to leave the country we broke in a workable situation, rather than a nightmarish one. I am one of the few people who admired McCain when he said that he didn't care if we stayed in Iraq for a hundred years, though I of course voted against him anyway.

Re: safety and politics
 

You said safety checks for car buyers were a bad analogy, because even if a car can kill, it's intended use isn't that.

Re: safety and politics
 

Someone (a European colleague of mine) pointed out to me recently that American politics have a second axis, not just left-right; they also have the "republican" axis, which sometimes aligns with "right-wing" or "conservative," but often it doesn't; the Republican belief in small government and minimal regulations has some right-wing implications, but "republicanism" has many more implications, especially in the area of gun ownership and "libertarianism," that in other countries would be considered fairly left-wing. This has helped me understand the American mindset a lot more.

Benson sums up this (to everyone else, bizarre) American way of looking at things very nicely:

Inflammatory hyperbole ahead: ;)

Government-run health care, child care, education, etc. seems somehow oppressive to many Americans. And should their government try to force such atrocities upon them, they always keep their hands resting lightly on their guns.

Re: safety and politics
 

The president-elect of the United States of America wouldn't be where he is today if it weren't for one of the most revolutionary recent changes in the USA, which was entirely accomplished without weapons. It all started with a woman who refused to get off of a bus, and it has led to the election of a black president. Interesting how history works.

Re: safety and politics
 

Lets try this... a gun can be used for sporting puposes and is merely a tool people use for certain puposes.

A car is also used in sports and is a tool used for certain puposes.

A drunk driver on a crowded freeway can cause as many deaths, if not more, than any assault rifle. And in fact.. in 2005, according to these sites:
http://www.car-accidents.com/pages/f...tatistics.html
http://www.ichv.org/Statistics.htm

There were 39,189 vehicular related death and 30,694 gun related deaths.

So if we are going to control the sale and regulation of potentially dangerous equipment.. we should do it across the board. Especially with equipment that is likely more dangerous than the one you are arguing against.

Now we could look at the NUMBER of vehicles owned vs guns owned.. but that's hard to quantify... most gun owners own more guns than we do cars.. like myself - I own at least 10.. so if we were to add up every firearm vs every car on the streets you'd probably end up somewhere near the same.

Guns and Cars are merely tools. They are both the same. That's what people don't understand.. they are no different than screwdrivers or hammers.. just more complex.

Re: safety and politics
 

Well Geneven... You and I are on opposite sides in the rest of this thread.. but I love this quote.

QFT as they say.