Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

comstar03 · 2004-09-08 22:29:20

C M Edwards,

You are correct, remember this it will take alot of time to assembly and prototype new technology for space outside the political reality show " Who wants to be President ? " By the time we need to seek grants and other funding or sales to NASA (or whatever its called ) We will have the sequel " Who wants to be President 2 ? ( 2008 )

Rxke · 2004-09-09 00:01:40

But the critique is about his reaction upon hearing there was a *second* plane that crashed into the other tower. When he was inside the school...
Right. So what would have been the proper reaction? ...... Perhaps jump up like Superman, "Children, I must leave to..." wink, "...save the world." Uh, no.
It was a big shock to almost everyone and even if he had clamly walked out and began conferring with his staff they couldn't have done anything.

CC, believe it or not, but it was your account of being at a hospital, seeing the stuff on TV, that for the first time brought it home to me what a totally alien experience it must've been for an American.
Me as an European, heard it on the radio initially, sounded like a bad movieplot at first, and it was the other side of the world... It was weird enough. But being in the middle of it, not knowing what was going on, what was *still* going on... Mind-scrambling at least...

My biggest "huh?" reaction to that school-video was the fact that GWB wasn't whisked away immediately by his security... He's a huuuge potential target, no? Why did they let him sit there for minutes, for all they (didn't) know at that time, there could as well be a jet-liner closing in on that school at that very moment...
I've probably seen too much Hollywood stuff, but I expected him to get off in AF-1 in such a situation...
But they let him sit there as a... sitting duck?!?

deagleninja · 2004-09-09 05:49:28

Dramatically tossing ping-pong ball into the air and swinging viciously!

Where to start... Okay, NASA is capable of greatness if ordered to do great things and given the funding. The problem is a lack of vision, a lack of direction.
So the American people need to be taken care of? Like children? Pets perhaps, incapable of fending for themselves in the mean ol' world.
But you want them to directly elect the President? The contradictions boggle the mind.

True. Nasa is capable of greatness when given orders and ten times the funding it should need thanks to 'juicy' government contracts.
Perhaps I shouldn't have used the words 'taken care of'. This tends to conjure up the image of drooling vegetables in bed. What I mean is that the government has the obligation to provide basic services to the people it taxes oh-so heavily. As we have both agreed, Social Security and Medicare among other programs aren't likely to provide enough assistance to elderly Americans because they are often dipped into in times of war.
Our government has a responcibility to provide a chance to suceed to anyone who honestly gives it their all. They tax us for the promise of these benefits, is it wrong to expect them to keep their word?

This is true of all politicians, with the possible exception of state and local pols who haven't been in the game long. National politicians all have their own agandas, and they don't give a damn about you, me or anyone else if doing so doesn't intersect with that agenda. There is no "Party for the little people" and the only time they "feel our pain" is when we make it felt.

So perhaps we should start holding lying politians accountable? 'Iraq has WMD','I fufilled my commitment to the National Guard','I had no knowledge that terrorist intended to attack our nation.'

Well, I can't speak for Roger and Me but Bowling for Columbine alternated between humorous and utterly vile showboating. It wasn't like swallowing medicine so much as... crappola. Better than I thought it'd be, but the same spirit.

Don't feel bad, I didn't like Bowling much either. It is a hard message to swallow, that self-gratification and consumption are the main drives of our American lifestyles.

His reaction wasn't all that odd. Kerry has admitted that he too was stunned to inaction. What do you do? Scream, cry, run around arms flailing, jump to your feet with fists clenched shouting "they will pay for this outrage! Destroy them my minions!"
Whatever he did at that moment would be criticized, and in the end it wouldn't have mattered anyway.

What would I do? As president, I would feel obligated to get more information, and that isn't going to happen in a school classroom. My point is, there is no action by Bush to critisize, he did nothing. He had his advisors telling him in advance that this could happen and he didn't have the time for it. Clinton even told Bush that terrorism would be his greatest challenge as president, but what does Clinton know....

And if the laws are fair and just the police shouldn't need guns.

Good point. Our laws aren't fair. Even when they are, our court system favors whites and the rich. It is a little know fact that many major police forces sell their old weapons (many high powered rifles) to traveling gun conventions. Criminals or people that are likely to commit a crime get many of the most dangerous weapons from such shows. It is also hard to enforce waiting periods at such shows because they are always on the move.

And watch who politicizes it. Sad, but it's coming.

Come on now Cobra, is that fair? Bush has made 'terror' his whole re-election campaign and Kerry isn't supposed to have an opinion? How is he supposed to offer himself as an alternative to Bush if he can't challenge Bush on these terms? Frankly, I am suprised how quiet Kerry has been on this. He has only issued a statement saying that his heart and soul goes out to the families of those lost soilders.
So we have lost 1,000 of our smartest, bravest youth. You have to ask yourself, are we any closer to ending terrorism? The answer is no. So how many more have to die? How much more are we going to spend on defeating poor men and women with a assualt rifle?
Iraq is not terrorist central. But if we continue occuping Iraq for years, it will be.

Quite right, but we must ask ourselves what is worse; scrapping NASA or turning (or leaving) the entire agency into pork. Neither helps us get anything done.

Scrap NASA! Most private buisnesses aren't using them to launch their payloads anyway. Give NASA's facilities to the DoD and start a new Department of Expansion thats main goal is to settle areas of the solar system for future use by America. If an empire ceases to grow, it decays. We need to grow.

Rxke, GWB wasn't wisked away because he is a liability to those that run this country not an asset. Does anyone honestly think that a man with an IQ bordering retarded is capable of leading people in times of crisis?? His entire presidency has consisted of prepared speeches and photo ops. He can't even keep his own so-called ideals straight let alone instill them in others. He is an embarassment to the this country and a joke around the world. I can only pray that America wakes up in time to throw this puppet president to the curb.

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-09 06:27:58

True. Nasa is capable of greatness when given orders and ten times the funding it should need thanks to 'juicy' government contracts.

Granted, the contracting process needs sweeping reform, but that isn't something that can be fixed by scrapping NASA. I would go so far as to refrom defense contracting as well to straight bidding instead of this "cost plus" nonsense, but then were it my call... :band:

What I mean is that the government has the obligation to provide basic services to the people it taxes oh-so heavily.

Right, though I'm sure we have some disagreements over what constitutes a "basic service"

As we have both agreed, Social Security and Medicare among other programs aren't likely to provide enough assistance to elderly Americans because they are often dipped into in times of war.

There's much more to it than that. Social Security is dipped into for a myriad of other expenses, it is largely what keeps the government afloat with the spending levels it's had for the last few decades. When the "boomers" start retiring en masse it won't only crash Social Security but will have severe effects on the overall budget. It was a flawed idea, making the workers pay for those who have retired, such a scheme requires a significantly larger pool of workers than retirees and is really only appropriate for an energetic expansionist state.

So perhaps we should start holding lying politians accountable? 'Iraq has WMD','I fufilled my commitment to the National Guard','I had no knowledge that terrorist intended to attack our nation.'

None of those examples are lies. The first may turn out to be wrong, but the evidence indicated otherwise. Bush's honorable discharge indicates a fulfillment of requirements, and knowing that somewhere some terrorists want to hit us someday is not actionable intelligence.

Now, for the more general point of holding lying politicians accountable; let's get every last one out. We'll need a whole new government, but I'm up for it if you are.

Don't feel bad, I didn't like Bowling much either. It is a hard message to swallow, that self-gratification and consumption are the main drives of our American lifestyles.

Oh, that part I had no problem with. It was his little stunts like the bit at the K-Mart HQ that reeked of showboating while pushing an asinine message.

And sending people to Wal-Mart to buy their 9mm ammo.

And K-Mart's bankrupt. If I were a certain filmamker I'd portray that as a direct cause and effect relationship. :laugh:

Good point. Our laws aren't fair. Even when they are, our court system favors whites and the rich.

Yep, some of our laws are not fair. But even if they were, some people would break them, and force would be needed to stop it.

Criminals or people that are likely to commit a crime get many of the most dangerous weapons from such shows.

That is absolute and total bunk. It's a little known fact the so-called "gun show loophole" doesn't exist. All the same laws apply, all the same background checks, all the same oversight. There is no need for waiting periods because we have this thing called NICS, or National Instant Check System. When you buy a gun they run your name and SocSec number through an FBI database. Only when it clears (anywhere from a couple minutes to a half hour) can you purchase the gun. And if you don't clear the check, there is a long string of felonies attached to attempting to acquire a gun illegally. Just walking into the show can be prosecuted.

Quote
And watch who politicizes it. Sad, but it's coming.

Come on now Cobra, is that fair?

No, but just watch what happens. We're going to be hearing about "1,000 dead" in a deafening roar through this campaign.

Give NASA's facilities to the DoD and start a new Department of Expansion thats main goal is to settle areas of the solar system for future use by America.

Now this idea I like. Just to see the reaction from ESA when the new American "Department of Expansion" is announced would make it all worthwhile.

SpaceNut · 2004-09-09 06:40:15

So long as it is a Space Department of Expansion, for some would view our presence in Afganistan and in Iraq as there people take that view as just that already of America, though we know better.

deagleninja · 2004-09-09 07:00:11

oops

deagleninja · 2004-09-09 07:17:29

Nearly falls down while diving to return Cobra's shot right down the baseline....

Granted, the contracting process needs sweeping reform, but that isn't something that can be fixed by scrapping NASA. I would go so far as to refrom defense contracting as well to straight bidding instead of this "cost plus" nonsense, but then were it my call...

Exactly! Everyone thinks I'm anti-military, but I'm not. I'm anti-stupid. Our military spends huge amounts of money yet our soilders are getting second rate equipment that often is defect and/or fails on them. Why is this? Because the companies that build them aren't being held accountable and there is no competition, same problem NASA has.

Right, though I'm sure we have some disagreements over what constitutes a "basic service"

Probably not. It doesn't take someone a year and a half to find a job. I can find a decent job in a week no problem and all I have is a diploma and 1 year of college. All I am saying is don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Give someone a weeks worth of paychecks comparable to their last job and then cut em off. We need a lot of reform to be sure, but we must be careful no to hurt those that actually need it.

It was a flawed idea, making the workers pay for those who have retired,

Actually, the original concept (before we started reaching into the cookie jar) was for people to pay for their own retirement. However, spending this pool of money and drastically underestimating the rise in costs of living have made the funds come up short. Now we are paying for people retiring now, becuase the money they put in has already been spent.

None of those examples are lies. Now, for the more general point of holding lying politicians accountable; let's get every last one out. We'll need a whole new government, but I'm up for it if you are.

Well they didn't turn out to be truths either. As for replacing this government.....I was born ready.

Oh, that part I had no problem with. It was his little stunts like the bit at the K-Mart HQ that reeked of showboating while pushing an asinine message.

Granted. Moore goes overboard sometimes while trying to get his message across. He doesn't make documentaries as much as he is making social commentaries. Sometimes he's on the mark, often he's off. But he does show us things that the media doesn't.....

And K-Mart's bankrupt. If I were a certain filmamker I'd portray that as a direct cause and effect relationship.

I would attribute K-mart's status to CEOs taking 'golden parachutes', bad decision making, and failing to stay competitive with Wal-mart in the area of cheap foreign made goods, but I get your point.

Yep, some of our laws are not fair. But even if they were, some people would break them, and force would be needed to stop it.

True. However, police forces are developing better non-lethal alternatives like tasers everyday. I have no problem with officers having guns, it's selling them down the road that puts them in the hands of criminals.

That is absolute and total bunk.

Well the whole point of the waiting period was to ensure that people who feel a sudden urge to kill (crimes of passion) can be made to wait a few days and hopefully cool down a little. True, someone determined to kill someone else isn't going to mind waiting a few days, so why not have the delay and allow the majority of hot-heads to come to their senses?
I just read an article in USAtoday about how 19 types of assualt rifle aren't going to be banned anymore because Congress won't renew the ban. Police cheifs across the nation are calling Bush to ask him to make calls to Congress and get the ban renewed. Bush has stated 'I will support renewing the ban if Congress decides to take it up.' Another case of the 'who-dunit' game.
If hunters really need a weapon capable of slaughtering an entire school, they need to find a new sport......because they SUCK at shooting!
Let's call this one for what it is, successful lobbing of the NRA so they can sell more guns....

No, but just watch what happens. We're going to be hearing about "1,000 dead" in a deafening roar through this campaign.

Not from the Kerry camp though. MoveOn.org and Moore, yes. I don't think it should be used for political gain, but I also feel that they died for nothing, time will tell.

Now this idea I like. Just to see the reaction from ESA when the new American "Department of Expansion" is announced would make it all worthwhile.

Well NASA has been pushing back scientific missions for defence oriented ones for years now. It's time the DoD be honest about how much they really spend and quit hiding their pet projects in NASA.
Seriously though, we need leadership that is willing to motivate the public about space. If Bush announced that the solar system is fair game for the nations that have the resources to obtain it, you'd see a lot more interest in space activities world wide.

Can you say 'the real space race?' :band:

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-09 07:21:52

Exactly! Everyone thinks I'm anti-military, but I'm not. I'm anti-stupid.

Well hot damn, we're in agreement! Will wonders never cease.

Give someone a weeks worth of paychecks comparable to their last job and then cut em off. We need a lot of reform to be sure, but we must be careful no to hurt those that actually need it.

Yep, no real problems here...

Same on the Social Security thing...

As for replacing this government.....I was born ready.

Oh, I can see this coming up at the trial. :laugh:

Sometimes he's on the mark, often he's off. But he does show us things that the media doesn't.....

Fair enough, can't really fault that...

:hm: All this consensus is damn uncomfortable yet I can't quite bring myself to shatter the calm with blatant aggression.

I suppose I'll just have to quietly entertain the notion of a US "Secretary of Expansion" and who would be good for that job...

EDIT:: to answer Deagle's edit. So much for agreement.

I have no problem with officers having guns, it's selling them down the road that puts them in the hands of criminals.

Only if they sell them to criminals behind the station.

Well the whole point of the waiting period was to ensure that people who feel a sudden urge to kill (crimes of passion) can be made to wait a few days and hopefully cool down a little.

So they claim, but it never really held up. Legally it had to be sold as a background check, which at the time took several days. It's obsolete except as a gun-control advocate rallying point.

I just read an article in USAtoday about how 19 types of assualt rifle aren't going to be banned anymore because Congress won't renew the ban. Police cheifs across the nation are calling Bush to ask him to make calls to Congress and get the ban renewed.

That's another thing, know what an "assault rifle" is? It's a meaningless term used to describe rifles with military styling, semi-automatic rifles using ammo less powerful than most hunting rifles, but that happen to be scary looking. The ban accomplished nothing except driving the price of pre-ban guns up, to the benefit of anyone who had one. It's a pointless law.

If hunters really need a weapon capable of slaughtering an entire school, they need to find a new sport......because they SUCK at shooting!

Semi-automatic. One pull of the trigger, one shot. And most so-called "assault weapons" are prohibited for hunting because they aren't powerful enough. Too likely to wound without killing.

So you can't hunt with them, they aren't ideal for home defense, but they are very rarely used in crimes. A case can be made that they're kinda useless in normal life but they aren't super-crime-guns.

deagleninja · 2004-09-09 07:38:30

Quote
As for replacing this government.....I was born ready.

Oh, I can see this coming up at the trial.

[NSA man] "Er, Mr Cobra Commander and Mr Deagleninja, you have been charged with Unamerican treasonous activities.....how do you plead?"

:angry: [Cobra] "We'll see who is 'pleading' when my militia gets here!"

[Deagle] "I just came for the waffles!"

Oh yea this could be bad.....

PS I just started a new thread about creating a new Department of Expansion. As our resident masked squeeling snake man, I'd be honored if you'd offer your opinions on how best to occupy the solar system and deal with pesky squatters (Russians, Chinesse, EU, Japanesse)

deagleninja · 2004-09-09 08:01:20

EDIT: Retaliation against Cobra for breaking our non-aggression pact.

Only if they sell them to criminals behind the station.

Ah, but how does one tell who will and won't be a criminal? The scale of the crime is determined largly by the rate of the weapon. The only way to be safe is to allow only single shot rifles for personal use.

So they claim, but it never really held up. Legally it had to be sold as a background check, which at the time took several days. It's obsolete except as a gun-control advocate rallying point.

Legally, no one has the right to just 'bear arms'. The Bill of Rights is poorly understood my modern Americans, no offence. The amendment says that we have the right to 'bear arms and create a militia', NRA advocates see these as two seperate things although it wasn't intended that way.

That's another thing, know what an "assault rifle" is? It's a meaningless term used to describe rifles with military styling, semi-automatic rifles using ammo less powerful than most hunting rifles, but that happen to be scary looking. The ban accomplished nothing except driving the price of pre-ban guns up, to the benefit of anyone who had one. It's a pointless law.

Power of a single bullet is irrelevant. What keeps SWAT teams at bay are weapons that can kill and/or maim dozens of people in a few seconds. This is what we need to restrict.

Reason needs to rule the day when it comes to arms control, not lobbying. If these weapons are useless for hunting and self-defence, why have them? Oh, so a rich man can show off his gun collection....

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-09 08:25:56

As our resident masked squeeling snake man, I'd be honored if you'd offer your opinions on how best to occupy the solar system and deal with pesky squatters (Russians, Chinesse, EU, Japanesse)

I will offer up some detailed rantings I'm sure, but something our state Senate has tried to sneak through just came to my attention so I have to fire off some "WTF" letters to the Senate, House and local party offices. And rile up some local citizens for good measure.

EDIT: Retaliation against Cobra for breaking our non-aggression pact.

Oh, I guess those are my panzers then. Watch out for the mud and snow!

The scale of the crime is determined largly by the rate of the weapon. The only way to be safe is to allow only single shot rifles for personal use.

Whether a crime is even committed is determined by who wields a weapon, not how well it works. A law-abiding citizen with a machine gun is no threat to you, a criminal with a switchblade is. Focusing on weapons is the wrong approach, people cause crimes.

Legally, no one has the right to just 'bear arms'. The Bill of Rights is poorly understood my modern Americans, no offence. The amendment says that we have the right to 'bear arms and create a militia', NRA advocates see these as two seperate things although it wasn't intended that way.

Contemporary writings back up the view that the "right to bear arms" is an individual right, as does simple logic and its placement amongst other individual rights. Further, the contempory use of the word "militia" could refer to a specific organization of armed men, such as "Pennsylvania Militia" or it could also refer to "the militia" which was understood to be every able-bodied male citizen.

The point being the right to bear arms was intended not only as a means of defense against invaders, but as a check against our own government, as evidenced by countless writings of the time by those who drafted the Constitution. In this context it must be a right of individual citizens, otherwise it loses any meaning and would not have been included.

Power of a single bullet is irrelevant. What keeps SWAT teams at bay are weapons that can kill and/or maim dozens of people in a few seconds. This is what we need to restrict.

If you mean automatic weapons, they have been banned for a very long time and have nothing to with the so-called "assault weapons" ban.

If you mean semi-automatics where you can shoot as fast as you can pull the trigger, many hunting rifles can apply, as can most handguns as well as some older collectors guns, certain WWII rifles and such.

But again, I'm more worried about the people who would necessitate the use of a SWAT team than the weapon they may be carrying.

Reason needs to rule the day when it comes to arms control, not lobbying. If these weapons are useless for hunting and self-defence, why have them? Oh, so a rich man can show off his gun collection....

This is another fundamental difference in our viewpoint. You look and ask "what does anyone need that for?" while I look and ask "Is there any real compelling reason to prohibit this?" People who have an AK-47 in their house don't bother me any more than people who have high performance sports cars that burn leaded fuel. Sure, you don't need it, but if it isn't being used to detrimental effect why ban it? People don't need to drink or smoke marijuana either, but those bans haven't worked out so well.

A gun of any type is nothing more than a machine, pieces of wood and metal. It is certain people that kill, just as they would with any other piece of metal or wood.

deagleninja · 2004-09-09 10:21:15

Whether a crime is even committed is determined by who wields a weapon, not how well it works. A law-abiding citizen with a machine gun is no threat to you, a criminal with a switchblade is. Focusing on weapons is the wrong approach, people cause crimes.

Well yes and no. Machines don't commit crimes (yet....) people do, true, but that is the point. Criminals come in many shapes and sizes. Some are theives, some rapists, murderers, etc. So what often happens is Joe the theif breaks into Smith's house and steals his DVD player, jems, cash, puppy and in the bedroom closet he finds a 9mm. Now Joe has no use for this 9mm but his friend (the homocidal Duke) has offered him $50 for any gun. Joe pawns or sells the electronics on the black-market (ebay) and sells Duke the 9mm for $50 (don't ask what happened to the puppy). This scenario happens way too often in America.

The point being the right to bear arms was intended not only as a means of defense against invaders, but as a check against our own government, as evidenced by countless writings of the time by those who drafted the Constitution. In this context it must be a right of individual citizens, otherwise it loses any meaning and would not have been included.

Yes, correct. However the doctrine that gun advocates use to keep the gun trade thriving is seriously outdated. In the 'good ol days' if the government suddenly became corrupt and the people wanted to rebel against it, the playing feild was rather level. A rifle in the hands of well trained men could mount a defence against a few men with cannons and rifles. Today the tale is different. Our military has incredible technology all the way up to nuclear weapons and the little guy has a rifle (albeit it has a nice firing rate now).

The constitution also provides that if the people see the government as unfit they have the right to leave it and create a new government. This is something that the South tried in the Civil War and was forced to remain part of the United States of America. No one ever notices that what the North did was illegal.

This is another fundamental difference in our viewpoint. You look and ask "what does anyone need that for?" while I look and ask "Is there any real compelling reason to prohibit this?" People who have an AK-47 in their house don't bother me any more than people who have high performance sports cars that burn leaded fuel. Sure, you don't need it, but if it isn't being used to detrimental effect why ban it? People don't need to drink or smoke marijuana either, but those bans haven't worked out so well.

I have long had the view that as long as you are hurting no one besides yourself, it is not the governments buisness what you do. Therefore we shouldn't have laws forcing us to wear seat belts, prohibiting us from taking drugs in our leisure, or a law saying that suicide is illegal (if you succeed, what can they do?). However, I draw the line with guns. As I said, they are often stolen and enter the black-market. Their only purpose is to kill. They have no place in modern society.

I understand your point of view Cobra, but let's look at it another way. Take nukes for instance. In the right hands they just sit there and decay slowly. In the wrong hands they can start a war and kill millions of people. By your reasoning it isn't the nuke that kills but the person that uses it right? Somethings are just too dangerous to allow in society.

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-09 10:46:31

Regarding your "stolen gun" example, it overlooks an important point. Some guns used in crimes are stolen. Some are smuggled. Some are "found" in all sorts of places. If the demand was there, they could be made in any machine shop. So yes, if we could end production of all guns everywhere and search every house, car, yard, patch of woods etc. in America you could perhaps eliminate firearms. But that's totally unrealistic. What would happen, what frequently has happened when strict gun laws are enacted, is that the criminals who were the problem to start with still find a way to get their guns, but the average citizen is defenseless.

Gun banning is a feel-good approach to policy that actually makes the problem worse because it only affects those who were never the problem.

Yes, correct. However the doctrine that gun advocates use to keep the gun trade thriving is seriously outdated. In the 'good ol days' if the government suddenly became corrupt and the people wanted to rebel against it, the playing feild was rather level.

So now a bunch of peons with AK-47's aren't a problem for the US military? :;):

Armed citizens offer a check against government, a line of defense against crime, and a means for people to protect and fend for themselves on the off chance of social collapse. If we ban everything that's ever been used in a crime we've got a long list to work on.

The constitution also provides that if the people see the government as unfit they have the right to leave it and create a new government. This is something that the South tried in the Civil War and was forced to remain part of the United States of America. No one ever notices that what the North did was illegal.

Oh, I'm quite aware of the legal shakiness of the Union position. I have mixed feelings about that war actually, but while I agree that the Union should have been preserved it was of questionable legality at best and led to a host of other problems down the line.

But if I follow your logic to its conclusion, once the federal government defies the Constitution once it sets a precedent for doing so later? Anything goes?

Nah, I'll pass.

I have long had the view that as long as you are hurting no one besides yourself, it is not the governments buisness what you do. Therefore we shouldn't have laws forcing us to wear seat belts, prohibiting us from taking drugs in our leisure, or a law saying that suicide is illegal (if you succeed, what can they do?).

I agree whole-heartedly.

However, I draw the line with guns. As I said, they are often stolen and enter the black-market. Their only purpose is to kill. They have no place in modern society.

I see. First, sometimes killing is a legitimate act in modern society. Sometimes you have no choice. Second, we can't un-invent something so simple. If I wanted to I could get an automatic weapon made from sheetmetal and plumbing supplies by the end of the day, it isn't that hard. Try banning ammunition, but that's not so hard either. Banning guns is totally unrealistic and pushing such nonsense only clouds the real issues.

Take nukes for instance. In the right hands they just sit there and decay slowly. In the wrong hands they can start a war and kill millions of people. By your reasoning it isn't the nuke that kills but the person that uses it right? Somethings are just too dangerous to allow in society.

Here's the difference. If I'm attacked by a violent criminal, a bear, whatever I can point a gun and kill that one thing that is causing the threat. You can't do that with a nuke. Bombs in general can't be used defensively, certainly not on an individual level.

A gun can be used against one person who poses a direct threat, a nuke must be used against large numbers of people. That's the difference. Scalpels and sledgehammers.

Euler · 2004-09-09 18:36:01

Gun banning is a feel-good approach to policy that actually makes the problem worse because it only affects those who were never the problem.

Crimes involving assault weapons have decreased by more than 2/3 since the ban was passed.

If we ban everything that's ever been used in a crime we've got a long list to work on.

You can't ban everything that has ever been used in a crime, but you can ban things that are only useful for crime.

If I wanted to I could get an automatic weapon made from sheetmetal and plumbing supplies by the end of the day, it isn't that hard.

It's harder than you think. Even if you could make an automatic weapon, it would not be as effective as a weapon made by professionals.

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-09 19:23:33

Since we've long since stopped even pretending to be on topic...

Crimes involving assault weapons have decreased by more than 2/3 since the ban was passed.

Where are you getting your data? According to the FBI, rifles, not just "assault weapons" but any long gun, are used in 3% of homicides. It's estimated that "assault rifles are used in approximately 0.5% of all violent crimes. Approximately because the occurence is so rare as to make it difficult to portray in a statistically significant manner. This has always been the case. Your 2/3 reduction number might actually be right, it would only take one to make a huge statistical difference.

Not only is the general idea of gun bans misguided, but if that is a goal one pursues this law is almost totally irrelevant!

For the record, here's what it takes for a gun to be classified as an "assault rifle." It's need to have a detachable magazine and at least two of the following features: A pistol grip, a folding stock, a bayonet lug, a threaded barrel or flash inhibitor, or a grenade launcher.

Who bayonets a victim to death, really?

You can't ban everything that has ever been used in a crime, but you can ban things that are only useful for crime.

So you're saying that guns are never used to prevent crime? Never used to stop a crime?

Why do police have them then?

It's harder than you think. Even if you could make an automatic weapon, it would not be as effective as a weapon made by professionals.

Oh, now we're worried about effectiveness.
Actually, the AK-47 is quite effective and reliable, and it's about as simple as you can get. Very easy to manufacture with basic machine tools and meager experience. If you don't have that, you can make a crude Sten-like gun out of plumbing supplies. Won't be pretty, but it works.

And if that's all there is the market will be huge. I saw a handgun made out of steel pipe once, too. Worked well, tough as anything. Very simple and therefore reliable. In the right ban environment they'd sell like the proverbial hotcakes.

And the statistics would climb and climb...

Euler · 2004-09-09 20:25:48

Where are you getting your data?

I think I heard it on the radio. I know that is not a great source, but I think that they were telling the truth.

According to the FBI, rifles, not just "assault weapons" but any long gun, are used in 3% of homicides. It's estimated that "assault rifles are used in approximately 0.5% of all violent crimes. Approximately because the occurence is so rare as to make it difficult to portray in a statistically significant manner. This has always been the case. Your 2/3 reduction number might actually be right, it would only take one to make a huge statistical difference.

There are about 1.5 million violent crimes in the US each year. 0.5% of 1.5 million=7,500, enough to be statistically relevant.

So you're saying that guns are never used to prevent crime? Never used to stop a crime?

Im saying that most people do not walk around with assault rifles to deter crime. I have also heard that you are much more likely to be shot with your own gun than you are to use it to stop a crime.

Oh, now we're worried about effectiveness.

Yes. A psycho with an effective gun can kill a lot more people than a psycho with an ineffective gun. However, guns with lower rates of fire should be as good at deterrence as guns with a high rate of fire.

Actually, the AK-47 is quite effective and reliable, and it's about as simple as you can get. Very easy to manufacture with basic machine tools and meager experience. If you don't have that, you can make a crude Sten-like gun out of plumbing supplies. Won't be pretty, but it works.

AK-47s are relatively simple, but you still need manufacture it with a high degree of precision in order to get accuracy and reliable operation.

And if that's all there is the market will be huge. I saw a handgun made out of steel pipe once, too. Worked well, tough as anything. Very simple and therefore reliable. In the right ban environment they'd sell like the proverbial hotcakes.
And the statistics would climb and climb...

Is there any evidence that there has been a giant underground assault rifle market?

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-10 05:07:44

I have also heard that you are much more likely to be shot with your own gun than you are to use it to stop a crime.

That's been one of the big anti-gun soundbites for years, problem is isn't true. No one has been able to find the original source and the statistics don't come close to backing it up.

Yes. A psycho with an effective gun can kill a lot more people than a psycho with an ineffective gun. However, guns with lower rates of fire should be as good at deterrence as guns with a high rate of fire.

But that's just it, the rate of fire isn't faster. One pull of the trigger, one shot. Handguns fire at the same rate, some hunting rifles fire at the same rate.

AK-47s are relatively simple, but you still need manufacture it with a high degree of precision in order to get accuracy and reliable operation.

Precision that any machinist with even poor equipment can manage. It's a simple machine anyway and the AK is particulalrly crude in many respects, building one isn't sorcery.

Is there any evidence that there has been a giant underground assault rifle market?

No, because criminals don't generally use "assault rifles." :;):
That, and the ban has long since been bypassed by manufacturers anyway through modified grips and other cosmetic changes.

Algol · 2004-09-10 06:51:43

A ban on weapons would take a generation to kick in - you'd basically have to wait until all the weapons broke down and couldnt be repaired due to lack of servicing. Itd be a long and drawn-out process but maybe if youd banned weapons a generation ago youd all be better of now.

Guns are illegal in the UK - we dont have a massive underground weapons market, but once every few years they catch a guy (different guy each time :;): ) who has been re-commisioning decommsioned guns - turns out his guns are the ones used in most crimes for last couple of years - point is its much easier to catch the small time guys recommsioning/making guns that stop the criminals 'acquiring' legally bought guns.

America is saturated in weapons and unless youre willing to take some painful steps then you'll never solve the very real problem you have.

Perhaps all you good people will have to go without your guns for a while in order to stop the criminals having theirs at a later date. What sacrifices are you willing to make fro the sake of your children and your childrens children?

Algol · 2004-09-10 06:57:05

Just had a though from rqding someones post above. How hard would it be to ban ammunition? How easy is it to make ammunition really? That would be no where near as simple as making a weapon and would likely be a far more time consuming effort probably involving hard to find/illegal materials.

N.B Guns to a lot of people are stutus symbols. How likely is your average street 'gangsta' to walk round with a gun improvised from a piece of plumbing? It would hardly make for a credibility inducing sight. Strikes me you could go a long way to reducing black-on-black / gang crime if their 'pieces' were less shiny and impressive looking.

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-10 07:04:11

Algol, what you propose could partially work if carried out fully. This means not only a total ban on all firearms, cessation of import or manufacture except for tightly controlled government and police contracts, confiscation of all guns currently in public hands and random searches of people, homes, vehicles etc. for weapons into perpetuity as well as ongoing investigations of anyone even suspected of refurbishing, smuggling or making firearms or ammunition. Even then, you won't stop all of it.

This is one of those cases where if you aren't willing to go all the way, don't start. A half-ass job just makes it worse.

If we put enacting a police state on the table as acceptable means, it could work to a degree. Otherwise we end up with rising violent crime rates if we go halfway.

This requires the anti gun crowd to be honest about what it would take. If a generation-long police state mentality might actually work, let's have an open and honest discussion about the merits of that approach. Otherwise all these proposals are nothing more than "Criminal protection acts."

Algol · 2004-09-10 07:38:01

I was thinking more along the lines of an emphasis on a ban of further sales and servicing of currently held weapons. Have a voluntary hand in of weapons and the rest will slowly fall into disrepair. No need to particularly run around looking for the guns (although if you find them in routine searches - confiscate and prosecute) - let time do all the hard work for you. Its not pretty - no method will be - but its not excessively painfull and how long will a gun stay servieable without proper care or maintence? Even accounting for gun enthusiasts keeping good care of theirs and maintaing them for a while you're looking at a massive reduction in serviceable weapons in the 5-10 year time frame.

Thinking more along the bullets side of the equation though....
If the sale of bullets were heavily restricted and heavilly taxed such that they became prohibitively expensive (i.e pres. announces bullets will be taxed to cover the cost of all gun related criem in the US etc) then im sure gun related crime would come down. All the nice innocent law abiding people who feel the need to own a gun for personal protection can splash out on a clip of ammunition for that far-less-than once-in-a-lifetime event when you are attacked in your home and your gun is actually to hand (same goes fro the need to rise up against the government) whereas how many kids and street gangs could afford to tool up for school massarcres of drive-by shootings?

Police would obvioulsy buy tax free, as would maybe gun schools/certain firing ranges. Someone else can hammer out the small print. Thoughts?

deagleninja · 2004-09-10 08:36:03

Good point Algol. By placing a total gun ban in effect time will indeed do most of the work. In the meantime when police raid a place and find guns but no drugs they can still make a decent arrest and net the force some cash.

I believe in freedom of individuals, but there is no such thing as total freedom. Our system requires us to yeild some freedoms in order to preserve civilized society. For instance, I am not free to take my neighbors big screen tv because that would impose on his freedom. Guns do the same thing in a round about way. Their very existence is for one purpose, to kill.

Is there a place in civilization for a weapon that kills? The answer is no. In the past a gun was very useful for defending property from Indian raiding parties, pouchers, squatters and putting down lame animals. In today's world all these things can be accomplished with non-lethal tactics and tools.

Most deaths from guns result from accidents. Right now, somewhere in America, a child is playing with his dad's pistol or rifle. Is it worth putting our children at risk today to guard against some possible threat tomorrow, if it ever comes? No. Guns are obsolete in modern society. Ban them all.

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-10 09:03:05

I was thinking more along the lines of an emphasis on a ban of further sales and servicing of currently held weapons. Have a voluntary hand in of weapons and the rest will slowly fall into disrepair.

Then we still have the problem of well maintained firearms, which predominately criminals will have as it makes their work so much easier. A gun can be kept serviceable for a very long time, then there is the potential to assemble working weapons from the parts of several hopelessly damaged examples. Smuggling, illicit manufacture, we can't totally wipe it out.

Even accounting for gun enthusiasts keeping good care of theirs and maintaing them for a while you're looking at a massive reduction in serviceable weapons in the 5-10 year time frame.

No, you're not. This scheme would take somehwere on the order of 50-100 years to begin to see real results, 5-10 is nothing.

If the sale of bullets were heavily restricted and heavilly taxed such that they became prohibitively expensive (i.e pres. announces bullets will be taxed to cover the cost of all gun related criem in the US etc) then im sure gun related crime would come down.

I see a future in bullet trafficing.

Making ammunition isn't that hard either. If criminals can set up drug labs you'd better believe they can make nitrocellulose for ammunition. Shell casings can be reloaded or if need be crudely manufactured. But then it would be so much easier to smuggle, stick 'em in with the drugs.

That, and as soon as word of such a scheme got out everyone and their dog would be stockpiling ammunition anyway. So we're back to random searches.

And the entire premise overlooks the fact that criminals will use whatever is at hand in the commission of a crime. If by some miracle guns actually were swept out of public hands you'd see a dramatic rise in violent crime with knives, blunt instruments, and whatever else is handy. So if the problem you're trying to solve is crime this is a pointless exercise. Treating symptoms.

I've known two types of gun control advocates, people who are genuinely appalled at the violent crime in our streets and latch onto a misguided solution because from a common sense perspective it seems like it should work, and then there's the hypocrites who support anything that gets the "little people" to shut up and fall in line.

Euler, I believe that you're the former, someone genuinely looking for an answer to a real problem. But the weapons used in a crime aren't the cause of the crime. The same weapons used to attack are used by people to defend themselves and their families. I don't see any utility in denying them that, only the victims will be disarmed unless we're willing to get very intrusive with enforcement, and even then you can't stop it all.

Centralizing all capacity to protect citizens with government agencies is inefficient and in my view immoral. Allowing law-abiding citizens the means to defend themselves should they need to, that is a better deterrent than any other. It's a sort of "open source" approach to crime prevention. If someone commits a crime with a gun by all means punish them severely, we already have laws for this. The mere attempt to acquire a gun by a convicted felon can result in enough charges to put them away for the bulk of their productive lives. We simply aren't properly enforcing the laws we have, new ones won't help.

deagleninja · 2004-09-10 09:17:40

Ok, we are getting way off what Kerry would do for the space program.

I will be a gentleman and end this debate right now.

Guns kill people. Guns are bad. Get rid of guns.

Just because nothing is going to stop criminals from using guns is no reason to permit them. Criminals don't kill the most with guns, ordinary people do. I would rather worry about a home-invader with a possible gun than worry about my son playing with mine while I'm at work one day.

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-10 09:25:35

All crimes are committed by humans, therefore humans are only good for crime and inherently bad. Horrible, dangerous things to have around.

Ban them all!

So how 'bout that Kerry? Got a space policy yet?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#301 2004-09-08 22:29:20

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#302 2004-09-09 00:01:40

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#303 2004-09-09 05:49:28

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#304 2004-09-09 06:27:58

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#305 2004-09-09 06:40:15

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#306 2004-09-09 07:00:11

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#307 2004-09-09 07:17:29

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#308 2004-09-09 07:21:52

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#309 2004-09-09 07:38:30

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#310 2004-09-09 08:01:20

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#311 2004-09-09 08:25:56

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#312 2004-09-09 10:21:15

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#313 2004-09-09 10:46:31

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#314 2004-09-09 18:36:01

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#315 2004-09-09 19:23:33

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#316 2004-09-09 20:25:48

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#317 2004-09-10 05:07:44

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#318 2004-09-10 06:51:43

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#319 2004-09-10 06:57:05

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#320 2004-09-10 07:04:11

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#321 2004-09-10 07:38:01

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#322 2004-09-10 08:36:03

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#323 2004-09-10 09:03:05

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#324 2004-09-10 09:17:40

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#325 2004-09-10 09:25:35

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

Board footer