64 replies to this topic

[Dakota]

Yes, there is. Just look which has happened and this thread is about.

If carry a gun everywhere you can kill anybody with the excuse of the "autodefense".
Even in the case of Martin attacked him, do you think its reasonable to use the lethal force for an unarmed boy?
Here my opinion, and just my opinion so don't start then here flaming me: if the vigilante had been black and the boy who shoot white, he would have already been tried and convicted...

I think there's something wrong with the gun control laws in the USA.

I think you're wrong. You obvsiously aren't from here so you don't have a great understanding so let me help. If you want a gun you can not go into a walmart and pick one up and walk out with it along with your groceries, there is a waiting period and series of checks required. You can not carry a gun around freely without a permit (except for Texans), if a police officer stops you it flags that you have a permit. There are a variety of restricted weapons unavailable to us hillbilly rednecks as your cartoon depicts (by the way you'll find the lowest incidence of gun violence within the country rural folks of America)

Carrying a gun does not give you the free pass to kill whoever you want in self-defense. That's a wild claim that is backed only by your own personal belief. The people who are going to kill others are going to do so with or without the law being in place. The ONLY reason this is a big deal is because of the stand your ground law which exists in some states and muddys the waters a bit, is it good in theory? Absolutely, in practice perhaps not so much as is beginning to be seen. However that will not stop justice in the form of a court trial if pushed to a federal court.

The neighborhood watch is NOT armed, you don't sign up and get issued a weapon. The weapon he had was his own, and that is fine. Self-defense is perfectly legal and justified when defending yourself from an unprovoked attacker, lethal or not. The question here is was it unprovoked and therefore justiified? Did Treyvon go on the offensive? That should be the question, and you can not deduct that solely from the 911 tapes and a couple of very old pictures.

You're statement that if he had been a white kid this would be a whole different story is so far beyond the point its ludicrous. And no he wouldn't have been tried and convicted already, it would probably be playing out just the same if not less. When a crime is committed against a minority in this country more support groups, alliances and coaltions rise up to support the minority free of charge than you could imagine, if anything being black may just get you the better court defense.

By the way 17 year old American kids aren't all the law abiding innocent kids the media makes them out to be. The youth in our country (generalization but not far off) is getting out of control in terms of respect for others, elders, law and law enforcement. They aren't scared of cops, they aren't afraid to break laws, there is subculture that enjoys acting like thugs and gangsters (which this Treyvon was a part of *reference his twitter account @No_Limit_NIGGA,) which you wont be familiar with unless you're here to see it progress and get worse every day.

I am not saying that being in that thug culture means you deserve to die, but it does open our eyes to a more clear picture of what could have been seen that night. Also take into consideration that the pictures used of both individuals were not accurate in that Treyvon was a big guy (6 foot 3) who purposely appeared to be a thug due to the subculture he enjoyed being a part of, not the little middleschool kid that is being posted all over the internet. Zimmermen was not this big heavyset guy, that picture is from a previous incident and you can see in the released video his is a pretty slender and average to a little short. Point being don't believe everything you see in the news, and don't assume innocence until all the evidence is gathered and displayed in court.

I am not defending one side or the other, I am simply saying you can not make an educated decision on evidence that is altered, distorted, perveted or twisted by the media to make a good sob story, you need to wait for the facts. You can claim this is racial, sure, (in my opinion the people who go straight for the race card are more racist than those who don't.) You can say our gun control laws are to blame, but who's to say it wouldn't have happened without them?

I'm really getting tired of older teenagers being portrayed as innocent little kids, I suppose the 15 old girls who savagely gang up and brutally beat another girl are innocent of their actions, or the 15 year olds who form a mob and beat two police officers down to the ground requiring the fire department to go in and rescue them don't know right from wrong. Back in the day maybe, but times are changing in our culture and it needs to be recognized and addressed.

Like I said, dont rush to judgements without the facts, people die everyday and they don't get this much media attention. When it gets to the point where Skittles has to issue a press statement, the press has gone to far.

[Voodoo_Operator]

It's not stupid at all, a law abiding citizen has the right to carry a gun if he or she feels the need to in the United States. If you take away that right only the law abiding citizens will be without guns, do you really think a criminal will follow the law that says they can't have one? How things work in the US are quite different than in the UK and other European countries, and you need to understand that before casting judgement. Violence is high here not because of guns but because of poverty and behavioral psychology in our country being messed up in general amongst other things. I invite you to come from your town in the Netherlands and take a stay in some of our cities, we'll see how safe you feel. Then I'll tell you how the police or overstretched and may or may not be getting to your 911 call in a timley fashion, ie 5-10 minutes. When you could be dead in the first 1-2. There are many documented cases of guns being used successfully for home and personal defense in times when the police just couldn't get their fast enough.

Bottomline here is guns don't kill people, the people who use them do, and they will continue to regardless of what law is or isn't in existance here. A properly handled firearm is as safe as you make it, "weed" may or may not be laced with something, may or may not be addicting, may or may not cause increased incidents of MVCs, may or may not cause sexual impotence and memory loss as well as cancer, and may or may not be directly correlated to hundres of deaths south (and even within) our border.... depending on which sides research you choose to believe of course.

I'd say the problem of violence VS gun ownership is a case of "chicken before the egg" dilemma (Are guns there because people are violent, or are people violent because they easily have access to guns?). The concern about criminals being able to obtain firearms regardless of existing laws is indeed brought up often to defend the right to bear arms. However, the issue remains the same in other societies (I'll take mine for example - Canada) where gun control laws are in effect.

Let's consider the first possible situation - the one that you mentioned - about gun ownership serving as a rampart against violent behaviors resulting from poverty. Let me just ask you this: Frankly, how twisted does a society have to become before it considers that the best solution to its social problems is to just let everyone have a gun and solve society's problems that way? I know there are many advocates in the United States for the smallest possible interaction of government with the people, where individuals are responsible for their own successes, but must also assume their own failures... right... but when said failures outnumber the successes - resulting in poverty, hunger, no access to healthcare, etc - and instead of trying to help, you let crime go rampant and tell people that they're "free" to solve the problem themselves by shooting back... I call that a serious distopy. I call that enacting the law of the jungle.

On the other hand, let's consider the other situation - people are violent because they have access to guns. See, suppose you get mugged in a gun-controlled society. Your mugger is armed with an illegally-obtained pistol. You are unarmed. Right... so it seems you just lost the game, but the mugger knows it. He just takes your wallet or whatever and leaves, you call the police, and hope they catch him someday. Best case scenario, the cops catch him red-handed a few hours or days later, and you get your stuff back. Worst case scenario, you're missing a few valuable personal belongings.

Now, same scenario, but in a society with the right to bear arms. You get mugged by an armed mugger. He doesn't know if you're armed or not. Maybe he'll be more violent - since you may both be armed, he'll try to turn the tables in his favor by intimidating you - perhaps he'll assault you right away while he's got the element of surprise. Then he'll be very shifty - are you reaching for your wallet or for a concealed weapon? Whether you're armed or not, you're going to have to consider your next move very carefully. Best case scenario, you catch him off guard and spray bullets until he stops twitching. Then maybe you get some sort of PTSD afterwards - trained cops often get the same thing when they fire their weapon on the line of duty - but hey, your belongings are safe and the evil mugger won't be mugging anyone else. Worst case scenario, it's your brains splattered on the sidewalk before you could even take the safety off your pistol - that is, if you weren't just reaching for your wallet a bit too fast.

I'm sure there are several documented cases where people were able to fend off attackers with firearms, but I'm also convinced that there are just as many, if not much more cases, where people were involved in deadly shootouts and were killed or injured as a result, because they decided to be gun-wielding heroes instead of accepting reasonable losses and waiting for the authorities. I'd rather survive a successful mugging than be awarded posthumous honors for trying to foil it.

[Dakota]

I'm sure there are several documented cases where people were able to fend off attackers with firearms, but I'm also convinced that there are just as many, if not much more cases, where people were involved in deadly shootouts and were killed or injured as a result, because they decided to be gun-wielding heroes instead of accepting reasonable losses and waiting for the authorities. I'd rather survive a successful mugging than be awarded posthumous honors for trying to foil it.

I have never heard of a shootout between two feuding neighbors in the USA, I'm sure there's be one or two, but not that I know of, not since the days of the wild west do i know of any at least. The shootouts I do know of were committed by street gangs (crips, bloods, MS13, hells angels, etc.) I know robberies occur all the time in which the gas station clerk is shot just to shoot him, even if they comply.

Am I advocating that you go out and play police? Not at all, I am advocating the right to defend yourself, your home and your family from a threat to your life. Not to your car, not to your wallet, your life.

And I am making the claim that here in the USA within the majority of our cities which also happen to fall below the poverty line, violent crime committed against you has a very high risk of resulting in your injury or death even if you do comply with every demand. Heck in our country we have people who walk into an elevator, set people on fire and just walk out. But I also must make clear my feelings are more so in regards to home invasions than street robberies. The country is messed up for sure, but I think that stems from deeper issues than gun control.

I'm sure the brothels our neighbor to the North are legalizing will have a gun or two behind the counter.

On the bright side, you don't live here so you don't have to put up with this stuff

[Xandarb]

I don't like the fact that some people carry weapons. Some people will always do, whether it's legal or not, and these people are potentially dangerous and you should be able to protect yourself. But you shouldn't be allowed to kill them nor hurt them.

I myself have been threatened by a robber with a knife, and although some of my friends do carry knives (knives too are prohibited to carry in Finland by the way) I don't. It would probably be wise, but I don't.



The law that this topic is about is really stupid if you ask me. You mustn't ever hurt anyone, and you should be in trouble for killing someone, always, even in self-defense. I will not argue about whether this case was self-defense or not, but the shooter should be in trouble anyways

The fact that some people carry guns is spooky and I do understand why you would want to protect yourself, but I am against killing. Oh, so is the law in Finland too by the way. You will always be in trouble for killing/hurting anyone. Always, regardless off the reason.

I do agree that the law over here isn't perfect, but don't you come here and tell me that the laws in the USA are good either. I define security in other ways than going around with a deadly weapon everywhere to "protect" myself.



Although I do understand why you would like to carry a gun, I don't agree.





Thank you and good night!



Edit:

This is an excellent point! +1 on this

On the other hand, let's consider the other situation - people are violent because they have access to guns. See, suppose you get mugged in a gun-controlled society. Your mugger is armed with an illegally-obtained pistol. You are unarmed. Right... so it seems you just lost the game, but the mugger knows it. He just takes your wallet or whatever and leaves, you call the police, and hope they catch him someday. Best case scenario, the cops catch him red-handed a few hours or days later, and you get your stuff back. Worst case scenario, you're missing a few valuable personal belongings.

Now, same scenario, but in a society with the right to bear arms. You get mugged by an armed mugger. He doesn't know if you're armed or not. Maybe he'll be more violent - since you may both be armed, he'll try to turn the tables in his favor by intimidating you - perhaps he'll assault you right away while he's got the element of surprise. Then he'll be very shifty - are you reaching for your wallet or for a concealed weapon? Whether you're armed or not, you're going to have to consider your next move very carefully. Best case scenario, you catch him off guard and spray bullets until he stops twitching. Then maybe you get some sort of PTSD afterwards - trained cops often get the same thing when they fire their weapon on the line of duty - but hey, your belongings are safe and the evil mugger won't be mugging anyone else. Worst case scenario, it's your brains splattered on the sidewalk before you could even take the safety off your pistol - that is, if you weren't just reaching for your wallet a bit too fast.

[Dakota]

I don't like the fact that some people carry weapons. Some people will always do, whether it's legal or not, and these people are potentially dangerous and you should be able to protect yourself. But you shouldn't be allowed to kill them nor hurt them.

I myself have been threatened by a robber with a knife, and although some of my friends do carry knives (knives too are prohibited to carry in Finland by the way) I don't. It would probably be wise, but I don't.



The law that this topic is about is really stupid if you ask me. You mustn't ever hurt anyone, and you should be in trouble for killing someone, always, even in self-defense. I will not argue about whether this case was self-defense or not, but the shooter should be in trouble anyways

The fact that some people carry guns is spooky and I do understand why you would want to protect yourself, but I am against killing. Oh, so is the law in Finland too by the way. You will always be in trouble for killing/hurting anyone. Always, regardless off the reason.

I do agree that the law over here isn't perfect, but don't you come here and tell me that the laws in the USA are good either. I define security in other ways than going around with a deadly weapon everywhere to "protect" myself.



Although I do understand why you would like to carry a gun, I don't agree.




Thank you and good night!

No law is perfect, the mere fact that we humans came up with them makes them flawed. I not once said that USA laws are better than anyone elses. I am pro-universal heathcare and other services that many here are not.

However you're statement has me wondering, how about a police officer who is shot at while on duty for whatever reason. Is he not entitled to defend himself by killing his attacker? Wounding them does not disable them mind you. I think in a perfect society you views would be well recieved, but that's just not realistic in the USA I live in.

[Xandarb]

How about a police officer who is shot at while on duty for whatever reason. Is he not entitled to defend himself by killing his attacker? Wounding them does not disable them mind you. I think in a perfect society you views would be well recieved, but that's just not realistic in the USA I live in.

Exactly, since your society is built up on that and people grow up with the fact that some people do want to hurt you. I do agree, you have a point there.

My society isn't built up like this, therefore I find this gun-thing very spooky, since I haven't grown up in a society where it is (at least kind of) okay to have a gun and to shoot your robber.



Edit:

Oh, about the police-ting: Here, very few police officers do get killed or attacked on duty, since the police respect you (since they don't need to prepare that every single person might be armed) and therefore the police-encounter isn't that aggressive.

Again, I understand why the American police HAVE to be more cautious and sometimes draw their guns for self-protection, but again, this is because every single suspect might be, and likely is, armed.


Edit2: You edited, therefore I now edit.

No law is perfect, the mere fact that we humans came up with them makes them flawed. I not once said that USA laws are better than anyone elses. I am pro-universal heathcare and other services that many here are not.

I agree, no law IS perfect. And it is true that people always will disagree. I just find my kind of "safe" more pleasant than the American kind of "safe". But this is probably because I live here, grew up here and such.

My "safe" being that I know that most people don't have guns or want to hurt me (Some always does, i know). And I can trust on that the police and the law protects me.

The American "safe" being that you can and you are able to protect yourself no matter what and always with the same kind of force (guns).

Deze post is bewerkt door Xandarb: 03 april 2012 - 09:49

[erfd]

There is one huge factor in this case: Zimmermans injuries. According to the Florida Law as stated, you can shoot in self-defense (However, not shoot on suspicion of attack as stated multiple times in this topic.) Without the injuries on him he would be in jail right now. It is not illegal for him to confront a suspicious person. IF Martin attacked him, slammed his head into the ground, punched him in the face, Zimmerman didn't break the law.

However, if Zimmerman had NO injuries, he would be in jail for at least manslaugher, possibly homicide.

It really is a bad situation. Zimmerman should not have approached him as nehiborhood watchman or even been carrying while on watch duty. It was 100% avoidable if he let the police do there job.

One thing to keep in mind is that he is 17. A 17 y/o can easily inflict serious harm is an adult, especially since Martin was very athletic.

[Dakota]

There is one huge factor in this case: Zimmermans injuries. According to the Florida Law as stated, you can shoot in self-defense (However, not shoot on suspicion of attack as stated multiple times in this topic.) Without the injuries on him he would be in jail right now. It is not illegal for him to confront a suspicious person. IF Martin attacked him, slammed his head into the ground, punched him in the face, Zimmerman didn't break the law.

However, if Zimmerman had NO injuries, he would be in jail for at least manslaugher, possibly homicide.

It really is a bad situation. Zimmerman should not have approached him as nehiborhood watchman or even been carrying while on watch duty. It was 100% avoidable if he let the police do there job.

One thing to keep in mind is that he is 17. A 17 y/o can easily inflict serious harm is an adult, especially since Martin was very athletic.

I share the same opinion, however will be waiting for the court case before I make a decision.

[Dakota]

Exactly, since your society is built up on that and people grow up with the fact that some people do want to hurt you. I do agree, you have a point there.

My society isn't built up like this, therefore I find this gun-thing very spooky, since I haven't grown up in a society where it is (at least kind of) okay to have a gun and to shoot your robber.



Edit:

Oh, about the police-ting: Here, very few police officers do get killed or attacked on duty, since the police respect you (since they don't need to prepare that every single person might be armed) and therefore the police-encounter isn't that aggressive.

Again, I understand why the American police HAVE to be more cautious and sometimes draw their guns for self-protection, but again, this is because every single suspect might be, and likely is, armed.


Edit2: You edited, therefore I now edit.



I agree, no law IS perfect. And it is true that people always will disagree. I just find my kind of "safe" more pleasant than the American kind of "safe". But this is probably because I live here, grew up here and such.

My "safe" being that I know that most people don't have guns or want to hurt me (Some always does, i know). And I can trust on that the police and the law protects me.

The American "safe" being that you can and you are able to protect yourself no matter what and always with the same kind of force (guns).

Believe me, I wish the police didn't need to be armed with what they are, and I wish people would respect the law enough that officers didn't have to be on high alert with every call.

There was a time when that was true here in the US, but that quickly changed and many police officers lost their lives as a result of now keeping up with the cultural change in society, so now we got what we go. We are still doing better than most Central and Southern American countries though, at least we have that.

[Xandarb]

Believe me, I wish the police didn't need to be armed with what they are, and I wish people would respect the law enough that officers didn't have to be on high alert with every call.

There was a time when that was true here in the US, but that quickly changed and many police officers lost their lives as a result of now keeping up with the cultural change in society, so now we got what we go. We are still doing better than most Central and Southern American countries though, at least we have that.

That is true. And sad, I mean, the people protecting us from the bad guys shouldn't have to be in that big danger really.

But in my society, with the Finnish laws something goes wrong anyways. We've had three school-shootings in the last years here. Two in 2007 and 2008 and one last Friday. The last shooting went pretty well since no-one actually died, and the shooter now faces (if i recall correctly) 3 manslaughter-attempts and one murder-attempt.

Anyways, my point is that screwed up people will always get guns no matter what, and they will use them. The question is, is it better to be able to protect yourself and others (I know, not a really good scenario, not that realistic, but just let me get to my point ) like you can in the USA, or like us just wait for the police to start their thing.

And the answer to that question is that I don't know. I kind of feel safe here, but at the same time I kind of do not, if you understand?

[Dakota]

That is true. And sad, I mean, the people protecting us from the bad guys shouldn't have to be in that big danger really.

But in my society, with the Finnish laws something goes wrong anyways. We've had three school-shootings in the last years here. Two in 2007 and 2008 and one last Friday. The last shooting went pretty well since no-one actually died, and the shooter now faces (if i recall correctly) 3 manslaughter-attempts and one murder-attempt.

Anyways, my point is that screwed up people will always get guns no matter what, and they will use them. The question is, is it better to be able to protect yourself and others (I know, not a really good scenario) like you can in the USA, or like us just wait for the police to start their thing.

And the answer to that question is that I don't know. I kind of feel safe here, but at the same time I kind of do not, if you understand?

Oh I understand, as much as Americans advocate for gun rights, I think there are plenty of us (a majority perhaps) that do not own guns ourselves, myself included and I'm fine with that most of the time. I would like to own purely for target shooting and such, but perhaps at a later date.

I've also taken Tactical EMS classes that teach us Paramedics how to work with a SWAT Team to treat victims in a hotzone, the big push for tactical EMS came from the school shooting at Columbine. Where I live we've had a school shooting and an officer involved shooting within the past month, along with 2 other school shootings in Pittsburgh and Oakland.

We do have a couple guns in the house however, but only because my step-father is a police officer and he's the only one that uses them. If somebody did break into the house it's nice to know I have the option though.

[erfd]

(Partial Police Report issued: http://news.yahoo.co...-175656087.html)

Fact of the matter is a majority of people do wait for the police for a situation. I personally feel safe in US as you do Finland. Its all about how you are raised.

[Voodoo_Operator]

I have never heard of a shootout between two feuding neighbors in the USA, I'm sure there's be one or two, but not that I know of, not since the days of the wild west do i know of any at least. The shootouts I do know of were committed by street gangs (crips, bloods, MS13, hells angels, etc.) I know robberies occur all the time in which the gas station clerk is shot just to shoot him, even if they comply.

Am I advocating that you go out and play police? Not at all, I am advocating the right to defend yourself, your home and your family from a threat to your life. Not to your car, not to your wallet, your life.

And I am making the claim that here in the USA within the majority of our cities which also happen to fall below the poverty line, violent crime committed against you has a very high risk of resulting in your injury or death even if you do comply with every demand. Heck in our country we have people who walk into an elevator, set people on fire and just walk out. But I also must make clear my feelings are more so in regards to home invasions than street robberies. The country is messed up for sure, but I think that stems from deeper issues than gun control.

I'm sure the brothels our neighbor to the North are legalizing will have a gun or two behind the counter.

On the bright side, you don't live here so you don't have to put up with this stuff

I never said anything about duels between neighbors. If anything, that would probably be silly enough to make people realize that letting everyone have guns is ridiculous.

We have street gangs here as well... local affiliates of the Bloods and Crips, biker gangs, ethnic gangs, the mafia... but somehow, most of the time, they'll keep their criminal business between themselves, and occasionally target the cops, but it is extremely rare that they'll murder/attack a civilian out of spite. Robberies seldom happen - and very rarely end up with shots fired, let alone any violence at all. Maybe, as I mentioned, robbers don't feel the need to be as aggressive with the clerk when they know for sure he's not going to try to reach for a shotgun under his counter...

So it appears your country has more vicious criminals then mine, but I'm not sure what can explain this. We've got the same social problems, pretty much the same criminal organizations, very similar cultures... frankly, the only major difference I can still see is how we both look at gun ownership. One is a society where civilians are seen as harmless and non-interfering, the other is a society where civilians are all potentially disposed to fight to the death. Let's see who I'd like to shoot first if I had a gun and bad intentions.

Oh, and another thing I'd like to add... the problem is that you make the following equation: "Owning a gun = being able to defend oneself". The thing is, it takes training, judgement and self-control to be able to safely defend yourself. Otherwise, it'd just be like buying a guitar and instantly believe it makes you a guitarist. The problem is, I believe a lot of people buy a gun exactly because they think it will make them invincible, and that's where it becomes extremely dangerous. Nothing good can come out of two impulsive people confronting each other with weapons.

[Ami89E1234]

By the way 17 year old American kids aren't all the law abiding innocent kids the media makes them out to be. The youth in our country (generalization but not far off) is getting out of control in terms of respect for others, elders, law and law enforcement. They aren't scared of cops, they aren't afraid to break laws, there is subculture that enjoys acting like thugs and gangsters (which this Treyvon was a part of *reference his twitter account @No_Limit_NIGGA,) which you wont be familiar with unless you're here to see it progress and get worse every day.

I 'respect' cops in every sense that may imply, but I don't really fear them. If they were more in shape I might, but the places I see them most at are Krispy Kreme, QuikTrip, etc. stuffing themselves with Hostess products and various other junk. About half are total blobs, and honestly I have to say that the other half of the local county police force is full of pedophiles (seen this in person SEVERAL times). I do pride myself that, since I have to uphold USAF Fitness Standards, I can pretty much out-exercise a local cop. I have no real reason to fear those who obviously don't take their job too seriously, even though they should.

so it seems you just lost the game

Dammit

[Dakota]

I 'respect' cops in every sense that may imply, but I don't really fear them. If they were more in shape I might, but the places I see them most at are Krispy Kreme, QuikTrip, etc. stuffing themselves with Hostess products and various other junk. About half are total blobs, and honestly I have to say that the other half of the local county police force is full of pedophiles (seen this in person SEVERAL times). I do pride myself that, since I have to uphold USAF Fitness Standards, I can pretty much out-exercise a local cop. I have no real reason to fear those who obviously don't take their job too seriously, even though they should.



Dammit

That varies though, I know plenty of cops who are very much in shape, the older they are or the higher in rank they get they'll gian weight sure. But even then I know plenty of older cops who can throw down

I think it depends on the areas they protect and crime levels. You see the same thing in fire & EMS though

[Dakota]

I never said anything about duels between neighbors. If anything, that would probably be silly enough to make people realize that letting everyone have guns is ridiculous.

We have street gangs here as well... local affiliates of the Bloods and Crips, biker gangs, ethnic gangs, the mafia... but somehow, most of the time, they'll keep their criminal business between themselves, and occasionally target the cops, but it is extremely rare that they'll murder/attack a civilian out of spite. Robberies seldom happen - and very rarely end up with shots fired, let alone any violence at all. Maybe, as I mentioned, robbers don't feel the need to be as aggressive with the clerk when they know for sure he's not going to try to reach for a shotgun under his counter...

So it appears your country has more vicious criminals then mine, but I'm not sure what can explain this. We've got the same social problems, pretty much the same criminal organizations, very similar cultures... frankly, the only major difference I can still see is how we both look at gun ownership. One is a society where civilians are seen as harmless and non-interfering, the other is a society where civilians are all potentially disposed to fight to the death. Let's see who I'd like to shoot first if I had a gun and bad intentions..

I think Canada in general is just a more laid back and tolerant country, perhaps its the British or French influences. The US is young wild country to busy playing world police to stop and fix things at home. And anytime somebody suggests a healthcare policy modeled after Canada, the British NHS or other systems, it gets fought by republicans over precious dollars and cents, as that is more important than human life of course. I hope we grow up eventually, hopefully it doesn't take as long as it did our British parents.

[EmergencyFan97]

I wish we had free healthcare like Canada......

[Dakota]

I wish we had free healthcare like Canada......

What we should have is a model like the NHS (Not sure what Canada uses but I'm sure its similar to that as well.) Healthcare provided in the same manner police, fire and EMS are supported, via taxes. Everyone can access it and use it. If you want even better care (i.e the overcharging doctors and elective treatments or a super nice luxury room or whatever) you still pay into your premium health care insurance through private companies, maybe get a tax writeoff at the end of the year.

The system is already abused, why not at least let the hardworking people who can't afford it get some use out of it without going into debt over a surgery instead of just letting the freeriders and rich make the best of it.

But that's just my opinion and very off-topic.

[Sawdbuster]

I'm not sure how this got into gun control, but I know people who own guns, and I think as long as they treat the gun like a gun and not a toy, I think it would be fine. However people don't treat guns like guns and they use them as they please. Having a gun for having a gun is stupid. I myself would like a gun, but only because I may go into police work, and if not, I would like to work in an auxiliary force.

The real sad thing here is a guy most likely saw the kid walking for no reason he could have thought and got scared and shot him. Whenever a cop or somebody shoots an unarmed kid, they usually forget that cops aren't like cops on TV, they rarely fire it, they pull it enough to get the sense, if they don't stop, they could kill them. Most police shootings like this happen at night, when the guy is alone, and is scared because he can't completely see what is happening. As for this shooting, the fact that the shooter hasn't excepted what he is done, has become a little more odd, and he still may be scared of the law, or maybe he was up to no good.

Either way, it is a real shame, RIP man,

[Ami89E1234]

I wish we could take a few hints from Cuba's healthcare program. They have a comparable life span to the US (slightly higher, in fact) and for a fraction of the cost. For example, they have a doctor for about every 150 people, and they live within a neighborhood and act as their 'family doctor'.

I hate people that generalize Socialism as an evil, impractical, foolish thing; while not everything may work (no system is perfect), some aspects of it do have many benefits.