Wed, Aug 20, 2014, 4:25 AM EDT - U.S. Markets open in 5 hrs 5 mins

Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

FuelCell Energy Inc. Message Board

  • nonprofit_c3 nonprofit_c3 Nov 21, 2002 6:37 PM Flag

    USA Gun perspective

    from The Worst Problems in the USA

    Guns: 200 million guns (100 times the Iraqi army) and 35,000 people killed every year (the equivalent of many years of civil war in Yugoslavia). Firearm deaths per 100,000 people (CDCP, Bureau Of Justice Statistics, 1998): 14.24 in the U.S., 4.31 in Canada, 0.7 in Holland, and only 0.41 in England (where not even police carry guns). Which means that if you live in the U.S., you are 40 times more likely to die of gunshots than if you live in Britain. Murders by handguns (1996): 15 in Japan, 30 in Britain, 211 in Germany, 9,390 in the United States. Which means if you live in the U.S., you are 300 times more likely to be murdered than in you live in Britain. In 1999 Americans were certainly reassured that "only" 6,000 workers were killed by colleagues in the workplace, a 10% drop from 1994's figure of 6,600... but still just about twice the number of people killed by the Serbs in the Kosovo war. The scariest data are about the other 25,000 deaths by handgun: they are suicides and accidents. In the U.S. a child a day is killed by a handgun. If you define "terrorist" as "causing terror in the public", the N.R.A., the organization which protects guns, can claim to be, de facto, the deadliest terrorist organization in the world. It is not true that the right to bear guns is written in the Constitution: the Constitution talks about guns that were available at the end of the 18th century, and was written before the US developed a true army. It makes no reference to "every future evolution of guns". Therefore, the only guns that are constitutionally legal are the ones that were available two hundred years ago.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • boy, do you miss the point BIG, when you miss the point!!! I NEVER SAID ANYTHING that you are accusing me of. PROVE IT SBERRY? I NEVER SAID IT WAS BECAUSE OF GUNS, EVER!!!! IN FACT, I HAVE SUGGESTED THE SOMETHING QUITE DIFFERENT!!! THAT IT IS PEOPLE! I LOOK AT THE PSYCHOLOGY. you FIND ANOTHER WAY argument is so old and moldy, sberry! it is really a non-argument that is meant to avoid the real issues.

      POINT: THE HOMOCIDE RATES ARE EXTREMELY HIGH IN THE USA regardless of weapon, unlike other countries no matter what the weapons are. a gun just makes it more convenient and swifter, unfortunately -- TRUTH. PROBABLY CAUSE OF HIGH GUNS DEATHS compared to other countries (that is the REAL QUESTION being posed by me and Michael Moore): AMericans are paranoid and reactive, and have a false idea that stockpiling guns will also make them safer, which might account for the percentage of gun deaths that are accidents or in the irrational heat of anger. you also have to ask why Americans are so irresponsible with guns, and that their children get their hands on them so readily. sort of like the difference between sitting on high explosives, or having a knife in the drawer. the question is 200+million guns, the highest per 100,000 than any country on the planet. the question, also, is that the BIGGEST INDUSTRY ON THE PLANET is the ARMS INDUSTIES, who have a vested interest in FEAR. dig?

      http://messages.yahoo.com/bbs?action=m&board=4687441&tid=erc&mid=66485&sid=46874
      41


      check this out. you have to wait a long while for it to load.

      select A BREIF HISTORY
      http://www.bowlingforcolumbine.com/media/clips/index.php

    • pot snot,

      >>>keep Jano focused on his job of netting new conservative investors<<<

      Janson will keep the liberals in line. But how about you getting Rush to put in a good word for fuel cells? After all, Rush and the FC's have a lot in common; they both emit a lot of hot air!

    • You behave this weekend you old gongoozler and you keep Jano focused on his job of netting new conservative investors to pull you guys off the bricks!!!!!

      he's our uber-man!!!!

    • Are you planning on taking away my hunting rifle?.

    • sberry new,

      A gun is easier and the "shooter"is better protected. It creates "distance"

      If you have to do it with your hands, you will think twice and probably even more.

      r

      mountainsize

    • If I wanted to kill someone, I would use a gun.

      If I had no gun, I'd find another way.


      The link between guns and murders has little to do with the guns and a lot to do with the circumstance of the the guns holder.

      None of the laws you would like to see would change homicide rates.

      As always, when faced with a complex issue surrounding human nature, some people will want new laws to allow them to feel like they're doing something about the problem. Even if they're doing nothing to solve the actual problem.

      I have guns, I use guns, I have no desire to commit crimes with those guns, I don't sit around and dream of more guns, I belong to the NRA, and I vote on issues that have nothing to do with guns.

      Those comparisons don't amount to a hill of beans.

      In my town lots of people own guns, and murders are very rare, and what few do happen are almost always related to drugs, not guns.

    • As a Montanan, I think the NRA is about the closest thing to our own politically powerful Nazi party. And it has come from the gun enthusists, that I have heard the most blantant and meanest political intolerance and racial prejudices.

      That said, I'm getting tired of the Democrats' handling of gun issues continually handing the Republicans our public offices on a platter. Most of the issues of crime and guns might be addressed by insuring that anyone selling a gun to anyone else was held responsible for a background check. Private sales of guns makes guns easily available to anyone who wishes to own one--and virtually any kind of gun at that.

      It would serve the Democrats well if, instead of calling for the ban of guns, they acknowledged that gun ownship for the purpose of self-defense was as valid as sporting or hunting purposes. The NRA would never see that as much of a compromise, but a lot of people worried that new gun laws are being promoted to deny gun ownership to all would be much more of a mind to accept tightening rules for the private sale of hand guns, rifles, shotguns, etc.

      In the past, anytime such proposals have even begun to be advanced, somebody stands up and says (Andy Rooney, I recall) "Let's just ban guns"--then the discussion and political will to accomplish anything disintegrates. The gun nuts go into overdrive, pull their legions out of the woodwork and the Republicans are elected--most other issues cast aside.

      A few hundred gun owners voting the other way in Florida in 2000 would have given the state and us Gore in place of Bush.

      .

      • 3 Replies to vaporplume
      • vaporplume, i do not know any democrats calling for a ban on guns. that is a new one on me. all i know are people asking for reasonable gun control laws and licensing. andy rooney is a Republican, BTW. i think you need to catch up on the latest NRA endeavors. there goal appears to obliterate any registration or licencing of guns. they want no background checks, and Ashcroft is such a fanatic he would not allow any checks on the terrorists gun records. in addition, ashcroft tried to pass a new rule that gun shops only need to keep the records for five days -- then they can throw them out. but what would it matter if no one is allowed to look at them anyway? but it is ok to wiretap anyone in the US or harrass anyone 100 miles from the border. IMO, the republicans won because Bush played the war platform heavy just before the election. he campaigned, even though our country is at risk due to bin laden. see Gore piece in Washington Post. also, do not miss the cartoon that Henn posted at bowlingforcolumbine.com

      • Let me know when you come up with a law that stops people from killing each other.

        I'll vote for it in a minute.

      • vaporplume,

        I'm with you on this issue, if Democrats want to hold any kind of elected office, they had better get their heads out of their ass. In the states that they need to win there is just a large enough gun crowd to cause the Democrats to lose. I'm not anti gun, I'm pro bullet tax. LOL!


        IMO!
        LV. :)

    • nonprofit..,

      >Murders by handguns (1996): 15 in Japan, 30 in Britain, 211 in Germany, 9,390 in the United States. Which means if you live in the U.S., you are 300 times more likely to be murdered than in you live in Britain.<

      I'm in full agreement with the theme of your post. As far as the murder rate, the US is terrible, but must be normalized in proportion to population, so instead of 300X Britain's rate, it's more like 60X Britain's rate, still an indictment against guns.

      Regards,
      Kid

    • "Constitution: the Constitution talks about guns that were available at the end of the 18th century, and was written before the US developed a true army. It makes no reference to "every future evolution of guns". Therefore, the only guns that are constitutionally legal are the ones that were available two hundred years ago"

      What a logical farce!

      Does the author of that piece think that every form of speach that didn't exist when the Constitution was written should not be protected too?

      the Constitution talks about speach that was available at the end of the 18th century, and was written before the US developed a true media. It makes no reference to "every future evolution of speach". Therefore, the only speach that is constitutionally legal are the ones that were available two hundred years ago

      • 2 Replies to ChipCost
      • "Therefore, the only speach that is constitutionally legal are the ones that were available two hundred years ago"

        yeah, chip, i thought that was really a very very humorous way for him to end it, considering the way the Constitutional nuts, who believe that the second amendment is the ONLY amendment and most important one, keep wanting to sort of twist it to the extreme. and believe me, the US is extreme. loved the way your buddy DG earlier today, who posted the statistics post, said that there would be hardly be any murders after we subtracted the ones done by Democrats. shows how much in denial you guys are, and how sick with hatred you are.

        http://messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=FN&action=m&board=4687441&tid=erc&sid=4687441&
        mid=66486

      • it was a bit of a joke, right, you got his point! applause. it followed EVOLUTION OF GUNS, and they will get worse. next, nano warfare. if you think it is ok for everyone to have rocket launchers and the latest machine gun, fine. or how about nukes and military aircraft parked in their backyards? that is what he meant by EVOLUTION. we are a very sick country, indeed. do you think the founding fathers REALLY saw a future of this military magnitude? now, come on chip!!!

    • Seems like all of your data is from the Klingon years.

    • View More Messages
 
FCEL
2.81+0.19(+7.25%)Aug 19 4:00 PMEDT

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.