Why were the founding fathers so much smarter than anyone alive today?

Why are the founding fathers trusted more than people today?

Were they not human? Have they now been made gods? Whose word is irrefutable and unchanging.

Were they creating laws for a society of 280 million people? Collected from around the globe? A nation that stretches from coast to coast, including a pacific Island and Arctic territory? A nation with computers, uzis nuclear warheads, cars, planes, aids, massive homelessness and obesity, with television and manufactured stars/icons, with financial priests of the stockmarket, and the chance to cryogenically freeze your head? With the psychological problems associated with living in todays world?

Just because America has the same name as then, does not make it the same county. It exists in a radically different place within the fourth dimension...time.

As such, guns are no longer slowly loading single shot arms, but sleek machines of death.

They cannot be banned in America, becasue the founding fathers decreed it.

The word of the American founding fathers is practically impossible to redesign. Even though the applicable words are an AMMENDMENT.

Almost every western democratic nation has revised their constitution. Changing it as society changed. Their leaders are no different to their leaders of the past. Arguing about what's right. Angling for their cause. Representing a portion of the community. Thinking lustful thoughts about a woman they work with.

These are not new aspects of humanity.

Yet, Americans today are prisoners. They are imprisoned by the chains of the past. By the deification of words agreed on by a group of humans. Imperfect humans trying to forge their way through a hostile planet and difficult life. No different to you and I.

There are rules for amending the constitution. It's hard to do, because the drafters wanted to make sure the document itself was only changed when an overwhelming majority agreed. Such as giving women the right to vote. Such as giving complete control of alcohol sales to the individual states.

As for an unchanging document - hogwash. The constitution changes every year - in Supreme Court decisions. A right to contract used to exist in the constitution: it was why an 80-hour workweek, unfair labor conditions, and child labor could not be legally stopped. Then, one Supreme Court (or a few)decision changed all that. "Separate but equal" was once acceptable (Plessy v. Fergusen), but the Supreme Court later declared "separate is never equal" (Brown v. Bd. of Education of Topeka). The constitution changes all the time.

The secret is not in the document itself, but in society's understanding of it. As well, most states have redone their constitutions in the last 3/4 century. And since you, as the citizen of the state, are entitled to protections under both documents, the update you're yearning for has already happened - you get the state constitution's protections and rules where they go further than the federal constitutuion.

I would say that most countries would tell us that America is not conscious enough of the past. In fact, it has been the major catalyst for change in the world this century, for better or worse. I see America, as a persona, as a young spoiled teenager-with-a-nose-ring country with all of Daddy's millions to spend as it pleases. Quite modern, wouldn't you say? :D

Guns -that's another topic. Clearly, as evidenced in the polls and on this board, Americans do not want to give up their love affair with firearms.

[ 10-21-2002, 11:29 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

<font color="#66cc99"> Can you give any good reasons to change what they wrought? have you ever been part of an endeavor that was so successful? Have you ever lead any number of people? I think they did an exceptional job, they worked off principles of freedom and personal liberty, yes there were a couple of gaffs, but what they created has turned into what is arguably the most successful nation in all of history.

You mention the 2nd ammendment. You are seemingly upset thatt hey are "sleek machines of death" whatever that means. Firearms have always since their invention been weapons of death and destruction. The concept has not changed. Please read what George Washington wrote about them and why he viewed them as essential to each and every man (not just militia as some would have us believe) I will look for links to the writings if I have the chance, but you can google as well as I can.

Were they infallible? nope, they made mistakes but they were wise enough to limit their unchanging documents to fundamental principles and left room for growth outside the framework. They couldn't agree on the slavery issue when they wrote the constitution so they wrote it with the language that allowed later generations to do away with it. All in all they were not deities, they were just men, men who believed in a cause and in some certain fundamental principles and founded a nation on those principles. If you don't like the principles, why not go found your own country? Or start a revolution of your own? Don't jsut sit there do something about it. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Show me a group of people who have brought into being something better and more successful in such a short period of time.

Just my opinions and not to be taken as criticism of Yorick or his positions what ever they may be. Peace!, Freedom! and Liberty! for all men and women thats what I want and believe in. Some times you also have to fight for them.</font>

<font color="#66cc99"> Just thought I should mention that I do not love my firearm, my car, my hammer or my toothbrush. I have no love affair with an implement that is my right to bear. I have a love for the freedom and liberty I was afforded by the second ammendment as well as the 1st and the third and ther 4th etc. I will not give up my rights, just because a bunch of PC activists think they know better or can improve upon the bill of rights.

Yorick asked why we shouldn't mimick other nations in how they run their affairs, why not just move to one of those nations Yorick, rather than make everyone in this one bend to your will?</font>

Interpretations of the words change. The words themselves, without a vast majority of people and states, do not change.

Re. Guns, it's not a different topic at all. The constitution is the reason why no American government is able to ban guns. No American government will, while the second Amendment holds.

So yes it is fundamental to the gun debate.

The constitutional stasis is cause death after death after death of the citizens it is meant to protect.

To anyone new reading:

Heresy? Am I offending you?

How Holy are you regarding words made by politicians and soldiers of the past?

If you're offended my case gains further proof. ;)

You mean why didn't I stay at home? "Aussie go home." Is that what you mean? Leave American issues for Americans?

Why do Americans get involved in Somalia or Bosnia? Why do Americans give aid to third world nations, effectively meddling with them?

Because people are dying.

You mean why didn't I stay at home? "Aussie go home." Is that what you mean? Leave American issues for Americans?

Why do Americans get involved in Somalia or Bosnia? Why do Americans give aid to third world nations, effectively meddling with them?

Because people are dying.

<font color="#66cc99"> Thats not what I said at all. I was asking your thoughts on the questions I asked. I was not telling you anything. I used interogatives not statements. Of course I would wonder, why an Australian would care one way or the other about the American Constitution. Being a foreign national you do have the option to go home any time you want [img]smile.gif[/img] That is another right you have here.

People are dying? By and large fewer people are dying here than in other places in the world, why not crusade to save some truly massive numbers of people. I believe Asia now has the highest death rate in the world...of course more than half of the worlds population is located there so you would expect, more people, more deaths. Out of 300,000,000 people in this country less than 1% are dead due to illegal arms. that really isn't a bad statistic. On the other hand if you completely remove all freedom and liberty from the country you might make the number smaller...or you might make it bigger due to the revolts. Anyway those are my opinions, I have them because this is my country. Why are you so fixated on my country when there are others with worse problems?</font></font>[/QUOTE]

[ 10-21-2002, 12:07 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

Give me all power to interpret the words, and you can write whatever text you like and I promise I'll win. ;) What the words mean is every bit as important as what words are written.

Likewise, give me every procedural concession and I'll give you every substantive concession and again I'll win every time - because we won't even get to your argument. ;)

Sorry, but these are basic rules in what I do every day.

<font color="#66cc99"> Yourick, you asked if you were speaking heresy the answer is no, this is not a religious debate [img]smile.gif[/img] , Do you offend me? no, but from my perspective you just don't understand the ideals on wich this country is based. As I said, why are you picking on this nation when there are places, states, and nations that are comitting truly horrible attrocities on large scale numbers of citizens. Do you do this here in the USA because it is safe, and secure for you to do so here and dangerous and deadly for you to go to the nations where really bad things are happening? </font>

The right to keep and bear arms does not mean for hunting only. It is also for protection from an overreaching government.

<font color="#66cc99"> That too! The Constitution is fudamentally all about limiting the power of the government over the people. The basic idea was Freedom, Liberty and Equality for all men. </font>

[ 10-21-2002, 01:11 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

Yorick your fundamental argument is wrong. If a suffiecent number of Americans wanted guns outlawed they would be. We have constitutional amendments that allow for changing times and circumstances. That is why the Constitution has persisted not for reverence of the founding fathers. We amended the constition to outlaw slavery. The found fathers while many were torn about slavery in the end chose to allow it to continue. The gun lobby is one of the strongest in washington, I believe they go to far but i am not for banning guns entirely.

As far as words changing the words of the Constitution are the rules of this country. They are the rules we play by. Do you play poker? Would you allow me to 'interperate' the rules of poker as we play? :D I can think of an interpertation of where my 2 pair beats your full house.

On the gun issue.

Banning guns is just silly. What would be the point? Stop deaths? Pah, murders are murders, if they dont have a gun they will use a knife. Anything can be used as a lethal weapon.

Like it or not, a vast majority of americans enjoy guns. They enjoy hunting with them, they enjoy just shoting them. If you take guns away from people then are taking a little bit of freedom from them.

Amending the constitution is easy!! All you need is a 2/3 majority vote in the house and senate,a review of the amendment by the judicial branch and final approval by the executive branch. The only fly in the ointment is getting all of the people involved to agre on ANYTHING. As far as people owning guns in the U.S. is concerned , well it is too late to stop now. If they passed an amendment tomorrow that said everyone had hand over all their guns to the government about half the gun owners in the U.S. would be in jail for disobeying the law and come election time about half of the U.S. law makers would be out on their asses looking for new jobs. Also takeing away guns wont realy stop murders. Like another post on GenCon proves. It is illegal to own certain guns in Austrailia, but Memnoch has a whole laundry list of gun crimes in that countrie. To use the argument that it is harder to kill people without guns is also incorrect. Use Ted Bundy or John Wayne Gacey as examples. The police pulled 30 bodies out of Gaceys crawlspace under his house and not one of them had been shot!! Ted Bundy has been linked to over a dozen murders and also , not a single one of them was shot. Makeing guns illegal wont stop people from killing each other. The only way to prevent murder is to make people not want to kill one another.

<font color="#66cc99"> Face it Hunter, some people are just afraid of anything that makes loud noises. [img]smile.gif[/img] Seriously though, it is easier to advocate removing someone elses right to something that you care nothing about rather than to face the reality that some people are messed up individuals and that not all of them are entirely sane.

Politicians pass law after law, not because they have any hope that yet another law making something that is already illegal stop...but it will show that they "care" and will thus garner votes from people who just want to "feel" like they did something.</font>

To those who cherish freedom:

It seems your desire for freedom is selective.

What about freedom from fear? Freedom from being shot? Freedom from losing your possessions through theft? You are not free. You are held to ransom by the threat of violence, you are imprisoned by the past, you are chained to paying for home insurance, and medical insurance.

Debt is the slavery of the West, and fear is a chain of greater strength than iron.

To gain freedoms for society at all, you have to restrict an individuals freedom.

That is what LAW is. Restrictions on an individuals behaviour so society can live with some freedom from fear.

I see chants of freedom, which are in reality cries for imprisonment.

Free yourselves. Ban the gun. Allow cameras on highways and in plazas. Restrict the freedoms of those who would harm so those who are innocent may live freely.

[ 10-21-2002, 04:27 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

Have you heard of Zero tolerance policy? This is attributed to cleaning up New York City. Many of the hard crims were caught for misdemeanors.

By making it illegal to simply possess a gun, only criminals would carry them. If they are arrested for possessing a gun, the odds are they have commited/will commit other crimes.

Either that or they'd think twice about carrying them.

A child would not be able to get a carelessly hidden gun from their fathers den and take it to school or a gang brawl either.

Safer streets.

While where at it, lets look at the glorification of violence and the message of "no consequences" in film. The number of casual desensetising killings where the killer is a GOOD GUY! (Killing = Good? Since when? and to whom? The person killed?)

Films like 'Desperado' with Antonio Banderas are pathetic, and contribute as much to a society rotting from within, as prevelent gun ownership does.

If you seriously want to fix Americas desperate and cancerous problems, you'll need to start from the ground up.

Which is why I started with this post about the constitution.

Actually New York City's high crime rate scared the crap out of me before I came here. The day after I was here the first time, a shooting occured on the coach I took up here.

I then lived in the South Bronx for a few months. Not exactly the safest place on Earth MagiK. I don't know which part of America you live in, but plenty of areas could be considered a 'dangerous jungle.'

If I wanted safety, I'd leave.

[ 10-21-2002, 04:40 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

As far as words changing the words of the Constitution are the rules of this country. They are the rules we play by. Do you play poker? Would you allow me to 'interperate' the rules of poker as we play? :D I can think of an interpertation of where my 2 pair beats your full house.</font>[/QUOTE]Well the anti gun lobby has all but given up trying to get the second amendment reinterpreted. It can't be done.

1.Because I've chosen to live here

2.I care about this country, and have grown to love it and it's inhabitants.

3.What happens in this country affects much of the planet Earth.

America is not an island. while in Australia, I knew Bush would affect my life, but I could not vote against him. Americas policies on the environment will affect all of us. The prevalence of CV ownership in America will adversely affect the rest of the world (who don't have anywhere near the level of CV ownership). The messages portrayed in the American media, reach much of the world.

Anti-Americanism? It started as self criticism within the American media. When you ridicule your President in the media, the world sees and scorns either your President, or those that ridicule him.

I'd say this is of vital importance to America at this time.

4.Gun related deaths in America IS a horrible atrocity on a large scale..


The latest data provides us with a picture of gun deaths among children and youth in the United States in 1998. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics is the source of the data on children and youth gun violence. Calculations were made by Children's Defense Fund (CDF). CDF's figures for total firearm deaths and homicide firearm deaths exclude firearm deaths by legal (police or corrections) intervention and deaths by air rifles.■

3,761 children and teens were killed by gunfire, nearly 10 lives every day, one every two and one half hours. (3,792 without exclusions)■

2,184 were murdered by gunfire. Fifty-eight percent of young people killed by gunfire are victims of homicide. (2,215 without exclusions)■

1,241 committed suicide using a gun - more than three every day. Guns remain the most common method of suicide for children. Guns are used in two out of three youth suicides. Thirty-three percent of young people killed by guns take their own lives.■

262 died from an unintentional or accidental shooting. Seven percent of young people were victims of an accidental shooting. A study reported in the American Journal of Public Health found that 1.4 million homes with 2.6 million children living in them had firearms that were stored unlocked and loaded or unlocked and unloaded but stored with ammunition.■

74 died with intent undetermined.■

609 of the young people killed were under the age of 15; 179 were under the age of 10; and 83 were under the age of 5.■

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the rate of firearm deaths among American children under age 15 is almost 12 times higher than in 25 other industrialized countries combined.■

Gun homicide is the third leading cause of death for all young people ages 5 to14, and the leading cause of death among Black youths ages, 15 to 24.■

Between 1979 and 1998, 563 American military personnel were killed by hostile action. During that same period, 2,042 children under age 5 were killed by firearms, almost four times as many.
-------------------------------------------------------------

Total Gun Deaths As Compiled by Million Mom March. No exclusions are made in this analysis. Data is from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 48, No. 11, July 24, 2000.

There were a total of 30,708 people killed by guns in the U.S. in 1998. Of these:
* 17,424 were gun suicides.

* 12,102 were gun homicides.

* 886 were unintentional or "accidental" shootings.

* 316 were shooting deaths of undetermined intent
---------------------------------------------------

Additional Data

* In 1997 firearm injuries were the second leading cause of death by injury for all ages and for young people aged 15-24. Motor vehicle injuries were the leading cause of death by injury for all ages and for young people 15-24 years of age. [source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Center for Health Statistics 1997 data]

* Most families that own guns store them loaded, unlocked, or both. [Senturia, Y.D., Christoffel, K.K. et al. Gun storage patterns in U.S. homes with children: A pediatric-based survey, Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, Vol. 50, March 1996:265-269]

* The risk of suicide or homicide is twice as high for individuals with a family history of registered handgun purchase than for those without such a history. [source: Cummings, P. et al. The Association between the purchase of a handgun and homicide or suicide. AJPH, 87(6) June 1997:974-978]

* Suicide is nearly 5 times more likely to occur in a household with a gun than in a household without a gun. [source: Kellermann, A.L. et al. Suicide in the home in relation to gun ownership. N Engl J Med, 327(7)) Aug. 12, 1992:467-472.]

* The presence of a gun in the home triples the risk of homicide in the home. [source: Kellermann, A.L. et al. Gun ownership as a risk factor for homicide in the home. N Engl J Med 329 (15) October 7, 1993: 1084-1091

* Guns were used in approximately 7 out of 10 murders in the U.S. in 1997. Handguns were used in 53% of all murders and in 78% of all murders committed with a firearm. [source: Federal Bureau of Investigation. Crime in the United States, 1997, Washington, DC: Department of Justice. P. 20]

* One-quarter of adults in the United States own a gun and only about one in six Americans (16%) owns a hand gun. [Diaz, T. Making a killing: the business of guns in America. New York: New York Press, 1999.}

It's a problem warranting attention MagiK.

The end result of your idea makes sense, but the freedoms everyone mentions in this thread basically come down to the freedom to make the choice for ourselves.

Throw away the "defend yourself", "it's my right", "if you outlaw guns, only the criminals will have them", or the argument "de jour", and it all comes down to one thing. Americans want to own guns, and because the overwhelming majority of US want to, the government will never ban them. Never, ever, never.

Your sentiment is, in a way, similar to thoughts about nuclear weapons. I don't think anyone will deny the world would be better off without them, and even though we've seen an increase in the number of nuclear nations, the total number of nukes has been reduced quite dramatically, but they will never be gone because someone will always successfully present the argument that we need a certain number to protect ourselves. Whether or not it's a valid argument, it will be a successful argument.

Now those are the "chants of freedom which, in reality, are cries for imprisonment". You know, Yorick, that would be an excellent song lyric ;) . The "cries of imprisonment" line, really works against your argument as well as for it! To be free from "this", we must submit to "that". That ambiguity is another reason I think it would be a great song lyric. [img]smile.gif[/img]

I only mention the nuclear weapons issue here because it's more "in line" with your argument than the issue of gun control. The majority of Americans who own guns don't fall into the idiotic realm of the few lunatics who receive all the "press". Most are quite sensible. They don't buy guns because they are afraid not to have one, they buy them because they want one.

Personally, I don't own a gun because I sleep-walk and have a small child, both of which are big dangers to gun owners, and I don't think I would own one anyway because I don't need one. I did almost buy a WWII Luger from a former boss for the historical value, but because of the reasons already mentioned, I decided against it.

My parents bought a rifle after their house was broken into while they were away. They didn't buy it to protect their property, but because they were afraid what would happen if the robbers came while they were there. Fortunately, they didn't have to worry. The robbers hit the house again while they were away and stole the rifle...lol. Even though they bought out of fear, Dad was still extremely respectful of its capabilities. He kept the ammo in a small safe, and the rifle out of reach. The burglar got the rifle, but not the ammo. [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img]

Though I've never been one, I know many avid hunters who exercise the same care, but for every story I can tell someone else can tell 100 negative stories.

By the way, IMHO, assault rifles being availible to the general public and the loop holes in licensing at gun shows are RIDICULOUS!

Bottom line? Americans will always have guns unless someone other than our own government can take them away from US.

As to the Constitution, of course it was made by flawed men, but it's the Code of Laws we base our society on. All societies have a Code of Laws, and ours as all others, has evolved over time and continues to evolve, but it still harkens to it's roots, in our case, the US Constitution. Which, admittedly, is less a "root system" and more like the entire foundation and structure combined. :D

PS. Yorik, what's up with your egg? It's not working.

[ 10-21-2002, 05:32 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

Hopefully that 'someone else' will be the American people themselves.

Ronn, I've actually read that poll after poll shows a majority of Americans in favor of greater gun control.

Great post btw. Ronn. Cheers, salutations, and thankyous [img]smile.gif[/img]

Thanks mate. A relationship is an example of that. You willingly reduce certain freedoms in exchange for the freedom to truly know, be known, love and feel with another person on a secure, deep and safe level.

[ 10-21-2002, 05:29 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

It says the right to bear ARMS, not neccessarrily guns in particular. We may as well be happy with swords, so we can look our victims in the eye when we inflict violence upon them, and we wouldn't have drive-by shootings or snipers unless they chucked knives at people.

Any hoo, its always been open to interpretation as well as amendedment.

Remember our great freedom doesn't even apply to the basic liberty of smoking pot, so we still have alot to learn.

[ 10-21-2002, 06:22 PM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

<font color = lightgreen>I wouldn't say that the Founding Fathers were smarter than we are today, only well-educated for their time. With the exception of some window-dressing like fancy technology and different clothing styles, the basic problems they faced in everyday life are the same we face today--this is why the Constitution is such an excellent document. It was written to apply no matter what the styles or mores of the time may be and even incorporates rules for being amended.

The introduction being complete, let me move on to what I see has become the heart of the matter here: gun control.
Outlawing guns entirely will not reduce the rate of any sort of crime or make society any safer overall. Guns simply make the expression of violence easier, but they don't create violence. If guns are outlawed to make people more safe, then the logical progression should be to ban knives as potentially deadly weapons, even butter knives, as well as scissors, icepicks, hammers, screwdrivers, saws, crowbars, dowel rods, shower curtain rods, pens, pencils, fingernail clippers, plastic bags, lamps, and even CDs, because these are all items found in most households and can be used as deadly weapons. [img]graemlins/saywhat.gif[/img]
Let's follow the logical progression a little further. We should outlaw touching another human, because your hands can also be deadly weapons.
And why stop there? If we outlaw the things that can cause death, let's outlaw the things that can cause non-fatal injury. This list includes everything that exists in the world today, including water. In fact, let's outlaw violent emotions and violent intent--that is the real root for any lack of security we have....

Seriously, if guns are outlawed, where does it end?

Benjamin Franklin stated that "those who would surrender freedom for security deserve neither freedom nor security" (not an exact quote, but the message is the same).

The Founding Fathers decided that the government could not arbitrarily take away all guns because that would make America a place where the government, with its armed militia, could do exactly as it pleases, with no restrictions.

Ban guns? [img]graemlins/idontagreeatall.gif[/img] Besides, automobiles kill more people yearly than guns do.</font>

Azred, gun control does reduce at the very least the impact or result of certain crimes, and makes other crimes harder to pull off - rob a bank with a knife? doable, but a hell of a lot harder.
The laws also bring scruitiny to those criminal elements seeking to buy guns. It has made it quite hard in Australia to just go out and get one.

Incidently our knife laws were severely toughened too. Limiting who is allowed to buy or carry what types of knives and bringing in controls for storage and transportation too. You'll see chefs travelling around with locked tool boxes etc...

The arguments for weapons control is not to erradicate all such weapons related crimes. Noone's that naive. It's about harm reduction and access reduction.

Make it harder for people to simply get a gun or a big knife and act on impulse with it. How many lives 'saved' as a result does it take for this to be seen as acceptable by the pro-gunners?
In my view - just one.

It's done a lot more than that in this country I can tell you.

That's why every time a cop is shot at it makes headline news here. Because it's so rare.
That's why every time a gunman shoots innocent bystanders the whole country goes into mourning.

Almost all gun related crimes here are between criminals.

Yorick, the constitutional stasis is not the cause of death, evil in the hearts of man causes man to take the life of another. If guns caused death then countries where private gun ownership is baned should have no deaths (murders)

As for the words of the Constitution I'm a super strict constructionalist.
ie: the 1st amendment "Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion". Not seperation of Church and State. That has come about by Supreme Court decesions, totaly ignoring the unquieness of the 1st amendment. Unlike the other amendments that make up the bill of rights, the 1st amend. is the only one that specificaly mentions a branch of the government. All of the rest of the amend. make a statement about what is a right of the people without any qualifers about a specific branch of the government.

Personaly, I think we should all carry side arms all the time, for the first couple of weeks the would be a lot of killing, but after the A-holes had killed each other off things would go a lot more smoothly. People would be a heck of alot more polite to each other, more manners, the last thing you would want to do is lose your temper with someone that is packing. :D

Azred, I beleive it was TJ (Thomas Jefferson) that said t ;) Other then that Ditto. :D

Sorry I don't have any of those niffty statistics ;) I'm a just the facts kinda guy. 65,000,000+ guns where NOT used to kill anybody today.

9_9 I don't actually care about politics and the constitution because I plan to work for the government [img]tongue.gif[/img] Yes i know I just thought that one up, but it's TRUE isn't it? :D

Here are some stats: Take them as you will...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
Canada-US Comparison

Canada has always had stronger firearms regulation than the United States, particularly with respect to handguns. In Canada, handguns have been licensed and registered since the 1930’s, ownership of guns has never been regarded as a right and several court rulings have reaffirmed the right of the government to protect citizens from guns. Handgun ownership has been restricted to police, members of gun clubs or collectors. Very few (about 50 in the country) have been given permits to carry handguns for "self-protection." This is only possible if an applicant can prove that their life is in danger and the police cannot protect them.
As a result, Canada has roughly 1 million handguns while the United States has more than 76 million. While there are other factors affecting murder, suicide and unintentional injury rates, a comparison of data in Canada and the United States suggests that access to handguns may play a role. While the murder rate without guns in the US is roughly equivalent (1.8 times) to that of Canada, the murder rate with handguns is 14.5 times the Canadian rate. The costs of firearms death and injury in the two countries have been compared and estimated to be $495 (US) per resident in the United States compared to $195 per resident in Canada.
<table border=1>
<tr><td></td><td>Year</td><td>Canada</td><td>US</td><td>US/CAN</td></tr>
<tr><td>Population</td><td>1998</td><td>30.2 m </td><td>270m</td><td>8.9x</td></tr><tr><td>Number of All Firearms</td>
<td>1998</td><td>7.4 m</td><td>222 m</td><td>30x</td></tr>
<tr><td>Number of Handguns</td><td>1998 </td><td>1.2 m</td><td>76 m </td>
<td>63.3x </td></tr><tr><td>Guns per capita</td><td>1997</td>
<td>.25</td><td>.82 </td><td>3.3x</td>
</tr></table>
<table border=1><tr><td>Firearms Death (Rate per 100,000)*</td>
<td>Year</td><td>Canada</td><td>US</td><td>US/Can </td></tr><tr><td>
Accidental deaths with Firearms </td><td>1998</td><td>0.2</td><td>
0.3 </td><td>1.5x </td></tr><tr><td>Suicides with Firearms </td><td>1998
</td><td>3.4</td><td>6.4</td><td> 1.9x </td></tr><tr><td>Total Firearms Deaths </td><td>1998</td><td> 4.3</td><td>11.4 </td><td>2.7x </td></tr>
</table>
<table border=1><tr><td>Crime Statistics (Rate per 100,000)</td><td>
Year</td><td>Canada</td><td>US</td><td>US/Can </td> </tr><tr>
<td>Murders with Firearms</td><td> 1998 </td><td>0.5</td><td>4.4
</td><td>7.9x </td></tr><tr><td>Murders with Handguns </td><td>
1998</td><td>0.23</td><td>3.3</td><td>14.5x </td></tr><tr>
<td>Murders without Guns</td><td>1998</td><td>1.3 </td><td>2.3</td><td>
1.8x </td></tr><tr><td>Robberies with Guns </td><td>1998</td><td>18
</td><td>63</td><td>3.5x </td></tr><tr><td>Robberies without Guns
</td><td>1998</td><td>78</td><td>102</td><td>1.3x</td></tr>
</table>
<table border=1><tr><td></td><td>Year</td><td>Canada</td><td>US</td><td>Can/US
</td></tr> <tr><td>Overall Homicide rate per 100,000</td><td>1998
</td><td>1.83 </td><td>6.62 </td><td>3.6x </td> </tr> <tr><td>% of homicides with firearms </td><td>1998</td><td>27.3%</td><td>66%</td><td>2.4x</td> </tr>
<tr><td>% of firearm homicides with handguns</td><td>1998</td><td>46%</td>
<td>75%</td><td>1.6x</td> </tr>
</table>

Source is here

Statistics compiled from Centre for Justice Statistics; FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Data, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Statistics Canada Homicide Survey; Research and Statistics Division Department of Justice (Kwing Hung) June 2001

[ 10-22-2002, 02:16 AM: Message edited by: Djinn Raffo ]

Ok. now the problem with this statement is that it is impossible to make.

You do not know the future. You cannot with any certainty predict anything. All you can deal with are facts that HAVE occurred.

1.People are being killed by guns.

2.When Australia introduced tough gun and knife laws, violent crime went down.

3.Australia has an exceptionally low crime rate.

These are facts. Australia and America share many things. Common heritage, similar language and cutlure, respect for "individualism", and independent, freedom loving folk.

Though the gun lobby in Australia was powerful, and even formed some political parties (The Shooters Party etc) unarmed citizens sick of gun related deaths won out in the end. It can be done.

But then, arms weren't enshrined in the constitution. Granted we didn't fight a civil war, or a war of revolution.

But then, how much is America going to be chained by the past? The attitude to guns was formed in the wake of the war against Britain. What are the odds of the British monarch taxing Americans without representation again? The threat is over. America is the Roman Republic (soon to be Empire if a policy of 'premeditative invasions' becomes commonplace... oops did I say that :D :D :D ) of the modern world.

My point being, ;) America is not in the same situation as it was when the constitution was drafted. Internally or externally, The threats are different. The problems different.

New problems require new solutions.

[ 10-22-2002, 02:35 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

A lot of opinions around here. Here's mine, The constitution was a foundating guild by witch we should always refer to for advice and sanctity. But, as the population keeps getting bigger by the DAY, so does the demoralization of humanity. We need to keep up with times and amend "amendments" as needed to control the chaotic actions of the bad population. Everyone has morals on a different level and we dont need to argue those, but I think most of us here have "basic" morals, and can understand what I'm saying. We can't take away guns from people, becouse we can't take away ALL the guns from ALL people. The bad will win this way. I'm not socialist, but am realistic, If were going to all live in a comfortable place with our freedom intact, then we need to come to reality and amend with coution, but definetly change some things that do not apply to this day and age. This is just my opinion.

You can. Australia did. Do you know how?

A buyback scheme.

People got paid to hand in their gun.

Then they were made illegal. You'd get fined or imprisoned if you had one. So there was an amnesty for a while where people who for whatever reason missed the buyback, could still hand in their gun.

So, be a realist. Don't suggest something CAN'T be done when it already has been, for all intents and purposes, successfully done. ;)

In 1999, there were 28,874 gun-related deaths in the United States.(Source: Hoyert DL, Arias E, Smith BL, Murphy SL, Kochanek, KD. Deaths: Final Data for 1999. National Vital Statistics Reports. 2001;49 (8).)

In 1999, 58% of all gun deaths were suicides, and 38% were homicides.(SOURCE: Hoyert DL, Arias E, Smith BL, Murphy SL, Kochanek, KD. Deaths: Final Data for 1999. National Vital Statistics Reports. 2001;49 (8).)

What do these figures tell you?

I have never been there, but from what I understand It Is much different than here, as far as culture and attitude towards there government. We did have a civil war here, witch put us against ourselfes. I think over time, that has created a sub culture of fanatics that will not sell of there guns or worry about imprisonment for owning one. I do stand corrected, It happened, but not here.

It was just my opinion, and you know what they say about opinions...

Yorrick, granted I havent read all of your posts. But I did scam over that last bit of your last post. You said 'New problems require new soulutions'. Thats not entirley true. Take the Bible for instance. No mater how far we progress in the furture (its my belief) the bible will always hold soulutions for new and old problems.

Not that I am compairing the US Constitution to the Bible or anything such as that, just some late night ramblings from me, feel free to ignore ;)