you know what would probably do the US the most good? If the republicans and democrats could show signs of cooperating with each other, show that they can be a functional government, restore some faith in the US government...

> xeno syndicated wrote:

> Why would police and other government officials complain about this.  What do they have to hide, I wonder?

i imagine most police officers didn't sign up for being constantly watched under video camera. To civilians it would be like all of a sudden living in England where they videotape you doing everything.

> Baratheon wrote:

> The law officials should be video-taping themselves while they are on official duties. The state takes it upon themselves to record civilians going about their day on non-official duties, therefore the responsibility to record state-paid officials should also rely on the state. I don't carry a camcorder handy all the time, so does this mean that I am exempt from this new provision?

the state policing the state, a brilliant idea!!!... don't even bother asking the police to videotape themselves, just tell them to turn themselves in if they do something wrong.

its not a question of which country is better, its a question of whether China's Economy will become the largest...

"Godel's incompleteness theorems prove" Godel's theorem is a theory! it isn't proven, so it can't prove other things.

> Godwin's Law wrote:

> > avogadro wrote:

> > [TI] Primo wrote:

> well, first step in the direction of gun control would be to just stop selling them. cutting supply will, in due time, cut the problem.

we stopped selling illegal drugs and they're still easily available to just about every american in highschool, why would stopping the sale of guns be any more effective?

As a good is banned from legal trade, its only two sources of illegal distribution are import and domestic production.  In terms of domestic production, it's generally much more difficult to produce a firearm than to produce drugs, as the very variety of available drugs means producers can adapt to find a product suiting their capabilities.  Firearms have a much more basic, rigid requirement structure.

In terms of imports, I'm willing to bet that domestic America is probably not the best trade route for arms dealers.  Individuals in the international firearms smuggling business have their choice of African warlords, terrorists, Central Asian and Eastern European powers, rogue states, and South American rebels, none of which have the strongest of border security to worry about, largely because domestic matters are more pressing in many regions.  What makes the US some awesome source of firearms smuggling post-ban?

Disclaimer: I'm not with the gun control advocates on this issue, necessarily.  Consider this a Devil's Advocate game. 

the cocaine and heroine that are primarily in the US is smuggled across the border and the US government has been unable to reduce their availability. 

as for the argument that firearm smugglers would overlook smuggling into the US because of a border protection that has proven ineffective at stopping drug trade; then i have to point out that the US is the third largest country by population and one of the wealthiest countries in the world with a border that is not effectively controlled; it would be extremely inviting to gun smugglers.

why don't we ban booze while we're at it? Alcohol is responsible for many deaths...

> [TI] Primo wrote:

> well, first step in the direction of gun control would be to just stop selling them. cutting supply will, in due time, cut the problem.

we stopped selling illegal drugs and they're still easily available to just about every american in highschool, why would stopping the sale of guns be any more effective?

> Orbit wrote:

> yeah but conscription isn't a career, it's more of a personal development thing.  If you want to be a soldier then you make that your career.  I think conscription teaches teenagers respect and well needed discipline.

i don't think its the state's place to raise parents' children for them.

i don't think my point was addressed. the logistics needed to enforce strict gun control is not feasible. Most americans are against the use of illegal drugs, yet most americans in highschool have easy access to them. If we can't keep there from being a steady supply of illegal drugs to virtually every highschool in america; something that every political party is against, and something that is consumer able, meaning it constantly needs to be replenished; if our prisons are filled to the brim and we have a higher percent of our population in jail then any other first world country, because of a failed attempt at limiting the availability of drugs; then what chance do we have against guns?

> Key wrote:

> So, you don't agree with laws, just shoot people.

Kittah doesn't think that's gonna work.  Because that means everyone will be shot sooner or later from here to eternity under the auspices that they were doing it because either god said so, or for "freedom."

Sorry, I'm one of those that believe in TOUGH gun control laws.

tough gun control laws just aren't feasible in the US; you would be disarming the people who have good intentions, and no one else. The US can't effectively limit access to illegal drugs, what makes you think they can effectively limit access to illegal guns? the US is an incredibly large and wealthy country, anything americans want, people will find ways to get to them.