Sting2:
With all due respect, you're ignoring several of my observations, observations I've made several times.
1. The crime rate was significantly lower FIFTY YEARS AGO, not just 100 to 200 years ago, when things were "difficult to compare," when "most people had large rifles for hunting and certainly not concealed weapons for security."
(And it's funny, but I thought revolvers came into significant use around 1850, over 150 years ago. Silly me for trusting those damn documentaries about the American Civil War and the American West.)
2. I've said this at least twice in this thread alone, and it apparently bears repeating:
Washington, D.C. has some of the most restrictive gun laws and among the highest murder rates in the country.
If gun control's the answer, what's gone wrong in D.C.?
(Here's a hint: the answer is not to ignore the question and name other European cities you feel safe in.)
On to things you actually did address...
You really think that the education of people who commit crimes is so high that they know not to invade a home in the suburbs of Texas?
Yes, I do. You don't have to have a high school diploma to know that a LOT of Texans - and, frankly, Southerners in general - have guns, are more than willing to use them, and are quite open about the fact. (My neighbor in Alabama had a very straight-forward sign on his house; it said, "Forget the dog - beware of owner," with a picture of a very large handgun. I doubt very much that most criminals are so stupid as to ignore that notice.)
(In fact, I'm a bit perplexed about your notion of criminals. They're apparently smart enough to realize the element of surprise, but also too dumb to realize when a neighborhood is populated with gunracked pickup trucks and GUN NOTICES on houses. Are criminals morally bankrupt and a bit niave about permanently evading the law? Probably. Are they that fucking stupid? Not likely.)
We were unarmed, but the 3 individuals from the alley did not know that. That did not stop them from forcing us to pay for something we did not want. Say for a minute that we all had handguns. I ask you how that would have helped in that situation?
Certainly, they didn't precisely know you were unarmed, but they could guess. Most people in Pittsburgh don't have guns at all, much less carry them concealed (and if you want to debate this fact, go right ahead - with the full knowledge that I've lived in PGH for the last 10 months). If you and your friends were armed and the thugs discovered the fact, they probably would not attempt to threaten you. And if the VAST law-abiding population was armed, the thought might not have occured to the thugs in the first place.
All of this leads to two interesting observations, which I bring to together for juxtaposition:
Clearly if there are no or few firearms to commit crime with, the death from firearms is going to be very low. Why do you think foreign or US militaries when attempting to occupy and CONTROL a certain area disarm ANY possible combatents?!? Obviously to prevent the use of those firearms against its soldiers or others, and clearly its done because it makes the situation in the area of control a more secure one. So that clearly shows there is a connection between citizens owning firearms and possible deaths of others as a result.
There is a big difference between guns purpose in society and the purpose of automobiles. Most people need automobiles because public transit is limited in many parts of the country. Ones need to own a gun is questionable and certainly not neccessary for jobs and the smooth running of the economy. Transportation is clearly a neccessity, gun ownership is not. Since gun ownership is not a neccessity and is involved in well over 10,000 deaths when accidents and murders are combined, clearly banning them or vastily limiting their use should be considered.
As an aside, you say that auto ownership is a necessity. It is not. The reason that commuting is required is because it is possible. If cars became illegal tomorrow, the U.S. economy and infrastructure would eventually re-arrange itself.
But my point is this: you acknowledge that individual gun ownership deters tyrants, and yet you believe that "one's need to own a gun is questionable." Is it NOT possible that the Second Amendment is in place to PREVENT OPPRESSION FROM THE GOVERNMENT?
Many Second Amendment supporters - myself included - believe that the amendment has nothing to do with hunting and everything to do with self-defense: defense from other law-breaking citizens AND defense from a freedom-infringing government.
Why else do you think the American Revolution suceeded? That the Vietnamese gave the U.S. so much trouble? That the Afghans gave the U.S.S.R. so much trouble? I'll tell you the cause. THEY ALL HAD GUNS.
Why did Eastern Europe fall so quickly to the Soviets? Why was Tieneman Square a massacre? They didn't have guns.
That is why one's right to own a gun is not only acceptable, IT'S ESSENTIAL.
You say, "So that clearly shows there is a connection between citizens owning firearms and possible deaths of others as a result." To which I say, so what? We shouldn't ban something merely because of the "possible deaths" that could result (particularly if those deaths are of people who break into houses to do others harm). And I think "possible death" is the whole point: it is the threat of lethal force that will keep criminals and tyrants at bay.
To quote
George Orwell (emphasis mine):
It is a commonplace that the history of civilisation is largely the history of weapons. In particular, the connection between the discovery of gunpowder and the overthrow of feudalism by the bourgeoisie has been pointed out over and over again. And though I have no doubt exceptions can be brought forward, I think the following rule would be found generally true: that ages in which the dominant weapon is expensive or difficult to make will tend to be ages of despotism, whereas when the dominant weapon is cheap and simple, the common people have a chance. Thus, for example, tanks, battleships and bombing planes are inherently tyrannical weapons, while rifles, muskets, long-bows and hand-grenades are inherently democratic weapons. A complex weapon makes the strong stronger, while a simple weapon--so long as there is no answer to it--gives claws to the weak.
On to economics...
Still I'd be interested to know how much you would cut from the total collected taxes of 2 Trillion above for the budget last year, and what programs you would cut and by how much, plus how much in taxes do you think should go to paying of the 5.6 Trillion dollar national debt?
To be honest, I don't think any answer will do me any good. If I suggest cutting some program or other, you or others will scream about those who will be affected. It's the bind that we've allowed the federal government to get itself into: every program benefits so many special interest groups that it's almost impossible to cut programs even when necessary.
(Though it's worth noting: spending increases have generally been THREE TIMES the rate of inflation. Just curbing that rate of INCREASE to TWICE inflation is what brought about the budget surplus. As much as others called them "Draconian cuts," they were still ONLY decreases in the rate of increase, and they brought about budget surpluses.)
So, I might as well be hanged
for a sheep as a lamb. The
Gross Domestic Product for the United States (2000 estimate) was slightly less than $10 trillion.
That's right: 10,000,000,000,000.00
In Leviticus 27:30 and other verses, God demands 10% of what we earn. (I honestly believe that He wants us to give Him everything, to dedicate our entire lives to Him; but He seems to set ten percent as the minimum.) If God wants 10%, the government should expect no MORE than 10%. Ours is a federal system - with authority distributed to the national, state, and local levels - so that 10% should be distributed likewise. Since the national government has to worry about defense more than the more local governments, they should get the lion's share. I propose this system:
5% - national government
3% - state government
2% - local government (county and city)
-----
10% - total
(Certainly, if one of the governments wants to charge a LOWER rate, it should feel free to do so. But with the rare exception of war, economic disaster, or natural disaster, these governments should tax us no more than the amounts above.)
So, that means the national government should only tax its people 5% of the GDP, or about $0.5 trillion ($500 billion).
Its revenues were about $2 trillion, or FOUR TIMES the absolute maximum during times of peace and prosperity (as 2000 was, more or less). So, it should do some serious cutting.
($2 trillion. 20% of the GDP. TWICE of what God Himself demands of us. I would think the confiscatory nature of that level taxation should be obvious.)
I'm honestly not wise enough to suggest how these cuts should occur. I would think that those who have paid into a system like Social Security should not be cheated; pay off those you owe, but stop bringing more people into the system. Those programs that could just as easily be handled by the private sector should be eased into that area. And those who are beneficiaries of social programs (be it subsidies or welfare, personal or corporate) should have time to find other sources of income, but their days on the government dole should be numbered.
(Certainly, cutting welfare has the VERY rare exception of those who genuinely cannot provide for themselves. But even then, we should see how much can be provided on the local level and through private charities.)
And the national government should pay off its debts with the surplus it gets from spending cuts. My order would be this:
1. Bring spending to within 5% of the GDP.
2. Use the resulting tax surpluses to pay off the debt.
3. Once the debt is paid off, the rest of the surplus is returned to the taxpayer, and taxes lowered to ONLY what is needed to fund (1).
In terms of actual programs, I'm not entirely sure how'd I distribute that $500 billion (assuming we're using 2000 numbers). But here's one thought:
$250 billion for national defense.
$250 billion for everything else.
If there are any other questions, I'll answer them as soon as I can, but I'll soon be taking the weekend off, so please be patient.
