Abortion is nothing but New World Order propaganda.

[General Septem]

Well think about it. By allowing abortion, the government is saying that since a fetus is dependent on his or her mother, that she has a right to kill him or her.

But by saying this, they're also subliminally saying that if you are dependent on someone else, they have a right to kill you.

Are we dependent on the government? Well they seem to act as though we are. Think about it, everything we're giving up in the name of personal protection. People are more heavily relying on the police to mediate in every little dispute that goes on, and even to the point that people can get in trouble for NOT calling the police.

With guns being more and more heavily regulated, and kids being taught that guns are bad, people are less able to protect themselves in the event of a break-in, instead having to rely on the police. Proponents of this movement state "that's what the police are there for". But what about the cases in which the police are not needed?

As the police and the government are more and more heavily relied upon, people start to feel more and more depdndent on the government for their own protection. As attacks upon our protection occur, people are more ready to give up freedoms they once had, in favor of their protection. Freedoms such as being able to live somewhat anonymously.

And now we have abortion, which tells people that when you're dependent on someone, they become higher than you. If the government doesn't want certain people in their country, they can just kill them.

[England Expects]

So you think there should be no abortion, but we should all be permitted to carry firearms?

By permitting abortion, your Government is stamping out illegal, dangerous, back-street abortions.

I assume you disagree with abortion for some religious reason, but our governments shouldn't legislate on such terms.

I see no reason why abortion should not be a choice open to women. Especially in the early stages of pregnancy but there should be a greater emphasis placed on educating people about contraception too.

[General Septem]

So you think there should be no abortion, but we should all be permitted to carry firearms?

By permitting abortion, your Government is stamping out illegal, dangerous, back-street abortions.

I assume you disagree with abortion for some religious reason, but our governments shouldn't legislate on such terms.

I see no reason why abortion should not be a choice open to women. Especially in the early stages of pregnancy but there should be a greater emphasis placed on educating people about contraception too.

Abortion is the killing of millions of human beings. That's not a choice anyone should have.

[England Expects]

Then why do you want a gun?

[General Septem]

Then why do you want a gun?

For protection. More guns, less crime. Allowing guns and allowing murder are not the same thing.

[England Expects]

More guns, less crime?

Are you insane?

Do you not understand that in places where guns are allowed, the people who are breaking into your house will be carrying one!

I'd like to see the statistics for fire-arms homicides in the US compared to the UK/Europe. I suspect you'll find that where they are permitted there is MORE crime.

As for abortion, I dont see how terminating a pregnancy is "killing" a human being. An organism with no senses, awareness or thought process isn't necessarily "alive".

Its not black and white and you over-simplify things to create some sort of moral panic.

[General Septem]

More guns, less crime?

Are you insane?

Do you not understand that in places where guns are allowed, the people who are breaking into your house will be carrying one!

Are you insane? Don't you understand that the people who are already breaking the law will have no qualms about breaking another law by carrying guns? Don't you understand that it's only the law-abiding citizens - the ones who need the protection - that won't be carrying guns?

[England Expects]

Just done a bit of digging.

Gun Deaths - International Comparisons

Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):

Homicide Suicide Unintentional

USA 4.08 (1999) 6.08 (1999) 0.42 (1999)

Canada 0.54 (1999) 2.65 (1997) 0.15 (1997)

Switzerland 0.50 (1999) 5.78 (1998) -

Scotland 0.12 (1999) 0.27 (1999) -

England/Wales 0.12 (1999/00) 0.22 (1999) 0.01 (1999)

Japan 0.04* (1998) 0.04 (1995) <0.01 (199

[General Septem]

Just done a bit of digging.

Gun Deaths - International Comparisons

Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):

Homicide Suicide Unintentional

USA 4.08 (1999) 6.08 (1999) 0.42 (1999)

Canada 0.54 (1999) 2.65 (1997) 0.15 (1997)

Switzerland 0.50 (1999) 5.78 (1998) -

Scotland 0.12 (1999) 0.27 (1999) -

England/Wales 0.12 (1999/00) 0.22 (1999) 0.01 (1999)

Japan 0.04* (1998) 0.04 (1995) <0.01 (199


And where does self-defense come into play in all of this? What about knife deaths?

[England Expects]

Why would that be relevent?

[General Septem]

Why would that be relevent?

Let's say 20 murders are committed in England, but only three by gun. In America, only 10 murders were committed, but eight by gun. Three gun deaths in England, eight in America, but twice as many murders occured in England.

Let's say the other ten that didn't occur in America were a result of the would-be murderer being afraid of the opposition having a gun, or because the would-be murderee was able to defend himself.

I don't have sources for these statistics, they are just a supposition, which is why I am asking what the figures are for murders by weapons other than guns.

[England Expects]

You may have to be patient with that one. I will find out though.

[England Expects]

In 2004/05 according the the official British Crime survey there were 839 instances of homicide in the UK. 29% involved knives or sharpe implements. 9.4% involved firearms.

In a population of 60 million that's 1.398 homicides per 100,000.

In 2000 the homicide rate in the US DROPPED to 7 (approx) per 100,000

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/hmrt.htm

So you're 6 times more likely to be murdered in the US than in the UK.

I guess we need to be more like you!!

[General Septem]

In 2004/05 according the the official British Crime survey there were 839 instances of homicide in the UK. 29% involved knives or sharpe implements. 9.4% involved firearms.

In a population of 60 million that's 1.398 homicides per 100,000.

In 2000 the homicide rate in the US DROPPED to 7 (approx) per 100,000

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/hmrt.htm

So you're 6 times more likely to be murdered in the US than in the UK.

I guess we need to be more like you!!

And can you prove the UK's lower rate of homicide is related to the abscence of guns? What's the average stress level of a citizen of the UK compared to a US citizen?

[England Expects]

If there was a way to measure it, I'm sure it would show that the stress level of a Brit is probably much lower than an American.

Possibly due to the fact the we dont have to worry so much that all our villains are armed and we dont have the fear of being shot when we step out of our front doors.

Since 1997 handguns have been banned in the UK (after the Dunblane massacre). If you're caught in possesion of a fire-arm there is a minimum mandatory 5 year custodial sentence.

Our murder rate is 6 times lower per head of the population than in the US. I think its fair to say that the right to bear arms in no way deters criminals and neither does the death sentence.

[General Septem]

If there was a way to measure it, I'm sure it would show that the stress level of a Brit is probably much lower than an American.

Possibly due to the fact the we dont have to worry so much that all our villains are armed and we dont have the fear of being shot when we step out of our front doors.

Since 1997 handguns have been banned in the UK (after the Dunblane massacre). If you're caught in possesion of a fire-arm there is a minimum mandatory 5 year custodial sentence.

Our murder rate is 6 times lower per head of the population than in the US. I think its fair to say that the right to bear arms in no way deters criminals and neither does the death sentence.

What was the murder rate like before guns were banned?

See we're pretty high stress here, but it has nothing to do with guns. In fact New York City is a very high stress area and guns are all but banned there.

Because it's such a big country, we have to deal with more people, and there's more of a chance of getting pissed at someone and blowing their brains out. Plus we work more than any other country. In Italy they all take naps in the afternoon.

You can't really compare a country with guns and a country without guns. But we can compare the same country. So how did the banning of guns affect the murder rate?

[England Expects]

Having checked the stats, I'm surprised its actually made very little real difference.

But.

Even before the ban, it was illegal to carry a gun, and it was illegal to use one, even in your own home against an intruder. You couldn't just walk into a store and buy a gun. The only reason for owning a gun was for sport and every weapon/owner had to be licensed. The ban was brought in by the newly elected Blair government after Dunblane, where a nutcase marched into a nursery school (I think you call the kindergarten) and shot a load of kids.

"Because it's such a big country, we have to deal with more people, and there's more of a chance of getting pissed at someone and blowing their brains out. Plus we work more than any other country. In Italy they all take naps in the afternoon."

I dont accept that.

Per killometer in Britain, we have 250 people
In the US you have 32.

These are stats from the CIA website

The Italians do take naps in the afternoon, as do Spain and other southern European countries. In France they're capped to a 35 hour working week.

Neither of these apply to the UK.

[General Septem]

Having checked the stats, I'm surprised its actually made very little real difference.

But.

Even before the ban, it was illegal to carry a gun, and it was illegal to use one, even in your own home against an intruder. You couldn't just walk into a store and buy a gun. The only reason for owning a gun was for sport and every weapon/owner had to be licensed. The ban was brought in by the newly elected Blair government after Dunblane, where a nutcase marched into a nursery school (I think you call the kindergarten) and shot a load of kids.

"Because it's such a big country, we have to deal with more people, and there's more of a chance of getting pissed at someone and blowing their brains out. Plus we work more than any other country. In Italy they all take naps in the afternoon."

I dont accept that.

Per killometer in Britain, we have 250 people
In the US you have 32.

These are stats from the CIA website

The Italians do take naps in the afternoon, as do Spain and other southern European countries. In France they're capped to a 35 hour working week.

Neither of these apply to the UK.

Well all I'm saying is that it's illogical to assume that the ownership of a weapon would make someone more likely to commit a murder. Nobody ever says "I have a gun, I think I'll kill someone with it," they say "I want to kill that bastard. I can't get my hands on a gun, what else can I find?"

[England Expects]

The only reason anyone carries a gun is to inflict physical harm on another. That is why they are built and that is why they are carried.

The stats are clear though.

The US is the only western nation where you have a constitutional right to bear arms, and it has at least a 5 times higher murder rate than anywhere else in the west.

The right to bear arms propagates your violent society.

If Hillary Clinton got elected and banned all hand-guns, you would be a step closer to being safe.

[General Septem]

The only reason anyone carries a gun is to inflict physical harm on another. That is why they are built and that is why they are carried.

The stats are clear though.

The US is the only western nation where you have a constitutional right to bear arms, and it has at least a 5 times higher murder rate than anywhere else in the west.

The right to bear arms propagates your violent society.

If Hillary Clinton got elected and banned all hand-guns, you would be a step closer to being safe.

Well like I said, guns are all but banned in NYC and I certainly wouldn't feel safe there.

Saying guns are responsible for killing people is like blaming the spoon for Rosie O'Donnel being fat.

[England Expects]

Who?

Aparently NYC has its lowest crime rate for years


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1881122.stm

[General Septem]

Who?

Aparently NYC has its lowest crime rate for years


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1881122.stm

I wonder if it has anything to do with there being a cop up everyone's ass.

[freakazoid]

Just done a bit of digging.

Gun Deaths - International Comparisons

Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):

Homicide Suicide Unintentional

USA 4.08 (1999) 6.08 (1999) 0.42 (1999)

Canada 0.54 (1999) 2.65 (1997) 0.15 (1997)

Switzerland 0.50 (1999) 5.78 (1998) -

Scotland 0.12 (1999) 0.27 (1999) -

England/Wales 0.12 (1999/00) 0.22 (1999) 0.01 (1999)

Japan 0.04* (1998) 0.04 (1995) <0.01 (199

Yes, but you leave out (conveniently, I might add) the total homicide deaths by other means in those countries. http://forum.bullshit.com/images/icons/icon13.gif If people do not have guns to kill others with, are you naive enough to believe that they can't find other ways to do so? Ever hear of a knife? So, I ask, what is your point? Without guns you are safer?

[England Expects]

Freakazoid, have a read through the thread again. I'm not trying to conceal anything with the statistics.

I'll repeat myself.

In 2004/05 according the the official British Crime survey there were 839 instances of homicide in the UK. 29% involved knives or sharpe implements. 9.4% involved firearms.

In a population of 60 million that's 1.398 homicides per 100,000.

In 2000 the homicide rate in the US DROPPED to 7 (approx) per 100,000

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/hmrt.htm

So you're 6 times more likely to be murdered, by whatever method, in the US than in the UK.

[youngmarine]

The right to own guns is not only about preventing crime, but protecting the general populace. Lets just say the UK was invaded and the military was overrun?? how would you defend yourself?? You would not be able to form any type of formidable defense against your attackers if nobody has guns. You would be overrun completely--and there wouldn't be any way to avoid it or fight. Of course that is just an extreme "what if scenario." Another one -- what if your prime minister gets a wild hair one day and decides he wants to take over the world.... he must declare martial law and transform the UK into a communist state held together with scare tactics and fear. How are you going to defend against that? If he new that 50-60% of the population owned guns, regardless of any military training or organization, he would still have to think long and hard about pulling shit like that. Guerrilla warfare is long, bloody, and hard. Just look what us Yanks did to King George back in 1776. Of course we did have a solid group of military veterans (french and Indian war, etc), but without the civilian militia we would not have won that war. Examples of successful armed citizenries are all over history: occupied France during WWII, Bolshevik revolution in Russia, French revolution, Vietnam (French occupation, and American), Iraq. If you look back to Greek and Roman history most citizens were a part of the military. In the case of Sparta you were not a citizen if you were not a warrior, there was no other occupation for a spartan male.

We can argue all day about crime rates and such, but root reason for an armed citizenry will always be protection from a dictatorship or communism or despotism or fascism or whatever else.

I would personally much rather rely upon my own personal firearm to defend myself from crime (murder, rape, robbery, etc.) than rely on the statistics that say I may or may not be a victim of the numbers. As has been mentioned before... regardless of the weapon man will always kill, lie, cheat, steal, hurt. You can kill someone with a damn pencil if you wanted to! The day that America bans firearms I will be leaving.

[yea_thats_right1]

guns dont kill people......... husbands who come home early do... lol

[England Expects]

Thats a huge "what if" youngmarine.

Just who is going to try and conquer the US?

You already have a lunatic despot trying to take over the world in the Whitehouse. Where's the armed citizenry to overthrow him?

We have the United Nations to protect the world from Dictators and Imperialists.

If you left the US, where would you go? Maybe you could go live somewhere like Iraq, just so you could keep a gun?

[General Septem]

You already have a lunatic despot trying to take over the world in the Whitehouse. Where's the armed citizenry to overthrow him?

Brainwashed. If anyone did try and kill him and the entire Bush administration, he'd be branded as a radical terrorist.


We have the United Nations to protect the world from Dictators and Imperialists.

That's naive of you.

[England Expects]

Maybe. I dont share your hostility toward the UN.

We dont need the citizens to be armed to prevent our leaders from becoming dictators. We have a ballot box for that.

If anything, armed citizens are a threat to the democratic process. We can see in Iraq that where people are armed there is potential for civil war.

[General Septem]

Maybe. I dont share your hostility toward the UN.

I don't share your blind faith in large governments. Remember the Roman Empire?


We dont need the citizens to be armed to prevent our leaders from becoming dictators. We have a ballot box for that.

Votes can easily be rigged. The voting system does not elect the best candidate for office, but the best bullshitter.


If anything, armed citizens are a threat to the democratic process. We can see in Iraq that where people are armed there is potential for civil war.

It can also lead to the American Revolutionary War. If the colonists had not been armed, America would still be a British colony, subject to paying the taxes of a faraway government to which they share almost no other ties.

[England Expects]

So basically General

You have no faith in the democratic process, government doesnt work and we need a civilian millitia to keep the people in power?

Maybe you should go an live in Iraq, where you can get the anarchy and civil war that you crave.

[youngmarine]

It is not that I, or The General, have no faith in government... but... men are corrupt and government is made up of men. I am saying that an armed citizen keeps the governemt "in check." There is only so much constitutions, laws, papers, and other documents can do to keep the government in line. By design, governments work well, but leave it to some person or elite group trying to gain power, money, or whatever to ruin it for everyone (Marie Antionett, Saddam, Mussolini, Louis XIV), . It is in these extreme (very rare) cases that it rests upon the shoulders of the masses the responsibility to take action (for example the American Revolution). It is (citizen uprising) the VERY LAST resort (after democratic process has run its course and all other options exhausted) against government corruption or transition, but it is by design that americans have this right to keep arms. It is there so that the government does not mutate unchecked and unhindered into the English throne of the late 1700's or something worse. We can have all the good will and faith toward our current system (it has worked for the last 200 years), but all men do not operate for the "good of mankind or America" some bastard will ruin it.

And Iraq is so bad because you have multiple groups fighting for power in a power vacuum. All groups are fighting for what they believe. If you were in their position (shiites, shuni's, whatevers) would you rather have the opportunity to fight for what you believe in or just go with the flow??? you cant tell me that you would just go along with whatever happened, especially if you disagreed with it. On top of all the other crap going on over there, there is a raging religious struggle as well. I personally would rather put myself at risk fighting for what I believe in than be safe in a world where I am a slave to other mens beliefs and ideals which have been forced upon me.

[General Septem]

You have no faith in the democratic process, government doesnt work and we need a civilian millitia to keep the people in power?

That's pretty much the size of it, yes.

So basically, you don't believe someone in a position of power will ever abuse that power?

It's not a question of if a new empire will arise, the question is when. It's something that has happened many times in history and will happen many more times.

I wonder if we'll ever get it right.

[who897]

We got it right right now. Some brilliant men came up with this thing called the Constitution. It isn't a fixed rule, it is a flexible guideline due interpertation, that can be utilized for vast amounts of time to come. This is the single most important development to our civilaiztion since inception, because we aren't limited to one person's set of rules. Our forefathers had enough insight to know that to have a chance our Constitution needed a great deal of flexibility, this is it's greatest strenght. As for other countries I do not believe they allow for this. Nothing is up for interpetation, it is what it is, and there is nothing you can do about it.

BTW France Sux

[England Expects]

There's nothing wrong with France, other than the fact that the French live there!

Every county in Europe has its own constitution 2 parliamentary institutions and a judiciary to interpret it. There's also a European Constitution currently being negotiated.

General, I'm sure there will always be people in power who look to abuse it, but in the west, no single man has enough power to threaten democracy. Over here Blair (and soon Brown) are answerable to The Houses of Commons and Lords, in the same way Bush can do little without the house of representatives and the senate.

With global communication, the internet and 24hour news channels it is much more difficult to abuse a position of power than it has ever been. You keep applying your mistrust in authority in terms of Nazi Germany or even Roman times but its completely out of context in the modern world. Now more than ever in history, our leaders are answerable to the electorate.

As for a new empire rising, it already has! The American empire has existed since WWII. Its not an empire in the traditional sense, but a financial empire, and it will soon be under threat from China.

[Ausinus]

In regards to the original topic, when they say that the foetus is dependent on the mother, they mean more as a bodily extension much like an arm. (At leasts thats what i got from the legal transcripts)

And no, It is not New World Order Crap. If it is passed then it will herald a new age of civil liberties and medical advancement for the west. Think of how much stem cell research could be done with the foetuses! It could save hundreds of lives!

[England Expects]

Not hundreds Ausinus, MILLIONS!

[Ausinus]

Ah a fellow stem cell supporter! Good on you mate!:)

[England Expects]

Stem cell research has the green-light over here.

The American neo-con religious right can object to it all they like it will still happen, but I'll bet they wont be turning down the treatment when it can save their lives!!!

[General Septem]

In regards to the original topic, when they say that the foetus is dependent on the mother, they mean more as a bodily extension much like an arm. (At leasts thats what i got from the legal transcripts)

Yeah, well, anyone who thinks a fetus is no different than an arm is a moron who doesn't know any facts about pregnancy. And the subliminal message is still there.


And no, It is not New World Order Crap. If it is passed then it will herald a new age of civil liberties and medical advancement for the west.

Where people can be theraputically murdered.


Think of how much stem cell research could be done with the foetuses! It could save hundreds of lives!

Except embryonic stem cells come from embryos, not aborted fetuses. That aside, it's funny how I've yet to see any of the results of embryonic stem cell research. Adult stem cell research has led to some interesting finds, though; almost as interesting as the fact that nobody knows adult stem cells have led to any kind of helpful research. Don't you realize? You're a pawn of the media. Calling you little puppies wagging your tails would be giving you too much credit; you're the tail that gets wagged.

[General Septem]

I'll bet they wont be turning down the treatment when it can save their lives!!!

Hell no. Someone tries to inject me with that shit and I'll break their fucking wrist.

[Ausinus]

Adult stem cell research has led to some interesting finds, though; almost as interesting as the fact that nobody knows adult stem cells have led to any kind of helpful research.

Adult stem cells dont have the same generative properies as Embryonic stems cells, its just the conservative right wing dun allow embryonic stem cell research

What really pisses me off is all this bull about saving "potential" lives. It is because we, as a race, are far too focused on the future rather than here and now. I would rather help the people who are already alive than to waste time with things that have the 'potential' to be alive.

[General Septem]

Adult stem cells dont have the same generative properies as Embryonic stems cells, its just the conservative right wing dun allow embryonic stem cell research

Nevertheless, the results are clear, and adult stem cells have proven to be useful. Embryonic stem cells on the other hand are not proven to be of any use to anyone.


What really pisses me off is all this bull about saving "potential" lives. It is because we, as a race, are far too focused on the future rather than here and now. I would rather help the people who are already alive than to waste time with things that have the 'potential' to be alive.

The thing is, these fetuses that are being killed are already living human beings, not potential human beings. Any scientist will tell you the same.

[yea_thats_right1]

Nevertheless, the results are clear, and adult stem cells have proven to be useful. Embryonic stem cells on the other hand are not proven to be of any use to anyone.



The thing is, these fetuses that are being killed are already living human beings, not potential human beings. Any scientist will tell you the same.


ok well then how come we cant add on the 9 months to how long we've been alive?:)

[General Septem]

ok well then how come we cant add on the 9 months to how long we've been alive?:)

Haha, because unlike birth nobody really knows the exact day when they were conceived, and also because it wouldn't be a birthday anymore. ;)

Birthdays are just anniversaries of our birth, not necessarily how long we've been alive. They're used as benchmarks because it marks how long we've lived in the world outside the womb, learning and gaining experience and wisdom. If someone says they're 16, you know they've had 16 years in this world to learn how it all works. The first nine months may not matter in terms of experience, but we are still very much alive during that time.

[yea_thats_right1]

just thought id ask lol.... but wouldnt it make it more real to the rest of civilization if we started counting that way? seriously... if you tell a woman who is finding out how far along she is and you say... your son is now 12 weeks old.... would that make the fetus seem more real? especially to a mother who wants to have an abortion? It may take awhile but the world could catch on to that!

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

The world could catch on, but I don't foresee it happening for a VERY long time. The conventional way has probably been in place for longer than our history records, and I know I personally would never quite be able to fully convert to the new system.

[General Septem]

just thought id ask lol.... but wouldnt it make it more real to the rest of civilization if we started counting that way? seriously... if you tell a woman who is finding out how far along she is and you say... your son is now 12 weeks old.... would that make the fetus seem more real? especially to a mother who wants to have an abortion? It may take awhile but the world could catch on to that!

Haha, well I guess they could, and it would definitely make the fetus more real, but there's still the matter of not knowing the exact date of fertilisation. Once they can do that then it's possible. Of course for years I'd always use that as an excuse to lie about my age and say I was a year older. :D