You forget that corruption and other innefficiencies make the chinese army a lot weaker. They might have more men in uniforms (as they are problably inexpensive) but they wouldn't be able to deploy overseas like the US. Not even close. They still haven't managed to take Taiwan.
Even by halving the budget the US would stay ahead in the future. Also big parts of the budget are spent on wars such as Iraq and have nothing to do with having equipment that will last for the future.
Canada and Australia are large countries too with a lot less military spending than the US. It looks like the US doesn't have the scale economies we could expect. Slashing US military budget would be a good thing worldwide. It would only means less useless wars such as the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
And those $600 billions a year didn't stop Russia from taking parts of Ukraine. I doubt at this point that $100 billions is making any difference.
Nonsense. The US spends over $600 billions/year on military. China spends only 216 and Russia 84. The US could still have the most powerful military on earth while cutting the budget by half. France and the UK both have a great military with only 60 billions/year. Last I checked they weren't using slingshots.
It seems to be true for Guatemala, altough somewhat limited to your house only.
The right to own weapons for personal use, not forbidden by law, in the person's home, is recognized. It will not be obligatory to hand them over except in cases ordered by a competent judge. The right to bear arms, regulated by the law, is recognized.
As for Haiti, article 268.1 says the exact opposite, again with some limitations to your house:
Every citizen has the right to armed self defense, within the bounds of this domicile, but has no right to bear arms without express well-founded authorization from the Chief of Police.
In both cases it seems far from the absolute "right to bear arms" of the US constitution, but still, I agree we see US influence in these constitutions. Is there a single other developped, western country with "rights to bear arms" in the constitution?
At least you admit it's all about the feeling and design, and not the build quality itself. Some so-called "cheap plastic" phones can be as durable if not more. Plastic absorbs shocks better than metal and is lighter, therefore chances to survive a drop are higher.
I understand that some phones are made to appeal people who like design and fashion. However the problem these days is that all phones seems to be made for those people and there is nothing left for those of us who prefer function over form.
This statement, by itself (which is how I read it) implies that the fact that other countries don't have such a right means that there should not be such a right. Maybe you didn't actually mean that. If that is the case, then you could defend yourself by explaining that you didn't mean that.
I did just that in post #50310795. You see an implication where there isn't.
What keeps them (relatively) honest isn't the threat of being violently dispatched so much as it is the cost of a violent confrontation. Win or lose, dealing with an armed insurrection is expensive, not only financially but politically as well.
Facts are proving you wrong. Politicians in the US aren't any more honest than politicians in other western rich countries with strict gun control laws.
In the mean time (while we wait for an hypothetical insurrection of the people against a tyrannic government, which will probably fail anyways since the government has bigger guns and an organized army), gun ownership and gun culture makes the USA by far the developed country with the highest murder rate. Real problems happening right now.
You did exactly that with Colorado and Scotland. You picked one of the single example which could prove your point while any larger picture (such as comparing whole of US against whole UK) would have proven you wrong. That's the very definition of cherry picking.
You are failing to mention all the European countries which have high gun ownership rates (is it Switzerland where gun ownership is mandatory) yet murder rates don't track.
First, gun ownership isn't mandatory in Switzerland, you are just showing your ignorance on the subject. Second, not all guns are equal. Hunting long guns are not associated with murders as much as hand guns. That's the problem in the US. Third, you are again cherry picking as Switzerland is a very specific case in Europe. Even then, military guns usually stay at home there, uncharged. Last, even with so many guns in Switzerland, US is still king:
In 2005 almost 29% of households in Switzerland contained firearms of some kind, compared to almost 43% in the US
We clearly see that the US is first by a wide margin, especially if you compare to similrary-rich countries of western europe, east Asia, Canada and Australia.
In fact, if you pull apart the US murder rates, you find that the majority of them happen in a relatively few areas. Mostly areas with poverty issues, like the problems seen in Brazil. Places like Baltimore, Detroit, New Orleans.
You are proving your ignorance on an other subject. The poverty in the US doesn't compare at all with Brazil. And Maryland is the richest state in the US. Murder rate in the US is so high, that even a "safe" US city is extremely dangerous by rest-of-the-developped world standards. And that is even with the US being among the richest countries.
And you immediately throw out Brazil because "it's poor" when my entire argument is, poverty is a better indicator than anything else.
Of course poverty is the better indicator. But when you compare similarly rich countries, the single better indicator is the number of hand guns and the associated gun culture.
Yet places in Europe who don't have the same poverty issues that the US has who do allow guns, you won't consider.
Yes I do. Which one are you talking about?
Face it, you are completely uninformed on the topic, yet you insist on arguing when all you know is the CNN talking points.
Funny, I haven't watched CNN since... years, probably 9/11.
People tend to drive at a speed they're comfortable with anyways
Some people drive faster than that and kill innocents. I am not talking about going 10 km/h too fast.
Drunk driving I attribute to reckless endangerment, which is bad
Why? Some people will drive slowly just fine. Some other will kill only themselves and won't harm anyone else. Why remove this freedom? You are a statist.
Bringing a bomb on an airplane I think shouldn't be a crime (because I actually have no issues with people owning them in general), but against airline regulations to carry one aboard on your person, and willful violation of a contract should be a crime
Uh? Willful violation of a contract should be a crime? So you should go to jail if you don't pay your cell phone bill? Reselling your airline ticket is also a violation of the contract.
Violating the airline contract should never be a crime. It's a civil matter, not criminal.
That being said, why don't you want to change the constitution to add the right to carry a bomb on a plane? That would prevent those airplanes from limiting our freedom, isn't it?
Of course poorer countries such as Brazil tend to have more problems and violence. But when you compare Colorado to Scotland, it is you who are cherry picking data. If you look at the whole picture, and that is all developed countries (not only the 3 you named), there is a strong correlation between guns "freedom" and murders.
I know that it won't fit into your binary viewpoint, but they both still scores better than the USA according to Reporters Without Borders: https://index.rsf.org/
My viewpoint is always that only things that are already bad - in and of themselves - should be illegal. Rape? Already bad. Illegal. Murder? Same. Theft? Yep, that's bad, it should be illegal.
HOWEVER, simply owning a gun does not harm anyone. Even if you completely set the constitutional angle aside, guns are only "bad" to people worrying about ancillary crimes that they might "cause".
By this logic, we shouldn't outlaw speeding or drunk driving, only murder and damage to other's property. We also shouldn't outlaw bringing a bomb in an airplane, as there is already a law against murder.
Are you saying that all countries restricting guns (Canada, most/all of Europe, Japan, Australia) are tyrannic? Otherwise what tyranny is there to protect?
Slashdot Mirror
You forget that corruption and other innefficiencies make the chinese army a lot weaker.
They might have more men in uniforms (as they are problably inexpensive) but they wouldn't be able to deploy overseas like the US. Not even close.
They still haven't managed to take Taiwan.
Even by halving the budget the US would stay ahead in the future.
Also big parts of the budget are spent on wars such as Iraq and have nothing to do with having equipment that will last for the future.
Canada and Australia are large countries too with a lot less military spending than the US.
It looks like the US doesn't have the scale economies we could expect.
Slashing US military budget would be a good thing worldwide. It would only means less useless wars such as the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
And those $600 billions a year didn't stop Russia from taking parts of Ukraine. I doubt at this point that $100 billions is making any difference.
Nonsense. The US spends over $600 billions/year on military. China spends only 216 and Russia 84. The US could still have the most powerful military on earth while cutting the budget by half. France and the UK both have a great military with only 60 billions/year. Last I checked they weren't using slingshots.
It seems to be true for Guatemala, altough somewhat limited to your house only.
The right to own weapons for personal use, not forbidden by law, in the person's home, is recognized. It will not be obligatory to hand them over except in cases ordered by a competent judge.
The right to bear arms, regulated by the law, is recognized.
As for Haiti, article 268.1 says the exact opposite, again with some limitations to your house:
Every citizen has the right to armed self defense, within the bounds of this domicile, but has no right to bear arms without express well-founded authorization from the Chief of Police.
In both cases it seems far from the absolute "right to bear arms" of the US constitution, but still, I agree we see US influence in these constitutions.
Is there a single other developped, western country with "rights to bear arms" in the constitution?
I still don't think Moldova and the US are "plenty of countries".
But I looked at a translation of the constitution of Moldova and I can't find any reference to guns or arms: http://www.constcourt.md/publi...
Which article are you refering to exactly?
Yeah and the camera, GPS, speakers could be external too. The whole point of a smartphone is to have an integrated device.
At least you admit it's all about the feeling and design, and not the build quality itself.
Some so-called "cheap plastic" phones can be as durable if not more. Plastic absorbs shocks better than metal and is lighter, therefore chances to survive a drop are higher.
I understand that some phones are made to appeal people who like design and fashion. However the problem these days is that all phones seems to be made for those people and there is nothing left for those of us who prefer function over form.
Such as?
This statement, by itself (which is how I read it) implies that the fact that other countries don't have such a right means that there should not be such a right. Maybe you didn't actually mean that. If that is the case, then you could defend yourself by explaining that you didn't mean that.
I did just that in post #50310795.
You see an implication where there isn't.
What keeps them (relatively) honest isn't the threat of being violently dispatched so much as it is the cost of a violent confrontation. Win or lose, dealing with an armed insurrection is expensive, not only financially but politically as well.
Facts are proving you wrong.
Politicians in the US aren't any more honest than politicians in other western rich countries with strict gun control laws.
In the mean time (while we wait for an hypothetical insurrection of the people against a tyrannic government, which will probably fail anyways since the government has bigger guns and an organized army), gun ownership and gun culture makes the USA by far the developed country with the highest murder rate.
Real problems happening right now.
Why do you care so much about design? It's just a fucking phone.
You think it does. It doesn't mean it's effective.
*WOOSH*
No, I wasn't cherry picking data.
You did exactly that with Colorado and Scotland.
You picked one of the single example which could prove your point while any larger picture (such as comparing whole of US against whole UK) would have proven you wrong. That's the very definition of cherry picking.
You are failing to mention all the European countries which have high gun ownership rates (is it Switzerland where gun ownership is mandatory) yet murder rates don't track.
First, gun ownership isn't mandatory in Switzerland, you are just showing your ignorance on the subject.
Second, not all guns are equal. Hunting long guns are not associated with murders as much as hand guns. That's the problem in the US.
Third, you are again cherry picking as Switzerland is a very specific case in Europe. Even then, military guns usually stay at home there, uncharged.
Last, even with so many guns in Switzerland, US is still king:
In 2005 almost 29% of households in Switzerland contained firearms of some kind, compared to almost 43% in the US
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
You get similar values when comparing guns per capita:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
We clearly see that the US is first by a wide margin, especially if you compare to similrary-rich countries of western europe, east Asia, Canada and Australia.
In fact, if you pull apart the US murder rates, you find that the majority of them happen in a relatively few areas. Mostly areas with poverty issues, like the problems seen in Brazil. Places like Baltimore, Detroit, New Orleans.
You are proving your ignorance on an other subject. The poverty in the US doesn't compare at all with Brazil.
And Maryland is the richest state in the US.
Murder rate in the US is so high, that even a "safe" US city is extremely dangerous by rest-of-the-developped world standards. And that is even with the US being among the richest countries.
And you immediately throw out Brazil because "it's poor" when my entire argument is, poverty is a better indicator than anything else.
Of course poverty is the better indicator. But when you compare similarly rich countries, the single better indicator is the number of hand guns and the associated gun culture.
Yet places in Europe who don't have the same poverty issues that the US has who do allow guns, you won't consider.
Yes I do. Which one are you talking about?
Face it, you are completely uninformed on the topic, yet you insist on arguing when all you know is the CNN talking points.
Funny, I haven't watched CNN since... years, probably 9/11.
i've noticed out of the 3GB RAM on my Note 3 less than 1GB will be free most of the time
Which means your phone is wasting almost 1GB most of the time. RAM should never be free.
So I take it that you think that drunk driving should be legalized? Maybe protected as a right in the constitution too?
People tend to drive at a speed they're comfortable with anyways
Some people drive faster than that and kill innocents. I am not talking about going 10 km/h too fast.
Drunk driving I attribute to reckless endangerment, which is bad
Why? Some people will drive slowly just fine. Some other will kill only themselves and won't harm anyone else. Why remove this freedom? You are a statist.
Bringing a bomb on an airplane I think shouldn't be a crime (because I actually have no issues with people owning them in general), but against airline regulations to carry one aboard on your person, and willful violation of a contract should be a crime
Uh? Willful violation of a contract should be a crime? So you should go to jail if you don't pay your cell phone bill? Reselling your airline ticket is also a violation of the contract.
Violating the airline contract should never be a crime. It's a civil matter, not criminal.
That being said, why don't you want to change the constitution to add the right to carry a bomb on a plane? That would prevent those airplanes from limiting our freedom, isn't it?
While I think the constitution probably isn't the right place for cannabis law
But is it for a gun law?
Removing that right from the constitution doesn't mean banning all guns.
Of course poorer countries such as Brazil tend to have more problems and violence. But when you compare Colorado to Scotland, it is you who are cherry picking data. If you look at the whole picture, and that is all developed countries (not only the 3 you named), there is a strong correlation between guns "freedom" and murders.
In fact the US is by far the developed country with the highest murder rate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I know that it won't fit into your binary viewpoint, but they both still scores better than the USA according to Reporters Without Borders: https://index.rsf.org/
My viewpoint is always that only things that are already bad - in and of themselves - should be illegal. Rape? Already bad. Illegal. Murder? Same. Theft? Yep, that's bad, it should be illegal.
HOWEVER, simply owning a gun does not harm anyone. Even if you completely set the constitutional angle aside, guns are only "bad" to people worrying about ancillary crimes that they might "cause".
By this logic, we shouldn't outlaw speeding or drunk driving, only murder and damage to other's property.
We also shouldn't outlaw bringing a bomb in an airplane, as there is already a law against murder.
Your over-simplistic logic is ridiculous.
Are you saying that all countries restricting guns (Canada, most/all of Europe, Japan, Australia) are tyrannic? Otherwise what tyranny is there to protect?
Yes I did. I pointed the fact that I didn't use the fallacy you are accusing me of.