littlehulkster
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2007
- Messages
- 428
Our European friends seem to have a rather difficult time grasping the scale of America and how much our laws and customs vary from place to place.
Gun controll?
- Thread starter JonathanClement
- Start date
Our European friends seem to have a rather difficult time grasping the scale of America and how much our laws and customs vary from place to place.
Rolfe
Adult human female
No, merely misled it would seem. She implied that this was pretty much standard terms, and none of the other American friends in the group (all from different states) contradicted her.
As I said, I'll gladly learn better.
Rolfe.
Last edited:
Rolfe
Adult human female
I have to tell you that you're not doing so well on that one.
And you take one unfortunate experience and extrapolate it to a country of over 60 million people? Are you insane?
I'm sure you could. Part of our view of your situation is that you're almost certainly not really in the degree of danger you claim to be in, when justifying the gun fetish. Someone made a good post about that, a page or two back....
Rolfe.
Rolfe
Adult human female
Seriously, if that's your actual answer, evidence?
What great sewage treatment technology does the great USofA possess that is denied to us?
The septic tank?
Rolfe.
I was thinking more along the lines of civil disobedience and the like. Do you have anything against those? Does taking a stand for something imply the use of violence to you?
Haha, I'm sure you do.Rufo said:And if there is any reason to fear your government is going to become totalitarian and undemocratic, I really think there are more urgent things to take care of than getting a gun and learning to use it.
So I guess you're not one of those who are worried about fascists?
Actually, it isn't me that's worried about the government misusing it's powers to the detriment of the people. It was the people who wrote this country's Constitution that were.
Great whopping batches of it were specifically designed to limit future government's ability to do so, and that whole Second Amendment thing was sometimes referred to as, "the palladium of all other rights."
(I'm pretty sure that they meant palladium as the thing that defends, preserves and protects stuff rather than the somewhat newer movie-theatrical meaning, but I could be wrong.)
oh - and - I'm not worried about much of anyone.
I've got GUNS!
But please understand that I'm not talking specifically about the US. Changing laws without public support would be undemocratic indeed, and I believe in neither moral nor practical value of undemocratic action. What I'm talking about is if there is actually any reason to keep guns for this purpose - and in that I include in the US, today. The people who wrote the constitution were not perfect, and in a debate of what is practical and what is right their opinion counts no more than anyone else's.
As for my comment about being worried about fascists, it was directed at The Painter and his quote “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” The point was that this quote seems to share many of the views and values held by fascists concerning political power, so it was meant as a tounge-in-cheek comment on how he might get along well with them. Obviously, I don't really think he or anyone else involved in the debate sympathizes with fascism.
littlehulkster
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2007
- Messages
- 428
I think you seriously misjudge the reason the average American owns a gun. A few very loud people make the entire population of us look very bad.
No. I returned to London many times since and I have met with no similar problems. I'm sure London is as safe as any other city of that size. Keep in mind, however, that the UK does have a rather high violent crime rate (I do believe it's nearly as high if not even higher than ours.)
I have a gun fetish? I carry a firearm at work because I am mandated to do so (I am in Law Enforcement, BTW.) When I am off work, I do not carry a firearm because I see no need to. There were a whopping 7 murders in this state last year and 5 of them were committed on the reservations.
I do keep a shotgun in my bedroom, but it's because I must defend my sheep from wild dogs, not because I fear hoardes of rapists and robbers. Even ranchers in the UK keep a shotgun handy, do they not?
I fail to understand how this would constitute a "gun fetish"
Last edited:
JonathanClement
Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2008
- Messages
- 209
Okay, here you go. Watch at your own risk. I'm not responsible for any brain damage that may occur as a result:
www.zeitgeistmovie.com
Rolfe
Adult human female
That's an interesting statement. Coming from the loudest person I think I've encountered on the subject.
Rolfe.
littlehulkster
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2007
- Messages
- 428
www.ar15.com
Read those forums for a while and I will seem as gentle as a lamb.
There are seriously people in the US who honestly await the collapse of society so they can use their firearms to kill our more swarthy countrymen.
What exactly does that have to do with anything? My entire point here is that you are looking for correlations that no one has ever said should or would exist (such as introduction of tighter gun laws vs overall violent crime rate), and then claiming victory because no such correlation exists.
This isn't a 'blue cars versus cars' issue anymore than this is a 'blue guns versus guns' issue. If you banned cars completely, one would expect that the number of car accidents would drop, just as if one banned guns one would expect the number of gun crimes to drop. Of course, in neither the UK or Australia have guns (or cars) been banned - but tighter restrictions have led to lower incidences of gun crime. If you want to tie the tighter restrictions to anything else, it is not enough to demonstrate a correlation - one must demonstrate a reasonable case for causality as well. Otherwise, as I said, we might as well blame the gun laws for global warming.
Oh, not this nonsense again. You brought all this up in the last thread, and I linked you to a few studies that actually analysed these statistics - interestingly enough, they seemed to come to the opposite conclusion to you. I wonder if it's honestly worth my time posting them again so you can once again ignore them. Are you interested in actually looking at the studies this time, or would I be wasting my time posting them? You tell me, Gagglegnash, because I'm getting mighty sick of arguing with folk on the interwebs who ignore evidence that is contrary to their position.
The Painter
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2006
- Messages
- 2,654
Last edited by a moderator:
So, would you count lower standard of living among your many accomplishments, or are we supposed to pretend like no one ever raised that issue?
Gagglegnash
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2008
- Messages
- 1,445
Hi
Almost never do.
Nope.
Yup.
....
Way I figure it, the Brits did it because they wanted to. I'm good with that.
Now.
I wasn't before when I figured your government done you in, as it were, but talking here made me realize that there actually ARE people that will trade liberty and freedom for the promise of security. (One of our Old Fashioned Founding Fathers had a comment about THAT, too.)
I didn't understand that before. I always thought that, "traded his birthright for a mess of pottage," was just a story and that no one would actually do it, you know.
Me, I remember guys like your Sir Robert Peel saying all that silly old fashioned stuff about it being not just the citizen's right, but DUTY to defend himself, because the Nation is the People, and in defending yourself, you defend the Nation, and how the police are the people and the people are the police, and the guys in uniform being involved in it full time doesn't take any of the responsibility from the citizenry or abrogate their duty to the Nation.
I remember our old fashioned guys talking about how the militia is the people and the people are the militia, probably plagiarizing your Uncle Bob, but trying to remind all the citizens that, for a free state to survive, ALL the citizens have to be willing to stand up for what's right, no matter what the cost, so ALL the citizens are the militia.
I remember when someone promised his people that they would fight on the beaches, fight on the landing grounds, fight in the fields and in the streets, fight in the hills; and never surrender. I remember my father's neighbors talking of losing friends and loved ones to make those words come true.
I remember wearing red poppies to decorate the tightly packed memorial markers of men from my home town the end of every May. Tightly packed, because those men tried to preserve the birthright of liberty and freedom for people of countries none of them had ever seen, and their corpses lay, even yet, in those countries.
I remember having to read, "In Flanders Fields," by John McCrae out loud at school:
In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.
We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.
Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep,
though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.
I'm totally amazed at how old fashioned I was, thinking proudly that it was I who, in my time, would take up that torch.
I'm totally amazed at how old fashioned I am, insisting on getting involved when everyone around me wants to wait for, "the professionals," to come and deal with the woman bleeding on the floor or the guys starting a knife fight in the restaurant, sometimes to the point of waiting for OTHER PEOPLE to CALL the professionals, pausing only to take a picture or two with their cell phone.
To me, my birthright is worth dying for. It's worth killing for. It's worth standing up and holding all kinds of outmoded ideas like duty to myself, those around me, and the nation, and doing all kinds of old fashioned things like defending the freedoms and liberties of everyone, even the people I dislike, disagree with, or find inconvenient.
But, hey: It's your birthright and you can do whatever you want with it.
Almost never do.
Nope.
Yup.
....
Way I figure it, the Brits did it because they wanted to. I'm good with that.
Now.
I wasn't before when I figured your government done you in, as it were, but talking here made me realize that there actually ARE people that will trade liberty and freedom for the promise of security. (One of our Old Fashioned Founding Fathers had a comment about THAT, too.)
I didn't understand that before. I always thought that, "traded his birthright for a mess of pottage," was just a story and that no one would actually do it, you know.
Me, I remember guys like your Sir Robert Peel saying all that silly old fashioned stuff about it being not just the citizen's right, but DUTY to defend himself, because the Nation is the People, and in defending yourself, you defend the Nation, and how the police are the people and the people are the police, and the guys in uniform being involved in it full time doesn't take any of the responsibility from the citizenry or abrogate their duty to the Nation.
I remember our old fashioned guys talking about how the militia is the people and the people are the militia, probably plagiarizing your Uncle Bob, but trying to remind all the citizens that, for a free state to survive, ALL the citizens have to be willing to stand up for what's right, no matter what the cost, so ALL the citizens are the militia.
I remember when someone promised his people that they would fight on the beaches, fight on the landing grounds, fight in the fields and in the streets, fight in the hills; and never surrender. I remember my father's neighbors talking of losing friends and loved ones to make those words come true.
I remember wearing red poppies to decorate the tightly packed memorial markers of men from my home town the end of every May. Tightly packed, because those men tried to preserve the birthright of liberty and freedom for people of countries none of them had ever seen, and their corpses lay, even yet, in those countries.
I remember having to read, "In Flanders Fields," by John McCrae out loud at school:
In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.
We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.
Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep,
though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.
I'm totally amazed at how old fashioned I was, thinking proudly that it was I who, in my time, would take up that torch.
I'm totally amazed at how old fashioned I am, insisting on getting involved when everyone around me wants to wait for, "the professionals," to come and deal with the woman bleeding on the floor or the guys starting a knife fight in the restaurant, sometimes to the point of waiting for OTHER PEOPLE to CALL the professionals, pausing only to take a picture or two with their cell phone.
To me, my birthright is worth dying for. It's worth killing for. It's worth standing up and holding all kinds of outmoded ideas like duty to myself, those around me, and the nation, and doing all kinds of old fashioned things like defending the freedoms and liberties of everyone, even the people I dislike, disagree with, or find inconvenient.
But, hey: It's your birthright and you can do whatever you want with it.
Last edited:
Gagglegnash
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2008
- Messages
- 1,445
Then which crime statistics are affected? If gun violent crime goes down, but all others origins go up so that there is no change in the violent crime rate, or if gun homicide goes down, but all others go up so that there is no change in the homicide rate, what's the point, please?
...and I don't, "claim victory." I just try to do what atheists try to do when they're faced with woo: try to change ONE mind.
I just try to do it civilly.
No, If you banned cars completely, I would expect highway deaths and injuries to go down.
If I ban guns, I would expect violent injuries and homicides to go down.
They haven't!
Causality, like if guns are responsible for killing 10,000 people, and you get rid of a LOT of guns and pay $A500 million to do it, then the 10,000 people who would have been killed by the guns should still be alive? That kind of causality?
Show me the people still alive. Show me the slightest blip in the overall casualty and fatality rates after spending 500 million on a placebo!
I've never done it with Aussi data before. You must be thinking of someone else.
And these are the OFFICIAL AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT DATA, unstudied, uninterpreted, and untampered with. Are you implying that your own government is publishing incorrect data? If it is, where do your studies get their data?
You can spare me the spin. I get a mess of it over here.
Folks claim that if we ban guns, the homicide and suicide rates will plummet because people won't have access to firearms, because that's what happened in England. (Home office statistics showed no drop in himicide and their suicide rate went up.)
Folks claim that there were HUNDREDS fewer deaths and injuries after the assault weapons ban. They do, however, make sure that they say hundreds fewer deaths and injuries, "with these types of weapons," because there was no hundreds of deaths and injuries fewer in the statistics.
I get hammered with medical reports that say we're spending 100 billion a year on gun injuries, and if we ban guns, we'll have all that extra money, despite the fact that nearly all the injuries they cite are the result of criminal acts, and criminals won't give up their guns to a legal ban... BECAUSE THEY'RE CRIMINALS!
I get plenty of, "studies."
You want me to go for your point? Show me some statistics from your government, unspun and uninterpreted and unstudied, showing that destroying 500 million bucks worth of guns has saved you some lives, saved you some injuries, or cut down on the number of crimes associated with guns.
Ban cars. Fewer traffic injuries and fatalities, not just fewer CAR injuries and fatalities.
Ban guns. Fewer criminal injuries and homicides, not just fewer GUN criminal injuries and homicides.
Show me. Is that too much to ask?
I'm getting mighty sick of arguing with folk on the interwebs who ignore evidence that their own country's government shows to be contrary to their position, too.
JoeEllison
Cuddly Like a Koala Bear
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2007
- Messages
- 7,270
Do you really need it spelled out for you? If the gun violence goes down, and is replaced by "punch in the nose" violence, that counts as a pretty solid win.
Gagglegnash
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2008
- Messages
- 1,445
Hi
The Boston Massacre was a result of civil disobedience.
The potentialy jackassulating government gets the first shot. After that, things get sticky all over.
On the other hand, I'm all for bloodless revolutions. In fact, I'm expecting one in November.
That's one reason I kind of like our Constitution. It provides all these little ways to blow off steam and manage opposing points of view without getting stifling of any of them. It even provides a way for it to change itself.
The Mahatma let a pacifist revolt against England in India. Do you think that would have worked against a government that happily marched 10 million of its own citizens into ovens?
One reason it worked is because the British believe in fair play. If you're dealing with a government that's out of hand, and a military that's backing it up, armed revolution is the LAST thing you want to do!
...but it's definitely on the list.
As for that, "in a debate of what is practical and what is right their opinion counts no more than anyone else's," is why amendments to the Constitution have to be ratified by the states, so, yeah, they DO count for more than anyone else's once they're IN there. They count for The People as a whole.
Is it reasonable to have guns to remind the government to not get out of hand? Probably. If the government decides to go off the deep end, who's to stop them. A military will secure any damn kind of state. A FREE state has to be secured by EVERYONE. Once most people forget that, it's just bread and circuses.
Is it reasonable to have guns to defend the state? Probably. Hunters go out and help police hunt for fugitives and people lost in dangerous areas. A lot of cities have what amount to volunteer police forces. A lot of Americans feel very strongly about their duty to the governments of their state and nation.
Some people just like having guns.
"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun," I believe was said my Mao Zedong, who was about as far from a fascist as you can possibly get.
....
Sympathize with fascists? Didn't we settle that back in the '40s??
The Boston Massacre was a result of civil disobedience.
The potentialy jackassulating government gets the first shot. After that, things get sticky all over.
On the other hand, I'm all for bloodless revolutions. In fact, I'm expecting one in November.
That's one reason I kind of like our Constitution. It provides all these little ways to blow off steam and manage opposing points of view without getting stifling of any of them. It even provides a way for it to change itself.
The Mahatma let a pacifist revolt against England in India. Do you think that would have worked against a government that happily marched 10 million of its own citizens into ovens?
One reason it worked is because the British believe in fair play. If you're dealing with a government that's out of hand, and a military that's backing it up, armed revolution is the LAST thing you want to do!
...but it's definitely on the list.
Haha, I'm sure you do.
But please understand that I'm not talking specifically about the US. Changing laws without public support would be undemocratic indeed, and I believe in neither moral nor practical value of undemocratic action. What I'm talking about is if there is actually any reason to keep guns for this purpose - and in that I include in the US, today. The people who wrote the constitution were not perfect, and in a debate of what is practical and what is right their opinion counts no more than anyone else's.
As for that, "in a debate of what is practical and what is right their opinion counts no more than anyone else's," is why amendments to the Constitution have to be ratified by the states, so, yeah, they DO count for more than anyone else's once they're IN there. They count for The People as a whole.
Is it reasonable to have guns to remind the government to not get out of hand? Probably. If the government decides to go off the deep end, who's to stop them. A military will secure any damn kind of state. A FREE state has to be secured by EVERYONE. Once most people forget that, it's just bread and circuses.
Is it reasonable to have guns to defend the state? Probably. Hunters go out and help police hunt for fugitives and people lost in dangerous areas. A lot of cities have what amount to volunteer police forces. A lot of Americans feel very strongly about their duty to the governments of their state and nation.
Some people just like having guns. "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun," I believe was said my Mao Zedong, who was about as far from a fascist as you can possibly get.
....
Sympathize with fascists? Didn't we settle that back in the '40s??
Gagglegnash
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2008
- Messages
- 1,445
Hi
...so it shouldn't be hard to show me a lowering of the homicide rate, because surely not all of the fatal gun violence was replaced by fatal punches in the nose, right?
I will, however, start looking for injury rates. Thanks for the nudge in a productive direction.
...so it shouldn't be hard to show me a lowering of the homicide rate, because surely not all of the fatal gun violence was replaced by fatal punches in the nose, right?
I will, however, start looking for injury rates. Thanks for the nudge in a productive direction.
Gagglegnash
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2008
- Messages
- 1,445
Hi
There was nothing like getting up on a beautiful spring morning and hear the skinheads that used to live next door talking about, "The Great Day of the Rope," at the top of their lungs, then go downtown for breakfast only to run into the big KKK rally going on.
There was nothing like getting up on a beautiful spring morning and hear the skinheads that used to live next door talking about, "The Great Day of the Rope," at the top of their lungs, then go downtown for breakfast only to run into the big KKK rally going on.