The Second Amendment and the "Right" to Bear Arms

[3point14]

Americans need STRONG LEADERS to make HARD DECISIONS to save them from themselves!

Of course, maybe it's the fact that Americans have a strong distrust of government ingrained into them ever since the Vietnam War, and reinforced by the War on Terror and the recent NSA revelations?

Er, how many elections have the US peoples voted for people they don't trust since then? I would like to live in a world where the statement you have made above is ludicrous. Unfortunately, I don't think it is.

I leave it to Mr Adams to make the point for me...

“On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people.”

“Odd,” said Arthur, “I thought you said it was a democracy.”

“I did,” said Ford. “It is.”

“So,” said Arthur, hoping he wasn’t sounding ridiculously obtuse, “why don’t the people get rid of the lizards?”

“It honestly doesn’t occur to them,” said Ford. “They’ve all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they’ve voted in more or less approximates to the government they want.”

“You mean they actually vote for the lizards?”

“Oh yes,” said Ford with a shrug, “of course.”

“But,” said Arthur, going for the big one again, “why?”

“Because if they didn’t vote for a lizard,” said Ford, “the wrong lizard might get in.”

 

[NWO Sentryman]

Er, how many elections have the US peoples voted for people they don't trust since then? I would like to live in a world where the statement you have made above is ludicrous. Unfortunately, I don't think it is.

I leave it to Mr Adams to make the point for me...

US voter turnout isquote low, largely due to the choices being Douche and Turd.

 

[gumboot]

Do you have a link for that ?

The first 2/3 of this book is probably the best place to start. It explains the mechanisms fairly clearly, and thoroughly explores the numerous studies and historical records that constitute evidence of the mechanisms.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

Ah yes, Dave "Doom caused Columbine" Grossman, whose evidence (SLA marshall) has long since been discredited.

 

[gumboot]

Ah yes, Dave "Doom caused Columbine" Grossman, whose evidence (SLA marshall) has long since been discredited.

I take it you haven't actually read the book?

 

[NWO Sentryman]

I take it you haven't actually read the book?

He's the guy that called computer games "murder simulators". If that were the case, I'd be guilty of Genocide multiple times over for Dungeon Keeper alone.

 

[gumboot]

He's the guy that called computer games "murder simulators". If that were the case, I'd be guilty of Genocide multiple times over for Dungeon Keeper alone.

I take it that's a no?

(By continuing to assert things about a book you obviously haven't read, you make yourself look a bit silly)

 

[NWO Sentryman]

I take it that's a no?

(By continuing to assert things about a book you obviously haven't read, you make yourself look a bit silly)

Do I need to read David Icke's books to know he's FOS?

 

[Belz...]

He's the guy that called computer games "murder simulators".

Assuming that's true, that's ridiculous. Video games use mouse and keyboard. Not exactly good simulators of guns.

 

[gumboot]

Do I need to read David Icke's books to know he's FOS?

You've made four statements;

1. That the author thinks Doom caused Columbine
2. That the author's only evidence is work by SLA Marshall
3. That SLA Marshall's findings have been discredited
4. That the author calls computer games "murder simulators"

All four statements are false.

Anyone who is remotely familiar with the topic will be aware that all four statements are false. All four are common arguments made by people who disagree with the author's views on computer games, and propagate these falsehoods in order to attempt to bring the author into disrepute, rather than actually make an effort to counter the author's views on computer games.

Until you've read the book, your opinion on this matter is of no interest to me.

For the record, and at the risk of further derailing the discussion (which is about the 2nd amendment, not computer games) I find the author's views on computer games and popular culture to be highly questionable.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_simulator#Crime_and_violence

 

[gumboot]

Assuming that's true, that's ridiculous. Video games use mouse and keyboard. Not exactly good simulators of guns.

He doesn't. He calls arcade style "light-gun" FPS computer games "murder simulators". It's an inflammatory term, certainly, but in his opinion this particular narrow (and increasingly rare) subset of computer games mimics conditioning techniques used by the military and law enforcement.

Funnily enough, the murder rate in the US surged and then dropped off at about the same time that video game arcades surged and then were rendered obsolete by the home computer. Coincidence?

(I've never heard anyone suggest they're linked, but it's a funny little observation)

ETA. Incidentally "murder simulator" is inaccurate in my opinion, and doesn't really serve to usefully illustrate what his actual point is - I think it was a case of picking a term that would grab attention. A more accurate term for these sorts of games would be "kill simulator" or "homicide simulator". Murder is of course a specific legally defined type of homicide; one that is intentional and unlawful. In the context of these "kill simulators" often the killing is entirely lawful, and therefore not murder.

If I can crowbar this derail back onto topic, this concept of kill conditioning is exactly why I brought up the topic in relation to the right to bear arms, and in particular the use of firearms as a method of self defense. Absent kill conditioning, a firearm is only useful as a posturing tool, as the natural resistance to killing will prevent the victim from actually firing their weapon. However, with kill conditioning, a firearm is a very effective self defense tool, and indeed if the victim has kill conditioning and their attacker doesn't, having a firearm gives the victim an enormous advantage.

Thus the matter of the psychology of killing is particularly relevant to both sides of the gun debate. Which is why I find it somewhat interesting that I've never seen it brought up - even those who are actually forerunners in the subject, like Grossman, seem to have fixated mostly on computer games, rather than gun control.

 

[Nessie]

With their attitudes towards guns (pro) and universal health care (anti), I think that certain Americans just do not care that much about the right to life.

 

[jimbob]

They are not part of the developed world. This criterion has been explained several times now.

Why didn't you include Lithuania? Belarus? Estonia? Ukraine? Moldova? Or by far the largest European country, Russia?

Cherry picked data is cherry picked.

"Developed world", apparently, being defined as all countries with a lower homicide rate than the USA?

There's no standard, agreed upon definition for "developed world", which means you're still cherry picking.

Well we know that homicide rates tend to increase with poverty. Arguing that the the US is good because it somehow has about 40% of the homicide rate of Russia doesn't strike me as terribly convincing, when you can see that Russia is within the normal population and the US is an outlier.

 

[jimbob]

Well we know that homicide rates tend to increase with poverty. Arguing that the the US is good because it somehow has about 40% of the homicide rate of Russia doesn't strike me as terribly convincing, when you can see that Russia is within the normal population and the US is an outlier.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/1449450fbf92621bec.jpg[/qimg]

And I might as well list countires with similar homicide rates to the US in rates per 100,000 according to the same statistics:

Rank|Country|Rate
104| Suriname|4.6
106| Georgia|4.3
107| Martinique|4.2
107| Turkmenistan|4.2
107| United States|4.2
107| Yemen|4.2
111| Palestine|4.1
112| Albania|4
113| Niger|3.8
114| Solomon Islands|3.7
115| Sri Lanka|3.6
116| Montenegro|3.5
117| Argentina|3.4
117| Cambodia|3.4
117| Djibouti|3.4
117| India|3.4
121| Turkey|3.3
122| Chile|3.2
122| Taiwan|3.2
124| Latvia|3.1
124| Uzbekistan|3.1

 

[WildCat]

Well we know that homicide rates tend to increase with poverty. Arguing that the the US is good because it somehow has about 40% of the homicide rate of Russia doesn't strike me as terribly convincing, when you can see that Russia is within the normal population and the US is an outlier.

What does GDP mean to a poor person in a rich country?

 

[jimbob]

What does GDP mean to a poor person in a rich country?

That's why Equatorial Guinea is an outlier - it does act as a reasonable proxy though, as richer countries tend to have some form of social care meaning that the poor are not so poor as in poor countries.

 

[WildCat]

That's why Equatorial Guinea is an outlier - it does act as a reasonable proxy though, as richer countries tend to have some form of social care meaning that the poor are not so poor as in poor countries.

And what leads you to the conclusion that GDP is more of a factor than societal and cultural issues?

 

[arthwollipot]

Now, as I said before, there are much deeper issues wrt violent crime than "ZOMG! Guns are Artifacts of Khorne that make you into a homicidal maniac!"

Well, if I'd actually said that, then you'd have a point. Because that would be a stupid thing to say. Points for the Warhammer reference though. I always preferred Tzeentch.

And in the grand scheme of things, the US murder rate is nothing compared to the likes of Russia (yet no-one in the "civilised" countries is condemning Russia for being "barbaric")

This thread is about the US, not about Russia. If it were about Russia, then yes, I would say that the situation is barbaric. But it hasn't come up before now in this thread, which as I said is about America.

Like here?

A place where even the cops don't carry guns? Certainly!

 

[gumboot]

With their attitudes towards guns (pro) and universal health care (anti), I think that certain Americans just do not care that much about the right to life.

I don't think it's that. Americans care very much about their own right to life. They just don't care about their fellow American's right to... well, to anything, really.