Defend the Second Amendment!

OlderWaterBrother · Feb 9, 2015

Balbus said:

Gun theory

My theory is that there is a general attitude among many Americans that accepts threat of violence, intimidation and suppression as legitimate means of societal control and this mindset gets in the way of them actually working toward solutions to their social and political problems.

This is because that attitude colours the way they think about and view the world from personal interaction to how they see other countries.

They can come to see the world as threatening, they can feel intimidated and fear that they are or could be the victim of criminal or political suppression.

This attitude can lead to a near paranoid outlook were everything and everyone is seen as a potential threat that is just waiting to attack or repress them. This taints the way they see the government, how criminality can be dealt with, how they see their fellow citizens, differing social classes, differing ethnic groups, and even differing political philosophies or ideas.

Within the framework of such a worldview guns seem attractive as a means of ‘equalising’ the individual against what they perceive as threats, it makes them feel that they are also ‘powerful’ and intimidating and that they too, if needs be, can deal with, in other words suppress the threatening.

The problem is that such attitudes can build up an irrational barrier between reality and myth, between what they see as prudent and sensible and what actually is prudent and sensible.

Against Government

For example many feel they need guns to ‘protect’ them from the government, but how realistic is that belief and what in essence does it mean?

If anyone looked at the history of the US they’d see clearly that gun ownership has never been a tried and tested method of escaping the actions of the government. From the suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion to Ruby Ridge and Waco, in fact the use of weapons against authority has been seen as justification by many or most Americans for tough action (repression as a means of problem solving).

But have the armed citizens of America been a bulwark against injustice or have they more often than not helped perpetrate it? If people actually thought about the classic cases of injustice in US history they would see a pattern. More often than not guns in the hands of ‘decent people’ have been used as a means of suppression. From the subjugation of the ‘savage Indians’, the repression of ‘bestial negroes’ to the defence against ‘insidious pinkos’ the use or threat of force has been obvious and the gun the symbol of that power.

But it doesn’t have to be a gun, this attitude is about having ‘equalizing’ power, the ability to threaten and this is why the argument runs that if there were no guns then there would be swords and knives and in that case they would want also to have swords and knives.

It seems to me that when threat, intimidation and suppression come to be seen as the most important (or only) means of dealing with domestic social problems and the outside world, the mindset becomes blind to alternatives.

Against Crime
So in crime (as in many other areas) ‘toughness’ in other words repressive measures are praised while calls for understanding of the social context that leads to criminality are dismissed as soft and ‘giving in’ to the criminals.

Guns are just part of that repressive approach.

I feel that it could be this attitude that marks US culture out, of course not all Americans have this viewpoint and not everyone has it at the same intensity of feeling but I believe enough do to make the viewpoint prevalent.

It is my contention that if this attitude didn’t exist, many social and political problems would be dealt with in a lot more rational and realistic manner and the feeling that weapon ownership was so necessary and desirable would not be so widespread in the US.

As I’ve said many Americans attitude toward guns is just one aspect of a more general attitude of intimidation in US society.

For example the US has the largest prison populations in the world (686 per 100,000) and has one of the highest execution rates in the world (in the company of such countries as China, Iran, Pakistan and now Iraq). It is also about zero tolerance and the three strike rules.

(Switzerland prison population is 83 per 100,000, England and Wales 148 per 100,000. Both countries do not have the death penalty)

To me this seems more about ruling through intimidation and the fear of violence (especially since US prisons are often described as extremely brutal especially compared with those in the UK and Switzerland, - Amnesty International).

But who is this intimidation been directed at?

**

Guns can also be a means of intimidation, the whole movement to legalise the carrying of a concealed weapon is based on the premise that ‘criminals’ will be too afraid to act.

But while many pro-gunners talk about using guns to deter crime, what crimes can a gun deter or tackle?

Guns in the hands of ‘decent’ ordinary citizens are not much use in tackling white collar or computer crime neither is it against the mostly closed worlds of organised crime.

(Just a reminder here that “In 1998, more than four times as many women were murdered with a gun by their husbands or intimate partners than were killed by strangers' guns, knives or other weapons combined”… and “One study found that, in Atlanta, family and intimate assaults involving guns were 12 times more likely to result in death than family and intimate assaults not involving guns (L. Saltzman, et.al; Weapon Involvement and Injury Outcomes in Family and Intimate Assaults; 1992). ‘Guns and Domestic Violence’ by Beth Levy. These were crimes but ones were the gun supposed protective deterrence of outside forces caused internal tragedy)

So that leaves street crime, the deterrence being talked about is basically lower class crime the protection being sort is mainly against the lowest level of criminal.

Could it be said that it is about keeping the economic lower orders in their place?

Well back to those other means of intimidation.

It might be interesting to note that Black households have traditionally had some of the lowest median incomes according to the US census and at the same time although black people only make up around 13 per cent of the US’s population they made up half the prison population in 1999 and in 2000 one in three young black men were either in prison or on probation or parole. Today in the US they make up 41.8% of those on death row.

Now while any group can become involved in criminal activity social, economic and educational backgrounds often have a way of determine the type of crime someone is going to undertake.

And those close to poverty are much more likely to become involved in street crime (which isn’t that profitable) than white collar or computer crime (which is)

**

So again who is this intimidation been directed at?

It seems to me that many people who have guns come to see them as a way and means of dealing with or ignoring socio-political problems.

Basically they do not see any urgency in dealing with the social or economic roots of crime since they are armed and believe that if a criminal comes for them they will have the means of dealing with them.

And in the same way many believe ‘government’ suppression isn’t possible because they are armed that if the ‘government’ comes for them they have a gun to protect themselves and that enough people have guns that the ‘government’ could be overthrown anyway if it tried to suppress its citizens.

**

I have tried to point out that this doesn’t seem to fit with US history, and have given some examples but here I would like to go into a little more detail and show how the US political establishment colluded in the often systematic and overt repression of what it saw as a political rival to power.

And to show that during this obvious case of state repression the American people did not rise up to champion freedom and democracy in fact most accepted it, many thought it a good thing and others were happy even eager to help in it.

**

Unions that tried to improve the conditions of some of the poorest in society often found themselves the object of state repression from the very beginning. Demands for such things as an eight hour day were ignored or suppressed with force by private police forces, state militias and even the National Guard, there was the suppression of public meetings or free speech, the imprisonment of people without charge, many people including women and children were beaten up and others killed.

Also it was difficult for left wing groups to break into the political mainstream. The Democrats and Republicans have often joined together to exclude other political groups or party’s, since these are in the main right wing in outlook it has meant that the groups most often excluded have been left wing.

(That is why many people in the US don’t vote for what they believe in or want but just to keep out something that they see as worse.)

Against such opposition it is amazing that in 1912 the US Socialist Party had over a thousand elected officials in local government and that Eugene Debs got a million votes in that years presidential race (6 per cent of the vote, the envy of many socialist around the world at the time). It was able to get over thirty Majors into power as many legislators and had large numbers of loyal votes in many urban areas. It was a growing force.

But the repression of trade union groups and left wing political ideas continued.

For opposing WWI Debs was arrested and convicted to ten years in prison, from where he stood for President in 1920 receiving 913,664 votes (Nader got about half that in 2004 and Perot about double in 1992)

Another socialist opponent of the war was also sentence to prison Victor Berger however he did get elected to Congress but was refused entry this caused a re-election that he again won, but he was still refused entry.

In other areas like New York openly socialist representatives to the city and state - who had been democratically elected - were also barred from their posts.

Around this time many states passed laws banning the display of red flags (a communist and socialist emblem) and the federal government set up the General Intelligence Division headed by none other than J. Edger Hoover to monitor (harass) left wing ‘radicals’.

This harassment turned into repression during the late 1930’s with the establishment of the committee for ‘Un-American Activities’. This was set up to root out people whose view didn’t conform to what was thought of as American (basically thought policemen) and what the US political elite that had a grip on the system came to see those with left wing views as un-American.

It began by targeting those that advocated the overthrow of any government in the United States. Now think about that many people here have advocated the overthrow of the US’s government. As I’ve pointed out above it is the justification for many to have guns so they can overthrow the government of the US if ‘needs’ must.

It made it illegal to advocate or teach such ideas or help disseminate them in any way also any group that the government didn’t like could be targeted and forced to give the names and address of its members and the FBI illegally was authorised to tap phones and mail open peoples mail.

This suppression was stepped up after the war, and to give an indication of the mentality of those in charge of the ‘un-American’ purge this is a quote from Albert Canwell who was chair of the California state committee –

“If someone insists there is discrimination against Negroes in this country, or that there is inequality of wealth, there is every reason to believe that person is a communist”

And when the House Committee for Un-American Activities dropped its investigation into the Klu Klux Klan in favour of going after the left wing the committee member John Rankin said that "After all, the KKK is an old American institution."

**

What followed seems very like a move by the American political elite to rid the US of what they saw as a political rival.

A loyalty programme was brought in for all government workers and anyone with left leaning views or associations could lose their job, be sacked for their beliefs.

People could appeal but the evidence against them did not have to be disclosed and accusers did not have to be identified.

Think about that – believing in equal rights or a distributive tax system could get you thrown out of your job?

Later it became even easier to sack someone for having ‘suspect’ (left wing) views, with the criteria for dismissal going from ‘reasonable grounds’ to only having to have ‘reasonable doubts’ about a persons supposed ‘loyalty’ and those that had been cleared under the lower criteria had their case re-opened.

And in 1953 departments were given the power to dismiss individuals without having to conduct any hearing whatsoever on the merest suspicion.

The Progressive Party of the time, which among other things advocated an end to segregation, full voting rights for blacks, and universal government health insurance, was branded a ‘communist’ party. Its leader Henry Wallace, along with others advocating such ‘radical’ ideas were then banned from speaking at a number of universities.

The purge spread from the government into other areas most famously the entertainment industry, but also academia were airing ‘communist’ ideas (that in practice meant many left wing ideas) could bring about dismissal and the law where the American Bar Association also brought in a loyalty oath, and lawyers that defended those accused of having un-American ideas could find themselves been accused of the same thing and put under investigation.

At the same time there was a constant stream of anti-communist propaganda but this very often made no distinction between what was ‘evil communist’ and the vast majority of left wing thought. And many Americans even today seem to make little distinction between hard line Stalinism and the wishy washy leftism of say New Labour - it happens frequently on these forums with ‘communist’ been thrown out as an insult and being directed at those with even the most moderate of lift wing views. And on the many right wing websites there are shrill cries whenever anyone says anything that isn’t firmly right of centre, and the kind of attack and slander once directed at commies has now expanded to include ‘liberals’.

**

Many pro-gunners seem to feel they are the final arbiters, the ones that would defend American liberty, uphold the US constitution.

So what were they doing when their fellow citizens rights were been curtailed in such open fashion and the Constitution trashed?

As establishments know if they want to go after a people, religion or political group they first have to demonize it and or make it seem threatening.

This can be done for many reasons to scapegoat, blaming a particular group or race for the woes of the majority as happened with the Jews and Bolsheviks in 1930’s Germany, or it can be directed at whose that are seen as political rivals.

The Nazi propaganda films showing Jews as rats seem crude today but the principles are the same as the anti-communist films made in the US.

(And with every threat or policy the villains change, Columbian drug dealers to accompany the ‘war on drugs’ and Arab terrorists to accompany a pro-Israeli foreign policy).
The thing was that many people at that time (as now) who were pro-gun were also right leaning politically and were therefore not seen as a threat by the political establishment but rather as an ally.

The thing is are they still?

If they are I think the establishment will continue to stand by them.

But if they stop being seen as allies or the establishment believes it has other means of control they will turn on the gun owners. I think many pro-gunners realize this and feel the threat.

Now many are going to cry ‘YES that’s why we need guns’ but what I’m trying to point out is that those guns are unlikely to save them.
Because once the government - which the establishment is happy with - is threatened the thing threatening it is put under pressure. Look at what happened to the anti-government citizen militias after the Oklahoma bombing opened up an opportunity to move against them (and how they briefly became the villains in a number of films).

The problem is that I think many pro-gunners believe the guns will protect them and so do very little (if anything) to actually counter the establishment.

That could be done politically but only if they were willing to ditch the views that help the establishment to stay in power and realign the political system so that it is not a threat to its people.
Click to expand...

Now this is interesting. I often copy a post to a word doc, I find it easier to read and edit.

I copied this post to a word doc, then left to do some shopping and when I came back I found that many substantial changes had been made to the post. No problem until I noticed that the post did not say it had been edited, I don't know but that seems very suspicious to me to say the least.

Here is the original post so they can be compared:

To start, a bit about a theory I have.

It seems to me that many people who have guns come to see them as a way and means of dealing with or ignoring socio-political problems.

Basically they do not see any urgency in dealing with the social or economic roots of crime since they are armed and believe that if a criminal comes for them they will have the means of dealing with them.

And in the same way many believe ‘government’ suppression isn’t possible because they are armed that if the ‘government’ comes for them they have a gun to protect themselves and that enough people have guns that the ‘government’ could be overthrown anyway if it tried to suppress its citizens.

**

I have tried to point out that this doesn’t seem to fit with US history, and have given some examples but here I would like to go into a little more detail and show how the US political establishment colluded in the often systematic and overt repression of what it saw as a political rival to power.

And to show that during this obvious case of state repression the American people did not rise up to champion freedom and democracy in fact most accepted it, many thought it a good thing and others were happy even eager to help in it.

**

Unions that tried to improve the conditions of some of the poorest in society often found themselves the object of state repression from the very beginning. Demands for such things as an eight hour day were ignored or suppressed with force by private police forces, state militias and even the National Guard, there was the suppression of public meetings or free speech, the imprisonment of people without charge, many people including women and children were beaten up and others killed.

Also it was difficult for left wing groups to break into the political mainstream. The Democrats and Republicans have often joined together to exclude other political groups or party’s, since these are in the main right wing in outlook it has meant that the groups most often excluded have been left wing.

(That is why many people in the US don’t vote for what they believe in or want but just to keep out something that they see as worse.)

Against such opposition it is amazing that in 1912 the US Socialist Party had over a thousand elected officials in local government and that Eugene Debs got a million votes in that years presidential race (6 per cent of the vote, the envy of many socialist around the world at the time). It was able to get over thirty Majors into power as many legislators and had large numbers of loyal votes in many urban areas. It was a growing force.

But the repression of trade union groups and left wing political ideas continued.

For opposing WWI Debs was arrested and convicted to ten years in prison, from where he stood for President in 1920 receiving 913,664 votes (Nader got about half that in 2004 and Perot about double in 1992)

Another socialist opponent of the war was also sentence to prison Victor Berger however he did get elected to Congress but was refused entry this caused a re-election that he again won, but he was still refused entry.

In other areas like New York openly socialist representatives to the city and state - who had been democratically elected - were also barred from their posts.

Around this time many states passed laws banning the display of red flags (a communist and socialist emblem) and the federal government set up the General Intelligence Division headed by none other than J. Edger Hoover to monitor (harass) left wing ‘radicals’.

This harassment turned into repression during the late 1930’s with the establishment of the committee for ‘Un-American Activities’. This was set up to root out people whose view didn’t conform to what was thought of as American (basically thought policemen) and what the US political elite that had a grip on the system came to see those with left wing views as un-American.

It began by targeting those that advocated the overthrow of any government in the United States. Now think about that many people here have advocated the overthrow of the US’s government. As I’ve pointed out above it is the justification for many to have guns so they can overthrow the government of the US if ‘needs’ must.

It made it illegal to advocate or teach such ideas or help disseminate them in any way also any group that the government didn’t like could be targeted and forced to give the names and address of its members and the FBI illegally was authorised to tap phones and mail open peoples mail.

This suppression was stepped up after the war, and to give an indication of the mentality of those in charge of the ‘un-American’ purge this is a quote from Albert Canwell who was chair of the California state committee –

“If someone insists there is discrimination against Negroes in this country, or that there is inequality of wealth, there is every reason to believe that person is a communist”

And when the House Committee for Un-American Activities dropped its investigation into the Klu Klux Klan in favour of going after the left wing the committee member John Rankin said that "After all, the KKK is an old American institution."

**

What followed seems very like a move by the American political elite to rid the US of what they saw as a political rival.

A loyalty programme was brought in for all government workers and anyone with left leaning views or associations could lose their job, be sacked for their beliefs.

People could appeal but the evidence against them did not have to be disclosed and accusers did not have to be identified.

Think about that – believing in equal rights or a distributive tax system could get you thrown out of your job?

Later it became even easier to sack someone for having ‘suspect’ (left wing) views, with the criteria for dismissal going from ‘reasonable grounds’ to only having to have ‘reasonable doubts’ about a persons supposed ‘loyalty’ and those that had been cleared under the lower criteria had their case re-opened.

And in 1953 departments were given the power to dismiss individuals without having to conduct any hearing whatsoever on the merest suspicion.

The Progressive Party of the time, which among other things advocated an end to segregation, full voting rights for blacks, and universal government health insurance, was branded a ‘communist’ party. Its leader Henry Wallace, along with others advocating such ‘radical’ ideas were then banned from speaking at a number of universities.

The purge spread from the government into other areas most famously the entertainment industry, but also academia were airing ‘communist’ ideas (that in practice meant many left wing ideas) could bring about dismissal and the law where the American Bar Association also brought in a loyalty oath, and lawyers that defended those accused of having un-American ideas could find themselves been accused of the same thing and put under investigation.

At the same time there was a constant stream of anti-communist propaganda but this very often made no distinction between what was ‘evil communist’ and the vast majority of left wing thought. And many Americans even today seem to make little distinction between hard line Stalinism and the wishy washy leftism of say New Labour - it happens frequently on these forums with ‘communist’ been thrown out as an insult and being directed at those with even the most moderate of lift wing views. And on the many right wing websites there are shrill cries whenever anyone says anything that isn’t firmly right of centre, and the kind of attack and slander once directed at commies has now expanded to include ‘liberals’.

**

Many pro-gunners seem to feel they are the final arbiters, the ones that would defend American liberty, uphold the US constitution.

So what were they doing when their fellow citizens rights were been curtailed in such open fashion and the Constitution trashed?
As establishments know if they want to go after a people, religion or political group they first have to demonize it and or make it seem threatening.

This can be done for many reasons to scapegoat, blaming a particular group or race for the woes of the majority as happened with the Jews and Bolsheviks in 1930’s Germany, or it can be directed at whose that are seen as political rivals.

The Nazi propaganda films showing Jews as rats seem crude today but the principles are the same as the anti-communist films made in the US.

(And with every threat or policy the villains change, Columbian drug dealers to accompany the ‘war on drugs’ and Arab terrorists to accompany a pro-Israeli foreign policy).
[SIZE=11pt]The thing was that many people at that time (as now) who were pro-gun were also right leaning politically and were therefore not seen as a threat by the political establishment but rather as an ally.

The thing is are they still?

If they are I think the establishment will continue to stand by them.

But if they stop being seen as allies or the establishment believes it has other means of control they will turn on the gun owners. I think many pro-gunners realize this and feel the threat.

Now many are going to cry ‘YES that’s why we need guns’ but what I’m trying to point out is that those guns are unlikely to save them.
Because once the government - which the establishment is happy with - is threatened the thing threatening it is put under pressure. Look at what happened to the anti-government citizen militias after the Oklahoma bombing opened up an opportunity to move against them (and how they briefly became the villains in a number of films).

The problem is that I think many pro-gunners believe the guns will protect them and so do very little (if anything) to actually counter the establishment.

That could be done politically but only if they were willing to ditch the views that help the establishment to stay in power and realign the political system so that it is not a threat to its people. [/SIZE]
Click to expand...

The beginning is very different. Makes one wonder why not two posts instead of making one just disappear without a trace and replacing it with one that has major changes.

OlderWaterBrother · Feb 9, 2015

Balbus said:

Gun theory

My theory is that there is a general attitude among many Americans that accepts threat of violence, intimidation and suppression as legitimate means of societal control and this mindset gets in the way of them actually working toward solutions to their social and political problems.

This is because that attitude colours the way they think about and view the world from personal interaction to how they see other countries.

They can come to see the world as threatening, they can feel intimidated and fear that they are or could be the victim of criminal or political suppression.

This attitude can lead to a near paranoid outlook were everything and everyone is seen as a potential threat that is just waiting to attack or repress them. This taints the way they see the government, how criminality can be dealt with, how they see their fellow citizens, differing social classes, differing ethnic groups, and even differing political philosophies or ideas.
Click to expand...

Interesting theory but living in America, I would have to say few if any Americans have this attitude and I'm unsure where someone would get such an opinion of Americans in general.

Within the framework of such a worldview guns seem attractive as a means of ‘equalising’ the individual against what they perceive as threats, it makes them feel that they are also ‘powerful’ and intimidating and that they too, if needs be, can deal with, in other words suppress the threatening.

The problem is that such attitudes can build up an irrational barrier between reality and myth, between what they see as prudent and sensible and what actually is prudent and sensible.
Click to expand...

Since few if any of the Americans I have met in my lifetime have the attitude described any conclusions drawn would be conjecture at best.

Against Government

For example many feel they need guns to ‘protect’ them from the government, but how realistic is that belief and what in essence does it mean?
Click to expand...

This continuous use of the word many is very misleading. A million people could considered "many" but when the population of the US is over 300 million, a million people with this attitude would not make much of an impression on the population as a whole.

If anyone looked at the history of the US they’d see clearly that gun ownership has never been a tried and tested method of escaping the actions of the government. From the suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion to Ruby Ridge and Waco, in fact the use of weapons against authority has been seen as justification by many or most Americans for tough action (repression as a means of problem solving).

But have the armed citizens of America been a bulwark against injustice or have they more often than not helped perpetrate it? If people actually thought about the classic cases of injustice in US history they would see a pattern. More often than not guns in the hands of ‘decent people’ have been used as a means of suppression. From the subjugation of the ‘savage Indians’, the repression of ‘bestial negroes’ to the defence against ‘insidious pinkos’ the use or threat of force has been obvious and the gun the symbol of that power.

But it doesn’t have to be a gun, this attitude is about having ‘equalizing’ power, the ability to threaten and this is why the argument runs that if there were no guns then there would be swords and knives and in that case they would want also to have swords and knives.

It seems to me that when threat, intimidation and suppression come to be seen as the most important (or only) means of dealing with domestic social problems and the outside world, the mindset becomes blind to alternatives.
Click to expand...

I am unsure what you have against the United States but you seem to have something stuck in your craw.

In any case, the armed insurrection that you are talking about is not easily started and takes a lot of provocation even among us "blood thirsty Americans".

Against Crime
So in crime (as in many other areas) ‘toughness’ in other words repressive measures are praised while calls for understanding of the social context that leads to criminality are dismissed as soft and ‘giving in’ to the criminals.
Guns are just part of that repressive approach.
Click to expand...

I think you've watched one too many Clint Eastwood movies.

I feel that it could be this attitude that marks US culture out, of course not all Americans have this viewpoint and not everyone has it at the same intensity of feeling but I believe enough do to make the viewpoint prevalent.

It is my contention that if this attitude didn’t exist, many social and political problems would be dealt with in a lot more rational and realistic manner and the feeling that weapon ownership was so necessary and desirable would not be so widespread in the US.

As I’ve said many Americans attitude toward guns is just one aspect of a more general attitude of intimidation in US society.
Click to expand...

I don't know where you get these ideas but they are not the attitudes of the American populace as a whole.

For example the US has the largest prison populations in the world (686 per 100,000) and has one of the highest execution rates in the world (in the company of such countries as China, Iran, Pakistan and now Iraq). It is also about zero tolerance and the three strike rules.

(Switzerland prison population is 83 per 100,000, England and Wales 148 per 100,000. Both countries do not have the death penalty)

To me this seems more about ruling through intimidation and the fear of violence (especially since US prisons are often described as extremely brutal especially compared with those in the UK and Switzerland, - Amnesty International).

But who is this intimidation been directed at?
Click to expand...

Once again I will remind you that the United States is a very large country and saying things like this just shows you don't realize it.

You talk of the death penalty like all of America chomps at the bit to put people to death and yet 18 states don't have a death penalty, three of which abolished it in the 1800s and even for most of the states that have a death penalty, it is only applied under special circumstances.

You also might find it interesting that 7 states abolished the death penalty before the UK did in 1965.

Likewise prison conditions and numbers of prisoners vary from state to state.

Guns can also be a means of intimidation, the whole movement to legalise the carrying of a concealed weapon is based on the premise that ‘criminals’ will be too afraid to act.
Click to expand...

According to statistics it seems to work too.

OlderWaterBrother · Feb 9, 2015

But while many pro-gunners talk about using guns to deter crime, what crimes can a gun deter or tackle?

Guns in the hands of ‘decent’ ordinary citizens are not much use in tackling white collar or computer crime neither is it against the mostly closed worlds of organised crime.
Click to expand...

They can deter violent crimes where time can be of the essence, whereas with white collar or computer crime when the police get there is not life or death matter.

(Just a reminder here that “In 1998, more than four times as many women were murdered with a gun by their husbands or intimate partners than were killed by strangers' guns, knives or other weapons combined”… and “One study found that, in Atlanta, family and intimate assaults involving guns were 12 times more likely to result in death than family and intimate assaults not involving guns (L. Saltzman, et.al; Weapon Involvement and Injury Outcomes in Family and Intimate Assaults; 1992). ‘Guns and Domestic Violence’ by Beth Levy. These were crimes but ones were the gun supposed protective deterrence of outside forces caused internal tragedy)
Click to expand...

I won't deny that reports like this are tragic and that more needs to be done to prevent and deal with domestic violence.

Also, while true these guns were used to cause internal tragedy, I was wondering why you added the term "supposed protective deterrence".

So that leaves street crime, the deterrence being talked about is basically lower class crime the protection being sort is mainly against the lowest level of criminal.

Could it be said that it is about keeping the economic lower orders in their place?
Click to expand...

I didn't know that crime had a class system.

It not only could be said, you just said it but are you really sure that advocating that street crime should not be deterred so that the status of the "economic lower orders" can be improved is a good idea?

Well back to those other means of intimidation.

It might be interesting to note that Black households have traditionally had some of the lowest median incomes according to the US census and at the same time although black people only make up around 13 per cent of the US’s population they made up half the prison population in 1999 and in 2000 one in three young black men were either in prison or on probation or parole. Today in the US they make up 41.8% of those on death row.

Now while any group can become involved in criminal activity social, economic and educational backgrounds often have a way of determine the type of crime someone is going to undertake.

And those close to poverty are much more likely to become involved in street crime (which isn’t that profitable) than white collar or computer crime (which is)
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why you singled out blacks, truth be told the top 1% has 40% of America's wealth and the bottom 80% only has 7% of America's wealth, so that means it's not just blacks as you seem to be implying but most of us that live near poverty. And would venture a guess that 80% of America is not involved in street crime.

So again who is this intimidation been directed at?
Click to expand...

80% of America?

It seems to me that many people who have guns come to see them as a way and means of dealing with or ignoring socio-political problems.

Basically they do not see any urgency in dealing with the social or economic roots of crime since they are armed and believe that if a criminal comes for them they will have the means of dealing with them.
Click to expand...

Again this seems to be just random speculation without basis in fact.

And in the same way many believe ‘government’ suppression isn’t possible because they are armed that if the ‘government’ comes for them they have a gun to protect themselves and that enough people have guns that the ‘government’ could be overthrown anyway if it tried to suppress its citizens.
Click to expand...

I person would be a fool to believe that "government" suppression isn’t possible, guns or no guns. Most of what I've read about it says that it wouldn't be stopped so much as slowed by guerrilla warfare.

I have tried to point out that this doesn’t seem to fit with US history, and have given some examples but here I would like to go into a little more detail and show how the US political establishment colluded in the often systematic and overt repression of what it saw as a political rival to power.

And to show that during this obvious case of state repression the American people did not rise up to champion freedom and democracy in fact most accepted it, many thought it a good thing and others were happy even eager to help in it.
Click to expand...

Once again the armed insurrection that you are talking about is not easily started and takes a lot of provocation even among us "blood thirsty Americans" and even though there have been egregious examples of repression in America, none have been the backs against the wall for the majority of Americans type of thing that would stir up armed insurrection.

Unions that tried to improve the conditions of some of the poorest in society often found themselves the object of state repression from the very beginning. Demands for such things as an eight hour day were ignored or suppressed with force by private police forces, state militias and even the National Guard, there was the suppression of public meetings or free speech, the imprisonment of people without charge, many people including women and children were beaten up and others killed.

Also it was difficult for left wing groups to break into the political mainstream. The Democrats and Republicans have often joined together to exclude other political groups or party’s, since these are in the main right wing in outlook it has meant that the groups most often excluded have been left wing.

(That is why many people in the US don’t vote for what they believe in or want but just to keep out something that they see as worse.)

Against such opposition it is amazing that in 1912 the US Socialist Party had over a thousand elected officials in local government and that Eugene Debs got a million votes in that years presidential race (6 per cent of the vote, the envy of many socialist around the world at the time). It was able to get over thirty Majors into power as many legislators and had large numbers of loyal votes in many urban areas. It was a growing force.

But the repression of trade union groups and left wing political ideas continued.

For opposing WWI Debs was arrested and convicted to ten years in prison, from where he stood for President in 1920 receiving 913,664 votes (Nader got about half that in 2004 and Perot about double in 1992)

Another socialist opponent of the war was also sentence to prison Victor Berger however he did get elected to Congress but was refused entry this caused a re-election that he again won, but he was still refused entry.

In other areas like New York openly socialist representatives to the city and state - who had been democratically elected - were also barred from their posts.

Around this time many states passed laws banning the display of red flags (a communist and socialist emblem) and the federal government set up the General Intelligence Division headed by none other than J. Edger Hoover to monitor (harass) left wing ‘radicals’.

This harassment turned into repression during the late 1930’s with the establishment of the committee for ‘Un-American Activities’. This was set up to root out people whose view didn’t conform to what was thought of as American (basically thought policemen) and what the US political elite that had a grip on the system came to see those with left wing views as un-American.

It began by targeting those that advocated the overthrow of any government in the United States. Now think about that many people here have advocated the overthrow of the US’s government. As I’ve pointed out above it is the justification for many to have guns so they can overthrow the government of the US if ‘needs’ must.

It made it illegal to advocate or teach such ideas or help disseminate them in any way also any group that the government didn’t like could be targeted and forced to give the names and address of its members and the FBI illegally was authorised to tap phones and mail open peoples mail.

This suppression was stepped up after the war, and to give an indication of the mentality of those in charge of the ‘un-American’ purge this is a quote from Albert Canwell who was chair of the California state committee –

“If someone insists there is discrimination against Negroes in this country, or that there is inequality of wealth, there is every reason to believe that person is a communist”

And when the House Committee for Un-American Activities dropped its investigation into the Klu Klux Klan in favour of going after the left wing the committee member John Rankin said that "After all, the KKK is an old American institution."

**

What followed seems very like a move by the American political elite to rid the US of what they saw as a political rival.

A loyalty programme was brought in for all government workers and anyone with left leaning views or associations could lose their job, be sacked for their beliefs.

People could appeal but the evidence against them did not have to be disclosed and accusers did not have to be identified.

Think about that – believing in equal rights or a distributive tax system could get you thrown out of your job?

Later it became even easier to sack someone for having ‘suspect’ (left wing) views, with the criteria for dismissal going from ‘reasonable grounds’ to only having to have ‘reasonable doubts’ about a persons supposed ‘loyalty’ and those that had been cleared under the lower criteria had their case re-opened.

And in 1953 departments were given the power to dismiss individuals without having to conduct any hearing whatsoever on the merest suspicion.

The Progressive Party of the time, which among other things advocated an end to segregation, full voting rights for blacks, and universal government health insurance, was branded a ‘communist’ party. Its leader Henry Wallace, along with others advocating such ‘radical’ ideas were then banned from speaking at a number of universities.

The purge spread from the government into other areas most famously the entertainment industry, but also academia were airing ‘communist’ ideas (that in practice meant many left wing ideas) could bring about dismissal and the law where the American Bar Association also brought in a loyalty oath, and lawyers that defended those accused of having un-American ideas could find themselves been accused of the same thing and put under investigation.

At the same time there was a constant stream of anti-communist propaganda but this very often made no distinction between what was ‘evil communist’ and the vast majority of left wing thought. And many Americans even today seem to make little distinction between hard line Stalinism and the wishy washy leftism of say New Labour - it happens frequently on these forums with ‘communist’ been thrown out as an insult and being directed at those with even the most moderate of lift wing views. And on the many right wing websites there are shrill cries whenever anyone says anything that isn’t firmly right of centre, and the kind of attack and slander once directed at commies has now expanded to include ‘liberals’.

**

Many pro-gunners seem to feel they are the final arbiters, the ones that would defend American liberty, uphold the US constitution.

So what were they doing when their fellow citizens rights were been curtailed in such open fashion and the Constitution trashed?

As establishments know if they want to go after a people, religion or political group they first have to demonize it and or make it seem threatening.

This can be done for many reasons to scapegoat, blaming a particular group or race for the woes of the majority as happened with the Jews and Bolsheviks in 1930’s Germany, or it can be directed at whose that are seen as political rivals.

The Nazi propaganda films showing Jews as rats seem crude today but the principles are the same as the anti-communist films made in the US.

(And with every threat or policy the villains change, Columbian drug dealers to accompany the ‘war on drugs’ and Arab terrorists to accompany a pro-Israeli foreign policy).
Click to expand...

Thanx for the history lesson but nothing new.
As for Arab terrorists, do you really feel the beheadings and setting hostages on fire are staged?

The thing was that many people at that time (as now) who were pro-gun were also right leaning politically and were therefore not seen as a threat by the political establishment but rather as an ally.

The thing is are they still?

If they are I think the establishment will continue to stand by them.

But if they stop being seen as allies or the establishment believes it has other means of control they will turn on the gun owners. I think many pro-gunners realize this and feel the threat.

Now many are going to cry ‘YES that’s why we need guns’ but what I’m trying to point out is that those guns are unlikely to save them.
Because once the government - which the establishment is happy with - is threatened the thing threatening it is put under pressure. Look at what happened to the anti-government citizen militias after the Oklahoma bombing opened up an opportunity to move against them (and how they briefly became the villains in a number of films).

The problem is that I think many pro-gunners believe the guns will protect them and so do very little (if anything) to actually counter the establishment.

That could be done politically but only if they were willing to ditch the views that help the establishment to stay in power and realign the political system so that it is not a threat to its people.
Click to expand...

You seem to believe in government and politics, the old if only "fill in the blank" then everything will be rosy, one would think that after a while you would realize it's not working no matter how you "fill in the blank".

I on the other hand see government as a somewhat necessary evil, after all it semi-regularly fills in "potholes" and I sometimes give it "money" to do so, kind of a live and let live policy.

Balbus · Feb 10, 2015

[SIZE=11pt]Old[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

Most of this is just you saying, how do you phrase it, you're wrong, because you are wrong.
Click to expand...

[SIZE=11pt]I’m saying I don’t think the supernatural exists, because there seems to be no evidence for it. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]If you wish to believe in supernatural entities such as gods or fairies, I don’t care but you have no evidence for them. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Sorry but telling me I’m a close minded fool for not just accepting your ‘faith’ as evidence doesn’t seem to cut it as a rational argument. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

As for this; The thing is that it just doesn't stand up to scrutiny "everything we do know about the universe tells us that it was formed, not created". Yea right, like saying that in the beginning there was nothing and somehow the nothing got together and the nothing exploded and nothing somehow turned into everything is so "reasonable" and "able to stand up to scrutiny".
Click to expand...

Religions have always lived in the ignorance - don’t understand lightening it must be something supernatural causing it like a god or fairy, don’t understand earthquakes, a god did it, don’t understand what brings about a flood, a god did it, don’t know how the animals came about then some god must have made them, ignorant of the processes that can form a planet then a god must have built it, and they always retreat into the unknown, the ignorance, once the last unknown becomes the known and understood.

Humans have now pushed things back to the big bang and so the believers in the supernatural stand in the ignorance of what is before that and shout see god must be here, I say stick around and some humans will work out what process brought it about and I’m sure that when that happens once more people who have a belief [faith] in some god will then march once more into the ignorance, and proclaim that their god is there instead.

The thing is that everything we know has a rational and natural process behind what were once thought to be supernaturally inspired.

You can shout all you like that the one and only evidence of the supernatural is hiding in the ignorance but that doesn’t make it so.

[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

Yep, just as I thought you are one of those who believe houses build themselves.
Click to expand...

Oh I think humans build houses (and anyway the process behind that is evolutionary) but mountains, planets and stars were formed by natural processes, they didn’t need a builder.

Balbus · Feb 10, 2015

[SIZE=11pt]Old[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

I would say that "seems" is the operative word in this case, we all know that what seems to be is not always the case.
Click to expand...

[SIZE=11pt]I’m saying this is what the evidence seems to indicate, have you a rational counter argument to that? [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]I mean innuendo that it’s not isn’t a rational or reasonable counter argument. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]As I’ve told you before, I don’t think I’m right because I’m right, some things seem to be so because what I’ve discovered and examined seem to make them so – if what I seem to think doesn’t stand up to criticism I’ll adapt it or drop it. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

Are you really going to go into a matter of degree? It is easier with a knife than a baseball bat, easier with a baseball bat than a rock, the truth is if someone wants to kill you you will be just as dead no matter what he uses.
Click to expand...

[SIZE=11pt]That isn’t a very rational argument the truth is that guns are a lot more lethal than a knife, baseball bat or rock and a lot harder to escape from. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

Didn't anyone ever tell that Ad Hominem attacks are pointless and rude?
Click to expand...

[SIZE=11pt]No honestly some of the replies you give make it hard to take you seriously. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

As for lethal over distance the comment was made about arm length and I merely pointed out that both a spear and a bow and arrow can be lethal quite a bit farther than arm length and have been used to do so. For instance a heavy spear can be thrown about 240 ft or 75 meters, whereas an arrow from a hand draw bow can travel up to a 1/4 mile or about 400 meters and is considered lethal at about 400 ft or 120 meters, hardly the chump change you imply them to be.
Click to expand...

[SIZE=11pt]The kinetic energy of a bullet from modern guns is much greater than an arrow; a hit from one can do a lot more damage. I’ve used all three, gun, crossbow and bow and arrow, (I did archery in my youth) and by far the easiest and quickest is the gun, forget Oliver Queen, Katniss Everdeen or Rambo, the bow is not the easiest weapon to use, the quickest or the easiest to be accurate with. And although it can be lethal it often is not. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]I’ve often heard the argument that if people didn’t have guns they would use other weapons like swords or bows, but in places where access to guns is limited, their doesn’t seem to be an increase in number of bows, I can use a bow (out of practice now) but I don’t have one at home for personal protection, I don’t have a sword or even a simple club, I don’t feel the need for it. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

Sorry, I guess you've never heard of a hypothetical question.
Click to expand...

[SIZE=11pt]But it doesn’t work as a hypothetical question; rationally you could say hypothetically what it would be like if we removed the source of the fear but you couldn’t logically remove the fear but leave the source of the fear still there. In such an argument even the hypothetical needs to be rational. [/SIZE]

Balbus · Feb 10, 2015

[SIZE=11pt]Old[/SIZE]

Makes one wonder why not two posts instead of making one just disappear without a trace and replacing it with one that has major changes.
Click to expand...

[SIZE=11pt]I posted something by mistake something from 2007 that I had later revised and edited so I replaced the mistakenly posted older version with the newer, nothing sinister about it. I’m happy for either to be seen, and I believe both are elsewhere on the forum. [/SIZE]

Interesting theory but living in America, I would have to say few if any Americans have this attitude and I'm unsure where someone would get such an opinion of Americans in general…Since few if any of the Americans I have met in my lifetime have the attitude described any conclusions drawn would be conjecture at best…This continuous use of the word many is very misleading. A million people could considered "many" but when the population of the US is over 300 million, a million people with this attitude would not make much of an impression on the population as a whole….I am unsure what you have against the United States but you seem to have something stuck in your craw…I don't know where you get these ideas but they are not the attitudes of the American populace as a whole.
Click to expand...

[SIZE=11pt]I’ve explained it is based mainly on the many, many conversations I’ve had here over the last 14 years, other conversations I’ve had in my life and things I’ve seen and read - which seems to be backed up by some statistical evidence. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]You seem to be saying that I’m wrong because you think I’m wrong. [/SIZE]

I think you've watched one too many Clint Eastwood movies.
Click to expand...

[SIZE=11pt]Not a rational counter argument. [/SIZE]

You talk of the death penalty like all of America chomps at the bit to put people to death and yet 18 states don't have a death penalty
Click to expand...

[SIZE=11pt]No I don’t - I’m just pointing out that between 2007 and 2012 the US executed 220 people (between Iraq 256 and Pakistan 171). States with death penalty 32 out of 50 so more than half [/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/mar/29/death-penalty-countries-world[/SIZE]

Likewise prison conditions and numbers of prisoners vary from state to state.
Click to expand...

[SIZE=11pt]According to this list only 3 states have incarceration rates below 200 per 100,000[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_incarceration_rate[/SIZE]

According to statistics it seems to work too.
Click to expand...

Can you produce these statistics

I didn't know that crime had a class system.
Click to expand...

Always has, its well known and documented, I could link to a number of studies but I know you don’t like that.

It not only could be said, you just said it but are you really sure that advocating that street crime should not be deterred so that the status of the "economic lower orders" can be improved is a good idea?
Click to expand...

Sorry I think you misunderstand the argument – I’m saying that guns can only tackle the symptoms of the problem not the underlying problem.

I'm not sure why you singled out blacks, truth be told the top 1% has 40% of America's wealth and the bottom 80% only has 7% of America's wealth, so that means it's not just blacks as you seem to be implying but most of us that live near poverty. And would venture a guess that 80% of America is not involved in street crime.
Click to expand...

You’re stating that in your opinion 80% of Americans are now permanently living on, below or very near the poverty line? And are you saying all groups have been equally affected by this?

Can you supply some data that backs this up?

OlderWaterBrother · Feb 10, 2015

Balbus, it seems that you wish to continue to talk about God and religion in this thread. Since you are a moderator I will continue until you decide it should stop.

Balbus said:

I’m saying I don’t think the supernatural exists, because there seems to be no evidence for it.

If you wish to believe in supernatural entities such as gods or fairies, I don’t care but you have no evidence for them.

Sorry but telling me I’m a close minded fool for not just accepting your ‘faith’ as evidence doesn’t seem to cut it as a rational argument.
Click to expand...

It is obvious that you do not believe in what you call the "supernatural" but the evidence is all around you. You can agree to all sorts of things being made by man, it is so reasonable and rational to you but when it comes to things that could not have been made by man you have a blind spot and choose to believe in the power of nothing. Have you ever thought about how unreasonable that sounds?

I'm sorry I called you a closed minded fool, you are but I shouldn't have said it and if you want to believe that the universe originated in a big bang be my guest.

Religions have always lived in the ignorance - don’t understand lightening it must be something supernatural causing it like a god or fairy, don’t understand earthquakes, a god did it, don’t understand what brings about a flood, a god did it, don’t know how the animals came about then some god must have made them, ignorant of the processes that can form a planet then a god must have built it, and they always retreat into the unknown, the ignorance, once the last unknown becomes the known and understood.
Click to expand...

Ah no, atheists like to think things like this but no. The Bible has many examples of where the science of the Bible predates mankind's science.

Humans have now pushed things back to the big bang and so the believers in the supernatural stand in the ignorance of what is before that and shout see god must be here, I say stick around and some humans will work out what process brought it about and I’m sure that when that happens once more people who have a belief [faith] in some god will then march once more into the ignorance, and proclaim that their god is there instead.
Click to expand...

Talk about "blind faith", you are only holding on to the hope that mankind can figure out how nothing becomes something without bringing God into the equation. Oh and by the way humans have not pushed things back to the "big bang", there are still some bumps along the way, such as how non-life becomes life.

The thing is that everything we know has a rational and natural process behind what were once thought to be supernaturally inspired.
Click to expand...

Why would God use irrational and unnatural processes to create the things around us, so of course everything we know is the result of rational and natural processes. You just want to remove God from it.

You can shout all you like that the one and only evidence of the supernatural is hiding in the ignorance but that doesn’t make it so.
Click to expand...

You seem to be the only one that appears to be shouting and the evidence of God is not hiding, it is all around you.

Oh I think humans build houses (and anyway the process behind that is evolutionary) but mountains, planets and stars were formed by natural processes, they didn’t need a builder.
Click to expand...

Well I congratulate you for finally answering the question and thank you but were you really so worried about the answer that it was this hard for you to answer?

And exactly where did those natural processes come from, "nothing"? Really, aren't you the one hiding in ignorance?

Balbus · Feb 10, 2015

[SIZE=11.5pt]Old[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11.5pt][/SIZE]

Balbus, it seems that you wish to continue to talk about God and religion in this thread
Click to expand...

[SIZE=11.5pt]I’m not really bothered as I’ve said I don’t really care if people want to believe in supernatural gods or fairies, that’s up to them, so if you want to stop that’s fine. [/SIZE]

OlderWaterBrother · Feb 10, 2015

Balbus said:

[SIZE=11pt]I’m saying this is what the evidence seems to indicate, have you a rational counter argument to that? [/SIZE]
Click to expand...

What evidence? You give a subjective opinion that "seems" true to you and then demand what you call a "[SIZE=11pt]rational counter argument[/SIZE]".

[SIZE=11pt]I mean innuendo that it’s not isn’t a rational or reasonable counter argument. [/SIZE]
Click to expand...

Your [SIZE=11pt]innuendo that it is isn’t a rational or reasonable argument either. [/SIZE]

As I’ve told you before, I don’t think I’m right because I’m right, some things seem to be so because what I’ve discovered and examined seem to make them so – if what I seem to think doesn’t stand up to criticism I’ll adapt it or drop it.
Click to expand...

But you do think you're right, you draw subjective conclusions from things that others draw completely different conclusions from and some how you still think your conclusions are the only valid ones, because your right.

That isn’t a very rational argument the truth is that guns are a lot more lethal than a knife, baseball bat or rock and a lot harder to escape from.
Click to expand...

Yep, as said you are getting into a matter of degree and still are and it is a pointless discussion. I mean if someone shoots and misses and then is killed with a base ball bat, which one turned out to be the more lethal the the gun or the bat? If a weapon is capable of killing it is lethal and that is not a matter of degree, one weapon will not make you more dead than another.

No honestly some of the replies you give make it hard to take you seriously.
Click to expand...

And I suppose an Ad Hominem attack is something others should take seriously?

The kinetic energy of a bullet from modern guns is much greater than an arrow; a hit from one can do a lot more damage. I’ve used all three, gun, crossbow and bow and arrow, (I did archery in my youth) and by far the easiest and quickest is the gun, forget Oliver Queen, Katniss Everdeen or Rambo, the bow is not the easiest weapon to use, the quickest or the easiest to be accurate with. And although it can be lethal it often is not.
Click to expand...

Yeah, right, I forgot being shot with a gun is always lethal. Like the friend of mine who tried to commit suicide and shot him self in the head and missed and only blinded himself. There is no such thing as a weapon making you more dead.

I’ve often heard the argument that if people didn’t have guns they would use other weapons like swords or bows, but in places where access to guns is limited, their doesn’t seem to be an increase in number of bows, I can use a bow (out of practice now) but I don’t have one at home for personal protection, I don’t have a sword or even a simple club, I don’t feel the need for it.
Click to expand...

"Pennsylvania teen charged after wounding 22 in stabbing spree at high school" and this in a country that is suppose to have too many guns. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/04/10/suspect-in-custody-after-reports-multiple-stabbings-at-pennsylvania-school/

But it doesn’t work as a hypothetical question; rationally you could say hypothetically what it would be like if we removed the source of the fear but you couldn’t logically remove the fear but leave the source of the fear still there. In such an argument even the hypothetical needs to be rational.
Click to expand...

Honestly, what are you talking about? In reality, there are people who live in America that have none of the fear you rant about so much and yet the things that cause such fear in others is still here, so why is it so hard for you to accept a hypothetical question where no one has such fear while the things that might cause such fear are still here?

Balbus · Feb 10, 2015

[SIZE=11pt]Old[/SIZE]

What evidence? You give a subjective opinion that "seems" true to you and then demand what you call a "rational counter argument".
Click to expand...

[SIZE=11pt]As I said before my opinion is based on the many, many conversations I’ve had here over the last 14 years, other conversations I’ve had in my life and things I’ve seen and read - which seems to be backed up by some statistical evidence.[/SIZE]

But you do think you're right, you draw subjective conclusions from things that others draw completely different conclusions from and some how you still think your conclusions are the only valid ones, because your right.
Click to expand...

[SIZE=11pt]Can you present these completely different conclusions and explain then in a coherent, rational and reasonable way. [/SIZE]

Yep, as said you are getting into a matter of degree and still are and it is a pointless discussion. I mean if someone shoots and misses and then is killed with a base ball bat, which one turned out to be the lethal the the gun or the bat? If a weapon is capable of killing it is lethal and that is not a matter of degree, one weapon will not make you more dead than another.
Click to expand...

[SIZE=11pt]Sorry do you really think this is a rational argument? In a comparison of differing weapons, you believe they are all equally lethal because they all have the ability to kill? [/SIZE]

Yeah, right, I forgot being shot with a gun is always lethal.
Click to expand...

[SIZE=11pt]Did I say that? [/SIZE]

In reality, there are people who live in America that have none of the fear you rant about so much and yet the things that cause such fear in others is still here, so why is it so hard for you to accept a hypothetical question where no one has such fear while the things that might cause such fear are still here?
Click to expand...

[SIZE=11pt]But you said that people should be afraid because criminals exist and they have guns and they do use them to menace people. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]And now you seem to be saying people shouldn’t fear those criminals. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]I mean if you think there are things to be afraid of how do you remove the fear without removing what you fear? [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]And why are you seemingly afraid of these armed criminals but you claim others are not, why aren’t they? [/SIZE]

Balbus · Feb 11, 2015

Here are some statistics I’ve posted before that may be of interest -

Firearm-related deaths rate per 100,000 population.

US –2011 - 10.3

England and Wales – 0.22

France - 3.00

Germany – 1.10

Switzerland - 3.04

Homicides by any method per 100.000

US - 2011: 5.1

England and Wales - 1.03

France : 1.2

Germany 0.8

Switzerland 0.57

Gun related homicides per 100,000

US 2011: 3.6

England and Wales: 0.06

France - 0.22

Germany - 0.2

Switzerland 0.16

Number of prisoners per 100,000

US – 707

England and Wales -148

France -102

Germany -76

Switzerland – 84

ozjohn39 · Feb 12, 2015

I read somewhere that of the gun related murders in the US, the great majority are what was described as "black on black gang related".

And there are many countries wirth a greater murder rate than the US, Venezuala and Sth Africa come to mind.

Gongshaman · Feb 12, 2015

Where I live we have some of the most liberal gun laws in the nation (Montana)
Whats known as the "Castle doctrine" and the "stand your ground law" Are two of the prominent ones that come to mind.
This last spring in a city near where I live, Markus Kaarma, (some irony to that last name, it turns out, lol) fucked up bad putting it to the test, and he grossly misinterpreted it. There had been several auto and garage break-ins in the neighborhood where he'd also been a victim. Someone walk into his unlocked garage and took some stuff.
So Kaarma, decided to set some bait and wait for the next "punk"

Kaarma left his garage door partially open and placed a purse inside. Alerted by a motion detector, he entered the darkened garage and fired four shotgun blasts, (pausing between the third and fourth shots, witnesses testified) killing unarmed 17-year-old exchange student, Diren Dede of Hamburg, Germany.

Kaarma's case was closely followed in Germany and brought scrutiny in the U.S. to Montana's "stand your ground" law that allows the use of force to protect life and property. At least 30 U.S. states have such laws.

Lead detective Guy Baker testified that the first three shots were low and seemed to follow Dede as he moved across Kaarma's garage. The fourth shot was aimed higher and struck Dede in the head, Baker said.

Kaarma's lawyers argued he feared for his life, didn't know if the intruder was armed, and was on edge because of the earlier burglary. Kaarma was convicted in December, and he had faced a maximum prison term of 100 years.

At trial, they invoked Montana law allowing people to use deadly force to defend their property. That law was expanded in 2009 to allow the use of force even in cases that don't involve violent entry.
But Kaarma had to demonstrate he was reasonably fearful for his safety. The jury concluded he was not.

Kaarma was sentenced yesterday to 70 years without parole.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/montana-man-killed-german-student-set-sentencing-28909844

Balbus · Feb 13, 2015

john

[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

I read somewhere that of the gun related murders in the US, the great majority are what was described as "black on black gang related".
Click to expand...

[SIZE=11pt]So what? [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

And there are many countries wirth a greater murder rate than the US, Venezuala and Sth Africa come to mind.
Click to expand...

If there is a problem it is not dealt with by saying someone else has the problem worse.

OlderWaterBrother · Feb 15, 2015

“Humility is the acceptance of the possibility that someone else can teach you something else you do not know already, especially about yourself. Conversely, pride and arrogance close the door of the mind.” Arthur Deikman

McFuddy · Feb 21, 2015

LivingSpirit said:

When it comes to guns, I don't think too much emphasis should be put on them. I mean, since they exist, I think everyone should have them, but they're really something that should have never existed at all. I don't really believe that allowing guns in every business and bar would prevent violence, as some argue. In some cases it might actually escalate it. I mean, using that logic, Kabul and Gaza should be the most peaceful places on earth.
Click to expand...

Why do you think everyone should have them?

OlderWaterBrother · Feb 21, 2015

LivingSpirit said:

When it comes to guns, I don't think too much emphasis should be put on them. I mean, since they exist, I think everyone should have them, but they're really something that should have never existed at all. I don't really believe that allowing guns in every business and bar would prevent violence, as some argue. In some cases it might actually escalate it. I mean, using that logic, Kabul and Gaza should be the most peaceful places on earth.
Click to expand...

Guns don't of themselves make the difference, it's the people. If violent people have guns they're going to do violence with them, if peaceful people have guns then their guns will be put to peaceful uses.

Balbus · Feb 24, 2015

Old

Guns don't of themselves make the difference, it's the people. If violent people have guns they're going to do violence with them, if peaceful people have guns then their guns will be put to peaceful uses.
Click to expand...

Again you seem to be presenting the ‘natural born killers’ argument we discussed earlier

That it is not the easy access to guns that accounts for the high level of gun related homicides in the US but the violent nature of Americans – that even without the ease guns give to killing Americans would still kill as many.

As I’ve pointed out this kind of viewpoint can stoke the fear that often seen to underlay the desire of some Americans for a guns as protection.

OlderWaterBrother · Feb 24, 2015

Balbus said:

Again you seem to be presenting the ‘natural born killers’ argument we discussed earlier
Click to expand...

As I've said before you can call it whatever you want but that does not change the fact that "‘natural born killers" exist.

That it is not the easy access to guns that accounts for the high level of gun related homicides in the US but the violent nature of Americans – that even without the ease guns give to killing Americans would still kill as many.
Click to expand...

So you keep saying but there is no way to find that out, now is there? You keeping pointing saying look "easy access to guns", look a "high level of gun related homicides", so the problem is "easy access to guns" but does that mean there is a correlation? In America there is probably 100,000 more knives than guns, there is easy access to knives for every man, woman and child and yet there is a low level of knife related homicides. Why is that? Perhaps it is because knives are too up-close and personal but there is no way to know, it would be entirely conjectural. It could just be children are usually trained early about knives and not about guns.

As I’ve pointed out this kind of viewpoint can stoke the fear that often seen to underlay the desire of some Americans for a guns as protection.
Click to expand...

It is nice that you have changed a little in how you state this, you use to say that "many" have this fear but now you say only "some" Americans do and I would have to agree that some Americans probably do have such a viewpoint, probably less than one percent.

Balbus · Feb 25, 2015

[SIZE=11pt]Old [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]That it is not the easy access to guns that accounts for the high level of gun related homicides in the US but the violent nature of Americans – that even without the ease guns give to killing Americans would still kill as many.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

So you keep saying but there is no way to find that out, now is there?
Click to expand...

[SIZE=11pt]Well you can compare the US with countries with less access to guns; in fact we have above –[/SIZE]

Firearm-related deaths rate per 100,000 population.
US –2011 - 10.3
England and Wales – 0.22
France - 3.00
Germany – 1.10
Switzerland - 3.04
Homicides by any method per 100.000
US - 2011: 5.1
England and Wales - 1.03
France : 1.2
Germany 0.8
Switzerland 0.57
Gun related homicides per 100,000
US 2011: 3.6
England and Wales: 0.06
France - 0.22
Germany - 0.2
Switzerland 0.16

[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

You keeping pointing saying look "easy access to guns", look a "high level of gun related homicides", so the problem is "easy access to guns" but does that mean there is a correlation? In America there is probably 100,000 more knives than guns, there is easy access to knives for every man, woman and child and yet there is a low level of knife related homicides.
Click to expand...

[SIZE=11pt]Now your argument seems to be that guns don't of themselves make the difference in numbers killed and that it’s the people. If violent people have guns they're going to do violence with them, and that if they didn’t have guns they’d kill just as many people with something else, such as knives, which they have even more access to than guns. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]But since the British, French, Germans and Swiss are all likely to have as much access to knives as the Americans by your thinking the overall murder rates in those countries should be the same as in the US, which they are not -[/SIZE]

Homicides by any method per 100.000
US - 2011: 5.1
England and Wales - 1.03
France : 1.2
Germany 0.8
Switzerland 0.57

[SIZE=11pt]So again your argument seems to be that Americans are just more violent rather than having easier access to more lethal weapons. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]As I’ve pointed out this kind of viewpoint - that Americans are more prone to violence than other people – is likely to stoke the fear that has large numbers of Americans getting guns for personal protection. [/SIZE]

OlderWaterBrother · Feb 25, 2015

Balbus said:

[SIZE=11pt]Old [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]That it is not the easy access to guns that accounts for the high level of gun related homicides in the US but the violent nature of Americans – that even without the ease guns give to killing Americans would still kill as many.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Well you can compare the US with countries with less access to guns; in fact we have above –[/SIZE]

Firearm-related deaths rate per 100,000 population.
US –2011 - 10.3
England and Wales – 0.22
France - 3.00
Germany – 1.10
Switzerland - 3.04
Homicides by any method per 100.000
US - 2011: 5.1
England and Wales - 1.03
France : 1.2
Germany 0.8
Switzerland 0.57
Gun related homicides per 100,000
US 2011: 3.6
England and Wales: 0.06
France - 0.22
Germany - 0.2
Switzerland 0.16

[SIZE=11pt]Now your argument seems to be that guns don't of themselves make the difference in numbers killed and that it’s the people. If violent people have guns they're going to do violence with them, and that if they didn’t have guns they’d kill just as many people with something else, such as knives, which they have even more access to than guns. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]But since the British, French, Germans and Swiss are all likely to have as much access to knives as the Americans by your thinking the overall murder rates in those countries should be the same as in the US, which they are not -[/SIZE]

Homicides by any method per 100.000
US - 2011: 5.1
England and Wales - 1.03
France : 1.2
Germany 0.8
Switzerland 0.57

[SIZE=11pt]So again your argument seems to be that Americans are just more violent rather than having easier access to more lethal weapons. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]As I’ve pointed out this kind of viewpoint - that Americans are more prone to violence than other people – is likely to stoke the fear that has large numbers of Americans getting guns for personal protection. [/SIZE]
Click to expand...

Why don't actually look at the points put to you rather than assuming you already know what has been said?

Log in or Sign up

Defend the Second Amendment!

OlderWaterBrother May you drink deeply Lifetime Supporter

OlderWaterBrother May you drink deeply Lifetime Supporter

OlderWaterBrother May you drink deeply Lifetime Supporter

Balbus Senior Member

Balbus Senior Member

Balbus Senior Member

OlderWaterBrother May you drink deeply Lifetime Supporter

Balbus Senior Member

OlderWaterBrother May you drink deeply Lifetime Supporter

Balbus Senior Member

Balbus Senior Member

ozjohn39 Member

Gongshaman Modus Lascivious

Balbus Senior Member

OlderWaterBrother May you drink deeply Lifetime Supporter

McFuddy Visitor

OlderWaterBrother May you drink deeply Lifetime Supporter

Balbus Senior Member

OlderWaterBrother May you drink deeply Lifetime Supporter

Balbus Senior Member

OlderWaterBrother May you drink deeply Lifetime Supporter

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Defend the Second Amendment!

OlderWaterBrother May you drink deeply Lifetime Supporter

OlderWaterBrother May you drink deeply Lifetime Supporter

OlderWaterBrother May you drink deeply Lifetime Supporter

Balbus Senior Member

Balbus Senior Member

Balbus Senior Member

OlderWaterBrother May you drink deeply Lifetime Supporter

Balbus Senior Member

OlderWaterBrother May you drink deeply Lifetime Supporter

Balbus Senior Member

Balbus Senior Member

ozjohn39 Member

Gongshaman Modus Lascivious

Balbus Senior Member

OlderWaterBrother May you drink deeply Lifetime Supporter

McFuddy Visitor

OlderWaterBrother May you drink deeply Lifetime Supporter

Balbus Senior Member

OlderWaterBrother May you drink deeply Lifetime Supporter

Balbus Senior Member

OlderWaterBrother May you drink deeply Lifetime Supporter

Share This Page

Useful Searches