Gun ban solution to mass murders?

Excuses. Excuses Seriously, it isn't that difficult. You don't come across as stupid.

 

Fair enough. To be fair, I know the argument for, just not the argument for why.

 

Been quite a while. I think the last one that could be remotely considered some sort of revolution was the Dakota Wars. That is a stretch too, IMO.

I know what fear is, Balbus, and I have seen what it can drive people to do thanks to my military service. I can assure you what drives my decision to purchase "just in case" firearms isn't fear.

 

lol. I readily admit that wiring and the like isn't my strong suit.

 

Yes, for the most part.

No, for the most part.

My point is that the unlikely even that we could eliminate guns would only be a band aid fix. Do you think it would be more efficient to focus on the root of the problem?

 

You can get wireless alarm systems and an outside alarm/light that requires nothing more than fitting a plug and plugging in.

I do wonder if on the list of home security - guns come first and alarm systems come second, and why that might be.

 

Not to mention the monthly subscription fee that comes with almost all alarm systems.

I could design and install a self contained alarm system with motion detectors and what not.....but it would cost you a lot more than a $1000 bucks. Probably $5,000-10,000. And it couldn't be installed safely by your average do-it-yourselfer. Any cheapy you find on eBay is going to be a piece of shit, prone to failure.

 

I'll look into it. Perhaps my information is out of date.

 

The only people that I know of that have a link to a control center are people with business' who are not situated at the property at night. Otherwise there isn't any need to be hooked up to a control center if you can't afford it.

The ebay comment was a joke.
Your not protecting the federal reserve or the White House.
A mid range system, might cost $1000 - god only knows what would be included with a $5,000-10,000 system.
They wouldn't cost a lot more than decent smoke/fire alarm.
Do people have fire hydrants outside their home just in case of a fire? I doubt it.

 

I'd say about 10 years

 

Sure. If you want a system that can be disabled by pulling a plug.

 

You drill a hole, feed the cable inside, wire the plug and plug it inside. I think only in films there are convenient wires to cut to disable the alarm.

 

What do you think is inside that convienient cable you shove through the wall? Convienient wires to cut, that's what.

I get your point. I'm being anal because I deal with Industrial electronics for a living, and I know that anyone with sound knowledge of electrical controls could disarm one of those cheap "plug and play" systems in a matter of a minute or two. I'm not going to trust a security system if its not completely secure. And I know the life of cheap electrical components vs quality parts. A few years ago I installed motion detectors, and light sensors for the exterior lighting of my plant. My boss insisted on using the same type of cheap sensors that you're promoting, and they started to fail after only one winter. They're garbage, the schwag of electronics. And the thing is, on a security system, you'll never know they've gone bad until you need them.

Even still, you can buy a schwag security system for $500, but they sell schwag pistols at the pawn shop for $50. I say get them both if youre going to use such shitty product.

 

Ok I published a part of my gun theory yesterday today I’ll publish the whole thing – it is rather long but it does explain a lot of the things raised.

It you read them post begin from the subheading - Against Government

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.


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.

**

 

Sig

Actually I don’t make a ‘blanket declaration’ or think it is ‘clear cut’ far from it, I say “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”

Basically I am recording what I’ve observed; I think often many people don’t see it because they are too close.

To repeat – it is about many accepting to one degree or another that the threat of violence, intimidation and suppression are legitimate means of societal control. The idea of ‘fear’ works both ways, someone can be frightened and someone could also want to instil fear (and they often go hand in hand).

People can get guns because they fear attack but also because they want potential attackers to fear them.

What you get is a culture based around fear.

If you saw military action you have probably seen extreme forms of fear and they can desensitise those to underlying fears. I’m not talking about extreme fear, immediate fear, I’m talking about the nagging fear, the subconscious fear, it is that fear that has pro-gunners asking others what they would do if ‘evil’ people attacked them or broke into their houses and raped their wives etc. It is the fear that makes them feel they need a ‘just in case’ lethal weapon.

 

Letlovin (part one)

So you only think them human ‘in the most part’?

You don’t think they were born criminals ‘in the most part’?

Could you clarify

the unlikely even that we could eliminate guns

This is an example of the ‘nothing can be done’ argument often put forward by pro-gunners that I’ve talked about at length before. Basically it seems to be used by some to say ‘there is no alternative to countering socio-economic problems so best to get a gun and forget about it’. Some pick it up as apathy that the problem is just too big to handle so it isn’t even worth contemplating.

Do you think it would be more efficient to focus on the root of the problem?

As I’ve often written I think it needs a holistic approach, to me ‘gun control’ has nothing to do with ‘gun control’ to get to the point where Americans don’t feel the need or desire for guns (except for recreational use) will take many developments that have nothing to do with guns.

For example here are a few things I’ve mentioned in other gun threads

Legalise or bring under regulation drugs, softer drugs would be put under licence and the more addictive types put under medical supervision.

Prostitution would be legalised regulated and taxed.

The banning of all advertising aimed at children.

Trying to move away from the idea that a person’s social status is only (or mostly) based on material possessions.

Equalising the societal quality of life.

 

Letlovin (part two)

But there are things that could be directly done to try and limit risk with direct relationship to gun ownership.

Now according to the FBI virtually all guns in criminal hands were bought legally in the US by American citizens. They were either stolen from the legal owner or passed on to a criminal for favour or money. It would therefore seem prudent to begin by trying to limit those ways in which criminals obtain guns.

Here are a few of ideas I’ve suggested before

Any handgun kept at home or place of work (including businesses that involve guns) would have to be held in a secure (and approved) safe. People that didn’t have an approved safe would not be allowed to own a gun

If a person looses or has their gun stolen, and it is shown that they did not show due diligence in securing their weapon they would be subject to a heavy fine and banned from owning a gun.

Any guns would have to be presented for inspection 6 months after purchase then again one year after purchase and then every five years after that. Not presenting the gun would mean loosing the owner’s gun license and being banning from owning a gun.

Also according to the FBI gun misuse is often associated with domestic violence. So -

Anyone wanting to purchase a gun would first have to pass a psychological evaluation.

If in a relationship a partner, if they could give due reason, would have the ability to veto (in confidence) the handing out of a gun license (or have it removed).

 

The system I'm talking about has a motion detector mounted below the light, and has a range of atleast 180 degrees. The cable either protrudes at the back of the system or on the bottom. Any cabling is going to be close to the sensor/detector - so you would need to first avoid being detected before you got anywhere near the electrical cable. That's a standard feature of an alarm systems, as far as I am aware. There isn't going to be a cable trailing down the wall and out of the sensors vision. So if somebody did want to try and tamper with the sensor it would go off before they could. Don't you think they would think about tampering when designing the system? I was just referring to an easier system to install for those with limited electrical abilities.
It seems you should know.

Where did I mention a cheap system? I said a mid-range system.
I said one would cost around $1000.
I guess the point was comparing the cost of an average gun to the cost of a decent alarm system.
It's about an alternative to a gun.
A gun is not the only option.
Personally I would prefer a deterrent, and the no confrontation between the intruder or either myself or my family (If I had one).
But I understand the powerful allure of a shiny weapon.

 

What evidence are you using? What sort of methodology are you using to examine that evidence and arrive at your "conclusion"?

I'm "pro-gun", whatever that means. Could you please point out where I have asked those sorts of questions of the "anti-gun" crowd?

I am speaking to you from my own experiences; from inside the the nation that you are trying to diagnose from UK. I am you're completely off base saying "fear" drives why people purchase firearms. Come to where I am from. I promise you that fear is one of the last things you'll see.

 

Sig

Conversations here and elsewhere over many years as well as reading articles, papers, reports and books over many years.
And do you notice you are not actually putting up any rational argument in opposition to my ‘conclusions’ so far your only argument seems to be that I’m wrong because you say I’m wrong.

This is not just about you but about a culture are you saying that many don’t bring up such things? And then lets examine what you have said which is that you have several ‘just in case’ guns because you fear that things could happen that would mean you defending yourself (and family) from being attacked even up to having to deal with a revolution. You are still planting the seed of a threat that you think needs a gun to defend against.

I asked you before but you didn’t reply – what revolution to you fear might happen?

Yet you still have ‘just in case’ guns because you fear things might happen.

Thing is that you can tell me I’m wrong even promise me I’m wrong but you still have those ‘just in case’ guns.