Gun ownership is MAD?

“Ok so you and your family are at the table with a bowl of biscuits, some guy walks by and thinks They have biscuits and I dont, grabs them and walks away. He eats one and gives the rest to his friends. Greed and envy is what prompted him to steal, did he NEED them? Was he starving? no. If starvation was in play they would not steal your DVD player but your ham sandwich like I said earlier”.

But why would he ‘grab them’ as I’ve said this give no more motivation for the person than just they’re ‘bad’. I mean you say ‘greed ‘ and claim it is ‘natural’ but haven’t explained why. Are you claiming that some people are born ‘greedy’ that it is genetic and so nothing can be done, they are ‘bad seeds’? That would be very similar to the attitude of those that believed that some people were superior and others inferior.

Some people do just steal food, but that is actually easier in places were food is readily to hand like shops, but if someone is staving (as in addiction) unless your ham sandwich is made up of the drug their addicted to it is unlikely they would want it. On the other hand a DVD that can be easily sold for a few bucks is a better proposition. It’s clear you either didn’t read my post or misunderstood it, -

“In most communities generosity is admired and greed despised. The problem is that in some capitalist societies greed is praised, hidden beneath what is called ‘ambition’ and ‘success’. People within these societies often believe that is doesn’t matter if you hurt people (or are disliked) to ‘get ahead’ that success is all that matters. And so many see crime as just a means to an end and acceptable as long as it brings the status and success that the society teaches then is all that matters. So you steal the biscuits from one house to present them in your own house to show your friends just how successful you are that you can hand out such wonderful biscuits.

Also something like starvation can overrule taught responses, in which case you wouldn’t care what your friends thought you wouldn’t care about anything but stuffing your mouth full of biscuits (and why have your ‘friends’ not noticed you were in such a bad way and helped?)

Think about this, a lot of petty crime is caused by addiction, people rob to feed their habit and people say ‘feed’ because having a habit is a lot like eating. If an addict has had a fix they are feed, if they need a fix they are hungry and if they really need a fix they’re staving. And that feeling of starvation overrides all other concerns.”

**

Ok my thesis is that many Americans see gun ownership as a way of dealing with (and therefore ignoring and dismissed) social problems that may be better dealt with if they were faced.

Not true (well I am sure there are some that think that way) I myself donate time and money to social programs on a regular basis.

What type of social programmes do you think will work to reduce crime?

**

It is the kind of mentality that only tackles the symptoms and not the causes, think about these facts

So your feeling is you should concentrate only on the causes and NOT protect yourself from the symptoms? Both can be done at the same time.

I agree but I hear a lot more from Americans about dealing with the symptoms than I do about them dealing with the causes. I mean many seem to believe the causes of crime are all down to some people just being born ‘bad’.

**

“There is still the fact Homicide is on the decline in the US and on the rise in the UK.”

OK once more I’ll put your ‘fact’ in context.

The UK has 60 million people compared with the USA’s of 250 –280 million so lets boost the UK’s figure to US levels while at the same time boosting the homicide figure at the same rate.

At 60 million people it has 70 deaths

So for 300 million people it would be around 350 deaths

US homicide rates are falling

In 1984 there were 18,690 murders

And in 2004 it had fallen to 16,137 murders

So in twenty years the murder rate had dropped by 2553

So if that trend continued by 2024 it would be only 13584 murders

By 2044 = 11031

By 2064 = 8478

By 2084 = 5925

By 3004 = 3372

By 3024 = 819

Remember we were looking for a drop to 350 deaths, so at present levels of fall even after more than a HUNDRED YEARS the US could not achieve UK levels.

**

 

Actually I need to do a correction on my previous post I incorrectly gave figures for only gun related murders in the UK not all murders here is the corrected post. Sorry for the mistake.

**

The UK has 60 million people compared with the USA’s of 250 –280 million so lets boost the UK’s figure to US levels while at the same time boosting the homicide figure at the same rate.

At 60 million people we had 853 murders in the UK

So for 300 million people it would be around 3400

US homicide rates are falling

In 1984 there were 18,690 murders

And in 2004 it had fallen to 16,137 murders

So in twenty years the murder rate had dropped by 2553

So if that trend continued by 2024 it would be only 13584 murders

By 2044 = 11031

By 2064 = 8478

By 2084 = 5925

By 3004 = 3372

So at present levels of fall only in about a hundred years could the US achieve UK levels.

 

What is natural and what is taught, this gets into the old (and seemingly eternal) nature vs nurture debate, are we slaves to our genes or do we have free will.

Is love natural, well do we all love everything equally and to the same intensity?

Is feeling happy natural, do all humans find the same things make them happy?

Is feeling sad natural, do all humans find the same things saddening?

Are we all born with those difference encoded in us or does our environment and upbringing have an impact on it and if people change from loving something into hating it, is that also genetically encoded or come about through changing ways of thinking?

**

“If they guy was starving, he could have at least asked for a biscuit before stealing it. In your opinion what motivation would a person have to have to make it ok to steal your biscuit without asking for charity first?”

Maybe you’ve never been that hungry, but imagine you are starving and you see the chance of food, (the owners are not there) do you take and eat or go find the people and ask, knowing that they might say no or give you just a little? You don’t know if the person is kind or mean, (does everyone give a beggar money when they are asked?) You would have to have a bloody strong will power not to just take and eat.

I’m not condoning that theft but I can understand its cause and from that try to think of a way of stopping it from ever taking place again.

So find the reason the cause and then get ride of it (by making sure people are not starving). What I’m saying is that it seems to me that many Americans don’t want to understand (stealing is stealing) and would rather try and make sure that the starving person never has a chance to get their food.

**

“Get them in rehab and get them off thier addicted drug”.

A good beginning but why did they get hooked on addictive drugs in the first place, again, getting them into rehab is just dealing with the symptom but what about the cause?

**

“So being addicted to a drug makes it OK to steal?”

No, I’m not condoning such theft but I can try and understand its cause and from that try to think of a way of stopping it from ever taking place again.

**

“More drug rehab (mandatory for addicted convicted criminals) “

But as I’ve pointed out that’s looking at the symptom, why did these people get into destructive drug use, have you thought that maybe if you could stop them from taking that route they might never have become criminals

**

“pretty much any youth oriented programs.”

I agree, but it’s a bit vague

**

“I think the biggest thing is to get Parents back to being parents not just the old people living in the house”.

I’m not sure what you mean by this or what you would want to do? And it is a sad fact that many times the parents are the problem.

**

“There are many programs that would help, however you cannot hide from the symptoms either.

But as I’ve pointed out you don’t seem to be thinking about the causes, I mean so far the main cause of crime according to you is ‘natural greed’.

**

I dont know anyone personally that thinks "people are just born bad"

As I’ve pointed out one of your main arguments, so far, for why people commit crime is that they are ‘naturally’ greedy, that their ‘bad’ behaviour is due totally to their ‘bad’ nature.

**

 

Ok I can see you are having problems with the whole metaphorical role-playing stuff, you did know we were not actually talking about biscuits and actually starvation didn’t you?

I wasn’t changing the story to try and make the point that it is OK to steal, I was trying to explain why someone might act (or not act) in a certain way in a certain situation. For this kind of thing to work people need to have had enough experience or imagination and or empathy to put themselves in another persons shoes.

I’ll try and just be plainer in future.

**

Once more you seem to come down to a rather absolutist position, you seem to think things are either good behaviour or bad behaviour actions are right or wrong.

The problem is that these are not universal constants, a persons view of what is either good behaviour or bad behaviour and what actions are justified or not, can be coloured or moulded by their environment or up-bringing.

You know seem to acknowledge this when you say that children can learn what is right and wrong from their parents.

But parental guidance (or lack of it) is just one factor in a persons education, and even it can be greatly influenced by the social and economic position of the parents.
For example in more consumerist societies there are many factors pushing the idea that a persons worth is based on their material possession and there wealth. From the billboard on the corner to the TV adverts to the kids at school laughing at the child wearing last years Nikes.

You might have parents telling you should work hard at school and keep your nose clean so that you can be like them working 12 hour days to be still in debt, but there are lots of other voices and pressures.
For example - If you grow up in an environment where the people with status are lawyers and doctors then you will probably aspire to be a doctor or lawyer. But if you grow up in a place where those with material goods and wealth are crooks them it is likely you will aspire to be one also.

**

Your general response is not why but how

Not why is this person an addict by how can we get the person to give up.

Not why is the person committing a crime but how can I stop the person from robbing me.

Now that not bad, I also think the how is a prudent step, but I wonder what else can be done.

And I don’t think Britain let alone the US has the right ideas.

**

Here are just a few musings in no particular order that I’ve mentioned here over the years -

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.

**

 

“We just have differeing opinions on this while I say address the underlying problems but do not ignore the symptome, you seem to want to ignore the symptoms.”

I’m not saying that we should ignore the symptoms, because the symptoms are the manifestations of the underlying problems. Ignore them and you are ignoring the problems, but the way you treat the symptoms can be part of the way to deal with the underlying problems.

**

But looking at your replies it is obvious that for you the main cause behind individuals committing crime is personal choice, which again seems to imply the good/bad viewpoint I mentioned earlier.

You seem to make it plain that to you it doesn’t really matter what a persons up-bring was like or what the environment they where brought up was like or the possible lessons they leant from it, in the end it comes down to their choice. So if they were ‘good’ they wouldn’t choose to commit a crime but if they were ‘bad’ they would.

The problem as I see it is that it could be very easy for someone that thought that way to come to the conclusion that it is all to do with the individual. That is doesn’t matter what lesson the person has learn from their up bringing or environment, that in the end people that are ‘criminally minded’ will always choose to be criminals wherever or whatever their up-bringing.

It is then only a short step to believing that social programmes wouldn’t work and that the only way to combat crime is to lock up offenders and carry a gun.

 

“Please tell me what YOUR plan is then to protect yourself from these symptoms?”

As I’ve said the major way of protecting people from the symptoms is to lessen the causes. You even agreed with most of my ideas.

“Here are just a few musings in no particular order that I’ve mentioned here over the years -

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”


**

“How do YOU protect your family from these symptoms?”

But what am I protecting against?

As pointed out the chances of being maliciously shot in the UK is very small, and in my life I’ve only been ‘mugged’ twice and both times in France. One mugger ran off when I put up resistance (he was unarmed) and the other (armed with a knife) I got chatting to and he decided to sit down and have a coffee with me instead.

I’ve only had my home burgled once and that was in 1992 and I was out at the time, it was reckoned kids did it and I had stupidly left a down stairs window unlocked.

I’ve had a few things stolen along the way but nothing big, small stuff I’ve put down and hadn’t kept my eye on, sunglasses, pocket radio, that kind of thing.

And that’s about it.

**

I cannot always be with my child and partner, now that might worry me if I lived in some type of Mad Max distopia, but I don’t. I live in a reasonably civilised society that is filled in the most part by rather decent people.

You sound on the other hand like you believe you are under siege by the uglier denizens of said Mad Max films and so feels the need to be armed so that you are able to protect your family at all times and in all places.

Personally if the society I lived in felt that threatening I wouldn’t like to live there and it definitely does not sound like the type of place to raise a family.

 

Anyone remember when George Clooney (anti-gun) made his attack on Charlton Heston (Spokesman for National Rifle Association) at some Oscar ceremony or other?.

 

This is how world war I started

 

Actually there were many causes to WW1, and I'd say if anything rapid nationalism was the strongest, that is what in turn led to imperialism, both economic and terratorial, which went hand in hand with militarism, there were also the secret alliances and allance system in general and many argue Europe's past history just coming to the table and exploding, old grudges you could say.

 

*Claps hands for Mister Pitt and whistles loudly*

 

Umm.... no it's not...

 

proud


LOL

“this will be my first and last post on this thread”

hey man, sounds mighty cowardly to me, you’re going to call someone a ‘puppy that pisses on the carpet’ then run away, wow you’re a brave man, just the type of tough hombre who may feel he needs a gun to protect him.

Just kidding man, I’m sure you really just don't have the time or energy.

**

So in one moment I’m “willfully” that is knowingly wrong and in the next I’m being wrong because I simply don’t know any better, that is unknowingly wrong.

Well with that type of sharp, intellectual thinking I’m soooooooooooooooo pleased you are not going to debate with me.

Just kidding man, I’m sure you just didn’t have the time to think it through straight.

**

“While I'm saddened by the downfall of a once proud and mighty empire”

If you mean the British Empire if you gave me the choice of living during the empire or now I’d choose now. The empire was based on widespread exploitation and was brutal and malicious.

But I don’t blame you, I’m sure you’d know more about history if you just had the time and energy to read.

**

What “natural rights”?

Oh yeh I forgot you don’t have the time or energy to reply, which is probably one of your natural rights…

**

Hey man that was a hoot please post again….Oh yeh…you’ve already said you haven’ the time…LOL

 

pitt

Thank you Pitt for actually backing up my argument.

I’ve been try to explain from the beginning that to me you cannot disassociate the symptoms of crimes from the causes, and that it seemed to me that the best way to treat the symptoms is by tackling the causes.

I said that to me, many Americans the problem with the idea of guns as a means of combating crime was that it laid too much of an emphasis on protection against the symptoms and pushed the idea of tackling the causes into the background.

It is obvious from talking to many Americans that the fear of the symptoms is very high in the US, which has lead to a load cry to combat the symptoms while the cries to tackle the causes seem a lot softer if not mute.

I mean the contrast between me and Pitt is incredibly telling, I as a victim of crime feel unthreatened and comfortable with my society while Pitt seems almost hysterically afraid for himself and his families safety even when he has never been a victim of crime?

My fear is that the reason for this is that he knows his society is so much more awash with guns that the probability of real danger, even from very minor crimes, is so much more.

Which seems to vindicate my idea that a society with few guns in circulation is far preferable to one with many.

**

The thing is that gun ownership in the crimes I’ve mentioned would have made no difference or most likely have made things worse.

One mugger ran off before I could even have got a gun out and the other didn’t want to use the knife but if I had reached for a gun it is very likely, that fearing he was under threat, he would have acted. As to the burglary, I was not there but imagine if the kids had found a gun in the house it could have ended with them playing with it and possibly injuring themselves or with it falling in the hands of someone dangerous.

**

Is it possible that many Americans don’t just accept this heightened (unnecessary) level of fear they actually revel in it, want it and actively fight against any attempt to decrease it.

Which throws the idea of who is protecting who from what into a new prospective.

I mean if these people really wanted to decrease the level of fear of crime within American society, the best way would be to reduce the level of danger of any criminal encounter. It therefore stands to reason they would be doing everything in their power to tackle the root cause of that fear and danger, the high level of guns within that society.

I mean is it really in the end more about protecting the guns or the family?

 

With the NRA group it is more about protecting the guns. I think for a lot of that group guns are the defining issue of their identities, without them they would feel like they are less, than who they envision themselves to be currently.

 

There seems to be a contradiction here

You claim you are not afraid and how little crime involves guns and how you have never been the victim of crime, and yet you scream “the CRIMINAL WILL NOT DISARM” as if to say that you fear the gun totting criminals.

I mean if you as unafraid and as unworried by crime, as I am, why do you believe you need a gun to defend yourself and to protect your family?

**

As to the survey of those criminals scared of being shot even the NRA article in which I found that quote, admits that “The data suggest that criminals may be a little more concerned about being caught by police and imprisoned than about being shot”.

What I’d want to know were they armed did the criminals after being scared commit any future crime, and if they did, did they then decided to become armed?

**

As I’ve said the only time I’ve been burgled was because I left a downstairs window open. The best defence against burglary is securing your house with good locks and if needs be an alarm. In this country (according to a local copper) most house breaking takes place when people are out of the house. As pointed out the only way having a gun would help in that situation was if I remained at home full time with it cocked and ready. And if I was out and the gun was at home when the burglars got in the gun was likely to get into the wrong hands.

**

 

Dirk, kind of hard to mobilize aren't they when the bad guys break in. Or you ask them to wait while you unlock your gunsafe?

This I think is just another example of protecting one's "arms" from theft, not protecting children or others from their destructive possibilities.

 

Little hyper-defensive aren't you Dirk? Glad I am not standing across the room from you, unless your guns were locked in the safe.

 

Hey can't help you Dirk. Never owned a gun never will. If I need to kill someone, I'd rather do it with a baseball bat than accidentally kill someone I didn't mean to.

 

I think I did explain my logic. I just choose not to be a gun owner. I don't need to own a gun to be a person of importance. I don't feel anyone needs a gun to be important. Killing things isn't something that makes me feel important.

 

I don't think anyone here is arguing guns make you important, hell if I wanted to seem important, I'd own a crossbow and keep it on display, people see a crossbow and they're like, "damn, that guy has to be important,who else owns a crossbow"