Guncrazy USA

WS, if you recall we had a very civilized debate going until several wankers dived in and turned it ugly. Then it went from bad to worse with some asshat posting ridiculous statistics about football hooligans. From there it became US vs. UK where some would have us poor, dumb, gun-toting rednecks believe that there is not a single firearm anywhere in the UK (completely discounting the fact that by regulation constables and most supervising sergeants on the street wear bullet-proof vests). THEN the US vs. UK fight spread to almost every category on this website (and yes, sadly, I contributed to it's propagation). Now we have some idiot(s) (and as a former professional etymologist, their grammar patterns indicate they are not American) posting as stereotypical racist, redneck cops. For some reason they keep invoking my name, a gun-free person who supports firearm bans. Fucking ponderous, man.

Sixty pages later there's still no doubt that something must be done, but the answers don't appear to be coming from this thread.

 

So what it's really about is a person's preference. As I've stated, I HATE guns, hate killing, hate war. I was raised in a gunless household. I don't have any interest in guns and if the necessity came around that I had to shoot one (it has) I would need someone to jog my memory on how to do it. And at the moment we HAVE no guns. So one would think I was anti gun. But I am not. My father, being SO pacifistic and radical as to NEVER own a gun, was also a farmer, and was put in the position MANY times of having to put animals out of their misery by clobbering them over the head with a club... I have lived really poor a time or two and without the guns it may have been somewhat harder murder that brother deer up in the woods...
And now that the world is past teetering on the edge of insanity, I think the right to bear arms could be and is probably a very important right. Not everyone is a master of the blade or crossbow, not everyone is a karate master, not everyone has the guts or strength to deal with violence hand to hand, and the odds of our having to deal with violence in our life times are getting higher and higher. You can't always run away from your attacker, and even tho I firmly believe you can survive on a daily basis WITHOUT a gun, some people don't find they have that luxury. It's simply a choice, and one that people will make regardless of some law or another.

If you took a totally psychotic and deranged person and put them in a room with just about anything, if they wish to cause harm, they will. That's self evident.

I find it frightening to think that so many people cannot look at this issue any deeper than the very superficial and knee jerk reaction of "oh we must ban guns to fight crime!" It's just not so. And by God, if there was a violent revolution or something similar, I might not be standing and fighting with a gun myself, 'cause it's not what I do, but I sure don't like the idea of those hillbilly friends of mine not having theirs, 'cause those are the guys who'd have my back in a tight spot...

 

The Protest forum is just full of squabbling and nastiness lately. None of us are idiots or even normally vicious people I believe, but we get pretty hot headed at times.

I need to avoid this place for a little while.

 

less guns isn't the answer bub, taking away guns brings us a step closer to a dicatorship,

remember even hunter s thompson was a member of the NRA

more guns isn't the answer because vigilante justice doesn't help anyone

the answer is in educating people that guns and killing doesn't make you a man, or a woman, character does.

if the media would stop blasting these glorifying images than we would have half the problems.

and as far as the usa being uncultured you are very very dumb and ignorant, ever heard of JAZZ?!??! you got anything close to that? NO!!! Trance? trance is nothing close to jazz and never will be, why? because jazz uses instruments and not some kid, a keyboard and an imac. where did the great and mighty british invasion steal their licks from?? AMERICAN BLUESMEN!! eat it.

 

I wish I knew what channel you were getting, sadly TV has and still is making a shooting look almost painless. Movies have people getting shot walking around and still fighting with the bullet wounds. Video games like Vice City San Andreas (spelling) make violence fun for youths among other games.

Most youths dont fully understand death, that dead is dead, there is no comming back, that a firearm is not a toy, that anything it is pointed at is most likely going to die. Alot of gun owners faild to have been taught to understand this conept thus all the new warning labels on firearms being required when simple logic would have been enough.

I know this thread was about Gun Bans and the input mostly through here did not seem to seek a justified solution but rather just either guns are good or guns are bad replies.

If your seeking solutions to firearm related violent offences then several steps would be required I believe.

(1)Inforce the laws that are on the books.
(2)Make it a crime for an ex-con to attempt to purchase a firearm (i.e.) going to a pawn shop and trying to buy it.
(3) Make murder 1 a one way trip to a swift death. No more 10+ years of court hearings and ect.
(4) Background checks that include private sector shrinks and counselors (make these people have to report mental issues or be faced with thier own punishments)
(5) Make the feds whom allow the background check be held accountable for a dropped ball not the gun store or the gun maker.
(6) Mandate safety classes that include not only general firearm safety but also a family chapter so people know and understand how to interact with youths and firearms (i.e) teaching children to leave firearms alone unless in the company of an adult and to not enter a home that they know has firearms that people allow thier children to be around unsupervised.
(7) The right to suspend ownership to a person should an event disqualify them for ownership (i.e.) violent crime, mental health issues ect.

Now this is still a problem becuase so many firearms are not registered and the lack of trust in a corrupt goverment stops alot of people from wanting registered firearms. (i.e.) examples giving of other countries that rounded up firearms and what they later did to people.

Seems no matter what the issue the solutions are complex if you wish to make people happy.

Some gun owners would see my ideas as far too much but it is what I would be willing to live with since I do have what I speak of for the most part.

I am a NRA safety instructor, I do have a CWP that I had to spend 3 days in class to have.

Solutions, I am all for solutions but not at the cost of giving up my personal freedoms to things I enjoy just as others are not willing to loose thiers.

I hope that was civil enough and more on track to the idea you intended this topic to go!

 

Thanks YankNBurn. That is exactly what I had in mind. To create an awareness of how a problem can be tackled, without having to sacrifice freedoms. You have raised some very positive and logical ideas that can and should be implemented.

Obviously, as several people have pointed out, if a lunatic is desperate and cunning enough, he/she will always find a way to make his/her dream our nightmare. The people who we vote to protect our families should minimize the percentage of that happening to as little as possible.

Unless I'm mistaken, the majority of people in this thread have cased the point that the media culture of TV violence is in some scale responsible, so perhaps we have to analyze the way we live (everyone, not just America).

We care what we eat, we try not to eat food that we know is bad for us. Similarly, people should be concerned about how much aggression they allow into their life. Perhaps this is the way to tackle not just the gun problem, but a host of others, like war for example.

This will take time, but we can't just stick it in the freezer like a mega-bag of calamari and forget about it.

We need ideas to make our schools and streets safer, and we need action from our politicians, and not just investment in countries where the labour is cheaper.

 

...
maybe you should have added, "and therefore have a vested interest in seeing the spread
of gun culture at all cost, wherefore I do not make money therefore I must be gaining
pleasure" It is you that has everything to gain from guns you make like guns are not a
social ill, but they asre a sore, a pus filled sore within the society of America. People with
an interest in guns, fine but you go beyond that to politicisation of gun culture, clearly yOU are not even a simple apologist like many here but an advocate. One day the USA will see you who belong to the NRA as the cancer within its society that killed the country

Let me hear it, NRA or USA ?

its just an opinion do not take too harshly to it

 

Ok sorry I haven’t posted sooner, childcare once more getting in the way of writing. Anyway where were we?

Oh Yes

Pitt

Sorry but your reply to my charge of lying isn’t very reassuring, you seem to be basically saying that yes you do lie and did lie but that you just are not lying at the moment.

But it seems irrelevant if certain figures you post are not lies if you are saying that in other things you will happily lie.

I mean how is anyone meant to have a serious discussion with someone that is so determined to ‘win’ that they are willing to be dishonest.

How many other untruths have you slipped past us, I mean everything you present has to be viewed as suspect. I mean if you are this willing to lie you would even present things that you know to be wrong or dubious and claim they are solid facts.

Even with the best intentions in the world not everybody has the time or inclination to check everything you present to determine if the information it is based on are solid and irrefutable facts. A certain amount of trust is involved and how can people trust a known liar?

**

Anyway putting your seeming admission of lying aside for a moment, it does seem that you are not willing to enter into an honest debate on the issue of the general attitude of many Americans that contributes to their viewpoint on guns.

Your obtuseness is fascinating to behold.

Only the most stupid of people could not understand what has been said and you are not stupid, so I can only put down your supposed inability to grasp even the gist is an act, which if I think about it is just another form of lying.

I’ve met this trick before but I’ve never worked out why pretending dumbness to get out of answering a question is thought of as such a great wheeze.

But Pitt as I’ve said I don’t think you’re dumb so I can only guess that you have no counter argument or may even accept my theories.

 

To recap and extend.

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.

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

This attitude can lead to a near paranoidic outlook were everything and everyone is seen 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.

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.

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 is 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 that does 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.

 

yes balbus which is why i wrote

its a little ridiculous to suggest that because the people never had guns in Russia they were rounded up and shot because the german army had guns and they were pushed all the way back to germany and shot.

 

Pitt you knowingly lie

For example you still claim that I want to take away guns from law abiding citizens, even after repeatedly saying that isn’t my intention. As I’ve pointed out several times and to your direct questioning, my position is that if the law abiding want to own guns that is fine as long as they conform to regulations and remain law abiding.

But still you continually come out with the lie -

“You are not interested in that only the complete eradication of gun rights in a country in which you do NOT live”

**

“You are very interested in the problems of the US while always ignoring the problems in your own country”

Oh come on man read the damn posts then you wouldn’t keep fucking up like this I’ve covered this a few times the last been in Post 41 the thread 'Hating America'
http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3385668#post3385668



This was the same problem with the our discussion in the thread ‘Gun ownership is MAD’ (http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=189921) you just never seemed to read the posts that didn’t back up your own views (or you pretended dumbness as to there meaning).

**

“You are doing nothing to help the situation by walking through life with your eyes covered with blinders with little British flags painted on the inside.”

Oh I see, I know this rhetorical manoeuvre! Try to imply the other guy is motivated (or blinded) by anti-Americanism or national chauvinism.

But pitt as you know (maybe you never read the posts or maybe you did but have chosen to lie again) I’ve said on several occasions that I think the UK hasn’t got things right. In fact over my years here I’ve written a lot about what I think is wrong with the UK and if you want to talk about British politics you’d find out yourself.

But I think you throught this trick was a way to try and hide something that to me is blindly obvious – you still are unable to refute my theories.

Oh you say they are ridiculous and absurd but you still don’t actually address the points raised in fact many of your (and others) arguments back them up.


**

 

There is no "we" in my thoughts. I joined the NRA when I was 12 after taking a hunter safety class sponsored by 4H. I was in 4H for competitive shooting and did so for many years. I stayed with NRA so I could attempt to instruct others in firearm and handgun safety to attempt to reslove a major problem among unaware gun owners. Ownership comes with responsibility and I felt I could get that point across to others so a tragic accident could be avoided. I dont read thier vote pamplets, I dont always agree in thier policy but do enjoy the right to teach others and een further enjoy that the many children I have had come thru classes are very aware the safety concerns of being around a firearm.

I have had parents try to get thier kids into shooting and the kids had no desire to do so and have had to talk very seriously to thier parents that I will not force or sweet talk the issue, its a choice not a need.

Gun ownership is something I enjoy, my kids like to target shoot from time to time but would never hunt. They love wild game but not the way it is harvested. I never forced them nor asked them over and over. Parents need to know kids dont always like what they did.

Anyway my long winded explaination as to how I joined the NRA.

I do not make any money for the classes, the money I recieve above the material costs actually gets donated by me and even then its not much.

 

Oh, argue argue argue about inanities. The perfect way and probably the ONLY way for everyone to have their cake and eat it too is to go back to basics and TEACH PEOPLE HOW TO GET ALONG WITH EACH OTHER, from preschool on. Amazingly enough, humanity has grown so stupid that they can't see the difference between right and wrong and opinion. Many people do not even have a concept of what IS right and wrong, when in fact this is knowledge you should be equipped with from the time you are able to communicate. A society that does not understand the basic concept of right and wrong is a doomed society. And yes, there are MANY mentally ill or unstable people in the world. Our focus should be on how to handle THEIR CARE. Focusing on guns is a waste of time. It's just a sidetrack from the REAL ISSUES. The issues that CAUSE the trouble. And no matter HOW "serious" this discussion gets, it changes nothing. And it never will. This obsession with the subject of guns is like tossing pills down your throat to treat symptoms for something when that something that CAUSED you to need the pills gets ignored. What a supreme waste of time going down the wrong track all together and worrying yourself to death over something that you have no control over that isn't the real problem anyhow.

 

Pitt once again you are just going over old ground and using the same trickery as before as a means of getting out of addressing what I’m saying.

"Nor do you present anything to back up your "theories"."

But you know I have as I’ve pointed out time and again with examples, which took up a lot of our discussion in the thread ‘Gun ownership is MAD?’ (http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=189921)
My theories are based on things said here, including your own comments and other reading about the US.
It is an opinion and I’ve never claimed anything else for it, which is why I call them theories. The thing is that you don’t seem able to refute my theories and rather than try and work out why, you hid from discussion of them or try and dismiss them as absurd.

In fact the whole of your post is about not facing that challenge.

**

"You claim you are not wanting a gun ban on law abiding people yet most of your "suggestions" would only effect the law abiding, and you show nothing to support you assertion that it would lower the negative effects of guns being owned by the general public."

We have been through this before, come on Pitt did you not read any of my posts? Which ‘suggestions’ do you believe were bad, I put forward some proposals and you seemed to think they were good.

As to my ‘assertion’ what assertion are you talking about? I’ve always said that I was looking to a holistic approach and that gun regulation was just part of it.

**

"You take stated metaphors presented to illustrate a point and claim them to be literal, which is complete bullshit."

Oh man, LOL, is this still about me pointing out that having and using a condom is not like having and using a gun?

**

You ask poeple thier opinion of a certain point yet you refuse to accept thier answer only keep asking why why why.

Another accusation but can you give an example?

Anyway people’s answers often need clarification, you do it yourself, and many replies just open more questions than answers.

The thing is that you have used this excuse on several occasions to get out of answering difficult questions, you just claim I ask why too much and clam up.

Really this is just another trick and it got boring some time ago, if you find answering something difficult be honest to yourself (and us) and wonder why, don’t use tricks to hid the fact you can’t.

**

You claim the facts I post are irrelevant but never explain why you think so.

Groan! How many times do I have to point out that I have explained and at your insistence often at great length (again it took up a lot of out discussion in the ‘Guns ownership is MAD?’ thread).

You seem to keep doing this but when I ask for some example you don’t reply and just go on and accuse me of something else.

But forever the optimist, I’ll ask again what ‘facts’ of yours that you are talking about refute my theories?

**

I have asked you on numerous occasions to address your comments to the forum members in general or to others specifically but you seem facinated on following me around and trying to bait me.

But my theories are addressed to the forum and things said on the forums I use to build and refine the theories. I present theories to stand or fall but so far the ones stated here haven’t been seriously dented yet.

**

Continue to live in lala land and let the rest of us figure out how to improve the situation here.

But as I keep pointing out I don’t think the people can ‘improve the situation’ if the prevalent attitude is one of threat and suppression because I don't think the underlining problems will be truly addressed.



**

 

DP, I thought that you and Balbus were the two strongest voices from opposite views so far. I must admit that I take my hat off to Balbus in presenting a very strong case for the anti-gun lobby.

Out of all the debaters in this thread it is you two guys that have until now shown to be cool headed thinkers, so I don't know how you can come so far only to concede the flag. Does this mean that we need to reconsider ammending the Second Ammendment to go with the sign of the times, and to allow American culture to flow naturally by making it less suppressing, intimidating, and polemic? (These being the negative aspects, to a culture of a nation that also has many positives to show the world, and not an attack on the US)

 

Balbus looks like a plant intended to distract from real issues. Hmm both sides disagree with you balbus. I am anti gun vehemently and yet oppose your longwinded often purile and empty threads. Perhaps you might consider shorter threads with more point and lest verbiage

 

what the hell are you talking about?

it's not a suggestion, it's historic truth.

before The Soviet Union purged it's unwanteds it took their guns.

before The National Socialist's Party purged it's unwanteds it took their guns.

before The People's Republic of China it's unwanteds it took their guns.

and so on...

now when the guns were taken it might not have been for the sole purpose of making it easier to exterminate them, but it sure as hell didnt make it more difficult now did it?

the men who wrote the 2nd amendment remembered a time when England denied firearm ownership to protestants.

when you take away the average person's guns, but you leave guns in the hands of the wealthy and the government you create a disturbing imbalance.

if you can take away the guns from the wealthy, the criminals and the government before asking the average person to give up theirs i will happily go along with a gun ban/control.

"It seems od that you would use such argument and yet elsewhere also claim to be antidisestablishmentarianimosicubavaracarian and yet have a content like you do its plainly just silly"

wtf?

are you asking how i reconcile my pro-gun ownership views with my libertarian leanings?

What would suggest that they are opposing views?

 

Forgive my ignorance, ladies and gentlemen, but what exactly is a libertarian? Is it the same as a liberal, but with alternative spelling? If it was just a spelling error, please forgive me (I'm not perfect either).

 

You've never heard of libertariansim?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian

 

libertarian leanings?

libertarian means vehemently right wing. Its viewpoint borders on nazism because of its extreme selfishness- American citizens often confuse it with anarchism and try to show libertarian thinkers alongside anarchists but anarchism is altruistic whereas libertarian ideology is motivated by ones own rights before the rights of others. Anarchism is about a society of the disestablishment whereas libertarianism is merely seeking to offer solace to those who feel paranoid at the concept of society with a left wing provenence - they are the archetypal redneck "they will get ma ghuns when they prise them from my cold dead fingers mentality" it is NRA philosophy through and through -

These people are rights theorists its a particularly American strain of philosophy and appears to European eyes as Right wing and somewhat selfish. Europeans are generally for the betterment of society these people see only individuals. The modern libertarian usually masquerades as left wing but is a Neo Nazi - it is a tactic of the third wway -
now whatch the libertarians deny all that