Guncrazy USA

Balbus, I really wish you would slow down just a little bit. you're going back to posts on the first few pages and writing chapters on why phrases and parts of phrases are completely in every way incorrect. My god, and even when I revised my previous statements,

"Sorry if I didn't get my point across very well before, this is what I meant to say."

you still bring up those same old posts. If I revise something, that means that you were, at least to an extent, right; and I am changing my view, or clarifying it because I agreed with you. Why do you then bring up old crap? You're fighting a battle that was already won.

And no... knowing of a friend who had a friend murdered is not immediate first-hand experience, that is true; but it's still a personal experience. If my friend 'Joe' had a son who was murdered, and he comes over to my house and talks about it and I empathize, I would consider that personal experience. It's not first-hand, but it's a lot more experience than somebody who only looks at numbers.

Also, I never said the word "data," ever. I said "numbers" and "statistics," which are "data," but are not the only types of "data." I know this, and that is why I specified the difference between "observation" and "statistics," now you are mis-interpreting what I said, and that's not my problem.

And I firmly believe that there is a world of difference between personal observation and numerical data. Even if you don't personally watch 'Joe's' son get murdered, you see what it has done to 'Joe,' and you can feel for what has happened to him. I think that it's pretty difficult to get all that out of a bunch of numbers on a chart. How can you disagree with that?

 

Actually, Balbus, I wasn't saying that no one is allowed to have an opinion who hasn't shot a gun, I was specifically referring to those who are (and I'm quoting myself here) "so vigorously trying to put down" the use and posession of firearms (emphasis on the words 'so' and 'vigorously').

I am sorry if you don't like the fact that it bothers me that people could threaten something that I grew up with and love to do who don't really know what they speak of and who stand nothing to lose; but it's kind of important to me, and I am a little passionate about it.

So please will you back off?

 

That'd be the day.

 

Fascists should be banned, in my opinion.
being a hippy is about peace, love and FREEDOM.
Not strong central government, not excessive regulation and taxation.
Not gun control.
Given the billions of people murdered by their own governments throughout human history, it makes no sense whatsoever to arm them, and disarm yourselves.
It's showing a basic lack of historical knowledge and ignorance.
"The tank, the B-52, the fighter-bomber, the state controlled police and the military are the weapons of dictatorship. The rifle is the weapon of democracy. Not for nothing was the revolver called an 'equalizer.' Egalite implies liberte. And always will. Let us hope our weapons are never needed—but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. - Edward Abbey, Abbey's Road, p. 39 (Plume, 1979)

I see no problem with choosing to disarm yourself, nonviolence is a very noble philosophy. However, the fact that you want other citizens unarmed, in a country with the strongest military in the world, is plain and simply wrong, morally.
Gandhi, the champion of peace, had this to say in the matter:

Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.

 

Yay open-minded, non-extremist people!

 

Once again Finnaz fails to answer a question (post #1802).

 

Fuckin' A

 

ZZ

You bring up some fair points but let me try and explain.

Many times people try to shut down debate by questioning another person’s competence or ability to even have an opinion.

You said that if you hadn’t shot a gun then you “can shut your mouth right now”

You’ve changed your view and say that you think that having ‘experience’ is what is important and that you are only referring to “those who are (and I'm quoting myself here) "so vigorously trying to put down" the use and posession of firearms (emphasis on the words 'so' and 'vigorously') and to people that “don't really know what they speak of”

But that still seems like you are telling some people that they can’t talk about it?

To me you can only discover if a persons views are valid or not after (often long) debate, if you refuse to even accept they might have a view before even beginning a discussion, how do you know if they have a point or not?

**

I am sorry if you don't like the fact that it bothers me that people could threaten something that I grew up with and love to do who don't really know what they speak of and who stand nothing to lose; but it's kind of important to me, and I am a little passionate about it.

As I’ve said I grew up in a number of country communities where hunting was present and virtually every farmer had a gun. In fact shooting is big business for many estates in the UK. My family were good friends with the local gamekeepers and I was often a beater on the local shoots, scaring the birds toward the waiting guns. I was a member of a shooting group and made pocket money shooting rats at an animal food store.
I grew up with it and it still largely exists, hunting is still going on in the UK

But even in the country few people actually did hunt, many (it not most) had never held a gun let alone shot one.

I had but it never became a passion it was something I’d done as I’d grown up like flying kites or roller skating.

People are different they find enjoyment in different things, I learnt to swim only so I wouldn’t just drown if I fell into water, I don’t like it, but someone I know likes it so much they are in training to swim the channel.

To you guns are a passion, fair enough, but the thing is, there seems to me and other to be a gun problem in the US.

And I’m trying to find out what Americans think they can do about it.

But many times all I seem to get is a blank.

You see once the problem is mentioned the shouting begins.

And all the noise seems to be about shutting down the discussion not opening it up.

Go look, it happens over and over -

Say – gun issue

And you get the slogans

‘guns don’t kill people, people kill people’

True, but that doesn’t answer the question, why are the people killing each other in such high numbers?

‘if it wasn’t guns it would be something else’

Again it doesn’t answer, why these people seem so determined to kill or injure?

‘If more people were armed they could shoot the crazy shooters’

But why are there so many more crazy shooters in the US?

And so on and so on…

Many people are more concerned about defending guns (or promoting them) than they seem to be about the reasons why the issue keeps being raised.

**

You love your guns, ok, but does that mean you can’t think about anything else about this issue?

Some peoples only contribution is the slogans, others I’ve talked to openly don’t care about anyone else or the state of their society other hint at deep seated problems but don’t seem to have any idea what to do about them.

So what of you, have you thought beyond the selfish to think about your community and what can be done to make it a better place?

**

 

Downinflames

Being a hippy is about peace, love and FREEDOM.

How about understanding and education?

I mean many Americans think that the US is and has forever been a champion of ‘freedom’, even when it was stripping the freedom of others.

**

Not strong central government, not excessive regulation and taxation.
Not gun control.

You can have government without that meaning strong central government, even an anarchist collectives consensus is a government of sorts.

So what is the point where prudent and harm reducing regulations steps over into being excessive regulation?

Taxation is one of the best ways of distributing wealth and bringing about a good quality of life for all. So as with regulation when is it deemed excessive in your opinion?

No gun control whatsoever?

**

Given the billions of people murdered by their own governments throughout human history, it makes no sense whatsoever to arm them, and disarm yourselves.

We are mainly concerned here with the US, so I’m unsure what you mean.

The suppression of the ‘red Indians’ was widely supported by the colonists that became the American people.
The fight against bolshevism and communism was widely supported by the American people (in South America, south East Asia, and the Middle East and around the globe including the reds under the beds at home).
Actually most of the US’s wars and suppressions have had the support of the American people (it only when they go wrong that they begin to have doubts).

**

It's showing a basic lack of historical knowledge and ignorance.

Can I ask what history books you use?

**

"The tank, the B-52, the fighter-bomber, the state controlled police and the military are the weapons of dictatorship. The rifle is the weapon of democracy. Not for nothing was the revolver called an 'equalizer.' Egalite implies liberte. And always will. Let us hope our weapons are never needed—but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. - Edward Abbey, Abbey's Road, p. 39 (Plume, 1979)

Fine words but they seem like hollow rhetoric if you actually look at the history of the US that you seem to think vindicates them.

I’ve covered the ‘equaliser’ thing before as well as the whole idea that ‘decent citizens’ having guns can be used to stop suppression.

You need to read these –

Threat Theory
http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3438947&postcount=9

‘Can guns save you from suppression?’ http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=253937

**

“Egalite implies liberte” – agreed but is the US an equal society or an unequal one? Has it moved to being more or less equal in the last few years?

**

The ‘common people’ had very little to do with the drafting of the Bill of Rights it was a political compromise cobbled together mainly by (and in the interests of) the propertied ‘gentleman’ class. (you really should check out voting rights in the US)

“An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny” – And citizens can be manipulated by the elite to be the bulwark of suppression.


Again see – ‘Can guns save you from suppression?’ http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=253937

And for an alternative take on the BoR try
‘Bill of Rights Protects Property, Not People’ http://www.giantleap.org/envision/bill.htm

**

I see no problem with choosing to disarm yourself, nonviolence is a very noble philosophy. However, the fact that you want other citizens unarmed, in a country with the strongest military in the world, is plain and simply wrong, morally.

But I’m not saying that all guns are banned I’m asking for guns to be regulated, to try and limit harm.


**

 

Guns are highly regulated in all 50 states. Gun laws in the U.S. are the strictest they've ever been.

 

Guns are highly regulated in all 50 states. Gun laws in the U.S. are the strictest they've ever been.

But Michael that doesn’t answer the questions raised.

Why not try and read my earlier post and address what was raised and you might just see what I’m trying to say.

**

Michael

Considering the beam in your own eye?

Mass shootings

I believe no murder spree type mass shooting have occurred in Australia since 1996
In the US they are common, their have been several in the last year alone.

*

Murder

There is a huge difference in the homicide rates per 100,000 of population between the two countries -

US 5.9

AU 1,28

*

The prison population

The US seems to feel it needs to lock up far more people.

US – 714 per 100,000 (I believe the highest in the world)
AU – 117 per 100,000

*

State murder used as deterrent.

Australia doesn’t have the death penalty.

The US, I believe, is the fourth or fifth highest executioner in the world.

*

So I’ll ask you again - Who do you think has a worse societal problem the US or Australia?

Now are you arguing for these problems to be looked at, so that solution may be found or are you arguing that you need a gun to protect you from your society’s obvious problems?

But this is it you don’t seem to care about your society or how it can be made better all your efforts seem to be aimed at defending or promoting gun ownership.

**

The thing is that you (and others) seem to be doing all you can to make excuses for doing nothing about your society’s problems.

**

 

"

"

 

OH my poor little Michael, LOL

You can’t even think up your own ways of refusing to answer questions anymore.

Do you have any ideas of your own; have you the ability to think for yourself?

If so you could answer my questions, if not I’m sure you will find another excuse for ducking out of it even if you have to steal it from someone else, again.

**

 

I'll speak my mind when there's an actual point to be made. NOT to re-hash repeatedly.

I'm not going to fall into the same trap Dirk_Pitt did...spending months debating on this thread, only to be BANNED.


Since you're so keen on the Q&A, why don't you try answering the Q being posed to Finnaz that's been left unanswered from post #1802?

 

Oh my giddy aunts, LOL, do you know what irony is Michael?

Here you are refusing to answer all my questions (and seemingly claiming you have when you haven’t) but demanding I answer yours even when it wasn’t even asked of me but of Finnaz?

It was about Australia wasn’t it, about its robbery rates some ten years back I believe, what is so important about that? I mean which country Australia or the US seems to have the greater societal problems, as the moment?


**

 

So what are we still debating here? I'm pretty sure the original point was lost somewhere 150-170 pages ago. I think the only thing that can be concluded from this thread is that people either think guns=good or guns=bad and no one is going to change anyone else's mind no matter the evidence presented for whichever side.

 

so start a thread that deals with scocietal problems! i beleive that you started this thread to address GUNs am i wrong?

 

ohh im sorry you didnt start this thread ! highjack comes to mind!

 

Right on!!!

 

I'll just be happy when the anti-gun people will admit that there's no link between legal gun ownership and crime (except that it usually goes down in areas where it's high).



And balbus, I answered a categorical list of your questions several pages back. What's the one you want me to answer now? Which country has "the worst societal problems, the US or Australia"?


The U.S. has much worse crime, but I don't see how that matters. Even before the gun ban in Australia, it had much less crime. When in one half of Australia guns were given out freely with a total lack of licensing and in the other half of the country, MACHINE GUNS were perfectly legal there was STILL less crime in the U.S.

RIDDLE ME THAT.

As increasingly more and more people are pointing out, your arguments fail to get to the point of this thread, and that point is: GUNS AND THEIR EFFECTS ON SOCIETY. An issue which you seem to be skirting around like crazy.


On the issue of the societal effects that were a direct result of gun control in Australia, this was all you had to say:

THAT is all you have to say in response to an issue that both Finnaz, who is on the same side of the fence as you, and myself have discussed at pages' length? You can't say anything about it because it flies in the face of your ideologies.