Safer WITH, or WITHOUT, Gun Control? USA -vs- UK

But everyone is equal. Why do we need guns?

 

But criminals have guns

HISTORY LESSON FROM A HISTORY MAJOR!!!!

-Yes we did fight a war for independence, but then again Britain could've just accepted our deceleration of independence, but they weren't so keen on it

-lol paranoid Europeans. The US entered WW1 because we of unrestricted submarine warfare being declare again by Germany in 1917 and the zimmerman telegram which offered Mexico military aid to retake the south western United States if Mexico joined the war on Germany's side, we were not so happy. Before hand loyalties were rather split in the US as there was no clear good/evil side in WW1 and we had large amounts of German, central European and Irish immigrants who were against the British cause

WW2 we entered because Japan bombed the shit out of, then Germany declared war on us 3 days later, we had no choice in entering WW2, Americans were wary of getting into "Europe's problem" again

Yes we did try to exert control over devloping nations to counter Soviet influence, but at least we didn't sit down at a table in Berlin with a map of Africa and just draw lines on it.


and the point is a bunch of rag tag militias with guns can in fact still take on the most advanced technology.

 

All the more reason to join the Taliban!

 

If the taliban hadn't spent years in power to show they are in fact barbaric criminals and were just fighting to get foreign troops out of their country they might actually have some legitimacy

 

Legitimacy comes from the barrel of a gun, I thought.

 

Power comes from the barrel of a gun

 

then you have a long way to go until you meet me.

however:

naturally: loosing a colony is not that well liked. especially if you fight for dominance with other european powers.

thats all true. however, on a more cynical side, look at the credits invested into the entente war efforts. you are right, the US directly took part in WW1 only after 1917, however, credits on large scales were given long bevore that.

do you know why japan attacked the US? research and come back.

that was 80 years bevore the sovjet even existed. however, for you it may seem to be normal to exert control over other countries, but it is not. the US supported dictators and criminals just to assure their influence in a country, there realy isnt anything about that to be proud of.

but you know that the US brought the taliban to power in the first place. bin laden as example is a creature made by the US....

 

What is credits? If you mean trade the US traded with both sides heavily before our entry into the war, our trade with the allies was substantially more, but it was so before the outbreak of war too.

The United States put an oil embargo against the Japanese empire because of the war in China. Japan really needed oil. Japanese leaders thought with one devastating attack on the center of the American pacific fleet the US would not be able to recover in time to counter Japanese advances and be be forced to sign a treaty

Actually it was only about 40 years, and European countries still exert great influence over their former colonies. Not to mention everything the US has done European powers have too.

While yes the US did help fund what would become the taliban, it's not fair to say the US brought the taliban to power. The mujahideen were a collection of numerous different groups who were allied together to fight the Soviet Union. The taliban is just the one who won in the ensuing civil war

 

i am speaking about credits (kriesganleihen) given to GB and F. that was NOT trade. GB and france received credits for their war efforts directly. when its came appearant they would most likely sign a peace treaty instead of winning the war - thus resulting in bankrot of both countries - the US joined the war in order to ensure their own financial savety.

some details ledt out, however substantially right. however, the US knew what japan was gonna do - the war didnt come "out of the blue sky" but was anticipated. some even say that certain anti-isolation factions willingly let pearl harbour happen. casus bellus comes to my mind....

the wrongs of the europeans dont make the wrongs of the US acceptable.

this doesnt change the fact that they were trained and equipped by the US.

just think of the first gulf war for other backshots in US foreign politics.


btw, this is all off-topic.

 

It is off topic, but it's still better then most of the debates that happen here.

1. We have a right to assist any country we want, Britain and France were out strongest allies, the fact we even still freely traded with the central powers is about as neutral as a world power is going to get. We spent 3 years beforehand trying to broker peace in where European powers basically told us to go fuck ourselves. And no, the US entered the war because we were tired of Americans dying at sea and German sabotage at home, for example
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingsland_Explosion

Whether the government let Pearl Harbor happen is a good question which will never be solved, going back to WW1 some say Churchill let the Lusitania be sunk in an effort to antagonize the Americans into the war.

2 wrongs do in fact not make a right, hence why Europeans and Americans shouldn't be allowed to say shit to each other, Costa Rica can bitch us all out if they want.

I'm not sure how the 1st Gulf war is a backshot of US foreign policy except in a vague "Saddam needed a victory and money after the Iran-Iraq debacle so hence he invaded Kuwait" kind of way. Had the UN allowed is to go to Baghdad the 1st time and take care of that nut then the second gulf war could've been avoided

 

different country, different fiew.

thats because you are speaking about the wrong war. the first gulf war was between iran-iraqu. ^^ did they forget to mention that in school? phhh, americans and their history lessons are famous all over the world ^^.

 

But saying we did it for the money seems like a pretty paranoid view, the US was making far more money trading with both sides then we did when we entered the war.

And in the US the first Gulf War refers to the invasion of Kuwait and what followed, the Iran-Iraq war is referred to as the Iran-Iraq war

 

Has anyone provided Proof that Americans would be safer with Gun Control?

Every time Gun Control laws are mentioned, Americans buy more guns and ammo, alot more.
Right before Obama was elected is a good example.
Just how genuinely concerned are You?
If you're really concerned about saving American Lives,why Guns? Why not Tobacco? The numbers aren't even comparable,Homicide deaths are ranked 14th as a cause of death in the USA.

 

its the first gulf war, simply because its the first war near the gulf. and why did i say backfire? well, after the white revolution, when the schah had to leave the ountry (who was supoorted by the US), all the weapons went into posession of khomeni. well, then the iran - iraq war started (the first gulf war, at least in europe), and the iraq was supported by the US - ironically fighting with russian tanks against american hardware.... for the US, which supported saddam.

well, and kuwait.... if it wasnt for the oil, the US werent interested in this country either. :cheers2:

paranoid? no. US is centered around profit and lobbys. at that time, the big private credit lenders indeed had BIG influence on US politics. more than the traders at least.

 

Nope, 'cause there is none.

Yep, people don't like the idea of being told what they can and cannot have. Especially when they have been allowed for a long time and then someone tries to take away....

I'm very concerned about saving lives, but my concern runs towards those things that harm you without your knowledge. Like shots containing mercury, or foods containing aspartame... You want to worry about things that kill people, worry about things we inadvertently do or consume thinking it's OK...

Otherwise, nobody should be taking away any of our freedoms, enough have already been taken away due to fear. Fear runs this country and everything revolves around it. Fear of being harmed, fear of not having money, fear of lawsuits, fear of change, fear of............
Those of us who think gun bans are stupid and get accused of "being afraid"... Why do you suppose THEY want to take our guns???

 

Dear Earthmother

Your statement exemplifies why I don’t think you can debate honestly.

You demand that I give you a quick fix for this problem

I replied that I didn’t think there was a quick and easy answer and that I’ve always said it would not be simple and involve long term policies (and you would know this if you’d read my pervious comments on the subject).

You could have replied by saying ‘thank you for the clarification’ or ‘I understand you position now’ but you didn’t instead you preferred to sneer “I'm right and you have no argument against it”

Why are you right, because I have no quick fixes when I’ve never claimed I have?

And why do I have no argument against it, because I’ve never said it?

You throw away honesty to indulge in yet more point scoring.

Earth could you please stop such behaviour and enter into honest debate.

Yours

Balbus

PS
In fact I’ve made it clear many times that this would be a long term plan, than the issues involved cannot be solved with some simple short term fix. You would know that if you’d read the pervious threads I’ve been in on this subject, did you, it would seem not?

Yet more point scoring – how can you answer honestly if you can’t be bothered to read peoples posts?
Oh I know you’ll say it is just me, but that just seem to me just like more dishonesty the truth being you cannot seem to reply to me openly and honestly.

 

Quote:
And again with the right leaning philosophy of the individual, over that of the communal. An individual feeding some people once a week is good, but there are six more days in the week, and then there is the problem of that person falling on hard times and being unable to carry on, or moving away from that area (good for a new set of the destitute but the ones left behind go hungry).

My point was that there seems to be a difference in philosophy you talk of one person giving Sunday lunch to the needy and seem to say that is an example of what people should do, well to me that is fine but it could only ever be a hotch potch of individual giving that would be inefficient and unequal.

For example - Those in richer areas are more likely to have the resources to give than those in poor areas but are less likely to have those in need in there area.
Or there may be three givers in one region but none in another.
My view is that such things are a societal problem and that everyone in that society that can should contribute to a communal chest so that it can be dealt with.
*
Quote:
And anyway giving someone a meal to eat is ok but wouldn’t it be better to try and get these people off the streets and give them education and training etc?

What do you mean by ‘perfected’ because it has been done in many places with the establishment of certain policies, most usually the establishment a of functioning welfare state.

 

*
Quote:
The best means of funding social programmes is through progressive taxation so if this person paid into a community chest through taxation, then such social programmes could be funded. But that comes up against your view that taxes should be voluntary, and people shouldn’t pay for things they don’t directly benefit from if they don’t want to.

LOL oh come on Earth, SO YOU THINK EDUCATION IS NEGATIVE?

To quote you –

To you it is highway robbery to have to contribute toward education, if you were not directly benefiting? And if someone was paying privately they shouldn’t have to also pay the tax to fund state education?

Your view seems to be that taxes should be voluntary, and people shouldn’t have to pay for things they don’t directly benefit from if they don’t want to, it doesn’t seem to be just ‘negative’ things unless you think education is a negative thing?

I’ve asked you to explain you view a bit more clearly a number of times and all I’ve been getting is evasion.

AGAIN, this seems like very close to a lie, if not a lie.

Anyway in light of your REAL views, I’ll ask again – how would you pay for the programmes you’ve talked about?

*

 

Quote:
You claim that you don’t complain about something unless you have some ideas on how to fix them. But looking through your own ideas on what to do I note that they would all take a lot of money and I don’t see how you’d pay for it all.

But in a tax scheme which is basically voluntary where people don’t have to pay for things they don’t directly benefit from if they don’t want to (see above), I think you might have a few problems.

Quote:
I’ve noted this viewpoint many times here and it does have a tendency to a belief that little or nothing can be done to change things.

I mean you’ve expressed similar views about people needing to be more self reliant and less molly coddled.

Oh I’ve meet the ‘critical mass’ theory before either from communists where it’s called revolution and from some dizzy right wing types were its seems to be a way of getting people to do nothing and hope for the best.

It seems to me a quasi-religious belief, like those sects that talk of some future second coming when everything with be put right etc. This ‘critical mass’ idea seems similar a kind of opium for the masses.

*
As to the you views on the civilised world being mollycoddled, I’ll ask once again can you explain what you mean because I’ve asked you several times to do so, and you’ve basically been evading.

*
Quote:
Why do you feel afraid?

And the reason you feel you need to be prepared is because you are afraid.

I mean your reply is full of fear and fear mongering – crime, murder, druggies, drunks, rednecks, more crime, robbery, more murder, armed pillheads, armed crackheads, more robbery, and the implication that if you aren’t armed you will be killed.

 

Crypt and others

Guns and political suppression

*

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 if enough people have guns 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 Mayors 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?


Well 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.



An edited version of the OP at
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=253937