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

Balbus, I TRY to read your posts, but my patience level for your stupidity is not very high any more, and I have to keep stopping because most of what you say is rubbish. It is quite clear to all here that you are not listening and you are simply trying to instigate an arguement based on your faulty perceptions. You are dabbling with insults and misquotes, and pretending you don't understand again. How did a troll end up as a mod????

You are the one who wants ME to have all the answers, and RIGHT NOW. But if I spent the entire DAY or even a WEEK laying out how I think things could work, you would just tell me I didn't say anything different. So screw it. You have selective understanding. And I'm casting pearls before swine. Get over it.

 

_________________

You didn't read those local news links I put up did you?

Oh, did I IMPLY that if I did not have a gun I WOULD BE KILLED??? Come on, theatrics are not becoming.

As usual having taken something I said out of context and ignore the parts that don't fit. Which makes your complaint pretty non credible.

I have not evaded. I have explained this in detail. More than once. Where were you?

 

Uh, where did I say that?

 

Balbus, your whole "point" SEEMS to be that America, and most of the people in it, is one screwed up place. Well, thanks for enlightening all us dummies. I'm certain NOBODY knew this until you pointed it out. (That's SARCASM)

I, on the other hand do not profess to know everything about the UK politics. Nor do I feel the need.

But I do know that America RUNS ON FEAR. Fear and punishment. Fear of terrorists, fear of losing your job, fear of having no health care, fear of going to jail, fear of lawsuits, fear of---------(fill in the blank with just about anything.) All that fear ends up creating the situations of things like having WAY TOO MANY LAWS AND RULES, and too many police, too many lawyers, too much RED TAPE. "They'll" keep you running in circles until you fall down in order to cover all their bases...

Fear is the biggest common denominator in civilization in the US. Fear of LOSING something, fear of being pulled over, fear of not having enough money to make it to the end of the month, fear of being different, fear of the unknown or change........ Fear is what created the need for INSURANCE. (The AMISH, by the way, have no need for insurance...)
We vote out of fear (of anyone worse than the one before), we slave away for money to pay the bills out of fear of losing our satellite dish or having our new hybrid car repossessed...
Parents must live in certain ways out of fear of CPS, and the ELDERLY must also fear their rights being taken away as someone might label them as incompetent.

Now, seeing how humanity is so surrounded and controlled with so much fear, much of which is government/media or SELF imposed, it's no wonder that we think it might be ok to own a gun.

 

I think is the main point of the thread, no one has yet to show how the US would be better with more gun control.

The individual is always more important then the group, I fear for people who don't think like this, both for themselves and their impact on society. You know I use to only think that as a personal political beliefs, but after reading Jung's The Undiscovered Self and his critique of the modern individual and psyche vs that of the common mob of state, religion, ect, I find your view flat out dangerous to the psychology of both yourself and society

 

Lets all shoot each other

 

Well,...New York and New Jersey, an prob Connecticut. have swell gun control and people in these places say they are plenty happy with it.

The big question is: Is it OK for sombody in New Jersey to have a say over firearm laws in say Texas; an is it OK for a Texan to have a say over gun laws back east?

Seems most people are happy enough with regulations where they live at thier concerns are directed at people living far away.

People in Jersey are parinoid about some mid-westerner with 30 guns in his house wheras folks in Texas are concerned bout maybe Tony Soprano or Fitty, Snoop, Tony Montana or John Gotti or some other headliner: Plaxico anybody ?

Problems around here have to do with illegal guns, so all the regulations you want to write are for naught if people are intent on getting contraband weapons. The problem here is enforcement and police policy.

Folks here give police wide ability to pull over any car for a mere credentials check, they are seeking contraband weapons, they can frisk you in the subway despite a challenge by ACLU. Here, the story is police/ community tension over locals who were killed mistakenly by police. The agressive tactics needed for zero tollerance gun control are easlly resented by folks who feel that they are being singled out for close inspection.
Political marches are held in response to local casualties of the gun war, politicans seek to galvanize the resentment and harvest gain by representing the agrievied parties before city goverment.

Somebody in The Bronx named Augustino shot a robber with his shotgun during a delicatessen robery last week. Tabloids are full of gun confrontations with everybody being the looser ( well.......attorneys )

Plaxico got sentenced for over two years for shooting himself in the leg at a nightclub.

Gun control here is about enforcement. And guns that come here from someplace else.

Here, activists want firearms manufacturing, production and assembly capped at a certain number; theory being excess weapons in say Florida and Virginia find thier way to New York by smuggling. Activists seek firearms production capped to demand for firearms in firearms legal/ friendly places, to reduce smuggling.

Why should say South Dakota with 200,00 residents need to purchase 150,000 firearms a year? something they say, is fishy.
Companies like Colt and Smith&Wesson arent happy about facing production caps but this seems a solution from this ( Easterner) point of view.

 

Nah there's not much gun regulation in CT, even CCW, we're a "may issue" that for all purposes operates as a "shall issue" state

 

Earthmother

I don’t think your posts are stupid, I might think them ill informed, not thought through, and contradictory, but that doesn’t mean they’re stupid.

And even if I don’t particularly like someone’s ideas I always have enough respect for them to actually read their posts, which to me is just common courtesy.

But can you actually show that what I’ve said is rubbish, it is easy to say but what have you to back up that assertion? I can explain why I think your ideas are ill informed, not thought through or contradictory and you have the right (which you usually ignore) to address my criticisms. However you seem unable to explain in any rational way why my views are rubbish, basing the assertion seemingly purely on a personal bias.

I think the problem is that I listen a bit too well for your liking, because I read the posts and take note of what you say it means its is easy for me to point out where your views seem to be ill informed, not thought through or contradictory, and you seem to find that annoying.

Again but are my perceptions faulty? This is the same problem with your assertion that my views are ‘rubbish’, you don’t seem able to explain in any rational way why you think my views faulty.

The thing you seem to find insulting is me pointing out that your views are right wing, but as I’ve pointed out before if you don’t like being called right wing then stop having right wing views.

You’ve claimed before that I misquote but the problem is you never seem able to back the claim up. All it ever is an unsubstantiated smear.

When I say I don’t understand then I simply mean I don’t understand, and debate is about seeking clarity.

 

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

So demanding me to solve the whole crime/gun/violence issue instantly when I’ve never claimed to have such an instantaneous fix is the same in your eyes to me asking you some questions about your views?

I’m trying to work out what you are proposing; the only difficulty is that you don’t seem that willing to talk about your views openly or honestly.

At the moment it is debatable whether they’re real pearls or paste. Whether you ideas on these issues stand up to scrutiny or don’t.

*

Quote:
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.
_________________

You said

This is a thread about gun ownership, when you say such things in it you are suggesting that if people are not ‘prepared’ (e.g. have weapons like a gun) then they are going to end up dead.
As I’ve said it is fear-mongering.
*
Quote:
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.

In what way was it out of context?
To repeat it

It is a clear statement of your views regarding taxation and people if they wish can read it for themselves.
All you are trying to do is misdirect people away from the fact you still haven’t addressed my question.
*
Quote:
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.

You haven’t exactly been clear, you normally go on about people being too dependent on modern medicine and having electricity, plumbing and such, and there been too many rules and it usually ends with you saying you’re not going to talk to me about it.

How about setting it out more clearly in another thread, (this being a tangent) I’ll even start it for you if you want?

 

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

I was asking you a question.

Do you think education is negative?

Because you said “What I said is that taxes which go to NEGATIVE things like wars etc should be voluntary”

But you have also said “I worked for a guy in NY State before moving to WV who was 80 years old and never had any kids, but paid $1000 a year in school taxes. That was 33 years ago, the taxes for school are much higher now...
No way to opt out, no way to direct where your money goes. Simply highway robbery.”

So you seem to think an education tax should be voluntary to those that don’t benefit from it?

That to force people to pay for things that they don’t directly benefit from is in your opinion ‘highway robbery’.

So under that principle any taxation that went to something that didn’t directly benefit an individual would be voluntary.

I’m just wondering how under such a opt out, re-direct tax scheme that you are going to pay for your expensive prison reform and drug treatment and other social programmes that are you answer to reducing crime.

*

 

Again the focus on gun control not why do so many think they need to easily get hold of guns to feel safe. Why do you seem to have a society that seems to be is so full of fear and mistrust?

The problem as I see it is that “many American’s attitude towards guns is that they seem to see them as a way of dealing with and therefore mainly ignoring many of the social problems within their society” (from an old post I’ll print more below).


So one of the reasons for this mentality is dangerous forms of selfish ‘individuality’

Politically I don’t think the group is more important than the individual, only that there is a symbiotic relationship between the two that needs to be balanced to where the health and benefits of both are maximised.

For example an individual might find it in his financial self interests to dumb toxic waste on some land he owns but does not live on. But if that is detrimental to those that do live near the land I think the group should be able to override the individuals self interest to protect the community. And in the same way I think the individual should have protection from the group.

(And as mentioned some here seem to think the armed individual is the best means of protecting people from group suppression but as shown above this doesn’t seem to have been the case in American history)

*

The question is what is the balance between the individual and community in regard to guns?

Is the individual right to self protection with a gun in balance with what I thing of as the community’s right to have a safe, peaceful and healthy society.

And I’m unsure it is.

There seems to lot of fear (see Earthmothers post above) and little desire to actually tackle the reasons for of this fear beyond getting armed.

And the supposed benefits don’t seem that convincing either. It my have a limited effect on some types of crime on a individual level, (see below) but that seems to come with a much greater increase in other types of crime, and seems to mean that crime as a whole is to some extent ignored on a societal level and/or a belief that threat and intimidation are legitimate means of social control.

And the other reason that gun ownership protects against political suppression again doesn’t seem to stand up in the light of history (above and below).

As I’ve said it often seems to come down to two differing philosophies. One is divisive built on fear and mistrust and retribution, the other is about community and is built on hope, inclusiveness and redemption.

I know which one I prefer.

*

 

I have a theory that the problem with many American’s attitude towards guns is that they seem to see them as a way of dealing with and therefore mainly ignoring many of the social problems within their society.

For example someone said that a gun protected them from such people as crackheads and gangbangers but the problem as I see it is this can lead to the mentality that there is therefore no need to deal with the societal problems that has lead to drug addiction and exclusion.

Just as many Israelis believes Israel can defend itself against its Muslim neighbours seems to makes them believe that they don’t have to deal with what is causing the hostility to toward them.

Many people have stopped asking themselves why things are the way they are and have fallen into the trap of believing that this is how things are. As long as you keep out of the bad parts of town and ‘protect’ yourself as an individual then ‘that stuff’ doesn’t need to be dealt with.

And the best way of keeping it under control and in its place is by the threat that comes from owning a gun.

*

And it can lead to 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).

**

Guns are a means of intimidation, the whole carrying of a concealed weapon movement 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.


(Just a reminder here that “In 1998, more than four times as many women were murdered with a gun by their husbands or intimate partners than were killed by strangers' guns, knives or other weapons combined”… and “One study found that, in Atlanta, family and intimate assaults involving guns were 12 times more likely to result in death than family and intimate assaults not involving guns (L. Saltzman, et.al; Weapon Involvement and Injury Outcomes in Family and Intimate Assaults; 1992). ‘Guns and Domestic Violence’ by Beth Levy.

These were crimes but ones were the gun supposed protective deterrence of outside forces caused internal tragedy)

So that leaves street crime, the deterrence being talked about is basically lower class crime the protection being sort is mainly against the lowest lever of criminal.

Could it be said that it is about keeping the economic lower orders in their place?

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).

**

The false sense of power that guns can give people also seems to appear in the idea that they are a protection against government persecution.

It is a common belief among gun advocates that the holocaust could not have happened if the Jews had been armed.

The problem is that the German people had been taught the Jews were dangerous. So what if some of them had fired on the police that had come to take them away, do you think the German people would have seen this as justified and come to their defence or just seem it as proof the Jews were indeed dangerous and needed locking away?

Think about US history, did the Native American that fought back, get the support of the white American citizenry? Did the black population of the southern US get the protection for their rights from the armed white population? What if the US citizens of Japanese decent had resisted the unconstitutional internment imposed on them, and what if they had shot at the police, would they have got general popular support? What about those hauled in front of McCarthy, would armed Americans have rallied to them if they had refused to go before such a witch hunt and opened fire on those that came to take them?

The thing is that many German people didn’t really care about the suppression of the Jews (or were happy to be complicit in it) just as many American’s didn’t care about the suppression of (Indians, blacks, lefties etc) or were happy to be complicit in it.

 

If you want common courtesy, you need to give it.

It's rubbish because it's all based on a whole lot of your "misunderstanding" of anything I say...

What I find annoying is that you single out a few things you took out of context that I said at some other point in time, which you did not understand the first time I said them, and keep harping on them in anal fashion, when you were wrong to begin with and you refuse to acknowledge that you even "misunderstood".....

I have turned myself inside out trying to get you to simply LISTEN to what I say, but you will not.

As a mod, you know that people who "flame" others by posting insults are subject to banning. I see you think you are immune some how. We've already been thru this. Ad nauseum. You really need to shut up about it. And, no, I'm not going to be nice about it, I've already tried that.

This shows me that you are not about listening OR debating, you are only about nit picking and button pushing.

Because I figure if a body ain't smart enough to "get it" the first time, OR the second time, then why WASTE time trying to go back and hunt thru a hundred old posts just to "defend" my position from your hostility. I don't need to defend my position. It defends itself.

I have NEVER seen you say you don't understand something. That would be too honest. Rather you always insist that you DO understand and that you are always RIGHT. The problem is that your UNDERSTANDING is usually wrong, and no amount of "pointing things" out will convince you otherwise.

So, we reach an impasse. You are not able to discuss any subject for very long, no matter how domineering you are, because ultimately you must always come back to the same old complaints, like a broken record. You spend more time whining about my posts than you do actually saying anything intelligent. Must you air your dirty laundry over and over again for the rest of the posters to suffer thru?:toetap05:.

 

Seeing how you are such an authority on things I have posted in months past, you should already have the answers to all these things at your fingertips.

 

This seems to be it in a nutshell. But the problem is that the majority of people don't think like you do. You clearly state this is just YOUR theory, as YOU see it, and it is only a MAYBE COULD kind of thing. Hell, I COULD go to the mailbox and get bitten by a snake too. We are finding that the way you perceive the issues is quite beyond how most others do. Which tells us that perhaps your mind works differently. So, if you are SEEING something that you think could possibly be the case, we don't really need to be too concerned.
I would be a bit more concerned if my elderly father were to start seeing demons.

 

I agree and both disagree Balbus. Treat the symptom and not the cause, I get it.

Do you expect someone to have a sit-down psychoanalysis session with a raging crackhead?

Am I going to lose work hours and go to the home of a meth-addict and try to work out family matters? Or maybe give him a hug and hope he feels enough love to quit his painful addiction.

Sadly a lot of the issue is one that only the individual can fix internally. Many people are so bent mentally that they're nearly impervious to change.

I make sure to keep all my friends in check, but not all families and friends do that with each other. Really thats all it takes, communication. Unless you want to go down the whole "Man is a beast that needs to be tamed" scenario that Big Brother takes.

Sometimes theres just not much you can do. I've done a lot of bad things in my past although I was raised in a "good" home. All it took was deep psychological examination on my part to see the error in my ways. Prior to personal insight not much could of been done to stop me........ maybe except a gun =X

 

Earthmother

The other stuff is just silliness and more evasion but your comments below are interesting.

Quote:
For example someone said that a gun protected them from such people as crackheads and gangbangers but the problem as I see it is this can lead to the mentality that there is therefore no need to deal with the societal problems that has lead to drug addiction and exclusion.

It’s said gods know everything but I think mere mortals can’t, we can only depend on our experiences and the knowledge we have garnered to try and work things out.

We weight things up in the light of these things and come to conclusions, now some people turn their conclusions into dogmatic beliefs, they don’t say ‘this seems to me’ or ‘my theory is’ they dictate they declare ‘this it how it is’ or ‘it is a fact that…’.

Basically they think they’re gods who just ‘know’, well I’m an atheist and don’t believe in gods and anyway I’m quiet happy to be human and fallible, its much more interesting and fun.

I’ve meet a few people here that have expressed the same view as above – that qualifying a statement somehow shows a weakness in the argument allowing them to dismiss it without actually address what’s been said (some do it just as a ploy because they can’t address what’s been said).

I put forward arguments, ideas, theories, opinions and musings but not as dogma, I’m not declaring them eternal truths, I’m putting them forward for discussion, to see if they stand up to scrutiny, I want people to try and refute them, I actually welcome constructive criticism, these things help me change or hone my views and ideas.

So I’ve put up a theory based on what seems to be, to me.

And you seem to be declaring my views are wrong as they are based only on my views which are rubbish because they are faulty, and they are faulty because they are different than your views and so they are of no concern and can therefore be dismissed.

But that isn’t debate; you are not putting up any rational argument, you’re saying I’m wrong because you wish me to be wrong.

I’ve never said other than that the things I post here are my opinion, my views, my slant, judgement, idea, notion etc etc.

Just as the things you express here are your opinions and theories.

But to me just because they are your ideas doesn’t make them for me any less relevant, and that is why I want to understand them and see if you understand them.

*

So I’ve put up my ideas and opinions on the US gun issue and yes I do seem to be viewing it differently because I’m more interested in the attitudes and mentality that seem to underpin the pro-gun stance.

You can ignore my views, but ignoring them doesn’t mean they’ve gone away and it most definitely doesn’t mean they’ve been addressed.

 

Oni

Well…no.

I’m saying treat the causes then the symptoms will lessen, to me wanting a gun for protection is a symptom.

*

No and I’ve never suggested it.

*

No you shouldn’t and I’ve never suggested anyone should.


*

So the question is - why are they ‘bent mentally’?

An individual cannot ‘fix’ to whom they will be born, where they are born, what colour there skin might be or how poor or how rich their family might be. For an important part of our life it is very difficult to ‘fix’ our circumstances.

So many of the things that make people what they are - are external.

*

An individual cannot dictate to whom they will be born, where they are born, what colour there skin might be or how poor or how rich their family might be.

So is it the child’s fault for not being born into the ‘right’ family?

*

But then it comes down to what is being communicated.

We are mainly products of our experiences and background, including what we learn, what is communicated to us by our senses, what we see, hear and feel. And since an individual cannot dictate into what circumstances they are born, which will greatly affect what will be communicated, it is difficult to dictate what lessons any individual might learn.

But it could be possible to try and create a society where more positive lesson than negative ones could be taught.

*

Why?

And why not try?

*

So what do you think led you to do these things? Do you think you were born ‘bad’ and were always destined to do ‘bad’? Do you think it was all preordained and could not have been different in any way?

I don’t think you do.

And while some are able to achieve personal insights on their own many others would benefit from a little outside assistance.

*

-[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]not much could of been done –

Meaning some things could have been done (other than you been shot), can you say what you think they could have been?

 

The problems seems to be that many Americans think that guns are a solution rather than just being a symptom of the problem.

Now there seems to be some agreement that there is something wrong with US society.

What I’m asking is why are people seemingly turning to guns for personal protection rather than trying to work together to fix things for the better on a societal level?

I’m not saying either or here, but why is it that one seems to have the effect among many to seemingly preclude the other.