Should Guns be Outlawed in the U.S.A?

Roo

But again why do they want guns?

But why do they want a gun?

 

OWB

It seems to me that you are myopic, so blinked by the desire to defend gun ownership that you cannot get beyond that one thought.

Your criticism of my post - Can guns save you from suppression? – is a case in point.

Your two main arguments against it are – it is only a opinion and - it isn’t about gun control.

These can be easily dealt with and you would have known that if you hadn’t approached in such a blinked one thought way.

It is only Balbus’ opinion

Yes it is.

I’ve never said anything differently – in fact I begin it by saying it is a theory and low and behold you even acknowledge that I call it a theory so it seems silly if not bizarre to then use ‘it’s only an opinion’ as a criticism.

It isn’t about gun control

It is about the idea that some pro-gunners put forward that gun ownership is a way of limiting government suppression.

To approach it with the blinkers of ‘gun control’ is to miss the whole point.

And you dually missed the whole point.

*

It is only Balbus’ opinion

You seem to make the mistake that many here do that I don’t like my ‘theories’ to be challenged.

Actually I’d relish some good criticism, the problem is that (like now) I only get some very bad criticism.

I just get people shouting at me that I’m wrong (because they don’t agree with me) or they just repeat the same thing over and over even when it has been addressed or the seeming flaws in the argument has been pointed out but not addressed (forcing me to repeat myself over and over).

And you are doing the exact same thing – you tell me I’m wrong, because you don’t like what I’m saying so I must be wrong, because you think you are right.

But that doesn’t work.

I don’t just believe I’m right that I’m a god that knows all truth – so I present arguments; I put forward theories that are based on many things (what is said here and from other conversations as well as things like articles and books).

You are free to criticise them – but please make the criticism worthwhile and give at least a little thought to them.

It isn’t about gun control

It is part of a larger argument and you’d know that if you were not blinkered and actually read my posts.

To repeat – I’m not against law-abiding and responsible people owning a gun but I question why they feel they need one.

One of the arguments given by many pro-gunners was that they felt they needed a gun as protection against government suppression (go to any of the gun issue threads and it is there).

That gun ownership somehow guaranteed their personal and even social freedom and liberty.

I wrote the piece to point out that this didn’t seem to be the case. That in fact many Americans (especially on the right) had given their support to US government suppression (both domestically and abroad). And pointing out that the state would move against any resistance to overthrow it and do it in such a way that it would probably be supported by many Americans.

Your response is a bit confused in that you seem to both agree and disagree, and so I’m confused as to what view actually is, can you clarify?

 

OWB

Many pro-gunners seem to feel they are the final arbiters, the ones that would defend American liberty, uphold the US constitution.

Personal ‘freedoms’ - which many consider as essentially ‘American liberties’ (read the posts) and often seem to point to the ‘US constitution’ as an expression of them (read the posts).

Which just makes my point for me - that you don’t seem interested in wider discussion, you dismiss a lot of what’s said with a – ‘what has this to do with gun control’ – well if you had actually though about it you’d have realised that one it has and two that it is making a wider social criticism as well.
But you were not interested in thinking about it all you were interested in was ‘gun control’.

But if you were actually interested we would have already discussed such issues you would not have to now go and search you would have already been a part of it.

Again you make my point for me.

You said something similar in a previous thread and as I pointed out then you hadn’t done so in the politics forum then and I’m sorry to say you don’t seem to have done so since. But I could be wrong can you point to a debate in politics you have had involving wider social issues?

LOL - I’m happy to do so and often do ‘hi-jack’ a thread (just ask Indie) but you can deal with all the negative posts I’ll get.

Anyway it is legitimate to say - as I have - that you can begin another thread on that subject or link to another debate (I often do but many here often refuse to go there, something you are as guilty of as well).

Try posts 89-90 in the thread What to do in the mad, mad world? to be going on with-
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=425761

 

OWB

YES - OH YES - THANK YOU, THANK YOU.

OWB

This is exactly what I’ve been talking about (you’d know that if you actually read my posts)

Once again you are backing up my theories. If this is your idea of discussing wider social issues please carry on because it backs my ideas up exactly and in the next posts I’ll explain why.

 

OWB (Roo and Indie et al) please read the whole thing so I don’t have to reprint it again)

Here is an edited part of a previous post.

- 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 from personal interaction to how they see other countries.

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

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

Against Crime

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 are 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 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.

As I’ve said many Americans attitude toward guns is just one aspect of 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).


*gone up since then the “At year-end 2009 it was 743 incarcerated per 100,000 population” wiki

 

OWB

Now hopefully you have read all of the above?

So now reread what you’ve posted.

The problem is that such repressive attitudes can build up an irrational barrier between what is seen as prudent and sensible and what actually is prudent and sensible.

Your idea isn’t about tackling the reasons why someone has a gun with criminal intent or about how they have come to be in possession of a gun, it is only about the outcome the symptom.

It is like giving painkillers to someone with diabetes related pain - it helps yes - but it doesn’t stabilise the cause of the pain.

Can you understand that?

It isn’t exactly the rational approach, it is like closing the stable door after the horse has bolted - the person is a criminal and has got hold of a gun – a more sensible approach would be to try and prevent a person turning to crime and as much as possible limit the availability of guns to criminals.

 

I suggest that you read my posts and actually respond to them rather than just be dismissive.

 

OWB

I have, please read my replies and you'll see I do. But if you think I’ve missed something please don’t hesitate to point it out and I’ll have another go.

*

Edit – OK I’ve gone back over what you said and yes I’ve covered it, maybe you should re-read your own post and see what you said.

But again if you think I’ve missed something just point it out and I’ll cover it again.

Regards

Balbus

 

Did you ever stop to think that in a thread with the theme "Should Guns be Outlawed in the U.S.A", that people might talk about "American liberties and often seem to point to the ‘US constitution’" quite often.

Which interestingly makes my point for me, if you want to get into a "wider discussion", fine but this thread is about "Should Guns be Outlawed in the U.S.A" and it would interesting if in some way you would actually try to tie your "wider discussion" back into the topic at hand instead of just rambling on about "socialism" and leaving us hanging wondering what has this to do with the subject at hand. Thus I asked "what has this to do with gun control" not because I'm not interested in a "wider discussion" but because I like to know if you are ever going to get to the point.

Actually I thought it was interesting but again in the frame work of the discussion at hand, you never tied it back into the discussion at hand, thus forcing me to ask "what does this have to do with gun control.

Once again you make baseless assumptions. You have absolutely no way of knowing if I have already discussed such issues. I may have already discussed such issues ad nauseam before I ever came to Hip Forums and as such, was not ready to jump right into such discussions when I got here. Yet you continue to cast aspersions on me because I don't seem to be doing things the way you want them done. I sorry you feel that way but because I don't do it your way is not a reason for dismissing what I have say as you seem to think it is.

You are still the only Moderator of the politics forum aren't you? And I seem to remember the last time we met in the politics forum you banned me, something you said you would look into. So you might understand my being a little trepidatious about even visiting the politics forum, let alone participating and this is my first real return to politics forum since then.

And if you were really interested in knowing why I like to discuss gun control and have not entered into what you call a "wider discussion", you might have just asked me instead of making these baseless accusations.

It just doesn't seem to often.

Yes, It seems you do.

What?

Perhaps in these forums it is "okay" but in a true debate situation it is just not acceptable.

If you mean all the times you've said to go read your some 4000 posts, guilty as charged but if you go and read all of my some 7000 post and when you are finished, you come back and ask me to read all of your posts then I will do so.

As usual this was interesting but truth be known you are only painting the sides of a sinking ship. The truth is there is no way to save these faulty governments, you can prop them up a little while longer if you wish but it is just a waste of time. Which is one of the reasons that I don't debate the subject much.

The only governments that have actually worked are wise benevolent dictatorships or monarchies but the big problem with them is finding someone to take the ruler's place, someone who is wise and benevolent, when they die.

 

You are welcome and I'm waiting with baited breath.

 

First off Balbus, why is it wrong to want to exercise my right as an American? Escpecially when my government continues to try to take away our constitutional rights everyday. You don't even live in this country from what I can see. So how is any one in the USA supposed to take you seriously about your subject matter when you don't seem to really have a clue? I can obviously see some of your previous posts and understand that I have no idea what you've done for work or otherwise toward gun control or lack there of, thats just what I'm getting from some of your posts.You like to play word games with people it seems also, like you know what someone will say to your posts, but you post it anyways knowing very well you will most likely catch heat for it. With your opinions, people are making assumptions the same as you, are they not? So why can someone not have a problem with your opinion? Say what you want, but I refuse to let you think the only reason I have a weapon is to guarantee my freedom from government. On the contrary, it's the government that SHOULD be protecting those freedoms and rights, and everyday it seems that its tried to be taken away more and more. You're giving off the impression that I'm supposed to want a weapon for anything other my god given constitutional right? Even so, it's for personal protection, trespassers or otherwise. You want to know why some of us feel the need for it? Come live in my part of town for a week. . .

 

This is, as you admit, only a theory and seems to be based on your somewhat suspect assumption about the attitude among many Americans.

This is based on your suspect assumption above and thus is also suspect.

And we go even farther afield based on the above suspect assumption.

Still going on about an attitude that has no proof in fact and is at best suspect.

Still going on about a theory of yours that is suspect and is self serving at best.

It appears that your theory has built up an irrational barrier for you between reality and myth, between what you see as prudent and sensible and what actually is prudent and sensible.

Are you really saying that if someone robs you at gun point, that you want that person to be understood in the social context that leads to criminality and perhaps let go because it's not their fault and that maybe you should be sentenced to community service because you didn't do enough to help him before he turned to crime. Better yet let's do away with all laws that protect the innocent victims from violent crime and then there won't be any criminals, just misunderstood violent people and their victims.

In reality you are so blinded by your desire to foist your ideas on others you didn't even notice that I didn't suggest or even imply "‘toughness’" or "in other words repressive measures" and would have noticed that I merely said that if a person commits a crime with a gun that they go to prison and they will no longer have access to a gun while he is there, which not any call for extra "toughness" or "repressive measures" but is merely the usual law of the land even in countries that don't believe in "toughness" or "repressive measures".

A part of what repressive approach?

by the phrase "this attitude", do you mean the one that you've made up and doesn't exist in reality?

But talking about reality, the US is probably the most progressive country in the world in trying to find solutions to the social and economic problems of it's citizens. In fact there are times when I wonder if the whole purpose of the US is just to be a giant experiment in trying newer and newer ways to solve the social and economic problems and to be perfectly honest with you I don't see gun ownership as a blip on the screen, let alone a major factor in any of this.

Yes, as you’ve said. The problem is there is no "general attitude of intimidation in US society", this is just a figment of your imagination.

Prison population? How many of those are for drug crimes? If the US would give up it's prosaic drug laws, it jails would almost be empty.

As for execution rates, maybe you can talk with Texas for us, they don't seem to want to listen to us.

You see, that is one of the big problems you seem to have, you don't seem to any clue about the size of the US, it's people or it's government, all of Europe could could fit in the US almost twice. So the question is how often can you make a generalization about all the peoples of Europe or their governments and be even partially right. But you do that about the US all the time. You say things like; the US has the three strikes rule, 25 states don't or the US has the death penalty, 16 states don't and Michigan hasn't had a death penalty since 1846 and Maine 1887. Interestingly capital punishment for murder was only abolished in 1969 in Great Britain and in 1973 in Northern Ireland. Although not applied since, the death penalty remained on the statute book for certain other offenses until 1998.

Some prisons may be, others are not. Again generalizing about the conditions of all the prisons in the US is just not possible.

 

Yes, read and replied to all the above.

I don't have to reread it, I wrote it and unlike you, I know what it says.

Too bad you have such repressive attitudes or else you would know that there is nothing repressive in what I said.

It's not my idea or even the US's idea. The whole world seems to think it's a pretty good idea to put violent criminals who have committed a violent crime in jail.

No, I can't understand it.

The illustration you use doesn't apply, diabetes is not something a person chooses to do, unlike a violent crime that a person chooses to do or not to do.

People have been using your "rational approach" and every variation there of and continue to do so and have done so in the US for years, and yet seem no closer to a solution. The simple fact is people still are committing violent crimes and there are laws already in place to take care of those crimes when they happen and if merely saying so is repressive, as you seem to be saying, then you have a pretty strange idea of what is repressive.

 

Actually no, you haven't, because if you did you would know that in your replies you are responding to what you think I said or to what you want me to have said and not to what I have actually said.

I do and you don't.

If you actually read my replies you would know that telling you that you missed something is about 75% or more of my replies.

Telling you that you missed something is about 75% or more of my replies.

And happy trails to you,
OWB

 

OWB

Sorry but you seem to be getting muddled - As an example of your confusion this is instructive –

We were discussing your critique of my post
Can guns save you from suppression?
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/s...&postcount=217

*
I said
One of the arguments given by many pro-gunners was that they felt they needed a gun as protection against government suppression (go to any of the gun issue threads and it is there). That gun ownership somehow guaranteed their personal and even social freedom and liberty.

Your view on that idea was -

But I pointed out Personal ‘freedoms’ - which many consider as essentially ‘American liberties’ (read the posts) and often seem to point to the ‘US constitution’ as an expression of them (read the posts).

To which you reply –

It seems you’re the one who didn’t ‘stop to think’ because you are basically making my point for me.
You seem to be so desperate to score a point you loose track of what’s said.
*
That is why I asked for clarification (which I notice you have not given), because you seem to be implying at one moment that my argument is not legitimate and then in the next claiming it is legitimate.
If you stopped just trying to score points rather than explain your position, you might not get in such a muddle.

 

OWB

Another example of muddle

Which just makes my point for me - that you don’t seem interested in wider discussion, you dismiss a lot of what’s said with a – ‘what has this to do with gun control’ – well if you had actually though about it you’d have realised that one it has and two that it is making a wider social criticism as well.

(LOL – where did ‘socialism’ pop up from?)

Again you seem to be confused. Yes we are in the Should Guns be Outlawed in the U.S.Athread but we were discussing your criticism of my post Can guns save you from suppression?http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/s...&postcount=217

Again you seem more interested in just scoring some type of point rather than honest discussion.

To repeat – I’m not against law-abiding and responsible people owning a gun but I question why they feel they need one.

One of the arguments given by many pro-gunners was that they felt they needed a gun as protection against government suppression (go to any of the gun issue threads and it is there).

That gun ownership somehow guaranteed their personal and even social freedom and liberty.

I wrote the piece to point out that this didn’t seem to be the case. That in fact many Americans (especially on the right) had given their support to US government suppression (both domestically and abroad). And pointing out that the state would move against any resistance to overthrow it and do it in such a way that it would probably be supported by many Americans.

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.

*

 

OWB

But you were not interested in thinking about it all you were interested in was ‘gun control’.

You see that is your problem again you don’t think about what is said you just want to score a point.

To explain – the pro-gun arguments for opposing gun control seem to be –

1) Protection against crime
2) Protection against government
3) A right under the US Constitution
4) Hunting

I’m only really interested in 1 and 2 since for 3 and 4 I’m not against the law abiding and responsible owning a gun.

What I’m asking is are 1 and 2 legitimate and are they distractions or barriers to actual prudent and sensible action?

So far you haven’t put up an argument against what I’ve present beyond saying I’m wrong, because you think I’m wrong.

That doesn’t work.

 

OWB
But if you were actually interested we would have already discussed such issues you would not have to now go and search you would have already been a part of it.

LOL – Oh so that’s it – you were really interested in discussing wider social issues but you did so much of it before coming to Hipforums that you haven’t really felt the need to do it here, how long is that - four years or so?

Yep that will be it then.

Sorry this also made me laugh – let’s see you are saying that you were too afraid to come here to discuss much less contentious subjects like social issues but suddenly you feel you have to jump into a much more contentious thread on the exact same subject that got you banned as a troll the last time you were here.

That really does give an insight into your priorities, defending guns important – social issues not important at all.

And the laughs keep coming – but I don’t ask you to read ALL my posts but I do think someone should read through a thread before posting and I do hope that people read the posts I link to (as I do to theirs)

Actually I’ve read many of your post – they seem mainly to be religious and I’m an atheist and if people want to believe in fictional entities like fairies, goblins or gods that’s up to them, but to me it seems a bit sad and I’m happy to leave them at it.

But thinking about it – it could explain why you don’t seem to think rational argument is needed and prefer the ‘I am the truth and thou shall not question me’ approach to debating.

Thank you for the insight into your political thinking, I’ll make a note of it – to clarify you are basically opposed to democratic or constitutional government and favour autocracy?

 

OWB

OH yes classic, because I think it would be better to try and prevent a person turning to crime and as much as possible limit the availability of guns to criminals, you accuse me of wanting to do away with all laws that protect the innocent victims from violent crime?

Isn’t that a bit of a juvenile argument even for you?

Can you back this up?

But as I’ve mentioned many times (there have been lots of threads on drugs here over the years, you could have joined one) US drug policies seem based in a lot of the same attitudes you scoff at. I’ve called the US ‘war on drugs’ silly and counter productive, because it is based in the idea that the threat of violence, intimidation and suppression as legitimate means of societal control.

 

OWB

Said like a true believer in the repressive approach.

Why do you think people turn to crime?

*

This is just another variation on the ‘Americans are more violent than other people’ argument, discussed earlier. Basic fear mongering.

It tries to insinuate that there is no alternative to having guns for protection.

But why do you think Americans are so much more violent and the US is so more frightening than other places, that many seem to think they need a gun to protect then from it and them?