2nd Amendment Protest

Michael

Oh dear Michael, how disappointing.

My theory is that guns seem to be seen by many Americans as a way of dealing with and therefore ignoring many of the social, economic and political problems within their society.

You claim -

“I was just addressing your primary argument against them. You were implying that most pro-gunners see guns as a primary solution to society's problems. I was showing you that's not the case”

Problem is you are not explaining your views and ideas you are just making an assertion that you have them, so I must be wrong.

This is very similar to other pro-gunners who have asserted they do think about social, economic, cultural and political problems and do have ideas for dealing with them outside of the framework of the threat, intimidation attitude, BUT always seem unwilling or unable to discuss them.

However they are very, very willing to defend gun ownership as a means of tackling such problems and many are eager to use societal fear to try and promote gun ownership (as you do in your post).

This is all behaviour predicted by my theory, so in fact you seem to be backing up that theory.

PS I’ve pointed out a number of times that this is not a universal attitude but seemingly a prevalent one.

 

Sorry Balbus, I've been ignoring your comments as you seem to be all caught up in arguing with certain other folks for some reason I don't understand. But I keep reading your posts, none the less, and I do see why people are getting so tired of your conversation. I believe that all of us who seem to have pretty much the same take on the gun thing have answered all your concerns, either in THIS thread or another gun related. I KNOW I have, probably more than once as much as I HATE having to repeat myself, and I bet that there are others here who feel as I do that we mostly all agree on the solutions. I have stated my solutions. I DON'T make huge generalizations and complain and protest about something without thinking things thru and offering ANSWERS. It would be stupid not to. Who would listen to a bunch of complaining from anyone if that person has no idea what they DO want?

Perhaps you should simply go back and read some of these gun posts from the beginning. I BET you will find that all your concerns have already been addressed.

 

You gotta remember we're a bunch of baboons this side of the pond

 

Balbus keeps accusing those who disagree with him of avoiding the issues...but what I see is that Balbus is the one doing all the dodging.

Balbus, you're asking me to tell you how we can solve the global problem of violence. That's obviously not something that I can do.

But you, meanwhile, refuse to respond directly to simple matters of logic, like this:


The girl, on the 911 tape. I want for you to tell me plainly and simply, why she would have been better off WITHOUT her gun. Why her buying a gun was a mistake, as you would claim. WHY IF IT WERE UP TO YOU, YOU WOULD HAVE KEPT THAT PISTOL OUT OF HER HANDS, AND WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED TO HER AS A RESULT. Either that or admit the fact that buying that gun was probably the best choice she's ever made since it SAVED HER LIFE.

Pretend that you were talking to her Balbus. I want to hear what you would have to say to her, and how you would get her to "see the error of her ways". Perhaps you could enlighten her by sharing with her your theory.

 

Savage nation boy...
Ive said this before. Being in favor of gun control, is not the same as being in favor of banning guns. Do you understand that?? It means we should not put guns in the hands of people who are careless with them as many are. I dont know you, but Im guessing that you are a fan of guns. You talk with a lot of bravado about how guns are necessary, but at the end of the day I bet you just like guns.

Ill put it this way...my father never owned a gun. He dedicated his life to protecting and providing for his family. NOTHING in the world mattered more to him. His best friend was a gun owner, and an alcoholic. One day the mormons came to his door. He thought they were hit men going to knock him off. He almost shot them, but came to his senses somewhat, and ended up just killing himself.

You give me a story about where a gun was beneficial and Ill give you a hundred about how it was tragic. One story doesn't prove anything. You are just as unwilling to hear the other side of the issue as Balbus is so stop pretending.

 

I agree with you that people who are quote, careless, with their guns should not be keeping them in their home. But then how exactly do you plan on converting that into a law, and enforcing it?

Don't forget, you're advocating placing stringent controls on something that is a RIGHT GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION.

Automobiles, on the other hand, kill WAY WAY WAY more people every year in the U.S. than guns do. And driving isn't even a right, it's a privelage. Are you in favor of "car control" too?

 

firearms are the 2nd leading cause of death for people aged 15-24. They are the LEADING cause of death for black males age 15-34.

and yes I am aware of the 2nd amendment. Im not in favor of banning constitutional rights. But there is a gun crisis in this country, and something must be done.

Well I know its a sarcastic poke at me with the "car control" question, and of course, you can clearly tell by the title of this thread that we are talking about guns not cars, but all that aside...Cars are dangerous things, of course. For passengers, pedestrians, and the environment. I am in favor of better public transportation in this country, but much like the NRA, who makes it difficult to pass even the smallest bills on gun registry, the Oil companies have a huge amount of lobby power in Washington. It is in their best interest to keep the highways packed.

 

"Something must be done"

Yeah, you're right. Something MUST be done when your country's got one of the (if not THE) most violent populations on the globe.

There are a lot of "somethings" that we can do, but the one "something" that has been PROVEN time and time and time again to NOT WORK AT ALL is gun control. It doesn't work. Doesn't. People who are willing to use guns in the commission of a crime will not EVER obey a petty gun law.

A "solution" that doesn't produce the desired result ceases to become a "solution".

The only thing that might lower gun-crime rates in the U.S. would be an out-and-out ban. I'm talking, rolling martial law sweeping across the country from urban center to urban center, forcefully taking every gun that could be found. Then executing those found with them.

I'm sure you don't want that any more than I do...


So until then, the only acceptable, REASONABLE (and reasonably effective) mode of gun control is more or less what we have now:

Those with a history of violence, OR mental instability can never legally own a gun. Notice I said legally. Sure there's always the possibility of someone buying a .38 with the serial # filed off in some dark alleyway...

But then again, the criminals can just as easily, if not more easily, get their filthy little mitts on guns in Kenya's black market (where guns are BANNED outright).

 

One "something" that must be done is to get RID OF VIOLENT, CONTROLLING, MANIPULATIVE, AND WARMONGERING LEADERS!!! We need some GOOD role models.

 

Which brings us back to the argument that society is the problem, not guns.

We also need to get ride of the FEAR mongering, the root cause of the violence, and an emerging yet counter productive industry in this country.

 

I dont think anyone is trying to say that guns are the root of all evil and that they are the biggest problem in our society. Thats not what we're arguing. We're arguing whether or not they magnify the problems we have or they actually help.

I agree we should get rid of fear mongering. But look, from some angles it appears that the people on the pro gun side of the issue are using fear mongering as well. And of course, a thousand times over I agree that we need to change a lot of things about our society and obviously get some good people in our goverment.

2,500,000 uses of gun defense in a year!! good god! that means that the VAST MINORITY of Americans who a) own guns b) actually have to use them in self defense, not only have to use them once in a year, but many many times?? that doesn't make a lot of sense. Look we have all seen cops that were eager to shoot a black man they deemed a "threat," and call it self defense. I suspect that many gun owners may do the same thing. (ignore racial theme, just an example that you are all aware of)

Heres an idea...how bout carry around a taser and I dont know, hand cuffs at all times?? Would that not be enough protection in most cases?? Why insist on a lethal weapon??

 

The problem is that many pro-gunners don’t seem interested in a discussion of the issues they just want to ‘win’ the argument.

This makes an open and honest debate of the issues problematic, if nor near impossible, because in their determination to ‘beat’ their ‘enemy’ many resort to that old adage of ‘the ends justifies the means’.

They often repeat statements (many little more than slogans) while ignoring any criticisms of those statements and play on peoples fears as a means of promoting guns and silencing opponents. And often promoting biased and heavily interpreted data as if it was unquestionable ‘truth’ and ‘fact’, then refusing to defend such data from any criticism.

At is very much reminds me of the neo-con’s methods in promoting the ‘war on terror’ and the invasion of Iraq.

Repeating statements while ignoring or dismissing critics (Saddams links to Al Qeada, WMD’s etc).

Playing on people’s fears as a means of promoting their agenda and silencing opponents (Saddams links to Al Qeada, WMD’s etc).

Promoting often biased and heavily interpreted data as ‘truth’ and ‘fact’

**

 

Balbus keeps accusing those who disagree with him of avoiding the issues...but what I see is that Balbus is the one doing all the dodging.

Please show where and how I’ve dodged the issues?

Balbus, you're asking me to tell you how we can solve the global problem of violence. That's obviously not something that I can do.

Sorry Michael but you should really read what’s written, for me the issue is Americans attitudes toward guns. My theory is that guns seem to be seen by many Americans as a way of dealing with and therefore ignoring many of the social, economic and political problems within their society.
I see this in terms of a seemingly prevalent attitude of threat and intimidation.

What this also seems to mean is that many Americans come to see guns as a way of dealing with problems not only on a general level (tackling crime) but on a more personal level, to settle domestic disputes or cash flow problems.

What we are discussing here is American violence.

For example the Swiss and British gun related homicide figures are about the same, Switzerland has supposedly high gun ownership and the UK low. But they are absolutely dwarfed by the US figures.

“UK – 73 (2001, BBC)

USA - 11,348 (2001, University of Utah)

The UK has 60 million people compared with the USA’s of 250 –280 million so lets boost the UK’s figure

60 million – 70 deaths
120 million – 140 deaths
180 million – 210 deaths
240 million – 280 deaths
300 million – 350 deaths

In fact I believe to get to the USA’s levels of gun related homicides we would need to increase the UK’s population some 160 times to 9,600 million people, the worlds population at this time is only 6,500 million”

Now in the light of this why are so many Americans fixated on defending and promoting guns as a means of tackling societal problems but not seeming to care about wondering what those problems are and why they exist or seem totally unconcerned in thinking of ways to deal with them beyond the threat/intimidation attitude?


**

Again Mike, are you just not reading my posts or are you ignore what doesn’t suit you? I’ve said many, many times now, I’m not against people defending themselves in a reasonable way what I’m saying is that guns seem to be seen by many Americans as a way of dealing with and therefore ignoring many of the social, economic and political problems within their society.

I’d also like to point out (another thing you missed) that the only regulations I’ve been promoting for over a year are ones that Pitt here thought were good and they don’t include an all out ban.

**

This is what I mean about using fear to promote your agenda.

Lights, cameras

Black screen, fade in “the 911 call”

Then suddenly cut to a shaky camera, fast editing woman running hiding, of man and woman struggling, grainy ‘telephone’ noises, heavy breathing, knocks and bangs then woman pleading “stop it, stop it”.

Suddenly there is a gun shot, the camera steadies and the strobe editing ends the woman stands tall over the prone figure of ugly and dishevelled man, noise of woman breathing normally.

Fade to black, caption – “A life saved”

*

It’s like the politicians or their supporters who used footage of the twin towers burning and people jumping from it to promote the agenda for the ‘war on terror’ and invasion of Iraq.

They were just trying to bypass rational thought and use emotion to cloud the issues.

**

 

Where you see "emotional manipulation", I see reality.

 

The fact is that people create violenc,, Not guns...
Know one is willing to bend..Conservatives are afraid that changing any of the gun laws will prove the liberals right and liberals are afraid to admit that taking our right to bare would make our people more volnerable ,and enevitably turn our people against the government.
That would just prove the conservatives right.
Theres absolutley no comprimise in our government.
Niether side is willing to give..
They create these arguement to make us choose sides..
Of course a mother who lost her child to gun violence would want to completely get rid of guns.. Shes tramatized!!!!!
But ask anyone whos been robed at gun piont or had sombody break into thier home, and they can argue a piont although completely the oposite just as ligitimate....And our government knows that...

We have to control the violence and our younge people...Our people dont have the time energy or efort to do that..
You cant make laws that take our peoples rights just because we want to be lazy..

 

LOL Pitt

Do you mean the question I’ve already answered in post 237

And by the way is Michael ever going to get around to addressing my post 217?

**

 

S

"The fact is that people create violenc,, Not guns..."

Guns however just happen to be one of the most efficient ways of dealing out death and injury, they were designed to be.

So if a society is producing people that see threat and suppression (with it’s association with violence) as a legitimate way of dealing with problems it is very likely they will turn to guns as a way of dealing with problems and therefore cause a lot more injuries and death than a people that doesn’t have that mindset.

Try reading – my theory at - http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3438947&postcount=9

My questions are – why does US society seem to produce such an attitude (which seems to breeds violence behaviour) and why are so many Americans seemingly uninterested in their society’s problems but instead seem to believe that guns as a way of dealing with those problems?

**

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Balbus
LOL Pitt

Do you mean the question I’ve already answered in post 237

Does anyone see any answers in post 237 to the questions posed in post 222?

Well pitt you are well known for ignoring or not reading stuff so I’m not surprised you can’t see it I mean I'm the one that actually wrote post 222 so are you saying I posed myself some questions that I refused to answer myself in post 237?

Come on Pitt stop furiously point scoring and address what’s being said.

**
Quote:
Originally Posted by Balbus

And by the way is Michael ever going to get around to addressing my post 217?

**

I believe he did address the point of your post #217 in post #219.

Oh so he wrote a full explanation of what he believes to be the social, economic, cultural and political problems facing the US and his ideas on how to tackle them?

Did he do it in invisible type that only you can read?

**

 

Not all of us see guns as a means of dealing with societal problems, but I'll give it a shot.

The US has generated an industry of fear, the latest scheme to keep the economy rolling, now that we don't produce enough real goods to sustain our bloated standard of living. More and more has become privatized, to the extent that we feel a need to protect what we have. Poverty has become a huge issue, since social programs have been cut in favor of funding this foolish war on "terror" (again, our fear economy), while lining the pockets of the super rich. Impoverished people are resentful, desperate, knowing full well they have little hope of bettering themselves, let alone survival, and this leads to violence.

So what do we do about it? What can we do about it? It seems to me a redistribution of wealth would be a start, but I certainly can't fault anyone for owning a gun for the purpose of protection, not in this country.

And if we wanna get rid of the violence, we need to get rid of the social problems that cause the violence. Outlawing guns won't solve those problems, nor will it get rid of the violence.

 

Maybe I'm misunderstanding something here...

But do you guys across the sea (and here in the U.S. as well) actually believe that our government is trying to scare us into buying guns???

Think again, most of the government, as a whole and generally speaking, would MUCH MUCH prefer it if the 2nd amendment was never written. They WOULD disarm the population if they thought they could. They want control!


So please tell me I'm mistaken, and no one in this thread was suggesting such a ridiculous thing...