Should Guns be Banned in the US?

Thanks on the behalf of many for the very informative post on slander/libel/4um protocol.
AND you are correct, I fully intend on manintaing my anonymity and as such have no case. Still falsely claiming someone said something they didn't is poor methodology in a discussion.

BACK on TOPIC ?

I presented one model of thought. [MODEL A]
Conflict/War/Death is part of reality, accept it and take a stand ... fly or die.

The OTHER model would be,
[MODEL B]... Eat only veggies, never get into a conflict, or do harm, live forever in peace in a guardin with Lions that eat only straw and sleep with lambs.

Your choice !

Abbey was a patriot
havent heard his name in decades, bin bizzy.

[MODEL C]Mind your own business, live your own little [mortal] life, accept that life is a miracle, not be anal-ized under the microscoop and injoy it as God intended, keeping your nose out of his biz.

Hmmm
Must be some other models to examine here
Hollywood would say shoot'em all up !

Some would say
"Its not whether not or youre going to die, but what you die for"
MY question to all is this
"Do you really think you are smarter than the founding fathers who must have given this ammendment a great deal of thought" ?

GLOBAL peace on earth may or may nor ever come, but even soldiers who die in battle can have peace of mind, believing in their cause.

Isnt peace of mind the ONLY REAL peace there is ?
Peace baby !

 

you equated obama with hitler, which was fallacious

so i'll throw your fallacy back at you

hitler also supported violent means

which makes you exactly the same

are you a homophobe too?

so was your friend hitler . . .

 

Really? If I was a mod I would ban for this and not think twice about it

 

OK thanks to the person that banned yru269? And lets just put that little interlude behind us, (and I hope Mad now realises that mods delete posts for a reason not to get out of debate), and talking of debate does he want to carry on where we left off how about Skizm and Soul, any comments?

Anyway I’ll post a bit more of my thesis and see what you think.

A Gun theory

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 Government

For example many feel they need guns to ‘protect’ them from the government, but how realistic is that belief and what in essence does it mean?

If anyone looked at the history of the US they’d see clearly that gun ownership has never been a tried and tested method of escaping the actions of the government. From the suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion to Ruby Ridge and Waco, in fact the use of weapons against authority has been seen as justification by many or most Americans for tough action (repression as a means of problem solving).

But have the armed citizens of America been a bulwark against injustice or have they more often than not helped perpetrate it? If people actually thought about the classic cases of injustice in US history they would see a pattern. More often than not guns in the hands of ‘decent people’ have been used as a means of suppression. From the subjugation of the ‘savage Indians’, the repression of ‘bestial negroes’ to the defence against ‘insidious pinkos’ the use or threat of force has been obvious and the gun the symbol of that power.

But it doesn’t have to be a gun, this attitude is about having ‘equalizing’ power, the ability to threaten and this is why the argument runs that if there were no guns then there would be swords and knives and in that case they would want also to have swords and knives.

It seems to me that when threat, intimidation and suppression come to be seen as the most important (or only) means of dealing with domestic social problems and the outside world, the mindset becomes blind to alternatives.

 

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 (or even gun owners) have this viewpoint and not everyone who does have it 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 which is a high gun ownership nation has a prison population of 83 per 100,000, England and Wales which has similar attitudes but with strict gun laws has one of 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 according to Amnesty International).

But who is this intimidation been directed at?

As I’ve said guns are a means of intimidation, the whole movement to legalise the carrying of a concealed weapon is based on the premise that ‘criminals’ will be too afraid to act.

The view prevalent among pro-gunners that America is a more polite society because of widespread gun ownership is also based on this it is basically is be polite or else, not real politeness but politeness at the point of a gun.

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 (and in domestic violence crimes a gun is more likely to make things worse).

So that leaves street crime, the deterrence being talked about is basically lower class crime the protection being sort and the threat directed is mainly against the lowest level of criminal. The ‘outlaws’ the decent law abiding wish to intimidate with their guns are lower level of criminal.

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

Well back to those other means of intimidation.

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)

**

So again who is this intimidation been directed at?

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.

 

In the poll the answer with the most vote to the question - Should guns be banned in the US - is at this moment

No, if you ban guns only outlaws will have them

But again this isn’t about dealing with the causes but the symptoms.

Why is this person a criminal what made them become a criminal?

How come they have a gun where did it come from?

These questions don’t seem to even appear on many gun owners radar it’s as if they think ‘I have a gun those are irrelevant questions’ or it doesn’t go beyond ‘they are and they can’.

Maybe a better question to pose pro-gunners is – Do you want guns out of the hands of criminals

I know the default answer for many is simply – that can’t be done – but please try to go beyond that and answer yes or no – do you want guns out of the hands of the criminal and the irresponsible?

Do you?

And if so how far are you willing to go to achieve that?

 

i would like to change my vote as i have recently become a convert to the idea of hunting for meat in rural areas

no, i do not hunt myself, do not want to, do not want to own a gun or eat meat

but i am a stranger in a strange land . . .

i still think you should have to jump through a few hoops to get one of the damned things

 

I'm a true believer in distribution, that's why it puzzles me on why our government isn't soliciting AK-47's or RPG's over the counter in such places as my local K-mart?

It's hard enough that our people are out of work, why not put these same people in paying jobs such as the making and manufacturing of hi-end weaponry so that our economy can strive and grow once more by exporting these product's to other needy nations?

I should write to my congressmen about this.

 

Wa




I do eat meat and would have no problem hunting for food if I lived in the country where there was such game.

But I could do that in the UK even now with all its gun control. However I don’t live out in the country but in the packed urban streets of London.

The thing is that pro-gunners don’t seem to be highlighting the hunting area so much as the personal safety aspect with all that talk of outlaws, crackheads and gangbangers. To me it seems like fear mongering to sell guns and also the view that there are no alternatives to tackling crime other than with the threat posed by guns.

 

balbus, agreed, but i'd voted ban all guns whereas i'd now like to ban all guns except for say single-shot rifles [or something like that]

thus enabling hunters and lee harvey oswald

 

I've never been in the UK, not sure if you've ever been to the US, but the drug problem in the US is everywhere, The gangs everywhere, specially now that they are spilling the Mexican drug war into our country. other than living out in the boondocks if you are a type of person like me that goes out everyday in the US you'll quickly encounter the unruly and drug addict or both in the same on a daily basics. I'm not talking about weed smokers either I'm talking about hardcore motherfuckers and some of them even look like the walking dead.

Most people in the states know you don't say good morning to someone unless you know them. I personally walk around with a stun gun and keep the gun's at home cuz I don't want to get stopped and shot up by a trigger jumpy tyrant cop.

 

that's funny, i live in the states and say 'good morning' to everyone i see, whether i know them or not

even in the afternoon . . .

 

Crums


Sorry but once again your reply is indicative of the same mentality I’ve been trying to highlight.

Its not how can we deal with the causes of the problems but seemingly just about tackling the symptoms

You are frightened of your society so you have armed yourself - but why is your society frightening to you?

Just saying as many seemed to - that it just is and so I need a gun – doesn’t cut it with me because it means little though has been given to the issue and my point is that it seems to me that all too often when a person gets a gun the question of why is never addressed again. The attitude just seems to become – I’ve got a gun I don’t have to care about that shit, if anyone tries to mess with me I can shoot them –

*

You actually mention one of the main problems – the absolutely mad policies that most governments have toward drugs.

Now in the US as in other countries there are people campaigning to get such laws reformed or overturned so new methods not based on criminality can be pursued.

But a lot of the people in the US that are champions of gun ownership are also against having a drug policy aimed at decriminalisation, health risk and helping addicts.

*

I have visited the US but only California, which is a bit like an American saying he has visited Europe when they’ve only gone to England.

Anyway, I have lived in several places in Europe and visited a lot more and I can tell you that the drug and gang problem is everywhere it is just that in the US it is a much more armed with guns than in most places.

 

Balbus: You win at logic.

 

I do not want a gun.

Its a big financial commitment.

In aincent warrior prestige societies, weapons were valued above all else as status posessions. Warriors identified with thier weapon.

I gotta think that our society has moved past that point. I do not derrive status from a weapon, or what I drive, or wear.

 

a bit of hand-to-hoof combat perhaps? make it interesting at least

but on the subject matter, I voted for 'ban all guns'. Admittedly I don't live in a culture that is gun obsessed therefore my slant will be conditioned by this. I do live in inner city London though, where we have 'amateur' gun crime. It mainly appears to be confined to gangs however, and as no-one appears to want to be in my gang...*sigh*, it is easily avoidable.

I'm disappointed to admit that my emotional reaction to 'another gang related gun death' is borderline indifference. Even though I appreciate that circumstances dictate, if people are going to be killed, violent people killing violent people is canny far down the 'bothered' scale.

 

You have created a self-fulfilling prophecy.

No one wants to say good morning to, or even walk next to, the sketchy looking jumpy motherfucker hunched over his hand in his bulging pocket, who looks like he's somewhere between mugging you, and trying to keep you from mugging him.

 

I grew up in a part of the US where everyone owns guns, either as hunters, collectors, for protection, or all three. Often, people had them hanging on the walls of their homes as decoration. Most everyone had them in their vehicles. Even in high school, there were hunting rifles and shotguns in pick-up trucks and several times, guys would bring in old guns to shop class and refinish the stocks.

Never once saw a problem in school. No one got shot. The crime rate was very, very low. (although I did witness a shoot out when I was about 10 years old at an intersection between four older men in two vehicles, I'll never forget it, crazy).

I myself have owned 20+ guns through the years and currently own around 10 or so, all safely locked away in storage since I moved to a very gun-unfriendly place.

We used to say "an armed society is a polite society." A lot of truth in that I guess. That said, we grew up with these guns around, didn't think anything of it. It would be absolutely wrong to make guns instantly accessible to everyone. It has to be part of the culture, otherwise, they're used for the wrong purposes, just like anything else.

Too bad, growing up as a redneck child was a lot of fun.

 

Arigami

To me the whole gang thing (and so the gun thing) is the visible part of wider problems, a symptom of something not the cause. I’ve mentioned one thing the rather ridicules drugs laws, the other is a sense of alienation among many young people that manifests itself in anti-social and often self destructive behaviour.

And also remember that many young people (mainly boys) are sucked into gangs or even pulled into them (with the offer of material goods they couldn’t afford) and once in it can be hard to get out again, because it can be seen as a betrayal (and have violent consequences), London is full of young people who want to get out of gangs, but don’t know how or where to go if they did.