Should the United Nations Be Allowed To Disarm Amerika ??ns

My gun isn't going to create jobs or solve high school drop-out rates or help raise the literacy rate. I'm not thinking of a gun as solving the symptoms; I'm thinking my gun can be useful in dealing with a person who is using the symptoms of socio-economic distress as an excuse to commit crime. Crime is not a "symptom" of socio-economic problems it is a thoughtful and directed human response to those conditions. If crime is a symptom of something it is only evident of the depths that some people's self-respect and dignity can plummet.

I deny any responsibility for their actions, there are many people who are faced with troubling conditions and they don't choose to prey on other people. I don't owe them anything except an instant behavior modification exercise.

Again building a castle in the sky . . . The fact remains that you instill all these powers and effects onto gun ownership but those who exercise it and go about our daily business armed, don't feel at all like that. I and the many people I know recognize a great responsibility and do not take possessing the ability to end a life lightly but the motives and mindset you envision just is not there.

Perhaps that's what separates the law-abiding from the criminal and exposes a fatal defect in your brand of moral equivalency that does not differentiate between the motives of each in being armed (criminal for aggression & illicit taking vs law-abiding to resist aggression & for protection).

You imagine what the mindset is, I live it and there ain't much to say after that.

Projection . . . it is a powerful drug.

There are plenty of hug-a-thug leftists out there to make things "better;" they have had plenty of practice, they have been nurturing those deficiencies in society for half a century. The criminal filled hellholes of violence and human degradation are always places where leftist policies have been applied for decades with all its brutal effects.

My hometown is a perfect example:

Philadelphia murder map

 

Rick

Basically you are just saying that since you think my ideas are wrong then you don’t feel you need to put up any counter argument.

In other words you have no counter-argument you only have your personal dislike of my views.
I’m sorry to say that doesn’t make these ideas go away in fact since you don’t seem able to put up a counter argument it would suggest that they have validity.

Look at the terms you use ‘control’ and ‘restrained’ these again back up my theory in that it is about suppression and dominance of the symptoms, but what about the causes?
I’m not saying that ‘control’ and ‘restrained’ shouldn’t be part of tackling crime but they should be the only things.

 

Rick

But if the principle is a myth that cannot actually be implemented in reality then it is useless and so far you’ve said nothing to dispel the idea that it is a myth.

But as I’ve pointed out, the America people have not risen up to curtail US government suppression in the past (even when the constitution seems to have been violated) and that on occasion the very groups that are pro-gun have actually supported such government suppression.

 

Rick

Thank you again this is another example of the mentality I’ve been trying to highlight.

You are ignoring the socio-economic connection to crime (by denying it) and your response is based on the idea that your gun can modify behaviour through threat

 

Rick

You present you hometown as an example but interestingly Philadelphia i believe has a population of around 6.1 million yet it had 406 homicides while on the other hand London with around 7.5 million only had 175 homicides between Apr-2005 to Apr-2006. In fact in 2009 there were only 651 murders in the whole of England and Wales with a population of around 55 million.

So two Philadelphia’s with only 12.2 million people would create 812 murders more than what is produced by 55 million Brits.

I’d be asking what is going wrong in your society, why don’t you seem to be asking that?

 

Rick

Your opposition to my ideas seems to be two pronged one is general the other specific

The first is just to say I’m wrong, no counter argument is produced you just say I’m wrong, because they must be wrong because you think you are right.

But if you are right then shouldn’t you be able to put up a counter argument?

The other argument is specific to my view that guns in US history don’t seem to have given protection against government suppression, when the government put its mind to suppress.

Your argument is that there is a ‘principle’ that the American people in protection of their liberty can if they wish defend themselves from government suppression up to and including overthrowing the suppressing government by force of arms.

It is this threat you seem to believe that will keep government in line, but it hasn’t kept the US government in line. The government has been allowed to suppress, so this ‘principle’ would seem to be a myth.

Did the Native Americans that fought back against the treaty breaking US government get the support of the American citizenry? What if the US citizens of Japanese decent had resisted the unconstitutional internment imposed on them after Pearl Harbour and had shot at the police, do you think they would have got general and popular support? What about those hauled in front of McCarthy or the un-American committees, would Americans have rallied to them if they had refused to go before such witch hunts and opened fire on those that came to take them?

*

Other comments of yours only seem to strengthen my theories your ideas do seem to be based on the idea that threat of violence, intimidation and suppression as legitimate means of societal control and this mindset does seem to colours the whole way they think about and view the world, from personal interaction upwards.

This attitude is on display in you view of modify criminal behaviour by threat and the idea that an armed citizenry can keep government inline by intimidation.

 

United states is slowly desolving into shit oh by the way on the subject of guns i have antique winchesters for sale its a bitch tryin to sell that kinda stuff

 

I'm not "denying" it. I recognized some of the symptoms. My reaction to your line of thought is incredulity that you think I am somehow responsible for addressing and rectifying the ills of society.

You deny my individual rights but impress this communitarian duty on me?

Sorry, as a liberty embracing American I completely reject that entire Euro-weenie proposition.

In my town, primarily it is Rap inspired/reinforced drug thug culture and the complete impotence of the criminal justice system to imprison those violent criminals and just keeps letting them out again and again to prey on each other and society.

Yes, you are wrong because the mindset you assign to American gun owners is a complete fabrication of your mind completely disconnected from reality. What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Uhhhh, I have. You say a mindset exists, I say it doesn't.

You hypothesize, I live it.

And the proper and correct (and bandwidth saving) answer is . . . SO WHAT?

You recognize that I have posted why it doesn't matter and why your "justification" for restricting guns is of zero consequence.

It is called the pre-existing right of every citizen of the USA to keep and bear arms secured by the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution of the USA which only redundantly forbids the government from exercising a power it was never granted.

And it does not matter whether that's true or false. I and 80 million other Americans still retain and will continue to exercise the right to keep and bear arms.

Yup

My motto is, make love not war but be prepared for both.

Being anti-criminal and being willing and able to repel a criminal attack is not being anti-social.

You are a broken record with your line of thought and besides being pathetically un-compelling it is horrifyingly enabling of the uncivilized criminal and his anti-social behavior.

You are apparently very proud of this theory of the psyche of the American gun owner that you have imagined but I'm not impressed, if anything I am weary because I honestly prefer to discuss US gun rights / gun control focused on political philosophy, the historical record and the legal framework established by centuries of courts hearing the issue.

Your entire position is based in misty eyed emotional sociologisms and is apparently immune to arguments based in reason and logic centered on the political and legal legitimacy of gun control. When discussing the USA you fail when the only points you have used to present and defend your positions are emotional imaginations!

Emotional arguments are rarely of any value when discussing important issues especially issues of legally enforced public policy. Emotional arguments regarding the legitimacy of US gun control are always irrelevant. Since you are incapable of discussing this issue in the scope of relevancy to the USA, you are irrelevant in this thread.

 

I'd like to cite the example of the massacre at wounded knee, where a calvary man was attempting to disarm a deaf Lakota warrior who did not understand his demands...

resulting in massive violence and death.

(Clearly this example doesn't perfectly exemplify the situation at hand, but I'm using it for the metaphorical value.)

 

To follow the last few pages' theme:

The main problem with disarming people is the following:

If I can't have a gun because it's too deadly, what CAN I have?

I don't own any guns, but I have and like knives, both for defense and as tools. I carry an assisted open tactical folder with a tension bar every day, and use it for everything from opening a package of bacon earlier today to being a bit more self reliant if I was to inadvertently walk into a dangerous situation, though I don't walk around with a chip on my shoulder and my hand in my pocket or anything. It's just there if I should need it.

So, if we take guns because they can kill people, how about taking knives? Some would even say guns are inherently DESIGNED to kill people: okay, well, my tactical knife was designed with the ability to use it in a combat situation in mind, should i not be able to have it? And the average american car has a lot more killing potential than the average american gun (most gun murders are done with .22's, that is, TARGET GUNS, not loud bulky unwieldy legally attention grabbing high caliber scary looking "assault rifles", a .22 round will literally bounce off a car's windshield...... that's right, a car would win in a duel with someone wielding the standard murder firearm) so then it just becomes a question of WHO we don't want having things, and all we have to do is say "well it's dangerous".

We gave up our rights to drugs and many kinds of weapons, and with those rights, we gave up a large amount of our other civil rights under the guise of "nothing to hide" or whatever, so they can find all the baddies who want to keep their fully automatic trophy from nam(I would, too) (I realize that would be federally grandfathered, but most states would still require a license).

It's not about the gun, I don't OWN a gun, but I want the RIGHT to own a gun, should I feel like it.

Taking rights is a slippery slope. If you're not going to take my other rights, why do you want to take my right that gives me the power to resist losing the rest? This is the reverse of the "if you have nothing to hide" argument, and I think it's a lot more valid.

 

Rick

You recognise some of the symptoms but you seem to be denying their causes are connected to social, economic and political factors. You say -

Crime is not a "symptom" of socio-economic problems it is a thoughtful and directed human response to those conditions. If crime is a symptom of something it is only evident of the depths that some people's self-respect and dignity can plummet.

To you it is ‘bad’ people doing ‘bad’ things, so are you saying these people were predestined to be ‘bad’?

*

Fine you can be incredulous, but since you don’t seem able to put up any counter-argument beyond not believing my ideas, they would seem to remain standing. To put it in terms you might understand you don’t have any bullets, so although you’d like to shoot me down you can’t.

In what way am I denying your individual rights? I’ve already said that I’ve got nothing against the law abiding and responsible owning a gun, what I’m argument is that to me the problem is a certain mentality that led’s to and seems to be enforced by gun ownership, which sees guns - 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

Remember you answered clearly yes to that argument.

 

Rick

Those would both seem to be symptoms of social, economic and political problems.
Why is there this thug culture, where did it come from, if drugs are the problem maybe drug policies should be changed, what is impotent about the criminal justice system.

As to imprisonment – as pointed out - 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).

**

 

Rick

If it is such a fabrication why are you and others constantly backing it up?

I mean you claim vociferously that I’m wrong and then in the next breath you make comments that back them up or in fact say they are correct.

For example you said clearly yes to my statement

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

But denial is not a counter-argument, especially when many of your own statements back up my theories. Yes I say a mindset exits and have explained why and given many examples of it – where are your explanations or examples, well you claim you don’t need to give them because you just know I’m wrong you claim -

What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence

In other words you don’t address what’s being raised you just deny it exists, but denial is not a rational or reasonable argument.

And when has ‘so what’ been anything but evasion, I’ve explained why I don’t think your argument stands up to scrutiny have you a rational or reasonable counter-argument or are you just going to tell me I’m wrong again?

To repeat – I have nothing against the law abiding and responsible owning a gun, what I’m argument is that to me the problem is a certain mentality that leads to and seems to be enforced by gun ownership, which sees guns - as a way and means of dealing with or ignoring socio-political problem.

Many pro-gunners come here basically arguing that theirs guns will protect them from government suppression; I’ve explained why I think that may not be true. The ‘principle’ idea of yours doesn’t seem to stand up to scrutiny very well do you have anything else beyond just telling me I’m wrong?

 

Rick

Nice rant but again you are not presenting rational argument you are just telling me that I’m wrong because you don’t like my ideas.

But as I’ve said and explained you actually make statements and express views that back up the ideas you claim to dislike.

And as to the ‘emotional’ argument just look at your post they’re full of emotional outbursts and invective. It seems to me that this is just another way of actually presenting any type of rational counter-argument.

Then you should probably do some research into these things because they are all about attitudes and mentality, it is people’s world view at any time and place that shapes the political structure and so also the legal framework of that time and place. For example prevailing attitudes toward religion or race can have a dramatic impact on politics.

Therefore your rejection of any inquiry into the mentality and attitudes of people will mean you will not achieve an understanding of their political philosophy, their history or the legal framework they’ve built up.

 

Roo

You like knives?

I have a little pen-knife I don’t ‘like’ it, it’s just useful, I have kitchen knives I don’t ‘like’ them they are just part of the cutlery. There are a number of things in my house that could be used for ‘defence’ but I can’t say I ‘like’ them for that reason they’re just stuff.

Again this seems to be based on an attitude of residual fear; you feel threatened so you feel you need a knife for defence.

Please read the posts. I mean haven’t we been through this or something very similar before with the idea that a gun owning society is a polite society.

It seems to me that some seem to feel that, Americans are basically barbarians who are more impolite and more murderous than others and so the only way to keep them in check is through the threat of violence.

That if they didn’t have a guns there would still would be the same number of murders, because Americans would use a knife, a car, a baseball bat, their teeth, they are simply more murderous.

So they feel the only thing to do is get tooled up with a gun or knife or something anything that can protect you from their vicious, murdering fellow citizens.

But is that true – and if it is – isn’t that a sad indictment of US society that should be rectified? Shouldn’t the question be what is wrong with my society and what can be done to make it a better place?

And if it isn’t true - why do some people seem to think it is?

As I’ve said may 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 some means of defence seems 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.

 

This question's easy. Of course they should, it's the next step in a peaceful nationless world hierarchy. Next!

 

Yes, I think it is a sad indictment of US society, we have many problems that cause murder and violence, and we need to attack those problems, instead of fighting silly battles that make it look like we're doing something.

Politicians get votes when they promise to enact tougher drug laws and more restrictive gun laws to combat crime. And then when crime goes up, they say that it's obviously not enough, and we need even TOUGHER laws, and that gets them even more votes. It's a sick cycle. We need to break it and fix the things causing crime, not the scapegoats.

Also, you must be reasonable: would it be better if no body had guns? sure. In a country with few guns, maybe you can just throw them all in the drink. But that's not the US, and making guns illegal will only cause MORE violence as people feel backed into corners to avoid trouble with their illegal guns, it already happens, when people feel backed into a corner during a traffic stop because they have an illegal firearm, for instance. They might not have broken any other law, but panic when they realize they have a police officer walking towards them and an illegal weapon next to them. So they open fire and take off. (not, currently, very common, thankfully. Let's not change laws in such a way that it becomes more common)

Then you deal with the "what materials can you justify controlling because of a gun ban" argument. To make a gun ban effective you must control just about EVERYTHING, because they can be made out of, and to fire, so many things. A common definition of a gun is "any object designed to expel a projectile or substance", or something like that. Both my high school and college student handbooks said that, or something very close to that. Well guess what..... a spit wad and a straw is a gun, a water fountain is a gun, my penis is a gun, under that definition. Those who want deadly projectile weapons will still have them, those who want to disarm in accordinance with the law will, and the classic "when you outlaw guns, only the outlaws have guns" adage comes into play.

And yes, I do like knives. Knives are, in my opinion, the SINGLE most important invention in history. Without knives we'd be weak soft hairless apes, and no more. Further, I am fascinated with cutting tools in general: I blacksmith, and make knives, and generally enjoy contemplating the design of them. In combat, given the choice, I would also choose bladed weapons: I'd rather NOT blast lead at someone who I don't want to kill, and even if I did want to kill them, a knife is more exacting in what it damages. Guns are unpredictable and likely to harm innocents, or harm someone more than you want. A knife cuts what you put it to, and no more, no less. So both as a tool and weapon, I think knives are vital to our existence and civilization.

From sharpened wood to my modern knife, it's the second or third most basic tool there is (behind smashing and poking tools, if you count the pokey objects in a different class) and it's STILL a staple today, as many tens of thousands of years ago. From fire hardened sharpened wood to high carbon steel, the most important thing man can make has always been the knife.

 

Roo

So you’re saying you do believe Americans are basically barbarians who are more impolite and more murderous than other people.

And your solution to that would be?

*

And politicians get votes when they promise to fight gun control often using fear to sell that message like some people on this forum - by repeating hollow slogans like

and pushing the idea that there are just too many guns in the US that

but not the US so that is it - nothing can be done, hell it shouldn’t even be attempted, I mean there is just no point in even trying to get guns out of the hands of criminals – so since there isn’t an alternative the only way to protect yourself from that pistol totting crack addicted gangbanger that at any moment could break through your door and rape your wife and child before putting a bullet in your head is to get yourself a gun, no get two or maybe three…..

*

You think ‘shooting’ your penis is as deadly as shooting a firearm? And think if guns were banned the authorities would also ban your penis?

Roo I think you need to seek medical help.

*

 

No, if you made any attempt to understand what I wrote, you would understand that I believe people to be products of their environment. If their environment makes crime highly profitable, and even failing at crime gives an improvement (steady meals is an improvement for some) then people will turn to it, armed with sticks and stones OR guns, depending on what's there.

Calling my perfectly legitimate (And undeniably 100% true) phrase hollow without offering any explanation is hardly debate, or meaningful in any way. Are you saying that law abiding citizens will have guns, if you are to take guns away? OR are you saying that violent criminals who depend on their guns will surrender their guns if you ask them nicely?

I didn't say the only solution is to get a gun-in fact there are many strategies for disarming (before beating the everliving fuck out of) an individual holding you at gunpoint, with a very good chance at success(likely a better chance than if you shot him, causing his trigger finger to convulse and shoot you without even trying)

Once again, I do not own a gun, and I have no desire or intention to purchase a gun. The only thing that would make me want that is someone telling me that I, as a law abiding citizen, may not own a gun. Then, I get pretty fuckin' suspicious. What don't you want me resisting?

If you DON'T need a reading comprehension course, you need comedy help.

I was making a perfectly reasonable point-that you can outlaw half the shit in the world and guns could still be made, but the rules apply to silly things-just like how we can't have lye anymore because of a few sorry fucks cooking up meth in their outhouses. I'd rather have my lye, because they're going to get their meth one way or the other. Same goes with guns. Are you going to outlaw pebbles? Because in a matter of minutes I could use the box of strike anywhere matches in my kitchen and a length of pipe from my garage to make a rather deadly shotgun. Projectile weapons are not hard to make.

I just linked this in another thread, with a rather long post, but:

http://www.zoklet.net/articles/2010/08/02/how_to_build_a_.22_caliber_pipe_pistol_70.html

Better go down to your hardware store and start demanding that they do background checks on plumbers, ehh?



I do not think that guns are a force of good. But I understand that outlawing them only compromises civil liberties and creates more governmental control and oversight of citizens lives, and more excuses to "just check", since you "have nothing to hide". Right? So open the door and let me in to look around, so I don't have to get a search warrant to check out your suspicious guilty activity.

 

It's so easy for OUTSIDERS to tell us how to act in our own country. It's alway the british who compalin but then call the gun toting rednecks to come and bail them out when they are threatened. Yep who ya gonna call Balbus when they invade your country and the USA is not there to handle it for you bc you're a cowardly troll and cant protect yourself. I am sick of your whining about banning guns in the USA. It's none of your fucking buisness what we do. So sit down and STFU and fix your own country.

sh