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

Who're "they"?

 

Usually I don't agree with her.

But, DAMN strait

Also balbus, you might be interested to take note that the op is named 7point65, which I feel reasonably confident assuming is a reference to one of the 7.65 millimeter ammunitions, given that he's speaking from an american point of view and saying things that could otherwise be patriotic and not necessarially anti gun but typing "amerika", while asking if we should let the UN disarm us EXCEPT for LEO's, exactly the situation I warned against, it seems likely that his name's in reference to the american 7.65, the 32ACP cartridge. He's trolling, you dolt, and doesn't think we should be disarmed at all. (though I admit, I didn't notice this my first few times in this thread)

 

It's just strange to me how ppl can talk about another country and what is wrong with it and how to 'fix' the problems the other countries have,, sitting in front of their computer. But when it comes to trying to fix their own problems they are unable to find a clue about how to do it, or even concidering the posibility that they dont know what their talking about in the first place and just spewing their crap to hear themselves talk.

It is in our US constitution that we will bare arms. Why does it matter to another country that we are armed or what is in our constitution. We dont go telling the british not to drink tea cuz AMERCIANS drink coffee and tea is for whiners and the downfall of their country.

sh

 

Roo

I’m trying to understand what you’re saying, that’s why I’m seeking clarification when you’re not clear.
As I’ve pointed out if you take out gun related homicides from the US crime figures they are not that much different from those of many European countries that have gun restrictions (although it is incredible difficult to compare any crime statistics other than homicide).

If you are arguing that there would be just as many murders if there were fewer guns in criminal hands then you are arguing that Americans are more murderous than many other people.

The question was what would be your solution.

 

Roo

It is a slogan and I’ve covered it before a number of times.
To repeat yet again, I’ve got nothing against responsible and law abiding people owning a gun. And if you had read my posts - rather than getting all huffy at what I haven’t said - you’d realise that my view is that in the US the mentality that often goes with gun ownership is the big problem, as it seems to see suppression and threat as the best means of dealing with social, economic and political problems and ignores or dismisses alternatives. They see guns as a means to tackle the symptoms of the problems. And so it is not surprising that this mentality also promotes gun ownership as a means of tackling such things.

Nothing you have said counters that argument.

The slogan is part of the ‘nothing can be done argument’ as in – 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…..

Your only twist on this is that, while you are just so deadly (apparently even your penis is a deadly weapon) that you don’t need a gun you think others should be able to have them, because they just don’t have your skill.

WOW it must be so good to be you…

 

Roo

I get it - you are MacGyver

As I’ve pointed out if you take out gun related homicides from the US crime figures they are not that much different from those of many European countries that have gun restrictions (although it is incredible difficult to compare any crime statistics other than homicide).

If you are arguing that there would be just as many murders if there were fewer guns in criminal hands then you are arguing that Americans are more murderous than many other people. They are so murderous that you are arguing that many of them would build their own guns out of bit parts just so they could kill their fellow citizens if they got the inclination.

This is rather rare practice in places that have gun restrictions.

That statement just comes across as rather paranoid, which by the way fits in with my theory.

 

I’ll also inquire – who are ‘they’?

 

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.

 

You seem to assume that one has to be afraid in order to own a gun. I am not afraid. I'm prepared. My ppl were pioneers that settled this Great Country of ours. They came in wagons against all odds. They carved out our nation with their barehands. Leaving behind the burden of british law.

We certainly do not wish for the british to come in and try to tell us how to live. We left brittan to get away from the staunch self rightous attitudes they broadcast. We built our country with blood sweat and tears. We are not about to bend over for britten to stick it to us again.

Like I said before, it's really none of your buisness how we conduct our country as long as we are not trying to shovle shit down your throats leave our biz to us.

"They" are whomever you want them to be. It dont make a shit to me. We're not changing bc YOU want us to. We will do what we feel is necessary to live our lives without you. You can jump up and down yelling till you're blue in the face. It wont change nothing. We will hold our constitution weather you like it or not.

 

Balbus, now I see how you could debate individual so long: you both use the same lack of logic. You both ignore the points of those you're arguing, and repeat yourself, while trying to make light of the serious things your opponent says. You miss the vital ten words and quote and make fun of the supporting 90 words. You type a lot, but don't say a lot. Anyone who reads my post and then reads your responses with an open mind should see the points that I made, and should see how you sidestepped them and so I will not waste my time repeating myself, so that you can ignore the same parts of my argument yet again.

 

Roo

This from the person who only now realised I am not against the law abiding and responsible owning a gun although I must have said it at least a dozen time in this thread alone.

To quote you – “and doesn't think we should be disarmed at all. (though I admit, I didn't notice this my first few times in this thread”

First few times.

I think it’s not that I’m ignoring your points but that you can’t address the criticisms of them that really has you upset.

And you missed a clear statement of mine although it was repeated many times. If I’ve missed something I’m sorry, but you only have to point out where these ‘vital ten words’ are and I’ll reply to them.

As for making fun, it is just that a bit of fun, and it was you who said your penis was a gun, I mean how did you expect that to be taken seriously?

How do you know when you clearly haven’t been reading my posts very diligently?

I do read your posts and I think I have covered the points you have made, but if I’ve missed something, I’m sorry, but you only have to tell me which points you think I’ve ‘sidestepped’ and I’ll happily cover them as well. However I suspect you will not do that because you know I haven’t sidestepped anything and your real problem is that you have no answers to the criticisms levelled at your ideas.

 

I read about the first ten words of your post, though something about diligently reading your posts caught my eye later in the post.

You're not against legally owning guns. You just support laws that make owning guns illegal.

Wow.

*edit* upon closer examination, you're still claiming that I said my penis was a gun. I said, and quite truthfully, that under a commonly used definition, my penis is a gun, to anyone with any reasonable understanding of the english language. This was in response to the poster who said we should ban the items used to load your own cartridges-and related to my point about meth labs putting standard chemicals under attack. You can't ban things that are so simple that they can be made from nearly anything, and the fact that a common definition of a firearm ALREADY included my PENIS, while firearms are still legal, says something about how silly it would be with them ILLEGAL.

 

Balbus, some serious questions . . .

What is your vision of an America if her gun owners were to finally understand that they were only using gun ownership as, "a way and means of dealing with or ignoring socio-political problems"?

What would you expect to happen if American gun owners then felt an "urgency in dealing with the social or economic roots of crime"?

Do you expect that such an epiphany would really force a 180 degree course change in their feeling that, "if a criminal comes for them they will have the means of dealing with them"?

Are you arguing that criminal action would disappear from America but for the selfish actions of gun owners reinforcing the beliefs you place on us?

Has your program been realized anywhere?

I know that armed self defense is quite restrained in the UK (as opposed to our widening "castle doctrine" laws in the USA) and homeowners have been prosecuted for firearm use on their property when intruders have been hurt.

Have those laws (which would obviously infringe on the right to arms in the USA) brought the UK into compliance with your program of altering this detrimental mindset of gun owners (or do these myths only manifest themselves in US gun owners?

Has that sentiment, "if a criminal comes for them they will have the means of dealing with them" been completely erased from the consciousness of the few remaining gun owning Britons?

 

The most important part of a great post :2thumbsup:

I want to fix the problems. But I also want the right to defend myself as necessary.

Also, again: you repeatedly making fun of me calling my penis a gun makes my point, balbus. IT IS under current policies used to define firearms by US government funded educational institutions. We don't need the situation even more silly than it already is.

I'm sorry you live in a country with a culture of victims, but I don't, and refuse to let that change.

 

As far as I'm concerned, if you shoot someone to kill then you're a criminal, self-defence or not.

 

Roo

Look man; just stop talking about your penis if you want to be taken seriously.

 

Rick

You are asking questions but you still haven’t presented any counter-arguments, I ask you again have you anything else beyond just telling me I’m wrong?
*

All your questions have been answered by me at one time or another (some in this thread), first of all I’ll post again my theory in the hope that Roo can get past the first ten words and you can actually read what it says.

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.

 

Rick

I am talking about attitudes and mentality – and as I’ve said the only way to change such things is through education. And attitudes and mentality can change – it was once a widely held belief that white people were mentally and morally superior to other races, ideas that underpinned many people’s views on slavery and imperialism.

Let us first look at the Swiss who are often put forward by US pro-gunners as another example of a gun owning culture.

(This is from the thread ‘Should Guns be Banned in the US?’, post 335)

The Swiss have still got a citizen army and many there seem to see being able to use a gun as part of their civic duty. They also have a rich society with a lot less of the socio-economic problems prevalent to some parts of the US. It also has a well developed social welfare system and their mentality towards prison rehabilitation and drugs is very different from the US as reflected in their prison populations Switzerland 69 per 100,000, US a massive 686 per 100,000.

France has a gun culture (at least when I was there) but it was based very much around hunting rather than for personal protection. The country also has a well developed social welfare system (and a prison population of 85 per 100,000).

Hunting is also very prevalent in Finland (I believe personal protection isn’t seen as a valid reason for gun ownership while hunting is) The country also has a Scandinavia style welfare system (and a prison population 59 per 100,000).

Thing is that it is difficult to compare ‘national psyches’ but from my point of view many Americans seem to have a much more pronounced ‘individualistic’ ideas (as in freedom from government or pulling yourself up by your bootstraps) while many Europeans have a much more community based viewpoint (seeing government as a means of helping people).

This also colours their view toward guns, in the US they are seen as a protection against government and socio-economic problems such as crime, while in Europe personal protection isn’t seen as such a priority and social welfare is seen as a means of tackling socio-economic problems.

In England there is a rather conservative attitude toward crime encouraged and enforced by a right wing press, which is reflected in the fact that England has one of the largest prison populations in Europe with 148 per 100,000 (still way off 686 per 100,000). But it also has an established welfare system although due to neo-liberal policies it has had a widening equality gap. At the moment there is an interesting discussion going on about the effectiveness of prison sentences.

(Figure based on World Prison Population List (fourth edition) by the UK Home Office)

*

 

Rick

I don’t expect the attitudes or mentality of many Americans to change overnight and even if things did change there would still be those that hold onto the old views (for example some people still think white people are mentally and morally superior to other races).

The problem is that many seem to be denying any other possible way of thinking or viewing the world. That leads them to the belief that change is impossible.

If they didn’t fear that a criminal was coming after them, then they might not feel they needed the means to deal with them.

As pointed out (in this thread) - if you take out gun related homicides from the US crime figures they are not that much different from those of many European countries that have gun restrictions (although it is incredible difficult to compare any crime statistics other than homicide).

 

To clarify for Roo

I’ve often said that I’ve got nothing against the law abiding and responsible owning a gun, but that doesn’t mean I’m against gun control measures because the flip side of that view is that I’m against the criminal minded and irresponsible gaining access to firearms of any kind.

Now I’ve often asked do pro-gunners want guns out of the hands of criminals and the most common answer I got is – yes, but that is impossible – the second bit turning the yes effectively into no – meaning they do want guns in the hands of criminals.

The ‘impossible’ argument is the idea that there is no alternative; nothing can be done to get guns out of the hands of the criminally minded.

But many things could be done to limit criminal access to guns, it is just that many pro-gunners object to them, it is not impossible it is just seems to me that they want to make it look like it is impossible.