You don't just seem to be oblivious... Look. It's good for all of us that you want nothing to do with guns. It's good that you fear them for your own inability to properly control them in a non self-threatening way. I agree. You shouldn't be anywhere near a gun--for our protection, not just your own. American jock straps are naturally bigger than everyone else's; not that there's anything wrong with your tailoring needs.
i'd say about 30% of the people i have met in america who are pro gun i would not trust with a gun and another 20% i would be leary of them having a gun
Mr. G: You're off in cuckoo land again. I have said nothing about my ability to "properly control" guns, and I haven't said I want nothing to do with guns either. Please try to address what I say, not your imaginings.
James R: And yet the majority support the right to bear arms. Otherwise they would have voted for gun control by now. But no matter. Look down on that majority with contempt. Belittling and patronizing others who disagree with you is what you do best.
Indeed: your definition of "reasonable" appears to be "agrees with James R's position on gun control." Needless to say, the problem here is entirely yours. This would be where I mock you for presuming to know what's in other people's minds, but you've made a much more egregious mistake here. People with a low tolerance for cognitive dissonance are, essentially, bigots. Since they are unable to rationally evaluate new facts and ideas, they become stuck on whichever ideas they pick up at an early age, and then harden into a state where their intellectual activity consists of little more than ignoring or dismissing data which contradicts these ideas, in a pathetic attempt to reinforce their prejudices. A wise person, on the other hand, realizes that almost every idea is bound to be at least a little bit wrong, and so strives to internalize data about the world as it is without prejudice, and so to consider different ideas on their merits. This requires the ability to tolerate cognitive dissonance. More simply: if you're not experiencing cognitive dissonance on strongly contested issues, it's probably because you've let your low tolerance for it lead you into unreason and bigotry. No, it's not, because political influence as such does not beget popular support. Oh, wait, I forgot, the NRA is a shady cabal that somehow uses their lobbying influence to brainwash vast numbers of people, not a grassroots gun safety and advocacy organization. Well, to be exact, they love to shoot and eat fluffy animals from the vantage provided by trees. The point, however, is that they can't do any of this unless there is an ample supply of fluffy animals and trees. And so they tend to strongly support conservation, environmental protections, etc. That you would seek to discard this (well-established, uncontroversial) fact out of hand goes to show exactly how little tolerance you have for cognitive dissonance.
It is kind of interesting how many of the people from places where guns are forbidden to ordinary citizens say they would feel unsafe, or threatened, if they knew their neighbors owned firearms. Some of the difference between them and many Americans may stem from that - I have always lived among people who owned firearms, and never been or felt in the least threatened by them. I can't imagine being that fearful of one's neighbors, or not doing something about it if the neighborhood were that bad. But probably that's not the source of the fear - probably it's more of a mystical attitude toward the guns themselves. Another part of the difference may be hstorically fixed status quo: in other places, disarming the citizenry is not that big a deal - they don't own many weapons in the first place. In the US actually disarming the citizenry would require a fascist coup of the government and a massive police state effort, allowing currently forbidden police tactics and wholesale violation of the Constitution. We know this. And the means of acheiving such a goal inevitably influence the perceived desireablitiy of it. And probably, yet another aprt of the picture might be the Hollywood projection of US society - which to be fair some Americans themselves buy into. IIRC someone pulled a gun in the movie Titanic, even.
For me it isn't a fear of the neighbors or guns themselves. I fear a society where when someone snaps and decides to go postal, instead of having to struggle to get a handgun (legally or illegally) they are able to get semi automatics easily. If we could stop everyone ever getting to a mental state where they would do this that would be great but that isn't possible at the moment. I understand that you will never remove all the guns and that criminals would still have them. I would prefer a situation where only the hardened criminals and crime lords have guns instead of one where every single petty criminal and drug addict has one in their back pocket. As everyone has guns the criminals then have to get better ones that the public… I believe everyone having a gun for protection creates more problems than it solves. As I have said, I can only assume your high crime rate is a factor in your desire for guns. Yes they are definitely glorified in films but we watch all the same movies here in Australia it doesn’t effect us to the same extent. Bowling for Columbine explored the media influence on the desire for gun ownership. I would be interested to hear what the Americans think about this. You have the possibly the most advanced media in the world giving you news every day that must be more shocking than the competitors. All media is similar, it uses fear to sell. Do you think that the media has influenced your desire to have a gun for protection? Having a gun buyback scheme or updating the constitution may seem like offensive ideas but the intention is that your society would be better off afterwards. I understand that listening to people from other countries question your attitude towards guns or your laws may also seem offensive but surely the World/Politics forum is the place to discuss it. I'm sure the American posters have, at some stage, given their opinion on the laws from another country.
Well, with that attitude, formed without any substantiating evidence, you'll never convince anyone of anything. Basically you're saying that people should not be allowed to protect themselves. If we lived in a different kind of environment, that might not be so stupid, but when people are breaking into homes all over town, then I have to say, "You can't be serious!" I didn't respond to any of the rest of you post because, frankly, when I got to that part, the rest would have been meaningless to me. All the words in the world can't make me believe that a person shouldn't be allowed to defend himself from violent attack. Baron Max
I'm not sure where you get the idea that every petty criminal and addict has a gun. That's not the case. And, anyway, there are much better ways to get guns out of the hands of criminals than preventing law-abiding citizens from owning them. For example, the criminal penalties in the United States go way, way up if a gun is involved. Possession of an ounce of marijuana? Not a huge deal. Possession of an ounce of marijuana and a handgun? See you in prison. Y'all foreigners need to get your facts straight. The United States has higher levels of gun crimes than other developed countries, but also lower levels of property crimes. The result is that the total crime rate is roughly the same. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States Given that I don't desire to own a gun, for protection or any other reason, and neither do the great majority of my family, friends and acquaitances, I'm going to suggest that you re-think the premise of this question. It may come as a shock to you that the right to bear arms is much more popular amongst Americans than arms themselves. Questions are fine. For that matter, spirited debate is also fine. Preaching, condescension and the various argumentative tactics that James R employs are not fine.
Baron Max, you have put together some good arguments previously in this thread but this appears to be just more of the chest beating that others have done. So I will post this link again. http://www.medfac.usyd.edu.au/news/f...006/061214.php "The risk of dying by gunshot has halved since Australia destroyed 700,000 privately owned firearms, according to a new study published today in the international research journal, Injury Prevention." "The Australian example provides evidence that removing large numbers of firearms from a community can be associated with a sudden and on-going decline in mass shootings, and accelerating declines in total firearm-related deaths, firearm homicides and firearm suicides." Have you Americans no other method of protecting yourself other than firearms? You can only do that with semi automatic weapons? If you could strain yourself to read one of my posts you will see that I acknowledge that your crime rate is an understandable factor. What about my point that if everyone has a gun then surely the thieves will want a better one? In a country with very few guns the common thieves wont need guns to steal.
mountainhare: Judging by my poll, you are correct that the majority support the right to bear arms. But, if they did not it would not automatically follow that the right would not still be embedded in the Constitution. Do you think the majority always know what is best for them? Do you believe in the wisdom of crowds? I'm not sure I share your faith. quadraphonics: Of course! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! And your definition is that they agree with your position. But I have considered the matter of gun control on its merits. Why do you assume I have not? Is it just because I have reached a different conclusion than yours? Are you suggesting that people ought never to make up their minds on contentious issues, then? Because that's what it sounds like. How do you propose to make progress? What begets popular support is large amounts of money that can be spent on advertising one's point of view and downplaying what may well be legitimate concerns and opinions of opponents.
James: Americans can't change the Constitution? I'm almost certain that it is possible to amend the American Constitution. I'm not sure about the Bill of Rights, though. Possibly not. But if the American majority doesn't know what is best for their people and culture, then what is the chance that one non-American has the right idea?
mountainhare: Yes, they can change the Constitution, but it isn't an easy procedure. Australia is similar.
Uh, the Bill of Rights is nothing more than a list of the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. In a pedantic sense, it is correct to say that you can't amend the Bill of Rights, since any new amendments necessarily will not number amongst the first 10, but there's no reason that later amendments can't rescind amendments in the Bill of Rights.
Well, at least you admit it. No, I stated explicitly that I expect reasonable people to disagree on the issue. You have stated that you consider American attitudes towards gun rights to be irrational, but I've never made a corresponding charge about people who don't share said attitudes. Nor would I, as I don't harbor such a belief. Nobody thinks that they're being irrational, so your word on this issue carries very little weight. No, it's because you insist that anyone who disagrees with you is irrational. There are plenty of people in favor of gun control (many of them posting in this very thread) that are perfectly reasonable. You are not one of them. No. I'm suggesting that there's a difference between making up one's mind and insisting that one's conclusion is irreproachably, obviously correct, and then denigrating anyone who disagrees as being brainwashed/unreasonable/etc. That you consistently deride the other side of the issue as obviously incorrect is strong evidence that you haven't considered it on its merits. Progress is achieved by constantly subjecting one's views to honest reappraisal based on new data. Taking sides and then mounting political attacks on people who don't agree is a recipe for unreason and division. That might be relevant if the NRA did that to a significant degree. If you knew what you were talking about, however, you'd know that they do very little in the way of mass advertizing, and generally don't participate very vigorously in the public debate. I can't remember the last time I saw, read or heard an advertizement paid for by the NRA. Indeed, one of the persistent criticisms of the NRA from gun-rights supporters is their near-exclusive focus on federal lobbying. Their public relations efforts are pretty much confined to gun safety and sporting courses. Moreover, powerful as their lobbying arm may be, gun control laws which they oppose get enacted all the time. The NRA is a reflection of certain widespread American attitudes, not some cabal that somehow brainwashes vast legions of people.
quadraphonics: What you're saying is all very reasonable. I just have this niggling wonder about why you're not equally attacking the posters here (e.g. Mr. G) who are ranting "You can't take our guns away! Gun laws won't be changed until you pull the gun from my cold dead hands!" Will you take them to task, too?
quadraphonics: Check this out: Do you think this is a balanced view? Do you believe like Baron Max that if I or somebody else arguing against guns says that gun ownership causes more problems than it solves that we are denying people the right to defend themselves from violent attack? Or do you think the Baron's post here maybe is indicative of the kind of mindset I have been pointing out?
No. I'm not on your reservation. Big difference. You haven't said anything material so I'm forced to work with what you give me: Nothing. My point all along is that whatever you think about American gun ownership means nothing to gun-owning Americans. What you say, or don't say, or what you think I imagine, or where you imagine cuckoo land to actually be is all completely meaningless to us. If you need us to communicate in sign language to make the point for you in a more personally meaningful way, not our problem, not our burden. You just have to accept that you care more about what you think on the matter than we do.
Because they aren't mods, and so do cannot be expected to conform to a higher standard of behavior. Going after crazies is supposed to be your job, not mine, remember? Not that I think Mr. G is in the crazy camp, and not that I've seen anyone else in this thread suggest that everyone who disagrees with them is crazy. Making pithy/baiting/acerbic statements of one's position is not a big deal; creating a thread to impugn the mentality of an entire nationality is. One predictable effect of the latter is to polarize the discourse: since Americans rightly sense that identity is being attacked (as opposed to their ideas being debated), they naturally circle the wagons and set about returning fire. You've been around long enough to know this stuff, which implies that you're doing this intentionally. Indeed, evidence of intent abounds, from the very phrasing of the thread title: "US vs. rest of the world" to your admissions that you want to stir up emotions. If you want a conversation where the differences in opinion amongst Americans will surface, then the premise of the thread is going to have to be something other than "what's up with those crazy Americans?" Well, strictly speaking, you're arguing against them having an effective, reliable means to defend themselves from violent attack. Moreover, the statistics on property and violent non-gun crime in Australia (and England) before and after the strengthened gun laws went into effect is pretty strong evidence that you are, indeed, depriving people of a significant means of self-defense. If you consider the extra robbings, beatings and stabbings of innocent people to be a fair price to avoid a Columbine incident, that's fine, but at least admit it. Your efforts to pretend that guns aren't useful for self defense is yet more evidence that you have been guided by ideology rather than reason here. It's no secret that there are gun nuts in America (and most other places), but these attitudes are far from typical, and are not what drive gun politics in the United States. If you want an example that will illuminate things, look at iceaura. He's to the left of pretty much everybody on pretty much every issue, and yet here he is, arguing on the same side as right-wing reactionaries. Or me, for that matter. I've made it clear that I don't own a gun, and don't plan to ever own a gun, and here I am siding with people who I normally despise. This should provide you with much more insight than any of the predictable responses from Baron Max.
