Some facts about guns in the US

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by James R, Dec 17, 2012.

  1. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    problem with your argument slaves for the most part weren't considered citizens neither were american indians. in fact all three of your "experiences" with disarmed citizentry were attacks on those people very citizenship, in others words not a very good example.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    For Crispus' Sake!

    In truth, Asguard, I think you're overlooking something about the American culture. For better or worse, we are infused with an anti-establishment behavior. While I accept the anti-government role of the Second Amendment, I also think of it as a secondary issue. To the other, the gun advocates see it as a primary issue. I would suggest, in such an examination, to look at it not so much as anti-enemy, but anti-something or -anything.

    I've known revolutionaries who are the same way. They might get what they want—something rare, indeed—but they still demand it. The underlying neurotic conflict is the establishment giving what one wants versus the idea of the establisment in the first place. What should be a secondary goal—such as resistance against the state—becomes a primary goal. In this case, the would-be revolutionaries become part of the problem.

    As we've seen in recent years, the idea of having a gun to protect against the government in the U.S. is to wave one's gun in order to protest the governing of America.

    This is a neurosis that people will outgrow much sooner than their phallocentric surrogate of guns, guns, guns. That is, they'll eventually find a different target. (Watch the social conservatvies on that one; either the bestials or the incetuous are up next, since they're losing their fight agaisnt the gay.)

    That is to say, people will look for something to shoot long after they've gotten over their need to kill a black man or a government agent in the name of Crispus Attucks.

    Thus, your point, while well taken, is a bit overstated.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    All three of those examples were of legal American citizens who were both disarmed and abused by various levels of government.

    The apparent lesson of such events was not lost on the more fortunate races and demographic groups who were their neighbors - and with reminders like the aftermath of Katrina, won't be. The authoritarian impulse behind much of the gun "control" efforts has been and will be in play.

    The 2nd amendment was written by people familiar with the authoritarian agenda underneath legal disarmament. That familiarity is why it was written into the Constitution in the first place.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Possibly however the anti governmental paranoia that seems to be present in most Americans in Australia would be considered indicative of a mental illness. Not joking about that, "do you think the FBI is out to get you?" was a question given to me in a mental health assessment to which I responded "firstly the FBI only works in the US and no" yet it seems most of the right of the US would answer that YES (indicative of a schizophrenic type disorder)
  8. Bells Staff Member

    That is an interesting point.

    However, none of the examples you have given was rectified by arming the citizenry that were being oppressed.
  9. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    apartently the lessons of the cold war were lost on you. a constant uprising in power levels is never a good thing. someone always blinks. arming people wouldn't have made those things better. all it would have done is increase the body count.
  10. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Prevention is desired, not remedy. Don't get into that situation, is the lesson - not arm oneself to get out of it.

    But also, the point is not completely clear: the debate over whether Martin Luther King's nonviolent approach would have worked as well without the famously well-armed Black Panthers looming in the wings is not settled. More than one analyst has mentioned, also, the influence of returning black military vets, with the implicit threat of their military training and weapons possession, as changing the general atmosphere of small towns in the South. The Reds, as well, made more political progress after the rise of an armed and dangerous militia on various reservations - coincidence? And even the much different Japanese cause, especially their return to ordinary life, was helped to some significant degree by the service of Japanese origin citizens in the US military - the arming of their young men was new to that class of that culture in the US, and changed their image, had an influence on their neighbors.

    There is also the cultural memory, still a profound undercurrent, of the generations of abuse suffered by the Scotch Irish at the behest of the Crown, and meted out by the Scotch Irish at the behest of the Crown, in which disarmament was the basic step in oppression - the innovations in weaponry, the importance laid on having and carrying weapons, was fundamental to their self-liberation in the Revolutionary War. These are the people who founded the US, culturally and politically, and they had generations of collective memory informing them of the absolute necessity of being armed if you wished to remain free.

    A couple of hundred years later, we live in country laid out at the bottom by them - we live in counties, we have sheriffs, we couple up as teenagers and marry for love, our drug is alcohol, we don't like to be crowded, - - and we carry guns.
  11. Bowser Right Here, Right Now Valued Senior Member

    Guns don't kill people, people kill people. If someone is determined, they will find a way.
  12. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Yes, they will. But it is much, much harder to kill dozens of people with a spoon (or a rope, or a club) than with a gun. That's why guns are not treated the same as spoons or ropes, nor should they be.
  13. kwhilborn Banned Banned

    Yes! I agree 100% with billvon. I'd rather someone attack me with a spoon than a gun. A spoon cannot kill 20 people in less than a minute, but a semi-automatic can with time to spare,
  14. R1D2 many leagues under the sea. Valued Senior Member

    No but I can with my truck. And some rope and ingenuity.
    And look at the "traps" used on troops in Vietnam. Shots didn't need fired. And many died and were wounded with just bamboo and rope. Holes and prior planning. 9/11 some men with box cutters killed way more than 300 people without shots fired I think.
    Look at earlier times men killed many with lies, swords, blades, poison, and carelessness. Than what some guns have killed in the past year (imo) study the roman games. No shots except maybe a cross bow bolt. And how many died?
    You kwh want attacked with a spoon over a semi auto "gun". A pistol. Has a better chance. Or. Higher cal rifle with 4 round clips, not to likely for 20 kills in less than a minute.. Maybe a 22 cal with a 10 round lil' clip? 22 cal weapons would likely what you would want kept away. So the spoon you wish attacked by do you want it made of metal or plastic? Guns are not the "gut issue" its the human element. And its our culture of games that kill, the music that mentions death. Death of humans by humans is everywhere in society. You don't have to look far. Or wide. It started with jacks. Now Think of Attari, and nintendo. They had game hunts and point collections. Not too bad. Then Sega. Mortal Kombat. Does that ring a bell?, If you ever played that you will see how violent it is. Heads being ripped off and things. Now there is grand theft auto, you beat up people, take cars, you run from the law. You shoot at people, then the violent movies. Our culture needs changed. And we people all need a gut check and not blame a weapon that don't go off without a human making it work.
  15. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    That is not a reasoned contrast.

    Also, the reference to 'blinks' refers to the point at which the other side blinks in a staredown, backing down. That means that you win. You're probably thinking of 'twitch'.

    Lastly, although I found armament - and nuclear armament in particular - reprehensible, the lessons of the Cold War seem to actually have been lost on you. Neither side, though well-armed, 'twitched' and fired. This would almost be a better case for Mutually Assured Destruction.

    And, finally: the value of arming and fighting back must at all times be evaluated relative to the cost of not doing so. As such, increasing (not uprising) power is not necessarily a bad thing. Its worth is always a ratio. For example: the Copts have a great deal of moral, social and political justification for rising up and fighting back against their religious fucktard oppressors. But in doing so, they would almost certainly be massacred in retaliation by the superior forces of those same oppressors. You seem to follow this principle at different times: I don't think you object to Hamas' arming itself and fighting against Israel. Nor do I believe for a moment you would object to a military outcome in the ME, so long as it ended in your favour. So I don't buy this line of 'reasoning'.
  16. Bowser Right Here, Right Now Valued Senior Member

    People who use guns to kill have no imagination. Nonetheless, I think these mass shootings are a symptom of something much larger. It's unfortunate that the culprits often choose to die with their victims; otherwise, we might have a better understanding of the motivations behind the acts.
  17. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Yes, you could. In general, people don't - because guns are much better tools to kill people with than trucks. That's what they are designed for, and that's why mass murderers use guns instead of trucks (or pieces of rope.)

    So would you.

    Honest question. If your kid were in a local school, and a guy suddenly lost his mind there, would you prefer he had a semiauto handgun or a spoon?

    A gun does not cause murder; it just makes mass murder very, very easy. Which is why it is not the same as a spoon (or a rope, or a truck.)
  18. kwhilborn Banned Banned

    We are living in a world with enough people that some are bound to go crazy. The ones who do go crazy should not have easy access to military grade weapons. A ten year old could mow down a classroom full of students with a semi-automatic rifle. The same insane kid could only kill 1 person if he had to manually reload his gun every time.

    There were no mass shootings in the age of muskets. Here's a visual as some here seem pretty thick.

    Until there is some foolproof way to rid the world of insanity then "Bullets don't kill people, People do" is beside the point. The only alternative is to keep military hardware away from everyone or accept constant mass killings as "acceptable loss". Maybe it won''t hit home until it happens to you. Americans.. Eeesh!
  19. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Hmm. What part of the name "discussion forum" do you find difficult to understand? Oh never mind, that's a question, isn't it.

    A revolution??? Have you not been reading your memos? The next wars will be fought in cyberspace, and that includes the next revolution.

    You've got Hell's Angels in Montreal??? I rode a motorcycle across eastern Canada, including Montreal, in 1974 and it is possibly the stupidest thing I've ever done! It took a week to thaw out.

    Without the United States of America, who will save your Limey asses the next time the Germans start kicking them? Insult us all you want, but until the sun burns out, Americans will always be ready to die to protect Dear Mother England. Some day you'll bring your grandchildren over here to show them the signs in miles and acres and pounds and gallons and degrees Fahrenheit. With a tear in your eye you'll say, "Bless these Yanks for preserving our culture."

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Who started using the word "Reds" to mean Indians??? The Reds were the goddamned Communists! Call them "Native Americans" if you will, but don't insult them by equating them with Stalin and Khrushchev.

    If I were ever so angry that I considered killing someone, I would want to vent that anger and burn off some adrenaline by killing him with my bare hands and perhaps some heavy objects. But considering that the roommate who shot my cat and the "best friend" who ran off with my first wife are still alive, the rest of you are probably safe.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  20. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Lost in history, afaik.
    Calling the reds who live around me "native" anything is not recommended - unless you intend the offense.

    And they are not insulted by the more or less accidental homonym - they have dibs on it, for one thing ("redskin" predates Marx by centuries, "red" being the inoffensively neutral term to go with "black" and "yellow" and "brown"), and communism is not despised by tribal folk in general. It's a fair term for their heritage economic arrangements, actually.

    The reds in the US, like the blacks and browns and even the yellows, can speak to the consequences of being disarmed by a government, and thereby made vulnerable to the local thugs and terrorists.
  21. kx000 Valued Senior Member

    People are slaughter, some of them. Psychology man, same reason stars burn out. I feel as if some burn hotter until we clean our face. Some people get the yank. Simple as that. Telepathy, are you afraid? Do you think shooters are demons?

    Want to see 10,000 schitzoids shoot at once?

    Canines do it

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Do good by it and success is certain! Motivation, do it lol. Uh be free. I'm guided so I fear not. Do you see synchronicity of the mind to line up shooters with minded victims of nature?

    I would kill as a saint, good imagination. The bad ones lie cheat and steal to it.
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2013
  22. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Stating the Obvious

    Why Gun Owners Get So Little Sympathy From Others

    Imagine, if you would, please, that there is a company somewhere in the United States that trains people in weapons use and tactics.

    Now imagine that the CEO of that company inaccurately claims that Vice President Biden threatened that President Obama would use "executive privilege" and "executive orders" to ban assault rifles.

    And now imagine that the CEO threatens to "start killing people" if the President of the United States uses his executive authority to take the gun violence discussion "one inch further".

    Oh, wait, you don't have to imagine. David Edwards explains, for The Raw Story:

    The CEO of a Tennessee company that specializes weapons and tactical training is threatening to “start killing people” if President Barack Obama moves forward with gun control measures.

    In a video posted to YouTube and Facebook on Wednesday, Tactical Response CEO James Yeager went ballistic over reports that the president could take executive action with minor gun control measures after the mass shooting of 20 school children in Connecticut last month ....

    .... “Vice President [Joe] Biden is asking the president to bypass Congress and use executive privilege, executive order to ban assault rifles and to impose stricter gun control,” Yeager explained in his video message. “Fuck that.”

    “I'm telling you that if that happens, it's going to spark a civil war, and I'll be glad to fire the first shot. I'm not putting up with it. You shouldn't put up with it. And I need all you patriots to start thinking about what you're going to do, load your damn mags, make sure your rifle's clean, pack a backpack with some food in it and get ready to fight.”

    The CEO concluded: “I'm not fucking putting up with this. I'm not letting my country be ruled by a dictator. I'm not letting anybody take my guns! If it goes one inch further, I'm going to start killing people.”

    This is why the gun culture is viewed with such ... ahem ... skepticism by others: Yeah, yeah, we hear y'all 'bout your rights an' all, but y'all seem so damn anxious to start killing people.

    These are people looking for a reason to shoot someone. And they have one of the most powerful political lobbies in the world looking out for them.

    Maybe it's time for those mythical "responsible gun owners" to make themselves heard, and tell their bloodlusting fellows in the gun culture to stop running around pretending to be terrorists.

    At least, we should hope they're just pretending.

    I mean, it's kind of funny to hear Wayne LaPierre sniveling about video games, or a federal database of the mentally ill. What, after all, do these morons think they're accomplishing by glorifying guns and bloodshed?

    Must be the video games. It can't possibly be the political leaders calling for "Second Amendment solutions" if the vote doesn't go their way. It can't possibly be business leaders telling people he's going to start killing if he doesn't get his way.

    James Yeager made an appeal to "patriots". He's not a patriot. He's a wannabe terrorist.

    And, yes, threatening mortal violence in order to influence political processes is terrorism, even if you're a white American from Tennessee.


    Edwards, David. "Unhinged Tactical Response CEO threatens to 'start killing people' over Obama's gun control". The Raw Story. January 10, 2013. January 10, 2013.
  23. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    isn't it sad how these nuts argue that the right to medical privacy (constitutional right garentied by Roe V Wade) and the right to life which underpins the consitution as a fundermental principle are less important than the right to amass more guns than the US army

Share This Page