Jump to content

Culture Or Gun Driven Or Perhaps Culture And Gun Driven?


Guest

Recommended Posts

Guest pikachu

Read post #21 again. You will not need to be licenced. However, you will need a licence for your facility.

I believe you should have your reactor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 252
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I was just taking the stupidity of the pro gun lobby to the next level as common sense seems to have no place in any discussion with them.

Even our politicians recognized that the nuclear arms race was foolish and would assure our eventual destruction at our own hands. Unrestricted gun ownership in the States is the same thing an a smaller scale and I'm certain it is not what the writers of the 2nd amendment had in mind when they penned it. A well armed militia is intended for an existential threat to the state, not the individual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pikachu

Nuclear arms race as a parallel to firearm ownership? Maybe a stretch.

You did get the part about taking it to the next level of stupidity correct though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The part that make me laugh is all of these guys spout the 2nd amendment and their right to bear arms. Part of that is to defend against a "tyrannical government" Many times I have seen these guys ranting about the government taking away freedoms and rights. Wouldnt that define Tyrannical government? If you want the right to revolt, revolt already and be done with it.

I do honestly believe that there will be an uprising of some sort (not just a sit in on wall street) in the US in the next 15-20 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

boestar, re, "I do honestly believe that there will be an uprising of some sort (not just a sit in on wall street) in the US in the next 15-20 years.",

So do I, only because our political economy has been designed to slice out huge sections of people from the wealth our trillion-dollar economies produce.

While the matter has certainly become complex and therefore conflated since these trends and enforcements by power began in the early 70's, (many here should now be familiar with the term, "neoliberal"), the common thread is clearly visible, which is a society taken to polar extremes of economic well-being, with commensurate, corresponding power to affect changes - those below the stratospheric bar set unilaterally by the "ruling class" are incapacitated and expected to go away in between "elections", while the "One Percent" as they are now known, write their own laws by buying their own government thanks to the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling; think of Koch, Adelson, Murdoch, Trump, et al.

The U.S. water-cannons such gatherings without a second thought, in much the same way they treated protestors during the Vietnam War - I recall the images and the shootings (Kent State) well.

Such inability to address social pressures in accepted/acceptable, civil ways inevitably leads to revolt of some kind and the lengths to which those who are both in power and therefore in fear will go to "control" such inevitable outbursts. I don't believe such demonstrations ever were nor will be the work of a "few 'professional' instigators". A few agitators do not control the mindset of a people. Labour and corporate history does show that such 'plants' are a part of anti-union work and that murder of workers was routine in the 30s by people like Carnegie (Frick) and others. We have seen it in the sickening behaviour of the Toronto Police leadership who are only partially held to account for their abuse of power in arrest and dispersal of democratically-guaranteed, legal gatherings.

But the pressures are not primarily in the first world. What is occurring in Macedonia and further north is an indication; it is not an isolated, local event. And with reduced land-mass due to man-made climate change, the problems of physical space and limited resources will become more clearly defined.

I recall in the 70's reading a new book called The Limits to Growth, written by the Club of Rome. It was worrisome as we were in the middle of the first modern economic crisis manufactured by the oil industry. I mentioned it to a seat-mate (while flying back to Vancouver) and it turned out he was a high-level businessman. He dismissed the "theories" of the Club of Rome and it was the first time I experienced diffidence to both personal views and to ideas which I thought deserved at least a second examination.

The subject of "Pollution" and "Conservation" were always the last chapters in any elementary and secondary school science textbooks and were filled with platitudes. Now I know why.

From experience now, these "human geography" changes take at least two generations. I think the present generation is a lot wiser and smarter than ours, and the one before mine, (our parents), only in the notions first broached by people like Rachel Carson, Hazel Henderson, the Club of Rome and others who could see the looming trends, project the risks and write about them.

Beyond the need for health, shelter, sustenance and comfort, we are bedazzled by distractions for a reason: - the privileged status of professional and college sports, the baubles of irrational, dysfunctional consumerism which keep the One Percent farting in silk and the distractions that are our "news" media which manufacture our consent can only divert such pressures for so long. People will tolerate only so much plucking before they gather up and grow large.

The governments we get are no longer the ones we deserve - the notion of "deserve" requires choice - we are prevented by design from truly participating in the politicial process that chooses how we will be ruled. The notion of "disenfranchisement" emanates from the sixties - it has far more relevance today.

As far as the Second Amendment goes, the reasons behind it are as anachronistic and as laughable as the NRA itself. Anyone with an eye for national characteristics of countries can see this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking at the state of the US today and the recent occurrences of violence especially racially or ethnically motivated. The police are gearing up like the "militia" and national guard is doing the same. Spot checks on the roadways to "Check your papers" a la Nazi Germany.

These are the telltale signs of a balloon about to burst. Whether the American people want to believe it or not they have slowly become an oppressed people living under a oppressive government that shouts the praises of freedom while slowly eroding it.

Some of what we see is close to living under Martial Law in some areas. Restricted Travel also started to become more common after 9/11. That isn't freedom.

History shows that the oppressed eventually rise up against the oppressor but many are too distracted by FOX News and shiny things to notice.

There will be an uprising, a second civil war if you want to call it that. I will be glad I am on this side of the border when it eventually happens.

Honestly, I think it's way overdue.

Edited to add:

Disarming or attempting to disarm the general public will be the straw that breaks the camels back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ and ^^ I think you are both way off. The American public is not going to have a "revolution", they will quietly accept what they are fed. There will be riots to be sure, but this will be the "Ferguson" no minds doing it, protesting nothing, and demanding more of which they are not deserving, which just reinforces what the rest of the country already believes. The rest of the country will willingly put up with whatever restrictions are put in place to quell these events. One guy tried to blow up a plane with a shoe and now we all have to take our shoes off at security, meanwhile how many Sandy Hooks have there been with no changes being made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The gun issue is much wider than just a debate about crime, and a sensible examination should not bog down on that one preoccupation. The problem is the harm that results overall from wanton proliferation, including crime but only as a lesser part.

If one is going to be obsessed with the crime aspect, there's no convincing them about the insanity of it all. The remote possibility of actually being victim of violent crime, AND in that subset that will be successfully resisted with firepower, will in their minds absolutely trump ALL the accidents, errors, road-rage & passionate homicides & suicides etc.. While the efficacy of gun control as a damper on crime may not be conclusively supported by all the evidence, it's pretty compelling that presence of guns increases those other risks.

But if one is absolutely focused on fear of crime, one can and probably will rationalize all that away (that other stuff won't happen to me/us!). So this whole discussion/thread has no chance of making any impression. The inconclusive evidence favourable to expanding gun-ownership has been accepted in whole, in conjunction with a (perhaps flattering) self-appraisal of gun prowess. And God only knows, every anecdotal success of that from time to time will be reinforcement.

The U.S. is beyond all reason on guns, with any intelligent regulation completely hamstrung by a relatively RECENT trend in judicial interpretations of their 2nd amendment (last 40-50 years or so). There's irony that many "gun rights" folk will also partake in decrying "judicial activism" over the same period toward other issues. But Canada is not subject to quite the same nonsense, however geographically confusing this type of discussion can get.

And just for the record, nobody has suggested banning/confiscating everybody's guns. Sensible people would like to know who owns them, and the "right" of every incontinent paranoid, or stupid drooling yob, to maintain an arsenal, does not need to be sacred. As for the other cut-and-paste drivel ... SERIOUSLY?!

Cheers, IFG :b:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pikachu

Mods, PLEASE, delete my account as previously requested.

It's like I accidentally stumbled into a Perkins restaurant and found a bunch of old and senile men dribbling coffee down their chins. I was too embarrassed to sit.

Once this was an aviation forum.

Now it's embarrassing.

I kindly ask again, please, delete my account.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“If one is going to be obsessed with the crime aspect, there's no convincing them about the insanity of it all. The remote possibility of actually being victim of violent crime, AND in that subset that will be successfully resisted with firepower, will in their minds absolutely trump ALL the accidents, errors, road-rage & passionate homicides & suicides etc.. While the efficacy of gun control as a damper on crime may not be conclusively supported by all the evidence, it's pretty compelling that presence of guns increases those other risks”

To help you make your point...I don’t know for certain, but I think there’s a considerably better chance of being shot by a criminal than by a so-called good citizen that’s carrying for protection and made a mistake, or went insane? Regardless, the gun control issue is much like abortion, there are two distinct views; one holds to the disarmament theory and the other to the Right of self protection. It’s only my opinion, but I don’t think the issues can be framed comparatively to present a compelling case in favour of either position; it’s an apples & oranges thing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mods, PLEASE, delete my account as previously requested.

It's like I accidentally stumbled into a Perkins restaurant and found a bunch of old and senile men dribbling coffee down their chins. I was too embarrassed to sit.

Once this was an aviation forum.

Now it's embarrassing.

I kindly ask again, please, delete my account.

Account Deleted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When will this end????

he Associated Press
Published Thursday, September 3, 2015 8:19PM EDT

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Police say three people have been shot and one of them has died near a baseball field on the campus of Sacramento City College.

Police say the campus is on lockdown Thursday night while they search for a suspect with no shirt wearing cargo shorts.

Sacramento police say the three victims were all men. One has been confirmed dead, and the other two are being taken to hospitals.

Classrooms and offices are on lockdown while police create a perimeter.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/3-people-shot-1-killed-on-sacramento-college-campus-gunman-being-sought-1.2547495

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"In 2012, 10,322 people were killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for nearly one-third (31%) of all traffic-related deaths in the United States. Of the 1,168 traffic deaths among children ages 0 to 14 years in 2012, 239 (20%) involved an alcohol-impaired driver."

Being the tool 'responsible' for over 100000 deaths, where's the call for a ban on cars? And then there's alcohol role and its dark profitable and addictive history....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plenty of people are addicted to prescription drugs and lots of people die due to those drugs. Shall we ban doctors and pharmaceuticals as well?

The fundamental difference that is often forgotten is that guns are the only thing that kill people when used as intended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While guns can be bad and I for one thought they killed more people than other weapons, it seems that knives lead the pack.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2012001/article/11738/c-g/E-11738-c-g-03.gif

Lowest rate of firearm homicides in Canada in almost 50 years

In 2011, a knife or other cutting instrument was the weapon most often used to commit a homicide, accounting for more than one-third (35%) of all homicides in Canada. Virtually all of the increase in homicides in 2011 was due to an increase in the number of homicides committed with a knife or other cutting instrument, up by 39 from 2010 (Chart 3).

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2012001/article/11738-eng.htm#a1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While guns can be bad and I for one thought they killed more people than other weapons, it seems that knives lead the pack.

I'm not sure that your conclusion is valid. It would seem that there is a tie between guns and knives in terms of death rate. There are some years in which it does exceed the total for guns but, overall, it does appear to be pretty even. However, given the fact that knives are readily available in every home, I would argue that the rate per possession is much higher for guns.

My greatest fear for the US population is that it is almost too late to stop the proliferation of guns through "control". There are simply too many and control will only take them away from law abiding citizens, giving a sense of confidence to the criminal element enabling them to go anywhere without fear of resistance.

The US has handgun ownership rates at just under 1 gun per person... about double Switzerland.... but has a gun homicide rate 4 times higher. It's almost as if it's exponential. And, even in what is considered one of the most civilized and mature societies in the world (Switzerland), there is a direct relationship between handgun ownership and homicide. Amongst first world nations, Switzerland has the second highest gun ownership and the second highest homicide rate by guns.

There is no question that more guns means more homicides. Do we need to have guns in Canada to defend ourselves? I would say no. In fact, I would suggest that most gun homicides in Canada generally occur amongst those who "run in those circles". If people kept guns in their nightstands the way they do in the US, when criminals break in, they will get more guns, giving them even more firepower.

Finally, I don't know the reason.... social and economic inequality, exposure (numbness) to violence, population density, number of guns .... the US simply is unbelievably more murderous than any other first world nation. I would offer that any suggestion that their chosen personal defense strategy (especially the ownership of guns) is a good thing is misconceived.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without much futile comment on the anti-firearm bent of most folks in here, I wonder if you are aware that as a restricted firearms permit holder here in Canada, I am subject to what amounts to a daily criminal background check...every day. I am also subject to the potential of warrant-less searches, as well as stringent storage and transport laws.

While I don't think that this level of oversight is widely known, we, as permit holders recognize it is the only way to own restricted firearms in Canada. Maybe that type of permit system, "owner control", rather than gun control, might be an easier "sell" in the 'States?

All legal Canadian firearms owners are subject to a permit system that involve some level of training, and acknowledgement of their responsibilities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ywgame;

Perhaps unintended, but "futile" used in this sense conveys a frustration with others for not having or understanding one's own point of view. On the contrary I think the dialog here on this subject has been far broader and accepting of all points of view than you may perhaps believe. I think most here are not against guns and gun-ownership, they are against public violence of any form, much of which involves guns or knives.

I think most folks here understand, (partly through these very discussions on this forum), that Canada's rules for gun ownership are far stricter than the U.S.

We know that Canada itself is not a violent society. I think it's a very good thing that all gun-owners are under a high level of oversight - it's part of what we do to ensure the right to own weapons and to ensure the safety of the public. But in the end, despite high levels of weapon ownership, we live in a mature society that avoids solving its problems with guns; QED.

I don't know how a country or a society achieves that, or achieves a culture with commensurate murder and violence rates such as those of the United States. Its a mystery, made even more inscrutable by zealotry.

On the other hand, any discussion concerning the approach to guns and violence that the U.S. has taken and defends with a religious fervour could be the very definition of the word, "futile".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Part of our maturity with firearms stems from our Huge Hunting background. More people own (long)guns in Canada than many people realize. It all stems from hunting. If you live anywhere in the wilderness or close to it, you likely own a gun to either A) hunt for food or B) defend your self from that food.

WE, as CAnadians understand that a weapon is dangerous and should be used for hunting. Handguns have no place in hunting and as such are restricted to permit holders for restricted weapons. Most of those are used for competition or recreational shooting and, as was mentioned above, you need a TON of paperwork just to get it to the range.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know plenty of Canadians who are responsible gun owners. They own them for hunting or target shooting. I have no problem with that because not one of them has ever said they own a gun for protection. They keep them secured in such a way that they'd never be available for that purpose anyways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

boestar..., re, "...you need a TON of paperwork just to get it to the range."

Sure do...went to the range nearby last year - takes an hour to get it all done.

Went to a range in Birmingham, (Alabama), and you signed a ton of waivers but they never asked if I'd fired a gun before let alone do I know how to load it, (Glock 9mm, a Magnum for kick and a Tommygun for fun). They just didn't seem to care, except that if anything happened they didn't want the responsibility. There was a locked-two-ways electronic door to the range though...

Our daughter and her husband have several rifles. Both are excellent marksmen, (her husband is also a championship archer, she's got a Sako .270 - two deer so far, one carried out 25k to the camp). The rifles are kept in a Liberty gun safe. I mention all this because this is almost certainly the way Canadians "do" guns; - in the locked safe, not under the pillow or handbag.

I thought the notion of pilots "carrying" and having these things in the cockpit was the most dangerous and stupid idea that anyone could come up with and a US Airways pilot proved it. But there it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your mention of the word "purse" reminded me of this:

A 29-year-old mother was fatally shot Tuesday in an Idaho Walmart when her 2-year-old son in the shopping cart grabbed a gun that was in her purse and shot her in an apparent accident, authorities said.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/30/us/idaho-walmart-shooting-accident-mother-toddler/

The US remains one of the few places a 2 year old can fatally shoot its mother with a gun carried legally in her purse and a citizen can go into bankruptcy by becoming sick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We all know America has it wrong. But you will never convince an American of that.

I don't know about that. I would expect that many gun owners (not the majority) are concerned about the proliferation of handguns but they still feel the need to own one.

I would expect a good number more could be convinced to get rid of them provided some things changed.

More social programs would help allay some gun owner's fears but that would only satisfy one portion of the owners. Other owners would want other things.

Give it a hundred years and I think the people could change their attitude. Some will never ever give them up of course but if enough could be convinced, in a hundred years I think the case could be made by the govt to forcibly confiscate them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...