Guns, Guns Guns

Donnachaidh wrote:Mostly it's the condescending tone Tenshinai manages to have in almost every post. Neither you nor Spacekiwi have had that tone nor do you attack, rather you address specific points in a calm, polite, and reasonable manner.

Daryl wrote:I don't want to further stir up trouble but I do support Tenshinai in this. After careful rereading I can't see any reference he made to races, and also I can see how an external viewpoint can be useful. Just because someone doesn't live in an area is no reason to dismiss their opinion. I own a number of guns (rifles and shotguns), plus other weapons but don't own a hand gun as the only use I can see for a hand gun is to shoot people at close range. Useless for hunting as the accurate range is limited and dangerous to carry as it is much easier to accidentally have the noisy end pointed at you.
While criminals here do continue to get handguns they are not as common as in the US, because as Spacekiwi said we have a moat, so someone can't just put some in his car and drive here from an area where they are more easily obtained.

Why thank you donnachaidh.


I try to always be polite because you catch more flies with honey then with vinegar. its all well and good making a valid point, but if nobody listens, then its wasted effort. I try to be like David Attenborough in his view of how to debate as opposed to Richard Dawkins. Yes, Richard may have valid points, but its so often buried in contempt for those opposing him that he may as well be dogmatic for atheism. acting like the other person is always wrong will make you lots of enemies. Far better to be logical, reasonable, and polite, as people will like you more, and you can get a better understanding of why the other person thinks the way they do.

Daryl wrote:Useless for hunting as the accurate range is limited and dangerous to carry as it is much easier to accidentally have the noisy end pointed at you.

A high caliber handgun doesn't have quite the same authority as a solid slug shotgun or even a 30.06 rifle, but even a bear or boar is going to know it's been tapped if you empty a .45 magazine into it.

Tenshinai wrote:Those statements are yours alone. If you think that´s the only part of "demographics" that is relevant, think long and hard again.

In the context of American urban murder rates, do you have any other suggested demographics that should be considered?

RandomGraysuit wrote:

Tenshinai wrote:Those statements are yours alone. If you think that´s the only part of "demographics" that is relevant, think long and hard again.

In the context of American urban murder rates, do you have any other suggested demographics that should be considered?

How about simply poverty rather than 'poor black americans'?

And in particular, the ghettoization of that poverty with consequent effects on education, social mobility and micro-culture.

I dn't think Tenshinani has been particularly rude, but I do think he's getting a bit frustrated running into a brick wall with some people on the 'more guns = less crime' front. The fact that people on both sides blatantly cherry-pick examples doesn't really help discussion.

Hi all,

The problem with this issue is there is no compromise possible. People look at it from their perspective one side or the other.

For myself having the President of the United States' advisers suggest he can confiscate the peoples arms by executive order is scary. What other rights do the sons-a-bitches want to take next! This underscores why an armed citizenry is important to maintain the rights enshrined by our Constitution now threatened by these politicians. The second Amendment's purpose as Madison and Jefferson noted in the Federalist papers prior to it's adoption, is not to allow hunting, sports shooting, etc., but to keep the politicians honest allowing the citizenry to resist tyranny with armed force.

This is my take on it, those who disagree are free to say so, those attempting to take my arms will get the bullets first, survivors my confiscate my arms, but they'll know they've been to the dance!

Guys let's try to discuss the issue not flame or appear to flame each other. Another thing with an armed citizenry, as told to me by my eldest aunt b. 1885 on the frontier, "Good manners cost nothing, bad manners can cost your life "

Mange, <Hey dummy, is physically impossible to shoot someone down an internet connection >

Chief, "No flaming, 'cat."

<As an imaginary character,



Poker & Mange

JimHacker wrote:How about simply poverty rather than 'poor black americans'?

Unfortunately, those demographics don't correlate.

JimHacker wrote:And in particular, the ghettoization of that poverty with consequent effects on education, social mobility and micro-culture.

Nor those, given mid-century historical trends and modern poor, culturally and ethnically homogenous urban immigrant areas.

There are very, very specific circumstances that need to happen to blow the violent crime and murder rate through the roof. Gun control levels don't seem to have a strong demonstrated preventative effect on those rates.
[/quote]

Thanks Pokermind for spelling out what I thought was the case. To an outsider the thought that your democracy is underpinned by the concept that it is right to consider armed rebellion if you don't agree with the elected government's policies is weird.
I'm rarely in agreement with our governments but would regard planning to violently overthrow them to be treason.

Daryl wrote:Thanks Pokermind for spelling out what I thought was the case. To an outsider the thought that your democracy is underpinned by the concept that it is right to consider armed rebellion if you don't agree with the elected government's policies is weird.
I'm rarely in agreement with our governments but would regard planning to violently overthrow them to be treason.

Simple answer, only the winners define the term treason. After WW II the victorious Allies executed Germans and Japanese for following orders and not committing treason against their governments. In English history Charles the first the King of England was executed for treason by the victorious parliamentarians.

Should the dully elected Government by violating their oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States including the bill of rights that includes the right of the people to keep and bare arms may be considered to have committed treason no matter how many people they duped into voting for them. In US history there were three major revolutions, the first against King George III of England, the Second against Santa Anna President of Mexico by the people of Texas, the third the Confederate States of America against the remainder of the United States. In two the rebels won, in the Civil War the rebels lost. I had ancestors who fought in all three, with George Washington, one cousin died at the Alamo, and on both sides of the Civil War. What can I say I come from a family of rebels in a country established by revolution. At the start of all revolutions the rebels are considered traitors, so what. To quote the founding fathers, "If this be treason make the most of it."

Consider the fools in Washington disenfranchised many of its soldiers, now they want to push the citizens into rebellion (by the way the armed citizens) by trying to take away their rights with an army they might not be able to count on. I calls such folks idiots

Poker

PS. The first shots of the American revolution happened when General Gates sent the British Regulars out to confiscate the militia's powder stores, kinda the ultimate protest against disarmament don't you think, and the reason there is a United States

RandomGraysuit wrote:

JimHacker wrote:How about simply poverty rather than 'poor black americans'?

Unfortunately, those demographics don't correlate.

Actually they do, at least if you qualify it with 'urban poverty'. Rural poverty doesn't have quite the same effect (it does increase crime rates but not murder rates). I think you'll find that when extreme poverty is concentrated in one spot then crime rates rise whatever the race of the people. It's just that poor people of other races are more likely to be concentrated in one area than poor white people. And those rates then rocket if a gang/criminal micro-culture develops and spreads in response to feeling abandoned/ignored by the dominant culture. And then gangs arise when the area feels abandoned or ignored by the government.

JimHacker wrote:And in particular, the ghettoization of that poverty with consequent effects on education, social mobility and micro-culture.

Nor those, given mid-century historical trends and modern poor, culturally and ethnically homogenous urban immigrant areas.

There are very, very specific circumstances that need to happen to blow the violent crime and murder rate through the roof. Gun control levels don't seem to have a strong demonstrated preventative effect on those rates.

To which mid-century historical trends in particular are you referring?

I would say that gun control does have a strong demonstrated preventative effect on violent crime but only when that control is consistent border to border. Ie, gun control applied on a city/state or other local basis will generally be ineffective if all a person has to do to circumvent those restrictions is drive somewhere else and there's no border checks inbetween. If you look at other countries (and not just those of Europe, but also australasia or Asia) gun control does seem to work when instituted on a national level. Yes, much of the difference in crime rates with those that have tight gun control is cultural but a lot of it isn't

Yes, lots of us around the world have very different attitudes. I mean, we Brits don't even arm our police (except in Northern Ireland), let alone ourselves.

I think a lot of the reason gun control is such an issue in the US and why many people outside the US have trouble understanding why its an issue and why we have such strong feelings about it ultimately goes back to history.

Unlike Europe, the US has not had modern weapons (tanks, machine guns, bombers) used in a war in it and so has not had to absorbed the devastation that brings on a cultural level (Europe did after both WW1 and WW2) nor does that awareness exist in the memories of our current leaders. But from a cultural perspective we are not that far removed from the time when guns were necessary for our families' safety (<150 years since frontier where attacks by both bandits and natives were not uncommon and the American Civil War). Most of Europe has lived in cultures were civil authorities were able to exert effective control of areas and deal with crime for centuries. For most of the Western US that has only been the case for maybe 100 years - which isn't long in terms of human culture. The US had highway bandits < 75 years ago (the most famous example being Bonnie and Clyde). That sort of thing is of why our police are armed; for that matter even when they weren't officially armed (when police forces were first formed in the US) almost every police officer carried some sort of firearm.

JimHacker wrote:Yes, lots of us around the world have very different attitudes. I mean, we Brits don't even arm our police (except in Northern Ireland), let alone ourselves.