Guns

[Matt Gregory]

Guns don't kill people.

People kill people.

Very easily and conveniently.

With guns.

[Tharan]

Guns don't kill people. People don't kill people. Bullets kill people. Ban bullets. Sell more guns.

[MKFaizi]

Stupid and/or psychopathic-temporarily insane people with guns kill people while also killing people with various and sundry other methods and weapons.

I would not cry if the US banned guns but that ain't gonna happen. Plain and simple -- freedom must ring -- or ping or in some cases richochete. It's our constitutional right to bear arms.

I am sure that made sense back in the day. In certain sections of some
US cities, it can still make some sense. If you own an AK in Baltimore, most hoodlums won't fuck with you.

Goes along with the keep your mouth shut and carry a big damn gun principle.

I don't care for that mentality but it exists. Works somewhat better than waving peace signs and olive branches and flowers on the west side.

Theoretically, I like the idea of people who want to own guns being required to take proficiency tests in order to be allowed to own a gun.

Of course, that would not stop the illegal gun trade. The illegal trade is a big part of the problem.

If it could be required that persons wishing to own guns were required to take fairly difficult proficiency tests -- both written and practical -- how could we stop the illegal gun trade?

I used to own several guns. I was not interested in killing people or anything else. I appreciated the precision of the machines. I enjoyed the exacting task of precise marksmanship. Competition.

There are such things as responsible gun owners.

For myself, I came to realize that there are other precise things I can do that do not involve bullets. Owning a gun was not worth the reality of what guns can do. I can wield a tiny paint brush with the same precision.

Why should not hunters be allowed to hunt deer with rifles? Deer are a good source of meat and they are plentiful -- extremely plentiful -- in the US. From the looks of the highways, as many deer are killed by automobiles as by guns.

Ultimately, I can well understand the idea of banning guns. But how would you implement it? What allowances would you make? Any?

Faizi

[Matt Gregory]

I haven't really thought that much about guns, actually, but someone I know committed suicide with a gun just a couple of days ago. Young kid, maybe 21 or 22. Second person I've heard of who shot himself to death. I really doubt there would be so many suicides if guns didn't make it so easy.

I think the age requirement for owning a gun should be about 40.

[MKFaizi]

It is a pity when people commit suicide and guns do offer a method.

One kid in town shot himself several months back. Other than him, all the people I know who killed themelves did not use guns. They used oxycontin and a straight razor and a rope.

I can see how you might say that no one should be allowed to own a gun until age forty. The supposition is that a more mature person would not kill himself or others with it. Unfortunately, that is not the case.

Again, restricting gun owners to age forty would not eliminate the illegal gun trade.

In Baltimore City, I lived on one block where nearly everyone had a gun. Most of these people were criminals or of subnormal intelligence. No one owned them legally. They did not buy their guns at Kmart or a gun store. They got them on the streets.

I have no objection to banning guns but what do you do about illegal guns?

Also, I do think it would not be a good thing to prohibit hunting with rifles. In rural areas -- Virginia, for example -- kids grow up hunting. By age twelve, a lot of kids around here are already hunting bear and deer.

Faizi

[Matt Gregory]

I can see how you might say that no one should be allowed to own a gun until age forty. The supposition is that a more mature person would not kill himself or others with it.

Well, no, the supposition is that an older person would think a little longer before using it. It's a fact that younger people are more prone to making rash choices, and there isn't very much time between the decision to fire a gun and pulling the trigger.

Again, restricting gun owners to age forty would not eliminate the illegal gun trade.

That's a different enough problem, though, that a different solution is necessary.

I have no objection to banning guns but what do you do about illegal guns?

I don't know.

Also, I do think it would not be a good thing to prohibit hunting with rifles. In rural areas -- Virginia, for example -- kids grow up hunting. By age twelve, a lot of kids around here are already hunting bear and deer.

Well, I have nothing against hunting. I don't particularly enjoy killing animals, but I don't think it's a big enough issue to worry about. I just have to wonder, is it merely a coincidence that the most gun happy country is also the most war happy?

[MKFaizi]

I do not enjoy killing animals either but I eat meat. I have eaten plenty of deer meat that has been given to me. There are millions of deer around here. Tons of 'em. See them dead on the roadsides every single day -- killed by cars. Wasted meat.

Are you a vegetarian?

I do realize that you meant an older person might think before using a gun to kill a human being. That is what I meant when I used the word mature. However, I don't think it is so much a matter of age. I think it is a matter of education. Ignorance breeds violence.

I know twelve year old kids who have been hunting since they were born, so to speak. The last murder by gun around here occured about fourteen years ago. Dude shot his wife up at the Moose Lodge.

I do think proficiency tests are a good idea.

But that still won't stop the illegal gun trade. Any idiot can buy a pistol or whatever else on the streets.

As for the US being gun happy and war happy, we just have the biggest guns. Imagine things if the Pakistanis ever get rid of Musharraf? Think they would not hesitate to blow up the earth just so we could all be martyred?

Certain Islamic factions in Pakistan would not think twice about it.

I have plenty of criticisms of the US. I loathe George Bush and his delusions and I fear that the damage he has done is irreversible. The war on terror is entirely bogus -- Orwellian.

But things could be even worse and, considering that Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are US allies, things could get worse.

Twenty years ago, when I knew a lot of Pakistanis, one of them said, "We have taken over England. We have overrun Britain like cockroaches. We will destroy it. We will destroy it from the inside out."

Twenty years ago.

This is not to say that there are not a lot of benign cockroaches. Just hard to cull them out from the minions.

I partially agree with Michael Moore's assessments. I think we suck.

I also think they suck.

If it could be possible to reassign nuclear superiority, to whom would you consign such responsibility?

The Dutch? Swedes? Danes? Germans? French? Australians?

What could be the most civilized culture to dominate the less civilized nations?


Faizi

[avidaloca]

Germany. The only reason Nazism arose in that country was due to the compounding influences of the Depression and the Versailles treaty. It was desperation.

Several attempts were made to kill Hitler from Germans including one a few months after WWII started, but they failed. Remember if anyone was caught they and everyone they knew were killed (i.e 5000 were killed after the Von Staufenberg assassination attempt of Hitler although 99% of them had no knowledge of it).

[MKFaizi]

Praise Allah, someone has an opinion.

It is possible that a civilized, technologically advanced country that has experience of national horror coupled with experience as an international pariah could be trusted as the nuclear policeman of the world.

Good vote. Germany is an exceptionally clean and civilized country. I would gladly hand over the nuclear arsenal of the US to Germany. I am sure German dominance would please all the terrorist Arabs and semi-Arabs of the world.

Jews might not like it but they'd get over it, right? I mean, they kind of got over the Holocaust thing.

Personally, as an American, I would be more than happy to hand over the world power thing to some other culture. Then, we could be a nation of stupid rednecks and no one would care. Kind of like Angolans. Maybe, we could get foreign aid for education. Free computers and stuff. It would be great if no one expected anything from the US.

"The US? Third World Country. Screw 'em. Europe rocks."

What a relief it could be for Canadians to dominate North America. Thank God, they are superior. Anyone up for Canadians to take control of the world? Canadians understand organic food sources. Like, wow. And they have a superior health care system.

What about Denmark?

I am so ready to relinquish world power.

I am going to write to John Kerry about this.

WORKING TOWARD SECESSION.

Faizi

[Matt Gregory]

I do not enjoy killing animals either but I eat meat. I have eaten plenty of deer meat that has been given to me. There are millions of deer around here. Tons of 'em. See them dead on the roadsides every single day -- killed by cars. Wasted meat.

There are tons of deer around Michigan, too. Even around here in the suburbs with the multilane highways and everything I see them once in awhile.

Are you a vegetarian?

No, I'm not vegetarian.

I do realize that you meant an older person might think before using a gun to kill a human being. That is what I meant when I used the word mature. However, I don't think it is so much a matter of age. I think it is a matter of education. Ignorance breeds violence.

True enough.

I know twelve year old kids who have been hunting since they were born, so to speak. The last murder by gun around here occured about fourteen years ago. Dude shot his wife up at the Moose Lodge.

A "Hey Joe" situation, eh?

I do think proficiency tests are a good idea.

Sure.

But that still won't stop the illegal gun trade. Any idiot can buy a pistol or whatever else on the streets.

I think the "Guns for Christmas Toys" program was a good idea. "Guns for Cocaine" would probably work a lot better, though.

As for the US being gun happy and war happy, we just have the biggest guns.

Well, the population supports war. If the people didn't support Bush and his war then we wouldn't be over there. But I wasn't thinking just of the present moment, I was thinking of the whole history of the U.S.

Imagine things if the Pakistanis ever get rid of Musharraf? Think they would not hesitate to blow up the earth just so we could all be martyred?

Certain Islamic factions in Pakistan would not think twice about it.

I don't know anything about Pakistan. They are all about India aren't they?

I have plenty of criticisms of the US. I loathe George Bush and his delusions and I fear that the damage he has done is irreversible. The war on terror is entirely bogus -- Orwellian.

I don't really think it's Orwellian. I mean, the people already wanted war, so there was no manipulation that needed to occur. I think all the "evidence" that was "uncovered" was mainly to make us feel like it would help us get some international support.

If it could be possible to reassign nuclear superiority, to whom would you consign such responsibility?

The Dutch? Swedes? Danes? Germans? French? Australians?

What could be the most civilized culture to dominate the less civilized nations?

I would probably assign it to Canada, or maybe California. Arnold doesn't seem like such a bad guy.

[MKFaizi]

I will attempt to reply to you over the next couple of days. I think that you are naive.

You don't have to have any particular knowledge of Pakistanis. Pakistani nationals from Leeds are largely the ones accused of the recent terrorist acts in London.

You said something like, "Pakistanis are about India"

I know that you are a smart person, Matt. I have no desire to insult you.

Last thing that I could want to do.

But damn.

Faizi

[MKFaizi]

Arnold is not a bad guy. He is an actor.

California is part of the US and, therefore, American. The culture of California is not significantly different from the rest of the US.

I could go for Canada as a superpower. Such a relief. Canadians are clearly superior to Americans.

Faizi

[Matt Gregory]

You won't offend me, Marsha.

I know I can't keep up when it comes to politics.

I have in fact spent a little time studying politics and U.S. and world history, but I eventually made the decision to avoid studying politics.

A week's worth of study is enough to hold a conversation on a specific topic. A year's worth and the person will be considered well-informed in the field. In five years the person will be able to do eight hours of research every day and will be able to relate many obscure facts off the top of his head. In ten years the person will begin to break new ground and can start writing books that are worth reading.

Politics is always going to be very, very complex. It's an endless ocean of data that gets deeper and deeper the farther you swim out in it. It's so complex that the people running it can't make sense of it, because you would have to be a scholar to put all the facts together, but you have to be a socialite to be a politician, and you would be hard pressed to find two more incompatible pursuits.

I thought the link to the interview that was posted in The Power Of Nightmares thread was fascinating. I have no doubt that Professor Pape is correct in his assessment of the motivation of suicide terrorists, because I have noticed the same type of reaction in myself when I am unfairly ousted from my position in a group of people. When this starts to happen, I tend to make the situation a lot worse for myself as I try to "take out" as many people around me as possible. I mean, when you've lost all hope, why not try to make people think about what is happening to you and use it as an example to try and sow the seeds of distrust towards the people in power? You're already as good as dead anyway.

So, to my mind, Pape didn't come up with a mere theory, he came up with a valuable psychological truth about something that not many people have had the experience to come in contact with, yet it reveals a fundamental aspect of the ego.

Will his research reach the politicians in such a way that it will cause them to deeply consider it and use it to guide their decisions? It's unlikely because there are already thousands of these people trying to release political information in hundreds of different areas of politics. Who could digest it fast enough to make use of it? And if no one makes use of it, how is it better than one of David Icke's conspiracy theories that get bandied around by the public? There will probably be a couple of thousand intellectuals that will read his book, and that's about it. Intellectuals have no power to influence, it takes a socialite, a crowd manipulator for that, and those people don't study anything. They're too busy with their appointments and parties and events. There's only the slight hope that it will trickle down.

The problem with politics is that even if you studied it deeply enough to come up with a real, workable solution to something, you're still stuck with the problem that people in general aren't receptive to truth or even to new ideas. They might listen to them for a minute but they won't consider them deeply enough to see the value of them. If everyone around them begins parroting an idea, they will begin to parrot it, but that's about the best you can hope for. I'm not interested in parroting or creating new bird calls.

So how do you deal with the problem of the receptivity of ideas? If you don't deal with that problem first, then politics becomes nothing more than a bunch of old cronies sitting around saying "well for heaven's sake!" once in awhile. A great idea in a petty mind doesn't make the petty mind great, it makes the idea petty. The mind receiving it has to be big enough to hold it in order to make use of it.

[MKFaizi]

I am not speaking of politics in the voice of the politician. Indeed, I am speaking about the state of the world, not the state of politics.

Very few people understand the meaning of ideas. I was fortunate to take a class called The History of Ideas when I was in college. In that class, when I was twenty, the one thing that I learned is that all ideas are suspect and all ideas are intended to manipulate.

You asked me about the receptivity of ideas. Of course, I am open to new ideas or old ideas. But I am also suspicious. Any philosopher would need to investigate and interrogate before making any decision.

The one idea that I have lived with for quite some time that rings true to me is that it is always wrong to kill another human being. I have looked at that for a very long time. No idea is worth a human life.

When I discuss what you call politics, I am discussing the misery of the world -- the history of ideas. I cannot think of anything more interesting or pleasing than the ideas of religion and politics and beliefs falling to the wayside in favor of enlightenment of the human being.

The idea of banning guns is a lofty idea and I respect that.

But, as an idea, it is something that demands scrutiny.

Politics is the implementation of ideas.

Since you have asserted that guns should be banned -- an idea -- how exactly would you implement that idea?

It is wonderful for artists and musicians to scream about world peace -- an idea -- but how do you implement that idea? How do you sell that idea?

You are mistaken if you think that I am interested in politics. I am interested in ideas and beliefs and how to change those ideas and beliefs when necessary.

Faizi

[sevens]

Archetypes.

[Matt Gregory]

I am not speaking of politics in the voice of the politician. Indeed, I am speaking about the state of the world, not the state of politics.

What's the difference? To me, whenever people talk about nations and the issues surrounding them, it's politics. "Musharraf", "G. W. Bush", "Pakistan", "United States", etc. is politics. War is politics. The London bombings is politics. The gun issue is politics. The reassignment of superpower is politics. I honestly don't see how you could say that we weren't talking about politics. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with politics, I just don't understand why you would want to deny it.

Very few people understand the meaning of ideas. I was fortunate to take a class called The History of Ideas when I was in college. In that class, when I was twenty, the one thing that I learned is that all ideas are suspect and all ideas are intended to manipulate.

The communication of ideas is intended to manipulate, yeah. But every action we take is intended to manipulate someone or something, otherwise no action would be necessary.

You asked me about the receptivity of ideas. Of course, I am open to new ideas or old ideas. But I am also suspicious. Any philosopher would need to investigate and interrogate before making any decision.

Well, I wasn't asking you specifically about your receptivity to ideas, but how you plan to get others to accept your ideas. You said we suck and they suck. But what's that supposed to mean? Are you saying something, or are you trying to fit in with the "we suck, they suck" crowd or what?

Me, being the diehard optimist that I am, I'm assuming the former, and I assume you have some ideas on how to improve the political situation in the Middle East so they don't suck and improve the situation in the U.S. so we don't suck.

I'm also assuming that you would like to disseminate these ideas to the wider public so that they might possibly be executed on a large scale. How are you going to do this? And if you have no plans to do this then what makes your ideas more practical than theoretical? What makes a situation like that more practical than, say, philosophy, which is executed every time someone has a philosophical insight?

The one idea that I have lived with for quite some time that rings true to me is that it is always wrong to kill another human being. I have looked at that for a very long time. No idea is worth a human life.

"Human life" is nothing more than an idea.

The idea of banning guns is a lofty idea and I respect that.

But, as an idea, it is something that demands scrutiny.

I'm not really calling for the banning of guns, though. I was just throwing that out there. I don't know enough about it to make a call on that, although I haven't heard anything very compelling on the pro-gun side. The best I've heard is that if we get rid of guns, then only criminals will have guns, but all that does is affirm that guns are bad. I've never heard anyone argue that guns are good.

Politics is the implementation of ideas.

Not to me it isn't. The implementation of ideas would be activism, legislation, law enforcement and military action. Politics to me is more like the analysis of alliances and conflicts between groups.

Since you have asserted that guns should be banned -- an idea -- how exactly would you implement that idea?

Like I said, I was only asserting that for the sake of discussion.

How do you sell that idea?

I don't know. I guess if I really wanted to sell it I would make up some bullshit and try to get someone with a Phd to write a book about it. Or get my own Phd and write a book, go on a book-signing tour, give talks, wear witty T-shirts, etc.

[Leyla Shen]

Well, I wasn't asking you specifically about your receptivity to ideas, but how you plan to get others to accept your ideas. You said we suck and they suck. But what's that supposed to mean? Are you saying something, or are you trying to fit in with the "we suck, they suck" crowd or what?

Me, being the diehard optimist that I am, I'm assuming the former, and I assume you have some ideas on how to improve the political situation in the Middle East so they don't suck and improve the situation in the U.S. so we don't suck.

Jeez, going straight for the big one, eh Matt?

One of the biggest problems, I reckon, is knowing who -- on both sides -- is really on your side. Who really wants the same thing/s you do. No point going into the Middle East for the express purpose of making them suck less with a bunch of people who have hidden agendas -- and who suck themselves. That kind of politics is the politics you don't get to hear about until it goes "bang!"

That's really all that one needs to know about poltics. The rest is just painstaking investigation and detail.

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20011015&s=johnson

There are today, ten years after the demise of the Soviet Union, some 800 Defense Department installations located in other countries. The people of the United States make up perhaps 4 percent of the world's population but consume 40 percent of its resources. They exercise hegemony over the world directly through overwhelming military might and indirectly through secretive organizations like the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization. Though largely dominated by the US government, these are formally international organizations and therefore beyond Congressional oversight.

Democracy, my arse. What we have, ladies and gentlemen, is nothing more than the type of elitism that should have the bible belt screaming. But, no...

"You evildoers frustrate the plans of the poor, but the Lord is their refuge."

Psalm 14:6

I mean, talk about stating the obvious.

[Tomas]

.

You Gun Exists To Comfort You (photo)

Not to be comfortable, says Greg Perry.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/perry/perry38.html

.

[Tomas]

.

Gunshots No One Heard (photos)

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05123/498201.stm

.

[rpl]

People make guns to kill people.

People kill people through the use of guns.

The world is too fucked up to eliminate guns and guns are definitely part of the problem.

However, considering what's going on, they seem to be a necessary evil.

People are like guns and words are their bullets.

It's fucked.

[brokenhead]

It's the handguns that are the problem. I think society is reluctant to legislatively deal with John Q. Public's access to handguns because there's no way of knowing who is armed and who is not. If all concealable weapons could suddenly disappear, you would see a drop in violent crimes. "Heat of the moment" homicides would all but vanish.

But handguns will never vanish. Even if their manufacture would cease, they would still be out there, outlasting their owners, each and every one of them. It seems to me that the right to bear arms all but guarantees an armed society, yet not one that is educated on the use and care of firearms.

You do not purchase a car and let it just sit in your driveway. Likewise, you do not purchase a gun unless you have an expectation of someday using it. I'm all for the hobbyist who goes to the firing range and develops skill at shooting a handgun; he is likely to be the person who keeps it stored safely at home. The problem is, situations crop up where one might feel safely anonymous, such as on the highway... If you allow people to own guns, you are allowing people to use them to injure and kill other people. There is no way around it.

My own approach to guns is not to own one. That way I can be 100% certain that I am not responsible for an environment wherein irrevocable deadly firearm accidents can happen. When I see on TV that the neighbor's kid has taken his gun to school and shot the boy who was bullying him, that affects me, but at least I know it cannot have been my own kid meting out 6th grade justice.

I see myself as John Q. Public. I see myself as better off unarmed.

[rpl]

Dam gangsta shaws git dem little hoodlums ol'hyped and redy to bust-a-cap in the next mofo dat shaws da wong kalas!

[DHodges]

It's the handguns that are the problem. I think society is reluctant to legislatively deal with John Q. Public's access to handguns because there's no way of knowing who is armed and who is not. If all concealable weapons could suddenly disappear, you would see a drop in violent crimes. "Heat of the moment" homicides would all but vanish.

Take a look at what happened to crime statistics in, say, England after the passing very restrictive gun control measures. Does violent crime go down? No. Criminals now know they are dealing with an unarmed public, which is a more attractive target. And criminals tend to break laws (pretty much by definition). It's the law-abiding citizens that are disarmed.

The "getting rid of guns gets rid of crime" argument has been proven false by experience. Not just in England.

Also, in most or all of the US, the police are under no obligation to protect you in most circumstances. If you dial 911, they might show up if they are not too busy elsewhere.

You do not purchase a car and let it just sit in your driveway. Likewise, you do not purchase a gun unless you have an expectation of someday using it. I'm all for the hobbyist who goes to the firing range and develops skill at shooting a handgun; he is likely to be the person who keeps it stored safely at home.

Buying a car and driving it around without any training is certainly asking for trouble. This is actually much more of an issue with motorcycles, where kids go buy very powerful sport bikes, which they then ride beyond their abilities with no safety equipment, and often without a license. They manage to kill themselves fairly often.

I recommend the MSF (Motorcycle Safety Foundation) class to anyone who is interested in riding - BEFORE you go out and buy a bike. Similarly, the NRA basic safety class should be taken BEFORE getting a firearm. In some states, there is a legal requirement to do so; in other states, you can decide for yourself if you want to follow common sense. Having a gun you don't know how to use safely is a very bad idea.

The problem is, situations crop up where one might feel safely anonymous, such as on the highway... If you allow people to own guns, you are allowing people to use them to injure and kill other people. There is no way around it.

Guns in the hands of private citizens are mostly used for self defense. Often they can end a situation without being fired. For instance, many rapes are prevented every year when the woman presents a gun to her would-be rapist. Criminals like an easy target.

Among people who own a gun, very few of them carry on a regular basis. The main reason is, it's a big pain in the ass to tote a big piece of metal with you, and keep it concealed. There are some states - such as Arizona - where open carry is allowed, and it does not seem to cause chaos and mayhem.

My own approach to guns is not to own one. That way I can be 100% certain that I am not responsible for an environment wherein irrevocable deadly firearm accidents can happen.

That is very good. If you do not want to make the commitment to doing it right, you should not do it at all. Guns must be stored very securely, especially if you have children.

I see myself as John Q. Public. I see myself as better off unarmed.

That is certainly your right, and probably a good choice for you. There are many people who should not have guns, just as there are many people who should not ride motorcycles.

Having said all that - while self-defense is an important and common reason for owning a gun, the real reason is political. There is a long history throughout the 20th century of nations disarming their citizens prior to a genocide. Political power, to some extent, depends on who has the guns. This is why gun ownership is in the Constitution as a protected right. Rights not specifically granted to the government are reserved to the people.

[rpl]

DHodges,

Rights not specifically granted to the government are reserved to the people.

I don't understand what you mean.

[DHodges]

DHodges,

Rights not specifically granted to the government are reserved to the people.

I don't understand what you mean.

Well, it was kind of a non-sequitor, I admit. As spelled out in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the US Constitution, if the government is not specifically granted a certain right by the people, then the government does not have that right. Also, there are certain areas (for example, First, Second, Third Amendments ) that the government is specifically not allowed to mess with.

This is based on the idea that government is an agreement, a contract, between "free men," the alternative being that it is a means for one group (e.g., the aristocracy) to control the rest. The idea at the time was that there are "natural rights" that free men have (as opposed to the "divine right of kings" to rule).

When the government steps beyond those rights specifically given to it, it is no longer an agreement between free men. It is becoming a means of oppression and control. It is sliding into totalitiarianism.