American National Anti-Gun Association

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

That won't happen if they are too afraid to think or speak about wisdom (non-attachment).

I have never heard of anyone in America being shot for speaking about wisdom or non-attachment. Other than the random shootings, they get shot for cutting people off in traffic, firing an employee from a job or giving them a bad performance evaluation, being mean, because the shooter wanted money or drugs (or in one case I heard of, he wanted a sandwich), for leaving or threatening to leave a relationship, infidelity or the shooter getting the perception the partner is cheating on them, because someone bumped into the shooter in a crowd and the shooter felt he was being disrespected, being homosexual, insurance fraud... the closest things to what you are talking about might be to silence a potential witness or revenge for being a witness, but those are usually professional jobs. I don't think anyone would be shot for speaking about wisdom, and I have not heard of anyone not speaking about wisdom out of fear of being shot.
.

[sschaula]

Exactly, Elizabeth.

[Kelly Jones]

Kelly: as long as the majority of humans on earth are not wise, and highly value emotionalism, then it is sane to restrict access to firearms.

Chochem: First of all, what constitutes a "wise person" in your opinion?

Any individual who has no attachments, having understood why things aren't ultimately real.

Prohibition did nothing but create vast wealth for people who smuggled alcohol and the drug war has done nothing but create drug cartels which can field armies and control governments.

Sure, the rewards for being powerful, emotional, and destructive are great. But I think your argument is exactly the same as the one begun with President Nixon against drugs. Namely, your government (which is Americans) benefits from creating a War Against Criminals by arming everyone, by keeping its citizens' attention focussed on international dominance and away from problems associated with its belligerent mentality.

Perhaps Elizabeth is right, and it will take thousands of years before people will resort to reason first.

A very insecure child will delight in finding ways to bully others. This is what the Americans call "freedom".

Scott and Elizabeth are very much American types. Of course, this is not limited to Americans only.

Banning firearms frees people who wouldn't otherwise think deeply to seek truth?

Restricting firearm usage and ownership can do that, yes.

But it takes time for people to get used to a non-paranoid mentality.

I don't see the connection because I don't think it's possible threats of violence which keep most people silent, I think it's a lack of drive to actually seek the truth and an unwillingness to travel a path without easy explanations.

I'm not equating gun ownership and usage with folly. I'm saying it's a hefty force in being unwilling to live wisely.

There's a very strong tendency among the wiser Americans on this forum to "shush", not to say troubling things, not to stir people up. Now why would that be?


-

[Kelly Jones]

Kelly: That won't happen if they are too afraid to think or speak about wisdom (non-attachment).

Elizabeth: I have never heard of anyone in America being shot for speaking about wisdom or non-attachment.

That's because there is one person who is kind of interested in wisdom, but is too harmless to bother anyone much. He toes the line.

It's not surprising, given how insane and hellish American culture is - he wouldn't last very long.

I don't think anyone would be shot for speaking about wisdom,

You don't know what wisdom is.

and I have not heard of anyone not speaking about wisdom out of fear of being shot.

Out of unwillingness to face the fact of their cowardice.

Other than the random shootings, they get shot for cutting people off in traffic, firing an employee from a job or giving them a bad performance evaluation, being mean, because the shooter wanted money or drugs (or in one case I heard of, he wanted a sandwich), for leaving or threatening to leave a relationship, infidelity or the shooter getting the perception the partner is cheating on them, because someone bumped into the shooter in a crowd and the shooter felt he was being disrespected, being homosexual, insurance fraud... the closest things to what you are talking about might be to silence a potential witness or revenge for being a witness, but those are usually professional jobs.

And Scott says "Exactly" whereas a while ago, he said that keenobserver and myself were nuts for making such claims about American culture.

I think it's not worth taking his views seriously, until he can hold a position for two moments.



-

[Kelly Jones]

People who go around shooting people for illegal reasons are not concerned with the laws anyway, so laws would do nothing to stop them.

Laws are made to stop dire egotists as well as the ignorant. They do work, or we wouldn't have any laws.

You say it would take a couple hundred years for people to evolve enough to not need formal legislation regarding guns (I think that's an optimistic time frame for people to even evolve into having that mythical version of common sense) - I say it would take a lot longer than a couple of hundred years to fish all the guns out of the hands of people who would behave irresponsibly with them. I think it would be more efficient to teach responsibility.

Well, instead of wasting so much money manufacturing domestic (!) firearms, the money could go towards funding an amnesty. Namely, getting your money back, plus some, when handing in your gun.

Such a campaign would need a lot of courageous, bold advertising and ten times more "conversational pressure".

That great phrase of Sam Harris, again.

But you're all fantastic at that sort of thing, so...

And all those millions (or billions perhaps) of guns and weapons could be used, in turn, in the military or for other rational uses.

What I see as the problem with having guns as personal protection devices is that they are just too big.

The best sort of personal protection device is reason.

Somebody tried to carjack me once, and due to my reaction they took off (and I recognized later that most people would not have reacted like I did unless they were armed). If they had been pretty sure that all I could possibly have was a knife, a guy or two with knives still definitely has an advantage over a female. Being physically bigger and stronger should not give someone the right to do whatever they want.

Instead of being awake to what they are, seeing each other as causes, they skirt the walls terrified and blind.

It's such a comedy of errors.

Instead of reasoning about what they are, their lives are wretchedly magnetised to the fear of the other.

They only need to get a different, stronger magnet, and to start supporting the ability to discuss things rationally and calmly.

What's more, bloodborne pathogens are far more prevalent in America. If blood is going to have to be spilled, it is safer to do so from a distance.

Here's that "other" disease again. Keep it away, kill it, don't breathe it in, annihilate it.

Be ashamed, you fools, for not plucking out your blind eyes that cause you to sin.

Finally, although the shooting rampages get the big news, far more shootings happen as just individual events. A domestic violence killing or other individual killing could happen just as easily with a knife as a gun, so even if all guns were to magically disappear from America, it would not make a significant reduction in the number of killings.

No, I think it would. Killing by stabbing is not as physically easy or as anonymous as using a gun. It is also far more devastating psychologically, because it requires repetition. The murderer realises that every stab will require the same concentrated anger, and the same desperation, willingly dredged up into consciousness, over and over. It is basically saying, "I am committed to be an evil, bad, terrible person, and rejected by all society."

No egotist can stand that thought. All egotists justify what they did as being somehow good and acceptable. Criminals have a philosophy of some kind, form clubs with rules.

So, having to prolong the horror of murder is a strong disincentive to engaging in it.

This is one of the main reasons mass murderers commit suicide. They do not wish to remember, for their entire lives, that they are bad. They simply cannot conceive of living with that knowledge.

Using a gun makes murder far easier, because the action of shooting doesn't psychologically remind one of that commitment. The murderer is really only pointing at someone, and saying to themselves, "I hate them". But there is not the commitment - there lacks the walking up and physically attacking. The committed murderer with a gun actually walks right up to the victim, and places the gun against their head.

Also, trigger-pulling lasts just an instant, so that, just as one pulls it, one may be thinking, "Oh, I don't actually want to commit to this." The murderer may believe they didn't actually commit murder, that they were only pointing a gun.

It might not even reduce the killings at all if gang members and the like realized that they had more of an advantage over the average citizen since they would not be in danger of being shot for attempted whatever.

Gang members without guns have less anonymity. They have to come closer, perhaps to speak, which requires more individualised effort, and more coherent thought.

Even removing the guns, the American mindset would still be the same, it is just the tools that would change.

If the gun is removed, then there is a huge effect. No longer can one just "point" with hate at someone and kill them by doing so. Now one has to speak, and to form rational sentences, and try to say why one is upset. Then there is some semblance of reason.



-

[Leyla Shen]

Kelly wrote:

And all those millions (or billions perhaps) of guns and weapons could be used, in turn, in the military or for other rational uses.

They're too far gone, Kelly:

"Feature upgrade: in the next addon to C&C Generals, your Microwave Tank can also be used against civilians (those game developers always try to match reality):

"Next stage in the non-lethal weapon buisiness - after rubber bullets, pepper spray and stunners, all weapons hurting in a particle way of pain, the current state of art is a weapon based on electromagnetic radiation. One could say, this is just an oversized, vehicle-mounted microwave oven with a much shorter wavelenght (3 mm vs. 12 cm in an off-the-shelf microwave). The first ‘real’ media coverage the ADS project received almost a year ago (while first public documents were released 2001), now Wired has freed some documents on the military’s testing program. ADS stands for Active Denial System...

"If you fire a gun at a person, you are certain of the posibilty to kill that person, because a gun is a lethal weapon. Now let’s imagine the most primitive weapon: your fist. You can use it to punch another person. After some experiments you certainly know how hard to hit an average man on the chest to take him out but not to hurt him seriously, let alone kill him. Fine, now you own your first non-lethal weapon. Now use the same force to hit a average woman and see her ribs break; this is non-lethal in most cases (not all) but I am sure it counts as ’seriously hurting someone’. Next test: use the same force to hit someone who does this professionally - let’s hit a boxer. Hm… nothing happens, exept for the pain in your hand. There is the difference: a lethal weapon kills all kind of people, a less-lethal only some of them. This matches the US-Military’s definiton: a non-lethal weapon is a weapon that is only lethal to n percent of a crowd. I do not remember the exact value of n, but it is below ten.

"We are still with your hand. Now extend it by a baton, which does roughly the same as your hand but gives you a lever to apply more force while using less. But careful: you now are able to break a skull, which is hard to do with just a fist. Some training is require to minimize the risk of being lethal. Next step: pepper spray. Your first distance weapon. Force: minimal, just pressing a button. Effect: burns as hell on skin, eyes and in airways. Just buy a bottle and test it on yourself. Killing a person with an respirational desease like asthma is quite easy, permanent damage on any completely healthy person can be done by falling short of a minimum distance.

"This is where problems really start. Mankind knows how to handle fists and sticks. When using one of those on purpose, you normaly are able to estimate the effect it has on another person when hit. You can calculate the effect by apperent facts. Your brain just guesses (’uhm… 190cm, broad as a bear, muscles everywhere: hit him as hard as you can to make any effect’) while you act, it is really good at it. You just punch and normally get the desired effect. You cannot see respirational or eye deseases before you use pepper spray, CN-, CS- or other gases. You cannot see allergies. The chance to be out in your estimation is quite high. The same with electric shock weapons. You cannot see a heart defect.

"And those are only the problems turning up on intended use. So how about the unintended? Every weapon not intended to kill is a potential measure of torture, as what it does is to inflict pain on a target. You can do that by hand, sure, but having an stun belt (electric shock device, induces pain via electrodes on kidneys, used in the US to keep some defendants quiet, who keep disturbing the court) makes it much easier. It is also more humiliating, as it makes a target lose control of all of its muscles. This includes bladder and intestines.

"Now a microwave weapon. Let your brain estimate the effect when using it. BLANK. You cannot, it is just out of reach of guessing. Or as a slashdot commenter puts it: ‘Does the device go *ding* when it’s done?’

"The developement costs were about $40 Mio, there where a lot of tests, but to quote another comment: ‘the problem is that the people who were tested were told ahead of time to remove glasses, contact lenses, and any metal that could generate “hot spots”. I really doubt they’re going to extend the same courtesy to dissidents in a war zone. They’re also assuming that the average grunt in the field is going to properly operate the equipment.’ Maybe it would help, if everyone, who will or does use such a weapon was subject to the use of such a weapon beforehand.

"The first real world crowd control (great euphemism, I love it!) mission for the ADS will be, guess, Iraq. This is where the officials’ argumentation starts being funny: ‘This weapon is developed by and for the military, we won’t use it at home!’ Yes, this is because foreigners do not feel pain like we do at home! While this is quite questionable, also the first statement’s truth is just a matter of time. Stun- and gas granades have also been developed by and for the military and today belong to the standard portfolio of police forces.

"If it is a good idea to use such a weapon for the first time in the Iraq is yet another question. A new name has already been coined: Active Revenge Induction Device."

http://seclog.de/2006/12/06/your-microw ... -side-too/

[Leyla Shen]

[strums an acoustic, gentle Floydian riff…]

So--so you think you can tell
Heaven from hell
Blues skies from rain
Can you tell a green field
From a cold, steel rail?
A smile from a veil?
Do you think you can tell?

'night, sweetheart...

[Kelly Jones]

It is probably stupid to reason with a block of concrete. But it is absolutely stupid to destroy things if they don't do what they can't do.

-

[DHodges]

My point is: make guns a very rare commodity. That is basically "anti-gun" for the majority.

I think this is the core of the problem: the most you can do is restrict gun usage to certain groups. Someone has to decide what groups have that right and which don't. Normal politics is that the group that gets to decide will tend to restrict that right to themselves, and deny it to others.

The US constitution guarantees the unrestricted ownership of guns (as do at least some state constitutions). I have not seen anti-gun groups try to change that. In my opinion, they are kind of hypocritical in that regard. They try to work around it, not to challenge the basic principle.

The minority are farmers, hunters, and military --- all holding licenses issued by an intelligent and non-belligerent government.

I think its pretty obvious that the US does not have an "intelligent and non-belligerent" government. I don't think that the government should have a monopoly on the use of force, which is the basic question here.

Government is at best a necessary evil. It has a tendancy to grow over time, to slowly encroach on personal freedoms. The structure of the US is a restricted federal government, which has certain powers. The states have certain areas in which they have control, and the federal government is not to interfere. And there are certain rights that are guaranteed to the citizens, not to be be encroached by the government.

In the US, gun ownership is considered a basic right like freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, the right to a fair trial and so on. Without the right to bear arms, those other rights are just a promise from the government not to do certain things. History has shown that governments tend to find ways around such restrictions, most politicians being lawyers.

The right to own guns gives the other rights some teeth; without it, they are just promises from the government.

There is also an issue you may not have considered: banning gun ownership is almost impossible. A gun is just a machine that can be made in a home workshop with a lathe and such. See: zip gun.

This will help people see that they do not need to be afraid of being killed the moment they enter into a debate that challenges one's attachments.

You seem to be confusing gun ownership with concealed carry. To carry a gun outside of your home, you need a concealed carry permit. I think this is true in most (maybe all) of America. I don't recall ever talking to anyone (except a police officer, who carry openly) and worrying that they might be armed.

Almost no one carries a gun around.

[Kelly Jones]

My point is: make guns a very rare commodity. That is basically "anti-gun" for the majority.

I think this is the core of the problem: the most you can do is restrict gun usage to certain groups. Someone has to decide what groups have that right and which don't. Normal politics is that the group that gets to decide will tend to restrict that right to themselves, and deny it to others.

If that group is the national anti-gun lobby, then they can't logically restrict that right to themselves. Unless you mean that they enforce an amnesty using guns!

The US constitution guarantees the unrestricted ownership of guns (as do at least some state constitutions). I have not seen anti-gun groups try to change that. In my opinion, they are kind of hypocritical in that regard. They try to work around it, not to challenge the basic principle.

Sounds like a good place to start.

I don't think that the government should have a monopoly on the use of force, which is the basic question here.

This topic is not a dogmatic absolute. It's in the context of current human society. A government is necessary, and not an evil, in this context. Some direction and force is needed to avert further leaps into unconsciousness.

Government is at best a necessary evil. It has a tendancy to grow over time, to slowly encroach on personal freedoms.

Only if the Tao was lost long ago.

The government, and the people, are made of individuals.

The structure of the US is a restricted federal government, which has certain powers. The states have certain areas in which they have control, and the federal government is not to interfere. And there are certain rights that are guaranteed to the citizens, not to be be encroached by the government.

Regarding gun laws, America is not a United States, but really an assembly of different countries.

The "states" are so different from each other.

Since there is a National pro-gun lobby, then there is a National anti-gun lobby --- but in the closet, for some odd reason.

In the US, gun ownership is considered a basic right like freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, the right to a fair trial and so on. Without the right to bear arms, those other rights are just a promise from the government not to do certain things. History has shown that governments tend to find ways around such restrictions, most politicians being lawyers.

Basically you're saying that the American republic is enforced by the people as a united armed "dictator". Funny that the motto is "In God we Trust" --- what a God, eh?

There is also an issue you may not have considered: banning gun ownership is almost impossible. A gun is just a machine that can be made in a home workshop with a lathe and such.

In Australia, I've heard of confiscations of weapons and dangerous goods, based on combinations of artifacts. Conversations, items found in the house (literature, pictures, equipment), that sort of thing.

I'd say that, since murderous violence is less common a sight, any sign of it is more obvious, here.

Kelly: This will help people see that they do not need to be afraid of being killed the moment they enter into a debate that challenges one's attachments.

David: You seem to be confusing gun ownership with concealed carry. To carry a gun outside of your home, you need a concealed carry permit.

I see that the states are again very different in how they supply these "CC" permits. Many make them irrelevant, called "shall issue", and some "may issue", and one (Hawaii) "never issue".

However, the issue remains the same: to have access to a gun is to be able to use it. Even if they never leave the house.

All of this discussion comes down to the effect on consciousness, within one's own mind. It is not about guns but about anger and attachment.

Guns themselves are really irrelevant to the topic.

I think this is true in most (maybe all) of America. I don't recall ever talking to anyone (except a police officer, who carry openly) and worrying that they might be armed.

Almost no one carries a gun around.

What does concealed mean?


-

[Jason]

I don't think that the government should have a monopoly on the use of force, which is the basic question here.

Well obviously they do have a monopoly, private citizens don't have legal access to nukes for example, as far as I know. I think there's probably a decent argument to be made that almost all governments have a monopoly on the use of force compared to their own citizens, by default.

Government is at best a necessary evil. It has a tendancy to grow over time, to slowly encroach on personal freedoms.

I dunno. What do you base that idea on? From my admittedly rather ignorant perspective on this issue, there seems to be a number of other Western countries that appear to have avoided this without having a gun culture like the US.

[ChochemV2]

To restrict guns you have to have a reason beyond "people aren't wise enough and are too emotional". This is a real situation not an argument in intangibles which consumes the majority of discussion on this board. To institute gun control one has to prove that it will actually reduce crime, that the people who misuse guns will not be able to get them, and that a situation like the "War on Drugs" won't appear overnight.

There are some significant problems to deal with to prove gun control is good and all the "anti-gun" groups do these days is prey on people's fears and call for gun control when people and the government are more apt to react emotionally (such as after a school shooting).

They can't prove that the government has any ability whatsoever to take guns that are already out there off the streets. There are nearly two million guns stolen every year, the street market presumably has millions of guns already of varying types, and it's pathetically easy to smuggle weapons into this country.

Increased registration does nothing to stop the school shootings or stock brokers shooting up their offices. These are people with clean records who suddenly snap so they throw absolutely no red flags when they try to buy a firearm. Not to mention, a desperate person will have no qualms with buying a gun out of the back of a truck.

Banning weapons is constitutionally questionable, if not downright illegal. It's possible to overturn an amendment if there is the will to do it but that's not something the American people are willing to do. So unless we want our government to resort to draconian measures for "our safety" then it's never going to happen.

Violence is a cultural and social problem which needs to be honestly addressed instead of simply taking away guns. America has a lot of introspection to do and seems completely unwilling to do it because ultimately taking away guns doesn't get rid of the violent behavior in which they are used, it just changes the medium.

[Kelly Jones]

To restrict guns you have to have a reason beyond "people aren't wise enough and are too emotional". This is a real situation not an argument in intangibles which consumes the majority of discussion on this board. To institute gun control one has to prove that it will actually reduce crime, that the people who misuse guns will not be able to get them, and that a situation like the "War on Drugs" won't appear overnight.

Statistics on these issues are probably available. The "concealed carry" website that David posted had some, but I'm not sure if they're reliable.

There are some significant problems to deal with to prove gun control is good and all the "anti-gun" groups do these days is prey on people's fears and call for gun control when people and the government are more apt to react emotionally (such as after a school shooting).

That is not helpful, obviously. But understandable, given the culture.

They can't prove that the government has any ability whatsoever to take guns that are already out there off the streets.

Well, if the people wish to enforce the government's promises by using guns to "add teeth", that's always going to be the case.

There are nearly two million guns stolen every year, the street market presumably has millions of guns already of varying types, and it's pathetically easy to smuggle weapons into this country.

Yes, so long as this thing called a gun, is seen as a necessary appendage, it will keep appearing.

Increased registration does nothing to stop the school shootings or stock brokers shooting up their offices.

Yes, it is pointless making rules if they are not used.

These are people with clean records who suddenly snap so they throw absolutely no red flags when they try to buy a firearm. Not to mention, a desperate person will have no qualms with buying a gun out of the back of a truck.

So, it is emotionalism which makes gun ownership problematic.

I think most can see that as the main factor.

Banning weapons is constitutionally questionable, if not downright illegal. It's possible to overturn an amendment if there is the will to do it but that's not something the American people are willing to do. So unless we want our government to resort to draconian measures for "our safety" then it's never going to happen.

It's difficult to change a constitution that many people use. However, if it's rational, then an amendment is not draconian.

Violence is a cultural and social problem which needs to be honestly addressed instead of simply taking away guns. America has a lot of introspection to do and seems completely unwilling to do it because ultimately taking away guns doesn't get rid of the violent behavior in which they are used, it just changes the medium.

Paranoia is slowly healed. Perhaps the most effective way is to have a feeling of safety.

The medium would be thinking up alternative ways to create a feeling of safety.


-

[DHodges]

Normal politics is that the group that gets to decide will tend to restrict that right to themselves, and deny it to others.

If that group is the national anti-gun lobby, then they can't logically restrict that right to themselves. Unless you mean that they enforce an amnesty using guns!

No, the government will still have guns for the police and military, at least. You are talking about passing laws, which by definition involves the government. You are talking about taking away a right people have, and allowing only the government to have that right.

This topic is not a dogmatic absolute. It's in the context of current human society. A government is necessary, and not an evil, in this context. Some direction and force is needed to avert further leaps into unconsciousness.

When it comes to consciousness, government is the wrong tool. You can not legislate consciousness.

The government, and the people, are made of individuals.

Well, yes - and that is a problem. A government can be no better than the people in it. The quality of the government varies over time. That's one reason to restrict it as much as possible.

You may recall that our current Vice President shot a guy in the face and the guy he shot apologized for causing him so much trouble. These are the sort of people who are "in charge."

Regarding gun laws, America is not a United States, but really an assembly of different countries.

That's pretty true in various ways, not just about gun laws. There are considerable differences in other areas, e.g., what you have to do to get a driver's license.

Basically you're saying that the American republic is enforced by the people as a united armed "dictator". Funny that the motto is "In God we Trust" --- what a God, eh?

What I'm saying is I don't trust the government. Taking away guns concentrates power in the hands of the government. I don't see what God has to do with it.

I'd say that, since murderous violence is less common a sight, any sign of it is more obvious, here.

Really?? You seem to have an impression of the level of violence in America based on movies and rap songs. Most of the US is actually not much like Compton.

What would you consider a "sign"? Do you have some sort of training to recognize it?

I see that the states are again very different in how they supply these "CC" permits. Many make them irrelevant, called "shall issue", and some "may issue", and one (Hawaii) "never issue".

Yes, they are. I live in a "shall issue" state. If I request a concealed carry permit, the government is required to issue it, unless they have a strong reason not to (they do a background check for a criminal record).

All of this discussion comes down to the effect on consciousness, within one's own mind. It is not about guns but about anger and attachment.

Guns themselves are really irrelevant to the topic.

???

Almost no one carries a gun around.

What does concealed mean?

Are you suggesting that there are a large number of people carrying concealed guns? Or just that I don't know, because they are concealed?
Do you understand that the vast majority of gun violence and crime uses unregistered guns carried illegally? The sort of person who goes and gets a permit generally does not have criminal intent.

[sschaula]

Kelly,

The best way to refute your insanity is to say "you haven't even been to America." Then it's painfully obvious that your entire argument collapses upon itself, and is left as just a heap of steaming shit.

And Scott says "Exactly" whereas a while ago, he said that keenobserver and myself were nuts for making such claims about American culture.

I think it's not worth taking his views seriously, until he can hold a position for two moments.

Yes you and keenobserver are nuts. You weren't saying the same thing as Elizabeth.

A very insecure child will delight in finding ways to bully others. This is what the Americans call "freedom".

Scott and Elizabeth are very much American types. Of course, this is not limited to Americans only.

Where is your reasoning here? You're simply being a bitch, and not thinking about what you post. Freedom has nothing to do with oppressing another.

There's a very strong tendency among the wiser Americans on this forum to "shush", not to say troubling things, not to stir people up. Now why would that be?

Because arguing with an unconscious QRS robot like you is hopeless?

[Jason]

According to this the exact meaning of the words "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." from the 2nd Amendment, is disputed. It might not actually be referring directly to guns and/or weapons.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

You seem to be confusing gun ownership with concealed carry. To carry a gun outside of your home, you need a concealed carry permit.

That's not quite right. We are legally allowed to have a gun with us at all times (now, except in places that specifically ban guns, like courthouses), as long as it is out in the open. It just isn't very fashionable to have one in a holster on your hip. We are also allowed to have one in the glove compartment without any special permit, but we may not carry it in the main cab of the car without a permit.

It is probably stupid to reason with a block of concrete.

The best sort of personal protection device is reason.

Reason makes an excellent early intervention, but once you have someone opening fire in a shopping mall, they are past the point of being reasoned with. If someone is about to shoot you because he feels disrespected because you elbowed him in a crowd, you are trying to reason with a block of concrete.

Laws are made to stop dire egotists as well as the ignorant. They do work, or we wouldn't have any laws.

All laws do is give government the right to punish people for doing the wrong thing if they get caught. They work in some cases, but obviously not in all cases.

The wise work with things the way they are to guide them to the way they ought to be. Although the lower murder rates in countries with stricter gun laws is a valid point, it is not the only causative factor. The education and mental health systems are better in other countries, and the cultural attitudes formed by both the media and the way people raise children are all causative factors as well.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

According to this the exact meaning of the words "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." from the 2nd Amendment, is disputed. It might not actually be referring directly to guns and/or weapons.

That's silly. From the link:

Relative to the "bear arms" meanings, an extensive study found " ...that the overwhelming preponderance of usage of 300 examples of the "bear arms" expression in public discourse in early America was in an unambiguous, explicitly military context in a figurative (and euphemistic) sense to stand for military service"[35] Further, the Oxford English Dictionary on Historical Principles declares that a meaning of "to bear arms" is a figurative usage meaning "to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight".

They are disputing the meaning of "to bear arms" but they leave off that the Constitution says "to keep and bear arms." They would not change meaning midway through the sentence, so are they suggesting that the Constitution gives us the right to keep an army of our own? No, militia groups are illegal here. It's one of those laws that doesn't get enforced, but if we are asking if it is wiser to allow people to carry weapons or to build their own military, well of the two it should be pretty obvious.
.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

And Scott says "Exactly" whereas a while ago, he said that keenobserver and myself were nuts for making such claims about American culture.

in the Presidential candidate thread:

While I've never visited America, I've read and listened. I'm sure it's more hellish than I imagine. Australia's cities are smaller, given our population, but because our country is so large, we are far more open and eccentric. Than say, Londoners, or Singaporeans. Eccentric in a jovial way, like "Get off my property or I'll shoot, unless you have some interesting tales and can share a cuppa", rather than "Get off my property or I'll blast you with my home-made, super-turbo stun-gun".

I'm not sure whether you are imagining American culture correctly, and can understand why you might not see what Scott sees as the difference between what I said and what you said.

Although there are many homicides every day in America, it is still unlikely that any given individual will see one first hand. In some neighborhoods one can hear gunshots every night, but most of America is not like that. If you come to visit America, it is very likely that nothing bad will happen to you. Even people who behave really stupidly to others usually don't get shot. I'm amazed that my father never got shot for some of his really rude and aggressive behavior.

As for those who live here, if you are a female, you will probably be raped at least once before you are 30. Male or female, you will probably be physically assaulted. You will probably be robbed, but it's more likely that your house will be broken into or your car will be broken into or stolen, or an identity theft will occur than that you will be mugged. Someone, and probably a few people, who you know will be the victim of a crime or an attempted crime. There are certain things you have to do to reduce the likelihood that you will be a victim of crime, and there are certain things that a female must be more careful to do than a male (like a female needs to have the key to her car in her hand before she leaves the store, doctor's office, or wherever, but a male is likely to wait until he is at or near his car before retrieving his key). You have to be aware of your surroundings (aware of if you are being followed, etc.) and male or female, you have to be ready to defend yourself. Recently I have been making more attempts at talking to people, so I asked this one guy in the park why he had a 2x4 with him (most people don't carry lumber). He said it was in case somebody tries to mess with him. (I laughed and pointed out that it doesn't fit in his pocket too easily, and he laughed as well). When I was a teenager and would take late night walks with my friends, the males would always be more concerned with having a strength-reliant weapon of some kind - be it a glass bottle or whatever. If the females thought of a weapon at all, a can of Mace would be sufficient.

It isn't like the movies in general (you can surmise this logically as well, because the movies have to portray something a bit more active than daily life or people wouldn't bother paying to go to the movies) yet it isn't so unlike the movies that people can't relate to what's going on (if a story is too far-fetched, people will lose interest). Some real-life stories are too unbelievable for the movies, and others are nearly so which is why they started putting "based on real-life events" at the beginning of some movies. Nevertheless, these are isolated events, not things that many people see on a daily basis.

As far as I gather, it is much different from Australia. I understand the news is so slow in your country that they put such things as car crashes on the news. It would have to be an incredibly slow news day for a car crash to land on the news here (and in my area, if you drive two hours or more a day in the busy times, you will probably see the results of an auto accident yourself every day, and witness a crash first-hand once every 1-3 months). When school buses get hit by trains or oil trucks roll over, that will make the news, but not regular car crashes. I have difficulty imagining what it would be like in a country where the news is that slow, or where you can leave anything in plain view in your car and it won't get broken into. In America, you must put items out of sight, such as in the trunk, or you increase your chance of your car being broken into. I once left an unopened pack of chewing gum on the front seat of my car, and the window got smashed out and the gum was stolen. I can't imagine not having to think about such things.

Kelly, perhaps you are right about Australians having more thought-energy to focus on wisdom because they don't have to use so much thought-energy on safety/security issues, but guns are not the reason. No one needed a gun to smash out my car window and steal my chewing gum...

Nevertheless, as much more violent as it is than Australia, it isn't like Rambo lives on every corner.
.

[Dan Rowden]

I agree with Leyla (they're too far gone), and therefore by extension also with Scott (people need guns to protect themselves). I also agree with Kelly that the whole thing is utterly insane. American society cannot be saved in my opinion, it can only be managed. Damage control is the order of the day. Gun control was largely effective here because gun use and the mentality that goes with it wasn't all that wide-spread. In the US you have citizens arming themselves with military weapons, which is simply insane. No-one but a total gun happy freak could argue the legitimacy of that. And when you have a population that is prepared to kill others to defend something as superficial as material possession, then you have a situation where idiocy and delusions reigns. By then, such delusion is institutionalised there so it's to be expected. It's only better here by a matter of degree.

[Faust]

Government is at best a necessary evil.

Sighhh, not THAT lousy cliche again. This damn cliche is a contradiction. How can something be necessary and evil at the same time? If it's necessary, then it's good and not evil. And if it's evil, then it's unnecessary. Christ, do i hate that stupid lame phrase.

Nothing is perfect, so you cannot call government a "necessary evil" because it's imperfect, but it's still necessary and good.

[Faust]

I agree with Leyla (they're too far gone), and therefore by extension also with Scott (people need guns to protect themselves). I also agree with Kelly that the whole thing is utterly insane. American society cannot be saved in my opinion, it can only be managed. Damage control is the order of the day. Gun control was largely effective here because gun use and the mentality that goes with it wasn't all that wide-spread. In the US you have citizens arming themselves with military weapons, which is simply insane. No-one but a total gun happy freak could argue the legitimacy of that. And when you have a population that is prepared to kill others to defend something as superficial as material possession, then you have a situation where idiocy and delusions reigns. By then, such delusion is institutionalised there so it's to be expected. It's only better here by a matter of degree.

Uhh material posession is not superficial, not once every criminal decides to take everything of yours once they see you won't do anything about it.

[BMcGilly07]

Scott,

KJ: Why do you say "stay the fuck out" and "our" politics?

SS: Because you're an Australian concerning yourself with the politics of my country. Why are you doing it? Why does everyone else in the world think they can comment on America, while not being American? Why does America occupy the minds of people on the other side of the globe?

As an American, I'll take issue with your response. Why wouldn't someone half-way across the world interest themselves in the goings-on of America?

America's greatest export is her culture, spread far and wide by her corporations.

SS: Do I sit here and try to discuss the politics of your country? No. What business would I have in doing that? I don't even have a good frame of reference, having never been to Australia. If I were to do so, I'd look like a fool.

You would look like a fool if you made yourself out to be one. Like it or not, we no longer live on a continent buffered by thousands of square miles of oceans. We are a global community, and have ready access to information via the internet and TV.

SS: Criticism of America sickens me, especially when it comes from places like the UK and Australia. I could understand somewhat if it were criticism of international issues, like Iraq, but this is about something that has absolutely nothing to do with you. What's up with this need to comment?

Mindless patriotic schlock.

I don't know exactly what prompted Kelly to post this thread, but I deduce she is curious as to why the anti-gun lobbyists in America do not call themselves as such. Your response, Scott, seems typical in my experience of my fellow Americans, and because so much heat has been drawn by this suggestion of name change is the precise reason they do not do so.

KJ: Do you not see your anger? That your thinking has become suddenly dark and clouded?

SS: What are you talking about?

When someone responds to a query of mine with a flurry of curses, their anger is self-evident to me. Why else the strong language? Why the need to attack? If not, out of anger?

KJ: Do you realise you are calling me thoughtless for living in a society with careful gun ownership and usage laws?

SS: No I'm not. I'm calling you thoughtless because you discuss American politics for no reason other than to be a smartass.

How do you see that? This is one of the reasons in times past I haven't engaged you, Scott, for any real length of time. I respect your directness, but your anger is overbearing. And as I find myself easily swept into anger over principled stances, I try to keep myself at a distance. Try this, stop being a dick. But I know how hard it is to change when you're in the military. Not only do you have the constant weight of authority, but also the strong bonds of friendship, and woe to he who would have his close friends change their opinion of him! They will never forgive you this misstep.

[sschaula]

BMcGilly07,

As an American, I'll take issue with your response. Why wouldn't someone half-way across the world interest themselves in the goings-on of America?

America's greatest export is her culture, spread far and wide by her corporations.

I can understand your point. It's a good one. But look at this in context - Kelly is having opinions about American laws. Laws which impact us, and don't impact her. She forms an opinion on how the laws should be based on misunderstandings about how our country is, having never been here.

I can understand up to a certain point why people would care about what's happening in America, but I think she crossed a line.

I consider her post to be slander against the country.

You would look like a fool if you made yourself out to be one. Like it or not, we no longer live on a continent buffered by thousands of square miles of oceans. We are a global community, and have ready access to information via the internet and TV.

Yep...access to misinformation, as well. The more uninformed people like Kelly post their anti-American crap, the more anti-Americans are produced. It's easy to be misled. There is a shit ton of propaganda on the internet. And a shit ton of anti-Americans being formed each day due to misconceptions about how our country is.

I fight against herd mentality, and Kelly's first post in this thread is a great example of it. People in other countries believe they're being intellectual when they comment about the mindset of America having never seen it, only hearing about it from second hand sources.

In commenting, these people add more second hand sources, and more morons are born as a result. And our country, which is in actuality - great - is down talked as a result.

Then the masses believe what's absolutely not the case. And supposedly wise people are contributing to this?

Mindless patriotic schlock.

It's not mindless to protect and value what enables us to be mindful.

I don't know exactly what prompted Kelly to post this thread, but I deduce she is curious as to why the anti-gun lobbyists in America do not call themselves as such. Your response, Scott, seems typical in my experience of my fellow Americans, and because so much heat has been drawn by this suggestion of name change is the precise reason they do not do so.

Yep, it's hard to go against the constitution. Hard to go against freedom. Not many Americans appreciate people who try that.

When someone responds to a query of mine with a flurry of curses, their anger is self-evident to me. Why else the strong language? Why the need to attack? If not, out of anger?

I reflect the actions of the people that I discuss with. If they post in a bitter fashion, I'll give it back. Angry? My reply will be angry.

I don't see my aggressive nature as a bad thing. It's not like it affects my day, when I'm away from the forum. And it's not like I'd ever lose control of myself and cause harm to someone, as some may assume.

I'm actually a very peaceful guy...just quite direct and harsh.

How do you see that? This is one of the reasons in times past I haven't engaged you, Scott, for any real length of time. I respect your directness, but your anger is overbearing. And as I find myself easily swept into anger over principled stances, I try to keep myself at a distance.

Sounds like a good plan for you, until you work out your anger issues.

Try this, stop being a dick.

I'm not a dick. I can be a dick. I give to those who deserve.

But I know how hard it is to change when you're in the military. Not only do you have the constant weight of authority, but also the strong bonds of friendship, and woe to he who would have his close friends change their opinion of him! They will never forgive you this misstep.

There are a lot of ASSumptions there. How about we keep this impersonal, for the sake of your anger?

[Kelly Jones]

When I wrote this, David:

All of this discussion comes down to the effect on consciousness, within one's own mind. It is not about guns but about anger and attachment.

Guns themselves are really irrelevant to the topic.

.....I meant it. The guns are purely symbolic, also in real life.

It's just that the guns are a particularly stupid way of preserving attachments.

What I'm saying is I don't trust the government. Taking away guns concentrates power in the hands of the government. I don't see what God has to do with it.

Re your earlier question: Is it really true that consciousness can't be legislated? By creating deterrents and incentives, one can encourage enlightenment, in the same way that current civil values are encouraged and discouraged.

But of course, using guns is an way to encourage consciousness. "Think or I'll remove your ability to think forever....."

The deluded idea of an all-powerful God has everything to do with this topic. If a person believes that such a God is "looking out for them", they'll believe that it is inherently just to shoot anyone who tries to kill them. Is not ego such a God?

Kelly: I'd say that, since murderous violence is less common a sight, any sign of it is more obvious, here.

David: Really?? You seem to have an impression of the level of violence in America based on movies and rap songs. Most of the US is actually not much like Compton.

I don't know Compton.

The worst levels I've personally experienced are in western Sydney, and always associated with low-incomes. Since there is far less welfare support in the US, I supposed there must be far more violence.

But do you really think American rap songs and movies aren't signs of the American mainstream? That American mainstream values are completely different?

What would you consider a "sign"? Do you have some sort of training to recognize it?

Enlightenment has trained me to recognise violence.

Signs of murderous violence:

Agitation and gross emotion; haggardness such as druggies, smokers and alcoholics have; irritability; bug-eyed looks; flared nostrils; raised blood pressure and pulse; loud voice or screaming; claw-shaped hands; attacking physically or with other bodily or verbal signs.

Are you suggesting that there are a large number of people carrying concealed guns? Or just that I don't know, because they are concealed?

Is that not possible?

Do you understand that the vast majority of gun violence and crime uses unregistered guns carried illegally? The sort of person who goes and gets a permit generally does not have criminal intent.

And these would also be concealing their weapons?

So if the majority were forbidden to own guns, then because no one could tell if guns were being carried, the illicit trade in guns would skyrocket. Still, if the individuals voting in government weren't bedazzled by money, and stuck to their g---, sorry, their values, then the government's department watching for large sums of money and what they regard as suspicious activities, could be relied on to transfer illegal weapons to the military or places where they could be dismantled.

Can Americans become less bedazzled by money, then?

Well, one has to be impressed by the effect of people like Sam Harris, anyway. That is one brave man. Except when it comes to his wife.

-