American National Anti-Gun Association

[sschaula]

Yes I am proclaiming God given rights, in the terminology that the people who constructed the Constitution used.

[Jason]

Scott do you believe in god? Or are you an atheist/agnostic?

[sschaula]

Agnostic.

[Katy]

Simply comparing homicide rates for different countries based solely on gun laws is dumb. Aussies work fewer hours on average than Americans leading to less stress to begin with and thus less likely to "snap." Better social services means not as many people have to steal just to survive and thus less chance of being killed in a robbery/burglary. Fewer large cities and ghettos which is where most of the violence occurs here.

Gangs are obviously not as much a part of Elizabeth's life as she'd like you to think, since she doesn't even know the name of them. It's bloods and crips (as in the earliest members used canes and pretended to be crippled so as to appear harmless), not crypts. And the fact is, she's typical in her awareness that they exist, and extremely stereotypical vision of what they are about and involve with very little fact behind it. It's background noise.

But as she noted she's more afraid of alligators. I'm more afraid of the vampire under my bed than of gun violence.

It's a minor issue, and certainly not one worth the risk of ammending the constitution to eliminate a right!



Never mind the pragmatics of it. I mean, cliche, but "if you criminalize guns, only criminals will have guns" - but it's true, especially since the criminals already have guns and won't turn them over. In the '90s, several cities around the nation offered to pay people to turn in their weapons. The vast majority that were turned in were antiques, or not functioning.

[Jason]

Aussies work fewer hours on average than Americans leading to less stress to begin with and thus less likely to "snap."

Where'd you get that from? According to this and this Australians work more hours per year.

[Katy]

I'm pretty sure David said it somewhere, actually. So I guess not the most reliable source.

It also talks over here about how Aussie's work time has been decreasing (along with every other country on earth) while the US is increasing. (note it claims it doesn't site references, but it has MLA style references within the article instead of footnoted)

Also here, it talks about work - apparently there is a 37 hour work week in Australia but many work overtime. America has a 40 hour work week, but I know very few people who don't work overtime.

Though apparently Aussies are a very close second to us.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Gangs are obviously not as much a part of Elizabeth's life as she'd like you to think, since she doesn't even know the name of them. It's bloods and crips

How much of a part of my daily life do you think I'm trying to portray as gang-involved, and what makes you think I was trying to portray that at all? I was only answering Kelly's question. People here know I'm basically a hermit, and hermits are not known for being involved in gangs.

Besides, it's not like they pronounce it very clearly. "Crypts" is not wrong, and even snopes could only determine that it could be either.

And the fact is, she's typical in her awareness that they exist, and extremely stereotypical vision of what they are about and involve with very little fact behind it. It's background noise.

Yeah, according to the graffiti on the fence a block away, this is Bloods territory, so I guess I'm only as aware that they exist as anyone else in the neighborhood... (and I live in a middle-class part of town). I think the fact of typical awareness supports my point, and most of my facts come from speaking with juvenile corrections officers who were in the master's program with me (and they did a number of presentations on gangs). They got a lot of their information from the kids in their custody, while asking them stuff like "why did you kill this person?" Where do you get your "facts" from?

Did you enjoy your break off the forum? I take a 10 day-ish break, and shortly after I leave, you suddenly you take an about equal time off (I guess it took you a few days to notice I'd come back. Who told you, Nat or philo? or Dan?). You have not taken this long of a break since I went away and you started a break shortly after I did, only to come back and razz me as soon as you found out I was hiding on here as One Moot Point. But of course you are "not following [me]" - as you said before - and I suppose this is yet another "coincidence." You never did answer anyone who has asked why you come to GF; you have only claimed that it has nothing to do with me, despite these "coincidences."
.

[Kelly Jones]

Perhaps all Wikipedia articles are spurious, and all statisticians biased. Who knows? There's always an individual writing these things, with beliefs about the world.

That's what it comes down to. Beliefs.

Scott, Elizabeth, and David, have all made statements to the effect that guns are not needed in everyday American life. The underlying belief in the "right to have firearms" is that the legal system cannot be depended on to deal with criminals.

As Jason points out, rights do not exist inherently in Nature. Not in the slightest. They've been created by people who cannot reason how to behave, for the same.

There is no right to carry firearms. There is no right to reason. There is nothing to defend or protect.

.

[Kelly Jones]

So who is a criminal, after all, but the one who doesn't know Reality?

Blink.

Or should I say, Think.


-

[sschaula]

Kelly,

As Jason points out, rights do not exist inherently in Nature. Not in the slightest. They've been created by people who cannot reason how to behave, for the same.

Actually, Natural rights do exist. It's what we're able to do when other people aren't imposing their will upon us.

There is no right to carry firearms.

In America, there is.

There is no right to reason.

In America, there is.

There is nothing to defend or protect.

Yes there is. Our lives and our way of life.

So who is a criminal, after all, but the one who doesn't know Reality?

Blink.

Or should I say, Think.

A criminal is someone who imposes their will on another person, when the other person is unwilling.

You're doing a lot of blinking, and not a lot of thinking, Kelly.

[Kelly Jones]

Natural rights do exist. It's what we're able to do when other people aren't imposing their will upon us.

How can anyone impose their will on you?

I think for myself, regardless of what someone else wishes me to do.

If someone pointed a gun at me and shoots me, so long as I am conscious, then I can decide how to think and behave.


-

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Scott, Elizabeth, and David, have all made statements to the effect that guns are not needed in everyday American life.

Right now, for most people, they are not - however for some people it is, and I see enough significant changes for the worse every 5 - 10 years that in 20 years, it might be prudent for everyone to carry. By taking guns away from law-abiding citizens now, good citizens won't have a chance.

And I mean it about most people not needing them, but some do. When it looked like I was going to be moving into a bad neighborhood, I took a concealed carry course. Had I moved there, I would have wanted a gun on me at all times, and likely would have needed it. And should I not have the right to even defend myself against an alligator in my own backyard? Animal control isn't going to do anything about it until after it attacks, but even if I call 911 when there is an alligator chasing me, I bet the alligator would get to me before the police could. Same goes for people who live in bear country, etc. Now as for Katy's vampire, I do agree that not everyone should have a gun, but that does not mean that the majority of people should not have access to adequate self defense.
.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

How can anyone impose their will on you?

Rape and other physical brutalities, kidnapping/hostage situations, manipulation...
.

[sschaula]

Kelly,

How can anyone impose their will on you?

Are you serious in asking that?

[Shardrol]

This thread seems to be mostly an opinionfest, so I thought I'd offer mine. I think at one time, long ago, it would have been a good idea to have more control of guns, but now it's way too late - at least in the US.

When the country was first being set up there was a lot of concern not to give the federal government too much power. The individual states were much more separate & differentiated than they are now & it was not possible to communicate across the whole country at one time. The idea of the [alleged] right to bear arms was so that the federal government with its military organization, wouldn't be able to overrun the states & individuals.

This has now gotten entirely out of hand with people feeling they need to have guns to protect themselves from ubiquitous criminals who also have guns. This is obviously not an ideal situation but there is no way to back off from it via gun control. It's too late for that. All that could be accomplished through gun control is to have the law-abiding citizens surrender their guns or register them or whatever the regulation is. The criminals would not do this so the situation would not be improved.

In New York City where I live it costs over $500 just to apply for a gun license. If the license is denied, you don't get the money back. Meanwhile there is a thriving business in illegal weapons & anyone who wants to own a gun can buy one illegally for less than it costs to apply for the license. There is no way to move from this situation to a situation where all guns are registered or people are not allowed to own guns without a house-to-house search of every nook & cranny of every part of every city in every state, all over the countryside - & even that wouldn't find them all.

Changing public opinion is a better method, but it is neither simple nor easy. It is certainly worth attempting & for people who want to devote their life to that, I would say it's a very good cause. However it's no more possible to promote reason as a problem-solving method in the US than it is anywhere else. You can try, with children, to educate them in this way, but the human animal is quite primitive & when the emotions of the lizard brain are involved, logic tends to go out the window.

I think the anti-gun lobby could use a few martyrs. It's necessary to appeal to people on the same sort of emotional level that makes them feel they need to be ready to defend their lives & their property by killing anyone who seems to be threatening. If there were some widely-publicized cases of people who allowed themselves to be robbed, raped or killed because they felt so strongly that violence was not a proper reaction to any situation, that might make an impression - at least on some people.

But I don't think there is any kind of sure-fire solution to the whole problem. It's a problem of people being as they are & the situation of widespread possession of weapons having gotten seriously out of control long ago. Perhaps other countries can learn from the example of how things went wrong here.

As for the idea that people feel inhibited in what they will say in public because of fear of being shot, I think this is real. Not everyone is dominated by such things but there have been quite a few assassinations & murders of well-known people because either one nutcase or a conspiracy of nutcases didn't like what they were doing or saying: Martin Luther King, JFK, Robert Kennedy, Malcolm X - even John Lennon. And these are just the ones that come immediately to mind. I have met a few people who were well-known in the entertainment world & every one of them was quite paranoid about some crazed stalker or 'fan' jumping out of the bushes & pulling a gun on them. This climate of fear, paranoia & suspicion is not going to suddenly vanish with the application of a few reasonable words. As with the Middle East, probably the best solution would be to contain the Americans in our own territory & leave us to shoot it out.
.

[Katy]

Get over yourself and grow up. I am not following you; I am not attacking you. I took a week break because I got out of school for a week between semesters and went to visit my parents in Atlanta. I was rather busy catching up with old friends and visiting with people. I came back because I didn't have as much to do on the weekend. It's as simple as that. Also, FP is back up and running, so I've been more active over there. I've been wandering from board to board since the '90s. The fact is that if FP is dead this is the last decent philosophy message board around, and I enjoy them. So I'm here.

No one told me you were back here because no one gives a flying fuck about you.

Now you're going to cry about a litany of perceived abuses, not a single one of which is true. All of which have been explained over and over again, but you're too damned stupid to listen and too self-absorbed to realize that anything could possibly not be directed at you.

What's really funny though, is that you're going to list all these "coincidences" and talk about me discussing your post as though I were "mean" or "After you" and yet you conveniently forget the "bouncy ball thingie" thread that you started just to piss me off. I was remaining on topic until you decided to start with the personal attacks here. Quit doing that; you've already acknowledged it does bad things to your psychology.

Sorry, but it's true. You're not the center of the universe. You're not important at all.

And get help for your paranoid schizophrenia. Seriously. People are not after you. (and you're going to take that as being nasty, but it is genuine. You need help, and not just pills.)

[Katy]

I dunno, S... I think the anti-gun lobby gets its martyrs in the form of 6 year olds who accidentally shoot themselves with dad's gun, or from the likes of Cho. These things lead to fear which is one of the most powerful motivators on earth. If they want to accomplish anything, what they need is organization (as Kelly pointed out in the original thread). or they need a national crisis, which doesn't really exist. I don't think too many people would list gun control in the top 3 most pressing issues for the nation, actually... which makes it hard to rally a large enough group together to effect change.

[Kelly Jones]

How can anyone impose their will on you?

Rape and other physical brutalities, kidnapping/hostage situations, manipulation...
.

You're preferring that everyone be feverishly attached to guns, rather than admit the fear of criminals that colonises American minds, in exactly the same way that fear of the English allowed the English to colonise Indian minds ?

At least, prior to the rather aggressive "non-violent" interference of Gandhi?

This is what I mean by: no one can impose their will on you. You choose how to respond - so long as you're conscious.


-

[Kelly Jones]

Kelly,

How can anyone impose their will on you?

Are you serious in asking that?

Right now I am proving that I am serious, by deciding how to respond.

I create the universe.


-

[sschaula]

Shardrol,

This thread seems to be mostly an opinionfest, so I thought I'd offer mine. I think at one time, long ago, it would have been a good idea to have more control of guns, but now it's way too late - at least in the US.

When the country was first being set up there was a lot of concern not to give the federal government too much power. The individual states were much more separate & differentiated than they are now & it was not possible to communicate across the whole country at one time. The idea of the [alleged] right to bear arms was so that the federal government with its military organization, wouldn't be able to overrun the states & individuals.

It was also about protecting the states from foreign invaders. During those times, the continent was being chopped up by the Spanish, French, and British...among others. So it was about maintaining the American identity, at least as much as it was about protecting the people from an overbearing and corrupt government.

Those times were different, but are they so different today? We have this delusion of thinking we're so much smarter than we were back then. That one of the major powers in the world couldn't possibly be toppled. I'm sure the people of those days thought the same way, and yet, America came into being within a very short timespan. At the end of the French and Indian wars, the British colonists identified themselves as Britons, and yet within just 10 years, they had enough and wrote up the Declaration of Independence.

We had a Civil War, which didn't have as much to do with slavery as it did with much of the South seceding from the Union. A split in our great country, in the midst of just a couple hundred years.

I think the way people work, and the way societies rise and fall as a result, doesn't change over time. I see the threats against our country today, and I see the need for a weapon, just as they saw a need during the writing of the Bill of Rights.

This has now gotten entirely out of hand with people feeling they need to have guns to protect themselves from ubiquitous criminals who also have guns. This is obviously not an ideal situation but there is no way to back off from it via gun control. It's too late for that. All that could be accomplished through gun control is to have the law-abiding citizens surrender their guns or register them or whatever the regulation is. The criminals would not do this so the situation would not be improved.

I agree entirely with this, although I know your view opposes my own.

In New York City where I live it costs over $500 just to apply for a gun license. If the license is denied, you don't get the money back. Meanwhile there is a thriving business in illegal weapons & anyone who wants to own a gun can buy one illegally for less than it costs to apply for the license. There is no way to move from this situation to a situation where all guns are registered or people are not allowed to own guns without a house-to-house search of every nook & cranny of every part of every city in every state, all over the countryside - & even that wouldn't find them all.

Yep, ridiculous laws and rules are meant to be broken. I consider a law abiding citizen, as a person who minds their own business and doesn't mess around with me and others. Would I call the cops if I saw through their window that they were growing pot, or something? Hell no. People who are that way are just pawns for the corrupt elements of this government, and they only harm the society rather than help it.

Why it costs 500 dollars to be able to defend yourself, I will probably never understand.

Changing public opinion is a better method, but it is neither simple nor easy. It is certainly worth attempting & for people who want to devote their life to that, I would say it's a very good cause.

I agree.

However it's no more possible to promote reason as a problem-solving method in the US than it is anywhere else. You can try, with children, to educate them in this way, but the human animal is quite primitive & when the emotions of the lizard brain are involved, logic tends to go out the window.

Well, the more people that are infected, the more will become infected (with thoughtfulness).

I think the anti-gun lobby could use a few martyrs. It's necessary to appeal to people on the same sort of emotional level that makes them feel they need to be ready to defend their lives & their property by killing anyone who seems to be threatening. If there were some widely-publicized cases of people who allowed themselves to be robbed, raped or killed because they felt so strongly that violence was not a proper reaction to any situation, that might make an impression - at least on some people.

I doubt it.

But I don't think there is any kind of sure-fire solution to the whole problem. It's a problem of people being as they are & the situation of widespread possession of weapons having gotten seriously out of control long ago. Perhaps other countries can learn from the example of how things went wrong here.

That's certainly an opinion.

As for the idea that people feel inhibited in what they will say in public because of fear of being shot, I think this is real. Not everyone is dominated by such things but there have been quite a few assassinations & murders of well-known people because either one nutcase or a conspiracy of nutcases didn't like what they were doing or saying: Martin Luther King, JFK, Robert Kennedy, Malcolm X - even John Lennon. And these are just the ones that come immediately to mind. I have met a few people who were well-known in the entertainment world & every one of them was quite paranoid about some crazed stalker or 'fan' jumping out of the bushes & pulling a gun on them. This climate of fear, paranoia & suspicion is not going to suddenly vanish with the application of a few reasonable words. As with the Middle East, probably the best solution would be to contain the Americans in our own territory & leave us to shoot it out.

That's true, that the more famous you are the less freedom you have to speak your mind. But if you do make some sort of statement, the impact is very widespread. Good point, there.

[sschaula]

Kelly,

Right now I am proving that I am serious, by deciding how to respond.

I create the universe.

Okay, you are amazing. Now how about you prove you're serious by responding to the Hakuin writing thread?

To answer your question of: "How can anyone impose their will on you?"...

Elizabeth responded correctly. It's much more than that, though...

If you can walk down the street, that's considered freedom. That's when no one is imposing their will upon you. If you can't walk down the street, because people are shooting rifles and bombs are going off, that's someone imposing their will upon you. That's not freedom.

If you can go to the Genius Forum and post your thoughts, that's freedom. No one is imposing their will upon you there. If you can't go to the Genius Forum, because your government banned it, and you can't share your thoughts because it's illegal, that's someone imposing their will upon you.

If you want to live in peace in the countryside, freedom is being able to do so and not being bothered. If you want that, but someone stops you from doing it, that's oppression...the opposite of freedom. It's somone imposing their will upon you.

Those who oppress others are considered criminals by me, even if they break no laws that are in place. Those that do to others as they'd have done to themselves are law abiding citizens in my view, despite the fact that they may break the laws of the land.

The laws of the free country should serve its inhabitants, and they shouldn't serve the law.

[Kelly Jones]

Kelly: Right now I am proving that I am serious, by deciding how to respond.

I create the universe.

Scott: Okay, you are amazing. Now how about you prove you're serious by responding to the Hakuin writing thread?

I am studying this text deeply, in my daily life. When I am ready, and I think someone else is capable of understanding, I will talk about it.

That is called decisiveness, and these decisions create the universe.

If you can't walk down the street, because people are shooting rifles and bombs are going off, that's someone imposing their will upon you. That's not freedom.

Freedom is returning to sit among dust and ashes.

Nirvana.

The laws of the free country should serve its inhabitants, and they shouldn't serve the law.

What reward do you expect from enlightenment?


-

[sschaula]

Kelly,

I am studying this text deeply, in my daily life. When I am ready, and I think someone else is capable of understanding, I will talk about it.

I like how you add that little twist, saying that you think I'm incapable of understanding it. What a bitchy move.

The fact is that you want to feel special, yet you know you'll be revealed to be worthless if you share your shallow thoughts on it.

Bring some of the depth of your study to discussion, and we'll see just how studious you've been...or haven't been!

Like I said in that topic - a reasonable person can assume you are full of it, because of your decision to stay silent now. I doubt anyone actually believes that you have any sort of insight on it.

Freedom is returning to sit among dust and ashes.

Nirvana.

We're talking about two different types of freedom, here. Mine is undeniable. Yours is a hope and a guess, which has little basis in the lives of everyone. To attain yours, mine is necessary. To attain mine, yours would be helpful.

Before you speak, learn. You know nothing of what it means to return to sit among dust and ashes, so why do you conjure the phrase?

What reward do you expect from enlightenment?

Why are you asking me - the one person here who denies there is an enlightenment?

More importantly, why are you digressing into pseudo-philosophical zen speak, without addressing worthy points? Is it because you feel defeated, yet still (for some reason) unable to raise the white flag?

[Kelly Jones]

Oh well.

One can only do one's best.

-

[sschaula]

That's correct, yet I think you're not doing your best, Kelly.