Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:You know, I just don't see how allowing Guns into more places can possibly make things better in anyway shape or form.

However, I am willing to put this down to cultural differences and leave it at that.

Some right and left wingers believe that a return to old west values would reduce crime because of all men being able police one another. It's mostly just a reactionary response whenever some psycho shoots up a school or something. The belief is that if everyone had a gun someone would have stopped them before they could kill X number of people, however the massively increased number of accidental gun deaths and lethal crimes of passion that would directly lead too tends to go by unnoticed by its advocates. It's not really a workable response to shooting rampages, but it's "logical" and "feels right" so it gets a lot of play.

When it comes to high school massacres, I think it's more the whys than hows that need asessing.

After all, the frequency they happen in the US suggests a deeper underlining problem. Note that, from what I read, most of these nutcases are from the fringes of soceity. Perhaps they feel such anger from being sidelined and marginalised? A certain amount of this is to be expected, as not everyone fits in. But to be driven to take up arms against those perceived as oppresors suggests thing really aren't right.

That, and give a gun to a nutcase, and he'll use it...

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:When it comes to high school massacres, I think it's more the whys than hows that need asessing.

After all, the frequency they happen in the US suggests a deeper underlining problem. Note that, from what I read, most of these nutcases are from the fringes of soceity. Perhaps they feel such anger from being sidelined and marginalised? A certain amount of this is to be expected, as not everyone fits in. But to be driven to take up arms against those perceived as oppresors suggests thing really aren't right.

That, and give a gun to a nutcase, and he'll use it...

I would blame the semi ready availability of weapons in the household over a systemic failure of the society in this case. Most highschool massacres were done with the weapons owned by the parents of the massacrers. Its a lot harder to massacre people with a knife.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:When it comes to high school massacres, I think it's more the whys than hows that need asessing.

After all, the frequency they happen in the US suggests a deeper underlining problem. Note that, from what I read, most of these nutcases are from the fringes of soceity. Perhaps they feel such anger from being sidelined and marginalised? A certain amount of this is to be expected, as not everyone fits in. But to be driven to take up arms against those perceived as oppresors suggests thing really aren't right.

That, and give a gun to a nutcase, and he'll use it...

First off, Shuma is not entirely accurate. Assuming there will be a massive increase in gun accidents and "crimes of passion", whatever that means, neglects the effect of training with firearms, and perhaps other changes, such as a decreased stigma concerning mental illness and a review of how we look at violence.

Note that I disagree with the statement that if you give a gun to a nutcase, he'll use it. First off, there is no evidence at all that ALL mentally ill people across the board are more likely than the general population to use violence. I believe anyone is capable of violence. I believe if you went up and tried to kidnap someone's child, for instance, I believe the vast majority of people would turn to violence to solve that particular problem, if necessary.

This may suprise you, but I believe that the cause of this sort of random violence may actually be not enough violence. We're constantly bombarded with propaganda that says violence *never* solves problems. That is almost a mantra now that we say to children. We have zero tolerance policies at many public schools in the US. If a fight starts, both parties are disciplined, the belligerents are never asked to explain themselves, or at least not in order to avoid punishment. The real problem children don't care if they're expelled or suspended, therefore they keep bullying. The kids who do care want to stay in school, thus they bottle up their resentment and anger. Finally, for someone who is already on the fringes of society, say a closet Nazi, has problems with social interaction, likes "strange" hobbies like miniatures , they just explode, and choose the most logically effective tool availible to them, often a gun.

Perhaps we need that most primal of masculine encounters, the duel. In the arrogance of our modern, progressive, society, we believe that such behavior as dueling or pugilisim is "barbaric" or "elitist" or what have you. The fact is though, I believe duels and unspoken codes of behavior are simultaneously saftey valves and controls on natural violent behavior. When technological means are availible to make you more dangerous, it is necessary to have controls on (natural) violent behavior.

I also don't buy that most of these guys ( almost always guys) are crazy. I think it is like what Marylin Manson eluded to. These guys want their 15 minutes. They were powerless and they can instantly become famous and powerful, and be all over the media. Everyone is fascinated with murderers.

What I also find ironic is that so many of these people trying to stamp out all violence consider themselves humanists, often atheists, when I firmly believe that the recent condemnation of all violence as morally wrong is the final end result of Judeo-Christianity and the supression of pagan European ideals.

in gun accidents and "crimes of passion", whatever that means,

Fratboy with a shotgun gets dumped. Fratboy with a shotgun gets drunk. Fratboy with a shotgun shoots his girls new lover.

Sane guy. Extenuating circumstances + easy access to a lethal weapon. Crime of passion.

Crimes of passion are not pre meditated and are largely crimes of convenience and extreme emotion. Firearms make them far, far, FAR more lethal and likely. There is a direct correlation.

Perhaps we need that most primal of masculine encounters, the duel. In the arrogance of our modern, progressive, society, we believe that such behavior as dueling or pugilisim is "barbaric" or "elitist" or what have you. The fact is though, I believe duels and unspoken codes of behavior are simultaneously saftey valves and controls on natural violent behavior. When technological means are availible to make you more dangerous, it is necessary to have controls on (natural) violent behavior.

Yeah, thats just incorrect. Historically, biologically, psychologically, and in all kinds of other ways.

ShumaGorath Wrote:
"Firearms make them far, far, FAR more lethal and likely. There is a direct correlation."

I guess then we should ban any type of blade unless you are over 30 and have a federal permit. Cause this for sure would drastically reduce the amount of stabbings in the US. Right??

jp400 wrote:ShumaGorath Wrote:
"Firearms make them far, far, FAR more lethal and likely. There is a direct correlation."

I guess then we should ban any type of blade unless you are over 30 and have a federal permit. Cause this for sure would drastically reduce the amount of stabbings in the US. Right??

Technically yes, it would. But there's a difference between banning all iterations of a cutting implement, and a device specifically designed for killing humans at a distance. But then I think you knew that.

ShumaGorath wrote:

in gun accidents and "crimes of passion", whatever that means,

Fratboy with a shotgun gets dumped. Fratboy with a shotgun gets drunk. Fratboy with a shotgun shoots his girls new lover.

Sane guy. Extenuating circumstances + easy access to a lethal weapon. Crime of passion.

Crimes of passion are not pre meditated and are largely crimes of convenience and extreme emotion. Firearms make them far, far, FAR more lethal and likely. There is a direct correlation.

Perhaps we need that most primal of masculine encounters, the duel. In the arrogance of our modern, progressive, society, we believe that such behavior as dueling or pugilisim is "barbaric" or "elitist" or what have you. The fact is though, I believe duels and unspoken codes of behavior are simultaneously saftey valves and controls on natural violent behavior. When technological means are availible to make you more dangerous, it is necessary to have controls on (natural) violent behavior.

Yeah, thats just incorrect. Historically, biologically, psychologically, and in all kinds of other ways.

I know what a crime of passion is, I was being facetious and dismissive.

I disagree. I implied throughout my post that my ideas were speculative in nature. Yet, I see no reason you have given as to why what I suggested would be incorrect. You haven't really discussed anything beyond saying "you're just wrong". Furthermore, Frat boy is slang, and it is derogatory slang at that, so even if you had presented anything at all, you're statements would be coloured by your willingness to bracket people in categories.

I know what a crime of passion is, I was being facetious and dismissive.

Ahh.

I implied throughout my post that my ideas were speculative in nature.

You speculate that because there is less violence there is more violence. Because as a society we are less tolerant of violent behavior we act more violently. The problem is you have no statistics to back that up. There are no statistics to back that up. Duels don't make a society less violent, track through history and find a civilization that was more universally peaceful than the western world is now. That alone is going to be virtually impossible, now do it and attempt to find societies that allowed dueling and other forms of blood sport.

I dismissed your ideas firstly because they were totally baseless, and secondly because they were illogical. You provided no evidence beyond supposition and an (also unsupported) inference that pagan european ideals (what shamanism? Modern pagan religions have virtually nothing to do with historical european rituals) were somehow superior and led to less societal problems than modern christianity. Lumping pre christian european religious beliefs into a single practice alone is a massive red herring, but your entire post was of the same caliber.

ShumaGorath wrote:

I know what a crime of passion is, I was being facetious and dismissive.

Ahh.

I implied throughout my post that my ideas were speculative in nature.

You speculate that because there is less violence there is more violence. Because as a society we are less tolerant of violent behavior we act more violently. The problem is you have no statistics to back that up. There are no statistics to back that up. Duels don't make a society less violent, track through history and find a civilization that was more universally peaceful than the western world is now. That alone is going to be virtually impossible, now do it and attempt to find societies that allowed dueling and other forms of blood sport.

I dismissed your ideas firstly because they were totally baseless, and secondly because they were illogical. You provided no evidence beyond supposition and an (also unsupported) inference that pagan european ideals (what shamanism? Modern pagan religions have virtually nothing to do with historical european rituals) were somehow superior and led to less societal problems than modern christianity. Lumping pre christian european religious beliefs into a single practice alone is a massive red herring, but your entire post was of the same caliber.

You know, you can bring up your points without being insulting.

You know, you can bring up your points without being insulting.

Yeah, I apologize. I was feeling snarky. I should have more cleanly refuted your points in the first place rather than just dismissing them outright.

ShumaGorath wrote:You provided no evidence beyond supposition and an (also unsupported) inference that pagan european ideals (what shamanism? Modern pagan religions have virtually nothing to do with historical european rituals) were somehow superior and led to less societal problems than modern christianity.

Actually, he alluded to the opposite notion.

ShumaGorath wrote:
Lumping pre christian european religious beliefs into a single practice alone is a massive red herring, but your entire post was of the same caliber.

I think that's the point. Pagan ideals are pagan because they are not universal. The teachings of a pagan deity apply only to those people who describe themselves as followers of that deity. If you do not follow the deity you are not blessed, and if you are not blessed you are not worthy of due consideration. And, since fellowship in most early societies dealt exclusively with blood ties, conversion was rendered almost impossible. It is that impermeability which allows early pagan faiths to be considered as a contiguous whole.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:When it comes to high school massacres, I think it's more the whys than hows that need asessing.

I agree with this as, when you look at the interviews conducted on the parents of different school shooters, such as kip Kinkle in Eugene, Oregon; or the guys who shot up Columbine, the parents in both cases were completely clueless as to what their kids were up to in the first place. They pretty much thought, "ohh, he's just upstairs with his friend listening to that music that i dont like because of generational gap" when they alone probably could have save lives, just by taking an active part in the boys' lives. i think that we can all agree that if a parent does his/her job, and actually raises the kids, then these sorts of things are far less likely to happen.

of course, the people in congress would have the country on a witch hunt, with pitchforks and burning torches in front of the various Video game creators Headquarters buildings, but i dont think that that's where the answers lie.

jp400 wrote:ShumaGorath Wrote:
"Firearms make them far, far, FAR more lethal and likely. There is a direct correlation."

I guess then we should ban any type of blade unless you are over 30 and have a federal permit. Cause this for sure would drastically reduce the amount of stabbings in the US. Right??

And cars. We have a famous case of a doctor wife, who foudn out ehr husband was cheating, took her stepdaughter, chased him down with the SUV ran over him, then backed over him, then ran over him a third time.

Cars just don't get noticed as they are "accidents." We forget about the nutjob who ran into about 30 people on campus, claiming he did it for Allah.

You need a license to be able to legally drive a car though...... you know, some vague kind of statement that you have at least some form of competence and ability to use the equipment safely.

I generally think the points about parents knowing what their kids are doing is a very valid one. It;s one thing to not get the music they listen to or like the way they dress. It's entirely another to not take notice at least of your children posting death threats,bomb making instructions and angry rants against society on their blogs.

reds8n wrote: You need a license to be able to legally drive a car though...... you know, some vague kind of statement that you have at least some form of competence and ability to use the equipment safely.

I generally think the points about parents knowing what their kids are doing is a very valid one. It;s one thing to not get the music they listen to or like the way they dress. It's entirely another to not take notice at least of your children posting death threats,bomb making instructions and angry rants against society on their blogs.

yeah, its not about liking what the kids like, its about taking a look behind that closed door to see what they're doing behind that door on occasion. Of course, you'll get the "you're invading my privacy" crap from them (i know i did it), but eventually they will understand why it is you do it.

i really dont think that a car license is a good example of a "statement that you have at least some form of competence and ability to use the equipment safely" because there are far too many people on the roads that, quite frankly, shouldnt be allowed to get within 10 feet of a car.

yeah, its not about liking what the kids like, its about taking a look behind that closed door to see what they're doing behind that door on occasion. Of course, you'll get the "you're invading my privacy" crap from them (i know i did it), but eventually they will understand why it is you do it.

No they won’t, but that’s not relevant. Speaking as a parent you have to have as much of an idea as possible. Having said that you’re not going to catch a lot of stuff. You can just hope.

i really dont think that a car license is a good example of a "statement that you have at least some form of competence and ability to use the equipment safely" because there are far too many people on the roads that, quite frankly, shouldnt be allowed to get within 10 feet of a car.

Agreed. Way too many drivers who shouldn’t be allowed near moving parts, much less an actual automobile.

Having said that, I’d be ok with a light test. But we have to remember this is a 2nd Amendment right. There is no test for free speech, assembly, and the right against illegal searches. We could balance with a right to have, but you need a test to carry. Wait, that’s what we have now. Personally I think the test should be harder than the Texas version.

How would the American people feel/act if someone was moving to tighten up driving tests anyway ?

With regards to the parent thing.... I was exactly the same--who wasn't ?-- with regards to the "invading my space/give me no respect", when I was a kid. But you have to persevere. Especially if your kid has already been in trouble for theft and is on medication and therapy for....."issues".

reds8n wrote:How would the American people feel/act if someone was moving to tighten up driving tests anyway ?

me personally, i would not mind a tougher driving test, as i am confident in my skills behind the wheel, and have never been in an accident where i was at fault (though for some reason jeeps that i ride in somehow become magnets for bad drivers to hit )

Problem is, theres no way you could have a federally controlled and regulated "standard" driving test, as most people who live in florida dont face the same challenges in driving as someone from Washington (state) or Alaska. The tests would still need to be state regulated, which would still lead to some people getting a license in an "easy" state, only to sully a state where more stringent tests are run with their poor driving skills.

reds8n wrote: You need a license to be able to legally drive a car though...... you know, some vague kind of statement that you have at least some form of competence and ability to use the equipment safely.

I generally think the points about parents knowing what their kids are doing is a very valid one. It;s one thing to not get the music they listen to or like the way they dress. It's entirely another to not take notice at least of your children posting death threats,bomb making instructions and angry rants against society on their blogs.

The problem is, and I'm not trying to judge right or wrong in this statement, though I do have feelings about it, is that driving a car is not a right in the U.S., while firearms ownership has been held up as an individual right, not a collective right.

Note that this is a little off topic as the right to own or even carry a firearm doesn't necessarily have any bearing on the issue of firearms being allowed on campuses or open carry.

And that's the great paradox of any discussion around guns in the USA though isn't it ?

As I've stated before I've go no problem with 99% of gun owners and the way they use their weapons is fine, but I still think that after X hundred years ANY right or law needs to be examined, especially with regards to advances in technology and society.



Hopefully without opening a huge can of worms, I'd be interested to see how the USA would regard this issue if you had a much larger (and armed) Muslim population for example.

English common law had a similar "inbuilt" right for quite some time, the main difference being that the weapons allowed had to be "approved", so to speak. But I acknowledge there's not a huge problem with Americans firing bazookas at each other etc etc.

Sorry but what does haveing a huge Muslim population have to do with the right to bear arms???

Entirely idle speculation really. It;s just --as an outsider-- I noticed during the recent election the huge number of OBAMA MUSLIM 1111 "arguments" being put forward as if this was some hideous threat to the entire American nation even if it was true. Add to that the fairly well documented problems that have happened in the USA with religious groups stockpiling weapons and forming their own little fortified compounds, and I'm just curious as to whether ther presence of a sizable armed muslim population might have an influence of the arms debate in the USA. I'm not for one moment claiming that Americans are entirely xenophobic or zealots, but I do notice-- and it's fair enough-- quite a lot of pro gun ownership posts that cite "fear" ( not quite the right word here-- more than concern but less than fear perhaps, sorry I'm at working and typing in a hurry) of the threat posed by others as a significant factor in the need even to have weapons.

I'm sure there's no way that it would be permitted to say only people of X/Y/etc religious persuasion could be armed, so I wonder if the presence of anotehr "faction" would perhaps tilt the media/argument one way or another.

I'm not having a pop or anything, honest.

There doesn't seem to be any overt anti-black/hispanic/native American bias in the gun control debate.

There are reckoned to be nearly 2 million Muslims in the USA. They have the same rights to buy guns as anyone else. There doesn't seem to be any trouble about it.

Wow ok....
Those "religious" groups are not that. Anyone who thinks that a ufo hiding behind a comet will wisk them away to heaven and that the Feds are really the devils army in blue need to get what is comming to them.

Its called Darwinism.

Ive very pro gun, but these types need to have eveything deadly (not just guns) pulled from within arms reach so they cant hurt anyone including themselfs.

And your whole "Fear" topic is off base too....

We dont fear Muslims, In fact a few million of em live here in my good country without any problems. What we fear (as with any normal sane person) is the idiot hyped up on meth that may pull a knife or gun on me or my family and try to take my wallet/life if my own home.

I think your getting Muslim FANATICS confused with Muhammmad Hussain who mows his lawn and pays his taxes.

Or is elected President.

So.... "these types" need to have their arms/dangerous items taken away from them ?

Whilst I agree that anyone who thinks that by committing suicide they'll be picked up on a comet and taken to "paradise"/wherever, is somewhat.... let's be polite...unbalanced, that's really not that not much more "odd" than many religious group views. I don't see how being bitten by snakes proves much ( or any religion personally, but I hope you see where I'm going here).

I'd disagree with that being "Darwinism" as well, but I suspect we're splitting hairs here.

And again, whilst I applaud the notion it is fanatics that should be feared--regardless of creed-- I would strongly suggest that in the USA ( and indeed in most/all countries) there is indeed a strong element of "fear" with regards to "alien" or different beliefs. And 2 million out of 360 million is not a sizable %.

I would respectfully disagree with the "fear" argument too. Considering what a safe country you live in, I'm constantly amazed at the level of fear that the average American often displays*, especially when it comes to defense of home/self/hearth. Again I wonder if it comes down to the sheer size of the bloody place and the affect it has upon it's inhabitants and the way it can be governed. the only other group of people I've met who were as nervous about being able to defend themselves were either living in "war zones" (for want of a phrase) like Israel or Russian/Soviet block.



* That said, I'll freely admit that could just be 'net mistranslations.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:You know, I just don't see how allowing Guns into more places can possibly make things better in anyway shape or form.

However, I am willing to put this down to cultural differences and leave it at that.

True, in the UK we also have a problem with inner city crime (not in the same league as US) but if a shooting occurs it makes the national headlines, so shootings are rare. We have a much bigger problem with knife crime, but the media are making this worse by labelling us teenagers as violent disturbed murderers who would mug a granny for 50p. This leads to alienation amongst young people and more crime.

Basck to the point, surely if gun restrictions were a lot tighter then the problem would be reduced. When I walk through Glasgow city centre at 3 in the morning after a night out I dont feel a sudden need to arm myself. In most cases drawing a weapon makes your attacker more edgy and more likely to do something worse than nick your phone/wallet.