Gun Politics

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.

**Joey**

corpsesarefun wrote:Is there a version of Godwins law for poor use of Freud?

I have grown up and lived my life around people who're ardent Freudians.
I realise this doesn't compare to your AS level in psychology but believe it or not I do know what I'm talking about.

**SilverMK2**

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:Actually, for much of United States history, the armed citizenry was the armed forces. Gun culture is just part and parcel of American life.

The government of the UK banned football over about 300 years because people were playing it instead of practicing with their bows. Cultures change.

**Corpsesarefun**

Joey wrote:
corpsesarefun wrote:Is there a version of Godwins law for poor use of Freud?

I have grown up and lived my life around people who're ardent Freudians.
I realise this doesn't compare to your AS level in psychology but believe it or not I do know what I'm talking about.

I don't take psychology but that is the vaguest use of Freudian bs I've seen on the internet for a good while.

I mean what is the obsession with people using knives (phallic) to penetrate eachother? or wanting to be next to a warm fire (womb)?

**CptJake**

Joey wrote:
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:Actually, for much of United States history, the armed citizenry was the armed forces. Gun culture is just part and parcel of American life.

No different from any other rural country. Thing is a farmer who has a gun for killing pests/predators, is harmless.
No one who lives in a city needs a gun.

The story another poster put up with the lady who while on the phone with a 911 operator capped an intruder would be a great example of how wrong you are. In a city a crap bag can get into your house and hurt you badly a lot faster than the cop shows up. A cop arresting the perp who beat or killed my wife is not as useful as the gun that prevents her from being beaten or killed in the first place.

**Dreadwinter**

Joey wrote:
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:Actually, for much of United States history, the armed citizenry was the armed forces. Gun culture is just part and parcel of American life.

No one who lives in a city needs a gun.

Have you ever been to a city in the US?

**Howard A Treesong**

corpsesarefun wrote:I don't take psychology but that is the vaguest use of Freudian bs I've seen on the internet for a good while.

I mean what is the obsession with people using knives (phallic) to penetrate eachother? or wanting to be next to a warm fire (womb)?

Still sound like sixth-form BS to me, there's a reason that a good chunk of Freud's work isn't taken all that seriously, or so literally, by a lot of people.

**Joey**

corpsesarefun wrote:
Joey wrote:
corpsesarefun wrote:Is there a version of Godwins law for poor use of Freud?

I have grown up and lived my life around people who're ardent Freudians.
I realise this doesn't compare to your AS level in psychology but believe it or not I do know what I'm talking about.

I don't take psychology but that is the vaguest use of Freudian bs I've seen on the internet for a good while.

I mean what is the obsession with people using knives (phallic) to penetrate eachother? or wanting to be next to a warm fire (womb)?

I don't know if you lack the ability to think subtly or if you're being deliberately obtuse, so I'll be lucid.
Usually speaking, when Fruedians talk about something being phallic they don't mean it looks like a penis, they mean it's the embodiment of male power. Humans occassionally bleed this over into actual physical resemblance in fiction (wands, etc) but usually it refers to something that penetrates/damages others.
Similarly the womb is a structure that houses and protects, usually buildings or such like. Hence the Harry Potter novels being about children threatened by a phallus (wand) and retreating to Hogwarts (Joanne Rowling's womb).
I was simply making the observation that in Melissa's case her anxiety about her home being penetrated was over and above a rational fear, but without more information it's difficult to say for sure.
Is it her own womb or her mother's, who's the phallic intruder, her father or a rapist, etc etc.

**Corpsesarefun**

Howard A Treesong wrote:
corpsesarefun wrote:I don't take psychology but that is the vaguest use of Freudian bs I've seen on the internet for a good while.

I mean what is the obsession with people using knives (phallic) to penetrate eachother? or wanting to be next to a warm fire (womb)?

Still sound like sixth-form BS to me, there's a reason that a good chunk of Freud's work isn't taken all that seriously, or so literally, by a lot of people.

That's my point, you can take pretty much anything and construe some bs Freudian meaning from it.

**Melissia**

Howard A Treesong wrote:
corpsesarefun wrote:I don't take psychology but that is the vaguest use of Freudian bs I've seen on the internet for a good while.

I mean what is the obsession with people using knives (phallic) to penetrate eachother? or wanting to be next to a warm fire (womb)?

Still sound like sixth-form BS to me, there's a reason that a good chunk of Freud's work isn't taken all that seriously, or so literally, by a lot of people.

Because most people who try to use Freud's work haven't actually read it and certainly don't understand it.

**SilverMK2**

Melissia wrote:Because most people who try to use Freud's work haven't actually read it and certainly don't understand it.

It is another place where words do not always reflect meaning.

**Joey**

corpsesarefun wrote:
Howard A Treesong wrote:
corpsesarefun wrote:I don't take psychology but that is the vaguest use of Freudian bs I've seen on the internet for a good while.

I mean what is the obsession with people using knives (phallic) to penetrate eachother? or wanting to be next to a warm fire (womb)?

Still sound like sixth-form BS to me, there's a reason that a good chunk of Freud's work isn't taken all that seriously, or so literally, by a lot of people.

That's my point, you can take pretty much anything and construe some bs Freudian meaning from it.

Freud presented a mechanism of action for the human mind, of course you can explain human action with it.
May as well say "you can take any old piece of the universe and apply some bs newtonian physics to it".
Sounds like you don't really understand it. That's okay, soon you'll be able to vote.

**Corpsesarefun**

You can't apply Newtonian physics to large swathes of the universe, hence Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.

**Joey**

corpsesarefun wrote:You can't apply Newtonian physics to large swathes of the universe, hence Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.

You can apply it on a scale between the very large and the very small and it will still be true.

**Howard A Treesong**

I don't think you have to start talking about wombs being penetrated to explain the reasons as to why people focus a great deal of attention upon small risks.

A lot of it comes down to media coverage and public perception. Cancer kills far more people than burglars, yet a lot of people will invest far more time in getting a gun and worrying about intruders than they will about checking for anomalous lumps. Public perception leads to a very skewed sense of hazards, they will ignore a common risk and become paranoid about something happening to them that is highly unlikely. A lot of people probably worry more about dying in an act of terrorism on a plane than they do of dying in a car crash on the way to the airport. Which is significantly more likely? This is why many people are seemingly terrified about strangers snatching their children even though this almost never happens and paedophiles target those already familiar to them (family/friends).

People are very good at focusing upon the improbable simply because it receives high prominence. This is why someone above cites the example of a women killing someone while on the phone dialling 911 as though it's proof of something. It isn't, single events reported in the media are not an indication of any trend you can base decisions about your life upon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neglect_of_probability

As we can see from statistics, people who own a gun have a much higher probability of injuring themselves with it than they ever do of defending themselves. The only way to remedy this is not to be an average person but one highly competent with a firearm.

Cognitive biases are demonstrable in many ways without having to bring Freudian concepts of wombs and penetration into it.

As for preventing crime by killing bad guys, in 2010 there were only 278 people justifiably killed by members of the public. Which isn't a lot considering the number of people and guns in the US. Even the police don't have to kill that many really.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded/expandhomicidemain

Law enforcement reported 665 justifiable homicides in 2010. Of those, law enforcement officers justifiably killed 387 felons, and private citizens justifiably killed 278 people during the commission of a crime.

**Corpsesarefun**

The very hot and very cold also behave in a non-Newtonian manner in many cases, saying "everything behaves according to Newtonian physics except things that don't" isn't terribly bright.

And the bizarre attempt at a personal attack (I can't vote? That's odd seeing as I'm over 18 and a UK citizen) is duly noted.

**SilverMK2**

corpsesarefun wrote:seeing as I'm over 18

How about you take the adult position and the higher ground here then?

**Joey**

Actually I'd never put the two things together before, the prevalence of rape in America and the perceived threat to homes.
If I could be bothered I'd compile global data for incidence of rape and gun ownership.
Seems a lot of Americans share Melissa's view that there are millions of musclular, violent men waiting to break into their homes.
But, I can't be bothered.

**AustonT**

Melissia wrote:
thenoobbomb wrote:There is no point in having guns in your house.
Usually I would say that the point in having guns in your house is to shoot someone. You may not WANT to do so, I'm sure most gun owners would really rather not have to fire their weapon in their house, but it's still better tahn not having one if someone breaks in to the house.

As a woman especially, the idea of someone breaking in to my house is rather scary...

thenoobbomb wrote:-Why do you need to have a gun to defend yourself? You can do the same with a knife or your fists.
Right, I, a 5'6" woman and a chemist and student by trade, can defend myself against a 200 pound 6'5" musclebound thug who probably has his own gun and knife and has been fighting and beating up others all his life.

FETH that. I'm not an idiot, I'll take the gun kthxbai.*
thenoobbomb wrote:-How many lives have been saved with guns? (not counting people in war nor criminals)
How many lives have been saved with medicine not including curing diseases and healing injuries?

thenoobbomb wrote:Not having guns is a LOT safer. Or are there criminals that want to take you down? Or are you followed by the KKK?
Criminals will have guns because they are already breaking the law.

MrMerlin wrote:Who i do have a problem with are peolple who own guns because they think its cool. "becaue its fun to shoot with it" is not an argument for owning something that can kill a person.
So you think that people shouldn't have cars just because they think it's fun to drive around? So you think that people shouldn't have knives because they think it's fun to cook things with them? So you think people shouldn't have shovels or otehr gardening tools because they find gardening enjoyable?

* I'm reminded of Colt Manufacturing Company's old byline: "God made men**, Colt made them equal."
** As in, humankind the race.

This is Melissa, hitting the nail firmly on the head.

**d-usa**

Howard A Treesong wrote:I don't think you have to start talking about wombs being penetrated to explain the reasons as to why people focus a great deal of attention upon small risks.

A lot of it comes down to media coverage and public perception. Cancer kills far more people than burglars, yet a lot of people will invest far more time in getting a gun and worrying about intruders than they will about checking for anomalous lumps. Public perception leads to a very skewed sense of hazards, they will ignore a common risk and become paranoid about something happening to them that is highly unlikely. A lot of people probably worry more about dying in an act of terrorism on a plane than they do of dying in a car crash on the way to the airport. Which is significantly more likely? This is why many people are seemingly terrified about strangers snatching their children even though this almost never happens and paedophiles target those already familiar to them (family/friends).

People are very good at focusing upon the improbable simply because it receives high prominence. This is why someone above cites the example of a women killing someone while on the phone dialling 911 as though it's proof of something. It isn't, single events reported in the media are not an indication of any trend you can base decisions about your life upon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neglect_of_probability

As we can see from statistics, people who own a gun have a much higher probability of injuring themselves with it than they ever do of defending themselves. The only way to remedy this is not to be an average person but one highly competent with a firearm.

Cognitive biases are demonstrable in many ways without having to bring Freudian concepts of wombs and penetration into it.

As for preventing crime by killing bad guys, in 2010 there were only 278 people justifiably killed by members of the public. Which isn't a lot considering the number of people and guns in the US. Even the police don't have to kill that many really.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded/expandhomicidemain

Law enforcement reported 665 justifiable homicides in 2010. Of those, law enforcement officers justifiably killed 387 felons, and private citizens justifiably killed 278 people during the commission of a crime.

So what you are saying is that we would need to almost double the amount of police present in the entire country to get the same positive benefit of having an armed citizenry?

**Joey**

d-usa wrote:
Howard A Treesong wrote:I don't think you have to start talking about wombs being penetrated to explain the reasons as to why people focus a great deal of attention upon small risks.

A lot of it comes down to media coverage and public perception. Cancer kills far more people than burglars, yet a lot of people will invest far more time in getting a gun and worrying about intruders than they will about checking for anomalous lumps. Public perception leads to a very skewed sense of hazards, they will ignore a common risk and become paranoid about something happening to them that is highly unlikely. A lot of people probably worry more about dying in an act of terrorism on a plane than they do of dying in a car crash on the way to the airport. Which is significantly more likely? This is why many people are seemingly terrified about strangers snatching their children even though this almost never happens and paedophiles target those already familiar to them (family/friends).

People are very good at focusing upon the improbable simply because it receives high prominence. This is why someone above cites the example of a women killing someone while on the phone dialling 911 as though it's proof of something. It isn't, single events reported in the media are not an indication of any trend you can base decisions about your life upon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neglect_of_probability

As we can see from statistics, people who own a gun have a much higher probability of injuring themselves with it than they ever do of defending themselves. The only way to remedy this is not to be an average person but one highly competent with a firearm.

Cognitive biases are demonstrable in many ways without having to bring Freudian concepts of wombs and penetration into it.

As for preventing crime by killing bad guys, in 2010 there were only 278 people justifiably killed by members of the public. Which isn't a lot considering the number of people and guns in the US. Even the police don't have to kill that many really.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded/expandhomicidemain

Law enforcement reported 665 justifiable homicides in 2010. Of those, law enforcement officers justifiably killed 387 felons, and private citizens justifiably killed 278 people during the commission of a crime.

So what you are saying is that we would need to almost double the amount of police present in the entire country to get the same positive benefit of having an armed citizenry?

That's exactly what he's saying.
Well done, your reading comprehension is superb.

**SilverMK2**

d-usa wrote:So what you are saying is that we would need to almost double the amount of police present in the entire country to get the same positive benefit of having an armed citizenry?

Police(people) can do a hell of a lot more than some guns though - I'd much rather have more trained police than untrained, armed citizenry.

**d-usa**

Well, he did demonstrate that even a highly trained police did not have that many more justifiable killings than the armed public. So the entire public killed almost as many bad guys as the entire police force.

**SilverMK2**

d-usa wrote:Well, he did demonstrate that even a highly trained police did not have that many more justifiable killings than the armed public.

Sure, but how much faster will police be able to respond to calls if there are twice as many of them?

**Melissia**

SilverMK2 wrote:
d-usa wrote:Well, he did demonstrate that even a highly trained police did not have that many more justifiable killings than the armed public.

Sure, but how much faster will police be able to respond to calls if there are twice as many of them?

There'd still not be enough because police take time to respond to a crime simply by the very nature of them having to react in most cases (entirely not their fault, although some response times are horrendous-- where my sister lives, the response time is measured in hours).

**Howard A Treesong**

Joey wrote:That's exactly what he's saying.
Well done, your reading comprehension is superb.

I don't know where to begin.

**Melissia**

Also, "wombs being penetrated"? Methinks someone needs to take sex ed classes...

**SilverMK2**

Melissia wrote:
SilverMK2 wrote:
d-usa wrote:Well, he did demonstrate that even a highly trained police did not have that many more justifiable killings than the armed public.

Sure, but how much faster will police be able to respond to calls if there are twice as many of them?
There'd still not be enough because police take time to respond to a crime simply by the very nature of them having to react in most cases (entirely not their fault, although some response times are horrendous-- where my sister lives, the response time is measured in hours).

Please note the wink - only being semi serious

**thenoobbomb**

Actually, guns do create moar violence.
You may not believe it, but its true.
Im not against guns for sport, but guns in houses, no. Big, big no. Maybe its the culture. Most Americans seem to think that guns are the only thing to protect themselves. If you are scared, do the same as a female person of my family...
... just put a knife under your bed. *chop*

**d-usa**

SilverMK2 wrote:
d-usa wrote:Well, he did demonstrate that even a highly trained police did not have that many more justifiable killings than the armed public.

Sure, but how much faster will police be able to respond to calls if there are twice as many of them?

Even if I would think that doubling the police is a valid option, if the public in the US were given the choice to either:

A) Pay more taxes to pay for a doubling of the police.

or

B) Let us shoot the bad guys ourselves.

I think I know what the answer would be

**Melissia**

thenoobbomb wrote:... just put a knife under your bed. *chop*

I have to get within arm's reach-- MY arm's reach mind you, my reach isn't necessarily the longest thing ever-- to do anything with a knife.

I can kill someone with a gun without risking being grabbed. Being able to defend myself while minimizing harm to myself means that gun > knife as a defensive weapon.