Guns - a topic from the 911 Board...

[tabs52]

I never like Ronnie that much, never voted for him.

However U can't lay the blame of the military buildup on him. This goes back to the end of WW2. Ironically it was Kennedy who really started to pump the bucks into the MIC. He was afraid of being called soft on Commieism. Eisenhower as he left office said, "Beware of the MIC." Ike kept a tight reign on military spending, he was an ex general if U forget. so he knew what was BS and what wasn't when the spending bills came along.

Michael Moorer....Ha did U listen to his comments about Monica Lewinski on Pol. Incorrect. It sounded like he was reading a script right from the Bill Clinton playbook. Your right government does have a role in providing services to the people, but to what extent is the question.

[Jared at Pelican Parts]

Originally posted by nhurto


There are not enough hours in the day, my friend. Living outside of Washington, D.C., I have seem plenty of the protests about WTO, guns, war, etc. Unfortunatley I am wedded to the machine and there are not enough hours in the day for me to both enjoy my freedoms and go to lengths to stand up for the freedoms of others. So, I get to sit here are the comfort of my desk and write about them. As long I vote, read and try to express to others that there is more than the NBC version of world events, I think I'm doing okay.

And yes, I do have trouble sleeping at night.

The idea of what Bush wants to do with the WTO is truly frightening. Just wait, America is going to change drastically. I think that within the next 30 years we are going to see a dramatic reduction in civil liberties, foreign relations (the world will essentially be be a buisness controlled by the Bush family), and there will be a virtual end to the idea of free enterprise, everything will be controlled by corporations, no more mom n pop.

[CamB]

I see the discussion became more, uh, robust since I left work last night... this is good - it is actually incredibly difficult for me to understand the US mentality, but some of the stuff here helps.

I can only really comment based on what I see here (in NZ). I agree with nhurto - the US has a significantly higher rate of death than many other developed countries (note to Milu - were you actually in the US when you needed a gun or was it somewhere else). I really struggle to understand why - I've been to the US a number of times, I've been to Canada (felt pretty similar to NZ) and I've been to Europe (totally different). The societal attitude to guns is totally different in the US. From my observation:

- in NZ --> primary purpose of guns is for hunting. Guns available from hunting/gun shops
- in Europe
- Switzerland - every male (as a member of the armed forces) has a rifle locked away carefully in the cupboard. Guns otherwise not evident in society
- Italy - I definitely noticed the cabinieri (sp? - the police) wandering around with either a sidearm or a machine pistol (!!) - to a New Zealander this is bizarre
- finally, the US. Depends on the state. I noticed in Nevada that ~5-10% of a chain sports stores floor space was given over to guns - from rifles to handguns.

To me, this last bit was really quite unnerving.

But as I say, as hard as it is for me to find this "normal", it must be very difficult for an American to find this "bizarre".

Todd said:
"It's a numbers thing. Less guns available means less guns available."

The reason I have never seen a handgun in New Zealand is because there basically aren't any. I think I can confidently say the country is a safer place because of it.

But you can't achieve that in the US. Rather like the nuclear example provided by Tabs earlier, you can't just take them away in one hit ---> nuclear disarmament has been going on for years and both parties (appear to) want to accomplish it. Imagine trying to get the entire populace (good, NRA and criminals) to turn in their handguns at once.

Island and Milu - I ask you in response to your sentiment that you feel safer carrying a gun because a criminal might have one ---> what if you were virtually assured they weren't carrying??? There are a number of countries in the world where this is the case - it is reality not a dream (nightmare?).

Todd - do we really make it that hard to emigrate? I would have thought the only real issues would be getting your wife's qualifications recognised. That and a big ol' pay cut in US$ (albeit the cost of living is much cheaper in US$ too).

I'm sure I'll think of something else to add to this debate... but ultimately I agree that neither "side" is going to convince the other.

Ooooooh - I thought of something already. So to those who own guns for personal protection - you only own the minimum number, right? Just one?

Cam

[tabs52]

Jared Conserative Repblicans see it 180* differently. They see the Democrats and their socialist agenda as being the death knelt of competition. They point to Britain in the 1960's and 70's and Germany today.

The Bush family ain't all that either.......but the powers that be behind them????????



When i was going to UCSB back in the day (1974) I had a Proffessor of Political Science that was from Chile. He left when Allend was assinated, and was apparently wanted by the new Chileian govt. It was rumored the CIA was after him.In other words he was a Leftist or Commie if U prefer. He soon left the USA and went to teach at McGill University in Montreal, Canada.

Anyway the thing his grad students were working on was Multinational Corporations.....they talked about the decline of the nation state because of the ability of corp. to cross borders etc.
Well guess what nearly 30 years later guess who is expousing the same ideas as my Commie proffessor was Pat Buchannan. Mr Right wing facist himself amazing huh.

[island911]

Jarred:
The biggedt threat to "mom n pop" small business, is too much legal and tax overhead. Why start a small business, when the handful you provide employment to cost more than you can afford?

Cam

Island and Milu - I ask you in response to your sentiment that you feel safer carrying a gun because a criminal might have one ---> what if you were virtually assured they weren't carrying??? There are a number of countries in the world where this is the case - it is reality not a dream (nightmare?).

I never indicated I feel safer carrying a gun. I said, or was trying to say, I feel safer when most around me are carrying guns. On balance people are good, respectful, and cooperative.

Traffic is a good reflection of the cooperative nature.
Think about all the masses of good people trying to get home in even the high stress rush hour. Every one of these people has a deadly weapon (their car or truck). And yet, to much amazement, they all do what they can to keep things moving in the right direction. When the few disrespectful few come in to the mix, they really catch our attention.
So, for our society, the more ubiquidous guns are, the better . . .the more level the playing field and the common direction of a happy life can be achieved.

[Jared at Pelican Parts]

Originally posted by tabs52
Jared Conserative Repblicans see it 180* differently. They see the Democrats and their socialist agenda as being the death knelt of competition. They point to Britain in the 1960's and 70's and Germany today.

The irony of all of this is that there really is no seperation of the parties. What the Democrats are on the outside, the Republicans are on the inside and vice-versa.

Im a little confused as to the British analogy. Are you comparing the Labour Party to the Democrats?

Kinda OT, but it's really sad to see how badly Thatcher screwed the UK in the early 80's. They are still dealing with the effects of it today.

[Milu]

CamB

No, not the USA, S. America and the caribbean.

I'm afraid that even if I was virtually assured a criminal was not carrying a gun I would still choose to face him with a gun. Whether I would use it would depend very much on circumstances. The contents of my wallet for example are much less than the cost and trouble of the legal process of using a gun on a criminal. However, if I need to defend myself I see no reason to handicap myself unnecessarily.

The carabinieri with machine pistols in Italy were probably unloaded. They have a tendency to shoot themselves in the foot. The carabinieri have a reputation for being a little stupid. It is sometimes justified! Whoops, going off topic in the Off-Topic forum!

Minimum number of guns kept for self defence?
A sawn-off, an assault rifle and several pistols in each car.
A couple of pistols and a sub-machine gun in each room and a 50 cal mg in the garage. Plus of course the guns I use for target shooting and my collector pieces. Not forgetting of course the strategically located hand grenades

[Jared at Pelican Parts]

I dont know if it matters, but in Paris, the police at train stations all carry MP-5's

[CamB]

Island

"So, for our society, the more ubiquidous guns are, the better . . .the more level the playing field and the common direction of a happy life can be achieved."

I think I am actually incapable of understanding this - I wish I could, but my own view is so polar that I can't. I think what you have written is sort of why I started the thread.

Milu

I really mean one or the other - you can't pick "me with a gun, criminal without". I would rather stand in front of a criminal with no gun virtually assured he hasn't got one either. My chance of being killed, or killing, in that situation is (so close as to be equivalent to) nil.

If you both have guns? What happens if the criminal pulls a gun on you? Does it become quick draw? Do you pull out your own gun and tell him to put his away.

F%# it - I'm non-violent - I can't remotely fathom why anyone would want to hurt (or kill) anyone. Full stop. I don't think I am capable of understanding this part of the argument either.

[nostatic]

I agree that I have "blood on my hands." To deny that would be to deny years of misguided US "foreign policy". But that qualifies as hypocrisy? I guess you can twist the semantics any way you see fit (gawd knows I do).

Cam, you kiwis do make it tough. The only saving grace for my wife and I are the skill sets we posses. For her there would be the challenge of transmogrifying the legal knowledge, but the technical expertise goes beyond borders. I could live with the drop in pay, as it seems as thought the cost of living is commensurately lower. Main problem is I'm not getting any younger...I'm losing points as we speak. If I get serious I'll be hitting you up for sponsorship...that was the one thing my application seemed to lack.

[tabs52]

In america today a corporation or union etc gives money to political canidates of both parties....so that they get what they want no matter who wins the election.....thats the insidiousness of money in politics today.

The reduction of Civil liberties........1 the Democratic party is sure after your rights to own guns, smoke cigarettes, raise your child as you see fit, and what else have I missed.......U see the Dems at one time were for protecting the indivdual against the majority. Civil rights miranda, allowing unions to stand against big monied interests etc...Those battles have largely been won .Today the Dems are all about protecting society from U.....No guns, no cigarettes, Only PC speech is allowed (for example at columbine HS in a wall of tiles honoring the victims the family of a victim can't put up a tile with a cross on it)..in other words facists.

2. the war on terror sure does raise some red flags when it comes to civil liberties......thats why the debate on the issue will help keep it honest.....so to speak

[Jared at Pelican Parts]

Originally posted by tabs52
In america today a corporation or union etc gives money to political canidates of both parties....so that they get what they want no matter who wins the election.....thats the insidiousness of money in politics today.

The reduction of Civil liberties........1 the Democratic party is sure after your rights to own guns, smoke cigarettes, raise your child as you see fit, and what else have I missed.......U see the Dems at one time were for protecting the indivdual against the majority. Civil rights miranda, allowing unions to stand against big monied interests etc...Those battles have largely been won .Today the Dems are all about protecting society from U.....No guns, no cigarettes, Only PC speech is allowed (for example at columbine HS in a wall of tiles honoring the victims the family of a victim can't put up a tile with a cross on it)..in other words facists.

2. the war on terror sure does raise some red flags when it comes to civil liberties......thats why the debate on the issue will help keep it honest.....so to speak

Freedom of Choice is what you got
Freedom from Choice is what you want....

-Devo

[nhurto]

The irony of all of this is that there really is no seperation of the parties. What the Democrats are on the outside, the Republicans are on the inside and vice-versa.

They are all the same. The last presidential election was illustrative of how little choice we really had. We could choose a) the rich son of a politician whose ideas were a throwback to the late 80s early 90s or b) the rich son of a politician whose unoriginal ideas were a throwback to the late 80s early 90s. About the only difference was Gore was supported a woman's right to choose.

to those who own guns for personal protection - you only own the minimum number, right? Just one?

I own two and have been thinking about a third. However, I only have one for personal protection - a 12ga pump shotgun. Honestly, if the sound of racking a round into the chamber isn't enough to scare someone away, I don't know what is. The other is a .40 pistol I used for target practice. I've been looking at a nice tuned .45 now that I can afford it.

[tabs52]

Freedom from choich = no responsibility

See No static your not a hypocrit..... We all hve blood on our hands....and that why theres a Jesus Christ to be forgiven for our wretchedness......

"Jesus died for somebodies sins but not mine".......Patti Smith

[nostatic]

Department of Homeland Security = Institutionalized McCarthyism for the 21st century.

I feel a cold wind blowin'...

[Milu]

CamB




"I really mean one or the other - you can't pick "me with a gun, criminal without". I would rather stand in front of a criminal with no gun virtually assured he hasn't got one either. My chance of being killed, or killing, in that situation is (so close as to be equivalent to) nil."

Sorry I misunderstood your post. A hard one. In a violent situation I think I would choose both armed, simply because in that case the playing field would at least be level. I disagree that if both sides are unarmed the chances of killing or being killed are close to nil. (Strictly speaking a handgun is a defensive tool, if one chose to go on the offensive there are better options)

"If you both have guns? What happens if the criminal pulls a gun on you? Does it become quick draw? Do you pull out your own gun and tell him to put his away."

That is actually an option. So is running away which I think can work very well and is usually a better option if one can put aside the macho BS.

"F%# it - I'm non-violent - I can't remotely fathom why anyone would want to hurt (or kill) anyone. Full stop. I don't think I am capable of understanding this part of the argument either."

I'm actually a very non violent person. I've just found myself caught up in a lot of violent situations.

[Jared at Pelican Parts]

Originally posted by nostatic
Department of Homeland Security = Institutionalized McCarthyism for the 21st century.

I feel a cold wind blowin'...

Indeed.

Goebbels isnt too far behind either

[CamB]

I thought of something else. Ignoring the practicalities of achieving the following:

- everyone carries a gun - no-one gets shot
- no-one carries a gun - no-one gets shot

Which is going to be the case?

I realise this is entirely speculation, but the firearms ownership rate between the US and NZ is approximately 3:1 and the only major difference in the gun laws is that handguns are not freely available in NZ (plus the attitude discussion I made earlier).

Despite this, the firearm homicide rate is 13x higher in the US.

I don't think it will get me anywhere in this, but using the only data I have (the Canadian study in my first post), there seems to be a relationship between:

a) the number of guns and the number of homicides

b) the number of guns and the number of non-gun homicides (take from this what you will)

c) an exponential relationship between the number of guns and the number of gun deaths (ie 1/3 the guns = 1/10 the gun deaths).



(I added the last 3 columns - note Switzerland has some apparently screwy stats!)

Therefore, I contend that less guns = good, more guns = bad.

If it is a deeper social issue (ie you guys like to kill each other and guns is a convenient way of expediting this - by extension if there were fewer guns there would be more knifings?), then I consider that a truely serious social problem... and one I am obviously not able to comment on.

[island911]

Tabs, have you been rock'n out to Devo?

Freedom of Choice is what U got . . .Freedom FROM Choice is what U want . . . bah bah dibah da da

Hey a good point in there. . .you get the moral high ground If you say you dont have a gun because "they're bad" . . . even if the real reason is you don't trust yourself with a gun, or don't want the responsibility.

Now I've got that Devo tune stuck in my head

[Jared at Pelican Parts]

Originally posted by island911
Tabs, have you been rocken out to Devo?

Freedom of Choice is what U got . . .Freedom FROM Choice is what U want . . . bah bah dibah da da

Hey a good point in there. . .you get the moral high ground If you say you dont have a gun because "they're bad" . . . even if the real reason is you don't trust yourself with a gun, or don't want the responsibility.

Now I've got that Devo tune stuck in my head

Actually I posted it. And yes, I am a Spud Boy