Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not sure where you get your information about the general US public not having a use for guns, but you are wrong. You have been listening to the propaganda media again. And yes you are right about the wild animals. I just shot one (wild hog) not long ago on my property and damn was that good BBQ. Still looking for the buffalo. The majority of wild animals in our country are now people that do not abide by the laws of this land. And in OUR country we have the right to defend ourselves from such animals.
Since when have you suffered from anything that happened in the US other than a major a$$ whopping back in the 1770's.
We in the US could care less about your opinion.
You do realize that New England is in the US, don't you?
This is the sort of claptrap I'd expect from a university's student publications or from a very junior second-rate Guardian contributor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ian6479
As a Brit living I the US I have to say that this is one of the issues that I cannot stand about American culture. It's hard to hold a rational discussion with many because guns are so ingrained in the American psyche, and somewhat connected to the constitution: something that holds an almost mystical worship here. The 2nd amendment is massively misunderstood and used as an irrational justification for weapons in society.
This part does ring true. The issue of the role of guns in society involved entrenched ideas on both sides. Further, I do see the difficulties of using 18th century law in allotting 21st century fire power.
Quote:
Guns are, socially and ethically, devastating. Worthless. They add nothing of positive, intrinsic value to a culture, a people, a country. They only diminish, destroy, display an awesome sense of malformed ego and disastrously warped humanity. Jaggy talked of the link to masculinity: totally right!
Here is the truth: Guns are pain. Gun laws are an outrageously misinterpreted chunk of the Constitution that was never meant to suffer what the fat lords of the gun lobbies have made it suffer.
Broad, sweeping generalisations. Tell that to farmers protecting livestock. Tell that to rural/semi-rural families which save hundreds or even thousands of dollar per annum on lean, healthy natural game versus purchasing conventional (injected with all-American anti-biotic and hormonal cocktails!) meat.
Quote:
It seems that some posters here think guns and the current cluster of feeble laws on the books are generally fine, and it’s the mental health industry that needs the help. Perhaps they l think Sandy Hook, Aurora, Colorado, Virginia Tech, et al could be better prevented by improved treatment for the mentally ill?
The "mental health" arguments are not without merit. James Holmes is suspected of being mentally ill (the record of his sudden academic and social decline in the months beforehand would support that). In Columbine, the FBI formally acknowledged Eric Harris as a "clinical psychopath" and Dylan Klebold as "depressive." Seung-Hui Cho has the strongest case.
Quote:
Maybe. But a culture of gun fanaticism feeds insanity. Put the other way: insanity loves guns. They are interlinked and inextricable. Too-easy access to guns is a huge part of the problem, but even bigger is the gun fetishism so brutally interwoven into American society and popular culture, from childhood on up, that provides the hateful lie that guns aren’t just macho and all-American, they’re downright required for ensuring your sadism is remembered forever.
Insanity and mental imbalances (especially in young men) lead to an affinity for any weapon, not just guns. How many UK youths are carrying knives as we speak? Violence is a best-seller the world over, from war torn Africa to the well-appointed flats of Oxbridge students. Also, James Bond, arguably the world's most popular high-octane, action brand is....British!
Quote:
Sandy Hook isn’t just about mental illness. It’s about mental illness shot through with endless images of ultra-violence and 300 million guns currently in American hands. It’s about insanity allowed to multiply its destructive powers by a factor of 61 mass murders in the past 30 years. It’s about gun-loving survivalist mothers of mentally ill kids stockpiling weapons for herself, teaching her kids to shoot, preparing for society’s collapse, all surely fed by right-wing fearmongers and idiots.
Again, increased portrayals of ever-more realistic violence is a global phenomenon. If current details are accurate, his mother was an idiot to put guns into the hands of a troublesome, disturbed young person. As for survivalists, they operate outside of the American left-right paradigm. I've encountered many of them. They can't be easily blamed on the mainstream American right.
Quote:
Some talk of hunting. I know the supposed nobility and beauty to be found in ethical and honest hunting (which I believe still that despite the canned hunts and the repulsive Texas exotic game preserves). I know the outright fun to be had shooting beautifully made, powerful weaponry at paper targets, clay pigeons, bottles and beer cans out in the woods. Do you know what else is fun? Piloting tanks into buildings. Shooting meth. Driving my car 150 MPH through busy streets, drunk. Throwing bowling balls off of skyscrapers and watching them demolish parked cars 300 feet below. Smashing windows with metal bats. Joining a Venezuelan rebel militia.
Association fallacy.
Quote:
This does not mean we should indulge in them, or that they deserve a prized place in society. This does not mean the tiny adrenaline rush afforded by gun sports is worth the overall cost, or is in some way unique or precious, and therefore must be defended by men so terrified of losing their thin hold on masculinity that they must strap firearms to their giant bellies to go to Wal-Mart, just in case the terrorists want to steal their ‘97 Corolla.
Your true blue British classist thinking is showing.
Quote:
Shall we ask the NRA and the gun lobby to prove a guns worth in a civilized society? If they have any evidence that guns are the slightest bit helpful or necessary to human development, progress, industry, spiritual development, love, family? Has any culture in the history of the civilized worldever evolved toward more munitions and antipathy, and flourished, healthy, calm and full of love?
Scholars of International Relations have acknowledged that the Western system of states was forged out of violence. Of course, I wouldn't expect such an argument from the NRA (a fairly impotent organisation, actually).
Quote:
Of course not. There is no single argument for guns that holds up, that makes any sense whatsoever, that cannot easily be disproven by fact, ancient spiritual wisdom, or common sense.
Not one that you care for, anyway.
Quote:
Guns do not protect more than they destroy. They do not save more lives than they kill. They do not safeguard more families than they devastate. They do not add security more than they add fear, suspicion, antagonism and hate. As has been pointed out again and again: Guns, by their very existence, insist on their own use. And their use is, singularly and without reservation, death.
So many assertions. So many potential contexts and potential angles of arguments (and vagaries resulting thereof).
Quote:
All guns in the United States should be banned outright. As manufacturing halts, as the black markets slowly dry up, as availability diminishes, as advertising vanishes, as the virus of easy-access weaponry began to pass through the national bloodstream, the entire culture would shift, whole and true.
It would be nothing short of astonishing. In a short generation or two, guns and the bleak fantasy they invoke would devolve into a strange and sickly memory, a dark folklore, like looking back on the Red Scare or cigarette ads or slavery.
Gun deaths would plummet. Shooting sprees would nearly vanish. The national mood would brighten. In just a few short decades – guns would all but disappear from the national consciousness.
The oh question left to ask is: What are we waiting for?
Wishfully ignorant thinking in its profundity. Despite the end of the "Red Scare," how many Americans believe that "soshlist libruls" are out for their "freedoms?" In spite of a lack of tobacco advertising, I was/am shocked to see how many British youth smoke, with a special mention going to the number of Fife youth who have asked me (non-smoker) for a ***.
Black markets drying up? Manufacturing halting? What are you thinking? Arms manufacturing is amongst the US' most profitable industries when considering both domestic and international sales. Black markets for weapons do not dry up. Criminal elements will always desire an edge in violence and will pay handsomely for that edge. Those handsome payments will entice and encourage other to enter the arms trade. In Japan, a relatively inexpensive Glock pistol (a few hundred USD) can fetch $5,000 on the black market.
Were guns suddenly much more difficult to acquire (which would go beyond simple buying restrictions given the massive number extant in the US), yes gun related death rates would drop. However, I have full faith in my fellow Americans that they'd find other means to kill. Mass massacres (hopefully) would drop, but they're a drop in the bucket considering overall casualty numbers.
In my opinion, the acquisition of guns is too easy in many states. However, state law is pre-eminent here, and short of abolishing the American state system as we know it, it will be a long process. That said, better gun control will not lead to the veritable utopia of a "better national mood" or their disappearance from the national consciousness/memory. All you left out was the unicorn expelling rainbows in lieu of flatulence.
This is the sort of claptrap I'd expect from a university's student publications or from a very junior second-rate Guardian contributor.
This part does ring true. The issue of the role of guns in society involved entrenched ideas on both sides. Further, I do see the difficulties of using 18th century law in allotting 21st century fire power.
Broad, sweeping generalisations. Tell that to farmers protecting livestock. Tell that to rural/semi-rural families which save hundreds or even thousands of dollar per annum on lean, healthy natural game versus purchasing conventional (injected with all-American anti-biotic and hormonal cocktails!) meat.
The "mental health" arguments are not without merit. James Holmes is suspected of being mentally ill (the record of his sudden academic and social decline in the months beforehand would support that). In Columbine, the FBI formally acknowledged Eric Harris as a "clinical psychopath" and Dylan Klebold as "depressive." Seung-Hui Cho has the strongest case.
Insanity and mental imbalances (especially in young men) lead to an affinity for any weapon, not just guns. How many UK youths are carrying knives as we speak? Violence is a best-seller the world over, from war torn Africa to the well-appointed flats of Oxbridge students. Also, James Bond, arguably the world's most popular high-octane, action brand is....British!
Again, increased portrayals of ever-more realistic violence is a global phenomenon. If current details are accurate, his mother was an idiot to put guns into the hands of a troublesome, disturbed young person. As for survivalists, they operate outside of the American left-right paradigm. I've encountered many of them. They can't be easily blamed on the mainstream American right.
Association fallacy.
Your true blue British classist thinking is showing.
Scholars of International Relations have acknowledged that the Western system of states was forged out of violence. Of course, I wouldn't expect such an argument from the NRA (a fairly impotent organisation, actually).
Not one that you care for, anyway.
So many assertions. So many potential contexts and potential angles of arguments (and vagaries resulting thereof).
Wishfully ignorant thinking in its profundity. Despite the end of the "Red Scare," how many Americans believe that "soshlist libruls" are out for their "freedoms?" In spite of a lack of tobacco advertising, I was/am shocked to see how many British youth smoke, with a special mention going to the number of Fife youth who have asked me (non-smoker) for a ***.
Black markets drying up? Manufacturing halting? What are you thinking? Arms manufacturing is amongst the US' most profitable industries when considering both domestic and international sales. Black markets for weapons do not dry up. Criminal elements will always desire an edge in violence and will pay handsomely for that edge. Those handsome payments will entice and encourage other to enter the arms trade. In Japan, a relatively inexpensive Glock pistol (a few hundred USD) can fetch $5,000 on the black market.
Were guns suddenly much more difficult to acquire (which would go beyond simple buying restrictions given the massive number extant in the US), yes gun related death rates would drop. However, I have full faith in my fellow Americans that they'd find other means to kill. Mass massacres (hopefully) would drop, but they're a drop in the bucket considering overall casualty numbers.
In my opinion, the acquisition of guns is too easy in many states. However, state law is pre-eminent here, and short of abolishing the American state system as we know it, it will be a long process. That said, better gun control will not lead to the veritable utopia of a "better national mood" or their disappearance from the national consciousness/memory. All you left out was the unicorn expelling rainbows in lieu of flatulence.
The poster to whom you responded actually made a very thought provoking and intelligent post. Yours on the other hand is just paragraph after paragraph of you just, err, disagreeing! You offer nothing of any substance, or any credible argument for why gun laws should remain as is. In fact, your only point seems to be about hunting (still legal here in the UK and not suggested as a ban in the OP), and protection of livestock.
I am over fucxxng whelmed at how you took ian6479 to the cleaners. That said in my most sarcastic of tone. Your points are nothing short of worthless even though I'm sure you think of yourself as the brightest spark. I'll go back to reading the Guardian now..
The poster to whom you responded actually made a very thought provoking and intelligent post. Yours on the other hand is just paragraph after paragraph of you just, err, disagreeing! You offer nothing of any substance, or any credible argument for why gun laws should remain as is. In fact, your only point seems to be about hunting (still legal here in the UK and not suggested as a ban in the OP), and protection of livestock.
I am over fucxxng whelmed at how you took ian6479 to the cleaners. That said in my most sarcastic of tone. Your points are nothing short of worthless even though I'm sure you think of yourself as the brightest spark. I'll go back to reading the Guardian now..
If I've done nothing, you've succeeded in doing less.
The general US public has little or no use for guns. Of course, this is a huge country and there are areas that have forests and the people live way out from any populated areas so I can see how they would need a gun to shoot wild animals.
But they don't need the kind of guns that are used in these mass murders --and how about the rest of us who suffer because of their wish to own these guns? When these guns get into the wrong hands, it's a danger to everyone. Anyone can see that.
If they really thought about it, there's no need to these kinds of guns. Also, they are running the risk of innocent people, kids even, getting hurt and killed. Seems that if they just thought about it instead of the knee jerk reaction that they have to have GUNS and the 2nd Amendment says they can have GUNS, then they would be willing to compromise.
We're not even saying BAN ALL GUNS. If the rest of us can compromise on that, why can't the gun owners?
But how dangerous are these wild animals? For example, Arizona has between 2,500 and 3,000 Mountain Lions and, since 1890, there have been just 29 fatal attacks by mountain lions on humans in North America. You are more at risk from going to the cinema or going to school than you are from wild animals.
The truth is that most gun owners have guns because they like them. All this talk about protection and wild animals is just an excuse. Just as in the UK and most other developed countries, there is very little 'need' for guns.
But how dangerous are these wild animals? For example, Arizona has between 2,500 and 3,000 Mountain Lions and, since 1890, there have been just 29 fatal attacks by mountain lions on humans in North America. You are more at risk from going to the cinema or going to school than you are from wild animals.
The truth is that most gun owners have guns because they like them. All this talk about protection and wild animals is just an excuse. Just as in the UK and most other developed countries, there is very little 'need' for guns.
I agree with you 100%; I was just trying to meet the gun fanatics part way. We have strict gun laws where I live but there are places throughout the country that are very isolated and I'm thinking a farmer might need to shoot a fox to protect his chickens? Or in heavily forested areas people still do hunt to feed their families?
If I had my way--and this won't happen--all guns would be banned throughout the entire country. There is no need for them. Guns get into the hands of crazy people. Even guns in the hands of "normal" people are dangerous, as in examples of people hearing a sound, grabbing their gun and shooting--and it turns out it was only their nephew hiding in the closet or a friend who came onto the property unexpectedly.
What good does it do if some states have strict gun laws and other states can do whatever they want? The gun nuts can just go to another state and buy their guns and bring them back here. But a total ban will never happen here because there would be such an uproar from the states where people love guns. People in the safe states aren't safe because of them. It's like WE have no right to safety because of THEM.
I agree with you 100%; I was just trying to meet the gun fanatics part way. We have strict gun laws where I live but there are places throughout the country that are very isolated and I'm thinking a farmer might need to shoot a fox to protect his chickens? Or in heavily forested areas people still do hunt to feed their families?
If I had my way--and this won't happen--all guns would be banned throughout the entire country. There is no need for them. Guns get into the hands of crazy people. Even guns in the hands of "normal" people are dangerous, as in examples of people hearing a sound, grabbing their gun and shooting--and it turns out it was only their nephew hiding in the closet or a friend who came onto the property unexpectedly.
What good does it do if some states have strict gun laws and other states can do whatever they want? The gun nuts can just go to another state and buy their guns and bring them back here. But a total ban will never happen here because there would be such an uproar from the states where people love guns. People in the safe states aren't safe because of them. It's like WE have no right to safety because of THEM.
I'm a British expat living in the US and although I agree with you, a gun ban will never happen here. It's just not feasible and the right to bear arms is too entrenched in your culture. If any president attempted to ban guns, there would most likely be a civil war.
With that being said, I fully support tighter restrictions on firearms, including a ban on automatic weapons.
The crux of the problem though is lack of access to mental health care, stigma associated with mental illness and lots of repressed anger among males in particular over here. If healthcare were more affordable and if the stigma could be lifted and weakness were to be tolerated more, I bet that many of these mass killings would not occur.
Back to guns, I feel that no one should be sold a gun without a thorough screening and a compulsory weapons course, kind of like how you have to take driving lessons and pass a driving test to prove you're responsible enough to own a gun,
What do you think? New England is definitely a gem in terms of how progressive it is compared to elsewhere here.
It's pistols, semi-automatic and automatic weapons that the general populace has less contact with as they'd have little use for one. They don't have large or dangerous wildlife so the only reason to have one realistically would be to use against people.... and why would they want to do that?
Pistols are not used to shoot large wildlife. Pistols are widely used for target shooting.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
