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.
I'm having a hard time relating to the smoking analogy. We all know how cigarettes cause cancer, but when are they used to save lives?
I was talking about finding a cure. I never said cigarettes save lives. It's puzzling that you interpreted my post that way. We need to find out why we have such a gun culture and why there's so much violence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by numberfive
I personally find pharmaceuticals to be a closer analogy. They can be used for good or bad. How can we minimize the bad without affecting the good?
Exactly. I don't know anyone who wants to ban guns, only enforce stricter laws. Gun control doesn't mean gun elimination. It's interesting that you mentioned legal drugs, if that's what you meant. A person can't just walk into a pharmacy and buy a controlled substance.
That's like saying some cornered dogs don't bite, and when they do, it's solely the fault of the dog. Ignoring the building pressure for people in desperate situations is a bit disingenuous IMO.
I hope you're not justifying murdering people because a person can't handle pressure. A human being is not a dog. I love dogs, but you are using an anthropomorphic analogy that makes little sense, since humans know the difference between right and wrong and are taught how to reason, whereas animals survive by instinct.
Let me play Devil's advocate for moment and turn your theory around on you....
Had you ever considered that an armed populace is actually what spawns a totalitarian police state? I mean, when the public is as armed as it is, it's little wonder that our police forces have become as militarized as they have and adopt the "Us vs. Them" attitude that they have. 30 years ago, police were still carrying the classic six shooter. Then, in the late 80's and early 90's when the public started to favor semi-autos, and the criminals were outgunning the police, law enforcement started packing more firepower too.
So the irony is that the armed populace that is seen as protection from a totalitarian police state is the very thing that leads to a totalitarian police state in the first place....
Just thinking outside the box here, and trying to look at the situation from both sides as a matter of intellectual clarity and honesty.
OK - - -
Can you give evidence of any totalitarian police states that were formed in response to a fully armed public?
USSR? No.
Pol Pot's Cambodia? No.
Mao's PRC? No.
Quote:
Every Communist must grasp the truth, "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." Our principle is that the Party commands the gun, and the gun must never be allowed to command the Party. Yet, having guns, we can create Party organizations, as witness the powerful Party organizations which the Eighth Route Army has created in northern China. We can also create cadres, create schools, create culture, create mass movements. Everything in Yenan has been created by having guns. All things grow out of the barrel of a gun. According to the Marxist theory of the state, the army is the chief component of state power. Whoever wants to seize and retain state power must have a strong army. Some people ridicule us as advocates of the "omnipotence of war". Yes, we are advocates of the omnipotence of revolutionary war; that is good, not bad, it is Marxist. The guns of the Russian Communist Party created socialism. We shall create a democratic republic. Experience in the class struggle in the era of imperialism teaches us that it is only by the power of the gun that the working class and the laboring masses can defeat the armed bourgeoisie and landlords; in this sense we may say that only with guns can the whole world be transformed. We are advocates of the abolition of war, we do not want war; but war can only be abolished through war, and in order to get rid of the gun it is necessary to take up the gun.
- - - Mao Zedong (Mao Tse-tung) Mao's concluding speech at the Sixth Plenary Session of the Sixth Central Committee of the Party.
This makes sense, since socialism is government protected slavery. What else can you call compulsory charity and dispossession?
In socialist and disarmed European nations, police forces are routinely armed with fully automatic machine guns.
I was reminded of this while watching "The Day of the Jackal" and the assassination attempt on DeGaulle. Many of the gendarmes carried submachine guns.
Of course, America has been socialist since 1933, so the shift to paramilitary armaments is reasonable.
I think we agree on that front. My point is that the individual committing the crime bears the responsibility for it, but that's not to deny that external pressures contribute to crime rates.
But understanding should also lead to some form of pre-emptive measures taken to prevent future occurrences shouldn't it? Understanding the whys and wherefores from years of studying these events should have led to some forms of prevention methods we're currently not seeing, shouldn't it?
I know this is going to sound surprising to some, but I don't think mass shootings should be a priority right now. In no way am I saying they are not tragic, but to put it in perspective, mass shootings are way way way down on the list of preventable deaths. For those of us interested in saving lives (like myself), shouldn't we be smart about how we use our limited resources to prevent deaths?
I think mass shooting prevention should get funding proportionate to its harm caused (vs all preventable death causes). Would you agree?
I was talking about finding a cure. I never said cigarettes save lives. It's puzzling that you interpreted my post that way. We need to find out why we have such a gun culture and why there's so much violence.
I would like to find out what percentage of guns are used for violence and what percentage are used for defense before we start looking for a cure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by justNancy
Exactly. I don't know anyone who wants to ban guns, only enforce stricter laws. Gun control doesn't mean gun elimination. It's interesting that you mentioned legal drugs, if that's what you meant. A person can't just walk into a pharmacy and buy a controlled substance.
You got it -- I was referring to legal drugs. And to continue the above thought, we would never look at only half of the picture there (adverse reactions and overdose deaths) while ignoring the other half (number of people using these legal drugs, including those that had their lives saved by these drugs).
I hope you're not justifying murdering people because a person can't handle pressure. A human being is not a dog. I love dogs, but you are using an anthropomorphic analogy that makes little sense, since humans know the difference between right and wrong and are taught how to reason, whereas animals survive by instinct.
To the part in bold -- no, please re-read my responses.
To the rest, you might be as fascinated as I was when I read studies about the power of suggestion and how external pressures can very much influence people to do things they would never usually do. Let me know if you'd like me to dig up a few of those.
It's the same reason why advertising works, even though everyone thinks it doesn't work on them.
"Dude"; I was hunting the pacific northwest for weeks at a time with nothing fancier than a sporterized Lee Enfield .303 and it's military adjustable "peep" sight and an heirloom Webley large frame .455 for back up in a surplus webbing shoulder holster probably before you were a gleam in daddies eye.
In the mid sixties I oversaw production lines in C.A.Ltd (Inglis) manufacturing barrels for both your M14's and later M16's, the gas return block and recharge pistons, the anodized aluminum barrels for your M79 (blooper) 40mm grenade launcher, the complete Browning HyPower, the Patchette SMG that replaced that piece of crap Sten, barrels and receiver assy's for the FNC1 and A1, even bayonets for your National Guard just to name a few items I was responsible for.
What is the ball park average weight of a fully charged, all metal Colt 1911 pattern .45 ACP for instance. Not the shorter barreled defender/combat series but the old original.
I could have shaved off a bunch considering this most recent perp was using what looks like a double stack polymer composite Glock but that's my defaulting to weights associated with my history period of most handguns of my era weighing mid 30 oz.s into the 40's fully loaded.
I don't have an irrational love for firearms either but holding certificates in four skilled trades gives me an ability to appreciate the inner workings and nice machining of a better quality semi or revolver any day.
I do not advocate confiscation or elimination. That horse left the barn decades ago. I advocate a general mindset change of the average American as it applies to firearms ownership in general. Only then can rational approach to ownership even begin to take hold.
A long term process to be sure, but surely even the most dim among you can see the current situation not improving along with your freedom to feel secure in your own daily routine activities gradually degrading until you long for the days when fewer of you were carrying because fewer of you felt the need to.
Very true (bolded), a mother thinks it's a good idea to introduce her mentally ill son to guns and have them available in the house, the entire culture needs to change. Right now our approach to guns is not remotely rational.
I'm getting sick of this crap. How many more shooting rampages are white men gonna keep going on?? If you can't be brave and kill yourself on your own, then it's probably time to start turning in your guns
Edit: Article I saw didn't mention the race, not this link
Do you say the same thing when Chicago has their holiday shootings? Do you say "I'm getting sick of this crap. How many more shooting rampages are black men gonna keep going on??" Or Hispanics?
Very true (bolded), a mother thinks it's a good idea to introduce her mentally ill son to guns and have them available in the house, the entire culture needs to change. Right now our approach to guns is not remotely rational.
Great point. Clearly the idea of giving such open access to firearms is deeply flawed.
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.
