They were still intended to kill, that's their purpose. Even sport weapons come under the same thought process, despite never being used as such. This is coming from somebody who very much does like guns and shooting. Were I able to partake in shooting more often, I definitely would as it's a lot of fun. That said, I don't think general gun ownership and especially carrying a firearm shouldn't simply be spread around liberally.
Again, a position rooted in your culture and environment. You start from a place where you have been told from birth that guns are bad, you don't need them-if you get to use them, it's because they let you, the government is there to keep you safe. Can you even imagine basing all your arguments and attitudes from this position? A position where guns are a positive, where you have a right to them-where they are not a privilege, where the government isn't there to protect you but to manage the affairs of the nation? Here we see people like you as a greater threat to our freedoms then those who openly want keep guns only for the "security forces". That is like saying the right to free speech is something you enjoy, but generally isn't a good thing and shouldn't be spread around liberally. Or the right to assembly is something you enjoy, but generally isn't a good thing and shouldn't be spread around liberally. Or the right to practice your religion is something you enjoy, but generally isn't a good thing and shouldn't be spread around liberally. It's not something a few or the powerful should enjoy. It's a right for everyone, cemented in our culture and laws by the Bill of Rights; affirmed time and time again in our highest courts. Something you have to live with, to experience, to fully grasp.
Sorry, no. That's the romanticised version, lifted straight from Birth of a Nation. In reality you were founded by a bunch of puritans who left the UK because they couldn't stand seeing other people enjoying life a bit. Who then, ironically, evolved into the hedonists of today who would have been despised by by their ancestors (this is not a surprise to anyone who has studied psychology, BTW). I mean, this is the nation that preaches prosperity evangelism, FFS. Why the guns? Why, this was a nation founded on colonisation and systematic genocide of the natives. There was also a breakaway war with the Empire, and a period of lawless anarchy and feudalism on the Frontier followed by a booming economy based on slave labour (who needed to be kept in check). Plenty of reason to keep those guns around. By now, you got comfortable with the shiny toys. They are symbolic representations of the fantasy of empowerment, independence and challenge of authority. But a fantasy it is. You have no more power or autonomy than a UK or EU citizen, and as for challenging authority, well, all your private lives are belong to the NSA. Your guns are the opium pipes of the masses. Don't get me wrong: the US is no better or worse than the UK or the EU. But let's not drink the cool-aid.
First up, stop pretending to try and understand how I was brought up and what my values were. I was brought up in a household where guns were very much part of normal life, my roots are in the Dorset countryside. From a very early age I was fascinated by how they worked, how they were made and how they were used. So let's address this point then: If you believe a gun was only intended for defense and safeguarding, then how do you explain hunting? You don't shoot a duck or a pheasant out of either of those reasons. It's a perfectly legitimate use of a firearm IMO, as long as the appropriate measures are taken to ensure safe use. No issues here. Guns were designed to kill, end of, there is no discussion on that point as that is their historical purpose. That's not always a bad thing either, to throw your logic onto this you could say that you've always been brought up to believe guns don't have that purpose. They weren't designed to just produce a loud noise to scare things away, nor to mildly injure things at best. Sure there are weapons designed to inflict minimal injury to the target, but they're a development based on the original idea, not the other way around. Why is it a right? It's not a right to own a house, a car, a phone, a computer etc. why is a gun any different? Was it not a right before it was written on a piece of paper?
I'm confused, what principle trumps the social obligation to prevent easily preventable deaths? In each of the other cases you mentioned, a certain risk is accepted in exchange for a practical benefit - hammers are essential tools for fixing things, cars are essential transport for a society to function, ladders are the only way to repair roofs. What essential need is there for guns that outweighs the risks? What practical purpose do they serve, excepting those cases where people live in areas hounded by dangerous wild animals? I also dispute the claim that you "just don't get it, man" unless you've lived in America. I have an imagination and I've fired guns. I'm intelligent enough to imagine what it would be like to own one.
Firearms are intended to kill, the fact that there used in warfare is only because we haven't found a more efficient way to kill each other. You may say that's just my opinion of them, one the stems from a position of not being familiar with guns or having them as part of my culture, I would be interested in how you know that, after all you go on to say that you don't know where i grew up or where i live. Like it or not rules and regulations are what makes a society civilized without them you have anarchy, while you may have the perception that you live in a country with fewer rules and greater freedoms it's exactly that, a perception. A perception re-enforced by the sense of power that owning a firearm brings with it.
I've been away for a year only to come back to find this discussion in full swing again, I'm surprised you guys didn't necro the old thread. What we see is a societal disconnect and a breakdown of culture. Look at the police. They hire people with low intelligence, low empathy, high aggression, and with weak psychological constitution. In other words, people prone to abuse. They walk around like Judge Dredd beating homeless people to death or gunning them down like they were enemy combatants in a war zone. More restrictive gun laws for the citizenry would solve nothing. We see the same cultural breakdown in England and Europe, this is not about gun related violence alone.
I spent some time in the bible belt. People I worked along side brought handguns to work and it wasn't a big deal. I definitely didn't feel in danger, nor did I feel any safer that there were armed people in the building. However, it was when I was in public places where people were openly carrying side arms that it felt a bit weird. I wasn't in a position to build a level of trust or interact with them in a way to gauge their stability or volatility or what level of threat they presented. Nor did I have the opportunity to demonstrate that I wasn't a threat to them. Unlike people I was working with, who I would talk to and build a collegial relationship and a level of trust with. From that experience it seems quite understandable that American cops appear to be quite aggressive, jumpy and trigger happy. You have absolutely no idea of what the person you are dealing with is capable of and you don't have much time to build any sort of rapport with them.
Only a few quick comments from me but one thing that strikes me about the gun debate in the USA is that there is no middle ground, no compromise, both sides appearing to want complete "victory" in the debate. This means that even the slightest restriction however apparently reasonable it seems to us "outsiders" is shouted down as the thin end of the wedge by the NRA and their supporters. Now I wish I could say that this is unreasonable and irrational scare mongering but in other areas of legislation we regularly see this creep. The most obvious example that springs to mind is the current surveillance culture in all western democracies. What starts out as rational and warranted powers rapidly spiral under their own momentum just look at the various legislation passing before the French and American governments and again proposed by our own newly elected government. "The shadow2001" in relation to your question regarding more freedoms and also expanding on that to different culture I'll give a few examples I'm aware of, one is that in some states you can choose to allow smoking in your own bars and restaurants, there is more freedom in what you can say without risking ending up in front of a judge (there are certain cases in the UK of what I can only consider being an incredibly badly thought through joke in extremely bad taste ending up in a criminal conviction) and of course riding your motorbike without a helmet (state dependant again). I'm sure Jumeriah_johnny will be able to furnish more from his own experiences. As for complete cultural differences on one visit to Louisiana I was walking down the side of the road from our motel to a bar a few hundred metres away and one of the local deputies pulled over to ask why we were walking and not driving as this was apparently suspicious. Once he realised we were British he was perfectly happy to allow us to continue albeit with a warning about the local turtle population residing in the grass. I can't imagine a British police officer being concerned about people walking form a motel to a nearby pub. Another couple of examples come from when I went shopping there. In the mall there was a large department store similar to John lewis and having a brief wander around I stumbled upon the tool section which quite frankly would put the combined departments of Halfords, Screw-fix and Machine Mart to shame, upon talking to one of the staff as I drooled over the selection they apologised about their poor selection and pointed me in the direction of a specialist supplier nearby. I then went to find a few books and discovered that not only was there no bookstore in the entire mall and the nearest place anyone could suggest was a good 30 minutes away. Another example is that where as our out of town shopping uses common car parking I was finding that most of the retail until have their own fenced parking as they fully expect you to drive from one showroom to the one right next door. When I'm shopping in places like that in the Uk I park and then walk between stores, indeed I usually end up in PC world at the end of being dragged in the other stores (Don't worry i'm not buying computer bits, but the Starbucks in there never has a queue). Although these are quite subtle differences they are just the obvious examples that stuck in my mind. Mike
Depends on the rank. There are a lot of high-functioning police officers, but they generally rise up the ranks fairly quickly. The less talented ones stay on patrol. In the UK, things are different. Because police officers are unarmed by default, they rely a lot more on social skill and insight. You need smarter people for that. Dumb coppers don't get far here. It allows bobbies to do their job largely unarmed. See above.
Well, that's kind of a nice example. In the US you have more freedoms --except, apparently, the freedom to walk somewhere. Cultural acceptability is not an indication of freedom.
And they are the ones in a position to do damage. It wouldn't. There are already too many guns in circulation. More restrictive gun laws are not a solution. On culture. I use the definition and I put it in context. You are free to use your own.
Police will at times breach the peace themselves, it happens. They are looking for an excuse. In part for reasons I touched upon in my first post.
So we can agree then that not all police officers are people with low intelligence, low empathy, high aggression, and with weak psychological constitution then? Good. Now let's assume that the more capable officers rise through the ranks to manage and screen out those who are less capable and more volatile. Let's assume that bright people don't hire people with low intelligence, low empathy, high aggression, and with weak psychological constitution. Sure, escalation is. Because the general population totally does not contain people with low intelligence, low empathy, high aggression, and with weak psychological constitution... oh wait, it does. They are more prone to criminal behaviour and they can buy a gun the way you or I would buy a cordless drill. What could possibly go wrong?
That assumes those doing the hiring are bright in the first place, lets instead assume that the screening process isn't working. If that's the case, which I believe it to be, it would put the intelligence among those doing the hiring in question. After all, assuming they worked their way up the ranks they went through the very same screening process. I think the screening process has changed though, and with old officers retiring and new ones coming in I don't see things getting better I see things getting worse. I could be wrong. I hope I'm wrong, but the direction of travel makes that unlikely. Time will tell.
We need to separate between law and legislation. These days police most often enforce legislation, but legislation are not law they are legislation and the police can only enforce them with the public's consent. Meaning, they rely on the public being uniformed and submissive. For a law to be broken a crime must first have been committed, for a crime to have been committed there must be an injured 3rd party. If not... we're talking legislation. People these days are so eager to see more laws and more legislation. What they fail to understand is that when you create more laws you create more crime. This is how you go about creating a police state. You create more laws. We need to get back to natural law and common law. Look. The only relationship we have with government is that of a trust agreement, and the government is in breach of trust! We need to look at it from that perspective. Trust law.
Are you arguing that something as complex as a police force is run by people with low intelligence, low empathy, high aggression, and with weak psychological constitution?
I'm saying that the screening process isn't working which brings these individuals into the force. Now. As older officers retire (who went through the older screening process) and new ones coming in (who went through the new screening process) it leads to that result giving enough time. Yes. Of course. Someone has to fill the ranks of those retiring. It appears we have reached the tipping point now. Again, I could be wrong. I hope I'm wrong, but the direction of travel makes that unlikely.
I don't think you're thinking this one through. Are you arguing that something as complex as a police force could be sustainably run by people with low intelligence, low empathy, high aggression, and with weak psychological constitution?
