USA: Why So Much (Gun) Violence?

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
41

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
The Price of Freedom:

If a citizenry has no weapons, then a government can abuse the citizens with impunity. Democracy came into full flower when cheap and readily available guns came about. Let’s face it: humans love to exert power over defenseless others. Hard to abuse your people though, if they can shoot the abusers in the face.

The gun, especially the handgun, is the greatest liberator in the history of the world.

I really don’t feel like getting into the gun-rights fight today, but HH I want to know why you think it is the handgun and not the military pattern rifle that carries your distinction as the liberator? If the cops come over to violate my liberty my handgun isn’t going to stop them, my AK is.

mike

The handgun is the easiest for civilians to acquire and hide. Imagine if every Jew in Nazi-occupied Europe pulled out a handgun and shot one Nazi bastard in the face as they came to round them up. But of course, guns were illegal…

Handguns make oppressive regimes think twice. Sure the cops can mow an individual; what if there were, say, 20 million to mow down?

Military might is all well and good but as we’re discovering in Iraq, one individual with a simple weapon can do a lot. (This is why I said we should have carpet bombed the place.)

[/quote]

Yes, but as Orwell said,“That rifle hanging on the wallof the working-class flat or labourer’s cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.”

HH we aren’t arguing about the value of the gun; we’re in perfect agreement there. I just don’t think that you make a good case for the handgun. Handguns really serve one valid purpose and that is to fight your way back to your rifle. A handgun doesn’t keep a squad of armed men at bay, but a semi-automatic rifle can. Handguns may well be more concealable, but that helps more in the defense of self against criminals than in the defense from government.

mike

42

[quote]vroom wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
There are a lot of reasons for this, including racism, illegitimacy, permissive attitudes ushered in by the Sixties, the de facto racist nature of the “War on Drugs,” etc. Sloth is noting a statistical fact, you’re being a demagogue. That’s a great way to stifle debate and make this forum stupider. Congrats.

Get a life.

This “statistical fact” is often gleefully reported by those with racist attitudes.

Instead of stifling debate, I was suggesting that one should look further than simply looking for statistics based on race. [/quote]

No you weren’t, you were sarcastically implying he was a racist with your “believe it or not” comment. Common tactic of the left, when this issue or a host of others come up, although Bush and co. are using it now to demonize opponents of their immigration bill. You’re in good company.

43

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
The Price of Freedom:

If a citizenry has no weapons, then a government can abuse the citizens with impunity. Democracy came into full flower when cheap and readily available guns came about. Let’s face it: humans love to exert power over defenseless others. Hard to abuse your people though, if they can shoot the abusers in the face.

The gun, especially the handgun, is the greatest liberator in the history of the world.

I really don’t feel like getting into the gun-rights fight today, but HH I want to know why you think it is the handgun and not the military pattern rifle that carries your distinction as the liberator? If the cops come over to violate my liberty my handgun isn’t going to stop them, my AK is.

mike

The handgun is the easiest for civilians to acquire and hide. Imagine if every Jew in Nazi-occupied Europe pulled out a handgun and shot one Nazi bastard in the face as they came to round them up. But of course, guns were illegal…

Handguns make oppressive regimes think twice. Sure the cops can mow an individual; what if there were, say, 20 million to mow down?

Military might is all well and good but as we’re discovering in Iraq, one individual with a simple weapon can do a lot. (This is why I said we should have carpet bombed the place.)

Yes, but as Orwell said,“That rifle hanging on the wallof the working-class flat or labourer’s cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.”

HH we aren’t arguing about the value of the gun; we’re in perfect agreement there. I just don’t think that you make a good case for the handgun. Handguns really serve one valid purpose and that is to fight your way back to your rifle. A handgun doesn’t keep a squad of armed men at bay, but a semi-automatic rifle can. Handguns may well be more concealable, but that helps more in the defense of self against criminals than in the defense from government.

mike[/quote]

They both have their plusses and minusses. What I like about handguns is that they are not obvious in a crowd. 100 people in a crowd could be carrying and we’d not know it. Neither does the squad of storm troopers marching toward that crowd.

Handguns are also better for women, if they get training. Women can handle and are more comfortable with a smaller weapon. Look at Wyoming giving women voting rights in 1867: if you can shoot, you get to vote.

Guns are empowering. We can agree on that, for sure.

44

[quote]lixy wrote:

Indeed, in societies with relatively uniform distribution of wealth, or at least within cultures that don’t exacerbate the gap by constantly rubbing the nose of the poor in it (ever watch MTV’s cribs?), a young kid is less likely to get worked up and channel his/her impotence by sticking molten lead in other people’s flesh.

Good post.[/quote]

But what conclusion do you draw from this?

Because you do not want them to do the violence themselves, you want the government to steal for them?

45

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
How does the non-uniform distribution of wealth explain the Columbine, Virginia Tech incidents? Those murderers were not poor lower class citizens yet they used guns to kill. Explain that one. [/quote]

Luckily, such incidents are rather exceptions. Put into the big picture, the casualties of Columbine or V-Tech melt in the sea of other homocides.

The topic is very vast, and I’m sure piles of papers and doctoral dissertations treat the psychopatic aspect of those crimes and distinguishes them from the mass.

Judging from his statements, the V-Tech guy was pretty pissed at the public display of wealth of some brats in his school. It’s probably not the root cause, but it sure acted as a catalyst.

46

[quote]orion wrote:
But what conclusion do you draw from this?

Because you do not want them to do the violence themselves, you want the government to steal for them?[/quote]

Orion,

For the very last time, I am against governments. I can understand that you’re mad at socialists, but take it up with them, not me.

I don’t think you would have the moral higher ground though…

47

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
No you weren’t, you were sarcastically implying he was a racist with your “believe it or not” comment. Common tactic of the left, when this issue or a host of others come up, although Bush and co. are using it now to demonize opponents of their immigration bill. You’re in good company.[/quote]

Dude, I’m not sure you get it, you seem a bit dense.

It is not a matter of using statistics and so forth, it is a matter of properly attributing the reasons. The original language gave the appearance of attributing the issues to race, which is not an appropriate way to state it.

It’s simply a matter of taking care when discussing subjects so that they are not easily taken the wrong way by others.

I know the phrase you’ll probably want to use now is PC police, but again, you’d be wrong. It’s not that a subject, whether or not desirable, can’t be discussed, it’s that some care needs to be taken when doing so.

I’m sorry if you don’t have the language skills to ascertain the difference, but that would probably be your own fault if so.

Learn the fucking language and you’ll be able to state anything you need to state without clumsily appearing to make conclusions you don’t intend.

48

[quote]lixy wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
How does the non-uniform distribution of wealth explain the Columbine, Virginia Tech incidents? Those murderers were not poor lower class citizens yet they used guns to kill. Explain that one.

Luckily, such incidents are rather exceptions. Put into the big picture, the casualties of Columbine or V-Tech melt in the sea of other homocides.

The topic is very vast, and I’m sure piles of papers and doctoral dissertations treat the psychopatic aspect of those crimes and distinguishes them from the mass.

Judging from his statements, the V-Tech guy was pretty pissed at the public display of wealth of some brats in his school. It’s probably not the root cause, but it sure acted as a catalyst.[/quote]

He was also sexually frustrated as hell.

Is it not unfair that some people have more sex that they can handle whereas others have none?

Is it not an insult to the very idea of equality that some people look good, know how to dress and how to talk women into bed if others have no fucking clue?

Should we not intervene, maybe socialise women and force them to have sex with otherwise potentially dangerous men?

49

[quote]lixy wrote:
orion wrote:
But what conclusion do you draw from this?

Because you do not want them to do the violence themselves, you want the government to steal for them?

Orion,

For the very last time, I am against governments. I can understand that you’re mad at socialists, but take it up with them, not me.

I don’t think you would have the moral higher ground though…[/quote]

I do not need the moral higher ground as long as reality is on my side.

As a self-declared libertarian socialist, you have yet to explan how you socialist nirvana will come to pass without forcing people into it.

50

[quote]orion wrote:
Should we not intervene, maybe socialise women and force them to have sex with otherwise potentially dangerous men?
[/quote]

Now that’s funny.

Maybe society shouldn’t be so geared towards instant gratification… so that people are more able to handle having their urges denied.

Maybe parents should teach their own children some coping skills, a sense of pride, or other healthy ways to deal with the problems of teen and pre-workforce life.

Maybe young people need a bit more compassion towards outsiders. Or, maybe a bit more reality needs to project into the lives of students, who generally worry about a lot of things that in the long run are not very important.

Maybe double income families are not a conducive environment for the propagation of values and judgment.

I’m sure there are a ton of potentially contributing factors.

Be clear though, that identifying items that may contribute does not imply that there are excuses! It doesn’t become okay due to whatever issues may be ascribed, though it may become somewhat understood… a necessary step if one wants to find ways to reduce or prevent such tragic events.

51

Poverty is a poor explanation for high crime rates. My dad (and many others of his generation) grew up dirt poor and never killed anyone. He improved his life by hard work and ambition, which are two things that seem to be lacking in high crime areas. The entitlement mentality so prevalent in low income/high crime areas is the main culprit.

52

i lived in Japan for years and gun violence was near zero because it is illegal there for people to have them. occasionally a yakuza would pop some caps to scare people to extort money, but to a large extent, it is also prohibitively difficult to acquire a gun there if you are not a cop, a wildlife ranger (for culling/hunting) or be part of the self-defense force (the military).

floripa

53

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

Lorisco, you’re dead on with this. I agree 100%

I have spoken with gang members who have told me this. “We won’t work unless we get 20 dollars an hour.” “We’re not working at McDonalds for minimum wage.” But you can’t get 20 dollar an hour jobs without an education, and these people piss away a free education. They would rather sell drugs and kill themselves, thinking they are taking some sort of short cut. It’s a short cut to the grave.

But one question on all of this:

How does the non-uniform distribution of wealth explain the Columbine, Virginia Tech incidents? Those murderers were not poor lower class citizens yet they used guns to kill. Explain that one.

[/quote]

I think there is a big difference between killing people because you have a warped sense of entitlement verse you are just freakin nuts! Columbine and Virginia Tech were examples of people with mental issues, not social issues.

54

[quote]orion wrote:
He was also sexually frustrated as hell. [/quote]

I’m only considering the few bites I saw from his public statements. Plus, I’m sure he could have released himself one way or the other. Ranging from picking up the ugliest girls to masturbating. But we’re completely off-topic here.

Huh? You’re busting my balls, right?

[quote]Is it not an insult to the very idea of equality that some people look good, know how to dress and how to talk women into bed if others have no fucking clue?

Should we not intervene, maybe socialise women and force them to have sex with otherwise potentially dangerous men?
[/quote]

Yep, you’ve completely lost it.

The way people look is dictated by God/nature. And the solution to your so-called problem has been found a long time ago: Marriage!

55

[quote]florianopolis wrote:
i lived in Japan for years and gun violence was near zero because it is illegal there for people to have them. occasionally a yakuza would pop some caps to scare people to extort money, but to a large extent, it is also prohibitively difficult to acquire a gun there if you are not a cop, a wildlife ranger (for culling/hunting) or be part of the self-defense force (the military).

floripa[/quote]

I still don’t see why gun violence even matters. Is a murder worse because a gun was used? Is rape not a bad thing because the guy uses a knife? I’ve been part of a group trying to get concealed carry laws to be honored on my college campus but as expected have met serious resistance.

Many would rather see my girl get raped than the rapist get shot. Even if they don’t believe that, had my girl shot the rapist they would chalk it up as an act of gun violence, an accurate but grossly unfair assertion.

It isn’t the gun violence that counts, it is the total violent crime that matters. If you think guns are to blame for that, then argue THAT point instead.

56

[quote]TornadoTommy wrote:
Poverty is a poor explanation for high crime rates. My dad (and many others of his generation) grew up dirt poor and never killed anyone. He improved his life by hard work and ambition, which are two things that seem to be lacking in high crime areas. The entitlement mentality so prevalent in low income/high crime areas is the main culprit.[/quote]

So what’s rationale do you have to explain the figures? Is it genetic?

57

[quote]TornadoTommy wrote:
Poverty is a poor explanation for high crime rates. My dad (and many others of his generation) grew up dirt poor and never killed anyone. He improved his life by hard work and ambition, which are two things that seem to be lacking in high crime areas. The entitlement mentality so prevalent in low income/high crime areas is the main culprit.[/quote]

Exactly right!

The US with such an extensive welfare program has created generations of people that have no work ethic. They feel they are somehow entitled to money just because they are here, not because of the relative value they have to offer society.

And I know this will piss off some people, but it is predominately the Democrats who use this sense of entitlement to try and get votes every single election. They perpetuate the “something for nothing” mentality and blame those who do work for the plight of those who do not.

58

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
I still don’t see why gun violence even matters. Is a murder worse because a gun was used? [/quote]

Because a child or an old person could easily kill with a gun.

Because using a gun gives the victim no chance of fighting back.

Because you could shoot someone from long distances.

…

59

[quote]lixy wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
I still don’t see why gun violence even matters. Is a murder worse because a gun was used?

Because a child or an old person could easily kill with a gun.

Because using a gun gives the victim no chance of fighting back.

Because you could shoot someone from long distances.

…[/quote]

A child or old person can kill with a knife.

The victim can have a gun, there problem solved.

I could use a bow to kill at long distance too.

60

[quote]lixy wrote:
orion wrote:
He was also sexually frustrated as hell.

I’m only considering the few bites I saw from his public statements. Plus, I’m sure he could have released himself one way or the other. Ranging from picking up the ugliest girls to masturbating. But we’re completely off-topic here.

Is it not unfair that some people have more sex that they can handle whereas others have none?

Huh? You’re busting my balls, right?

Is it not an insult to the very idea of equality that some people look good, know how to dress and how to talk women into bed if others have no fucking clue?

Should we not intervene, maybe socialise women and force them to have sex with otherwise potentially dangerous men?

Yep, you’ve completely lost it.

The way people look is dictated by God/nature. And the solution to your so-called problem has been found a long time ago: Marriage![/quote]

Excusez-moi,

the topic of different looks and if beauty should not be socialised as well was not brought up by me but by your intellectual ancestors.

So were the solutions I mentioned.

I remember reading that intelligence, which hardly differs from beauty in the way it is dictated by nature, should in essence be socialised as well in one of the links you put up.

So how is the abililty to make money different then looks or brains?

If we want equality here, why don`t we want it there?

If one frustration is not an excuse, why is the other?

You are familiar with Houellebecq?s idea that the sexual revolution ended religiously framed sexual socialism and now the free market decides who gets how much sex, which means that some get a lot and others next to nothing?

And what the hell makes you think that someone that cannot get laid in College will find someone to marry him?