Political discussion thread - Progressive Rock Music Forum

Author

Message

Topic Search

Topic Options

Dean

Special Collaborator

Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575

Posted: November 02 2007 at 04:55

very few Russian peasants had guns in 1905 and 1917

What?

Badabec

Forum Senior Member

Joined: November 14 2005
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 1313

Posted: November 02 2007 at 06:28

Rileydog22 wrote:

There is no reason that non-violent citizens shouldn't be allowed to protect themselves or enjoy safely firing their weapons at a local range.

There is: Preventing that they become violent citizens and so murderers. Wink

Schizoid_Man77 wrote:

No, when you take away guns, the government is free to take you over without much of a fight.

Hence communism was so big!

Like Ghost Rider I do not the see any context between guns and communism. Please explain your opinion.

Mesmo a tristeza da gente era mais bela
E além disso se via da janela
Um cantinho de céu e o Redentor

- Antônio Carlos Jobim, Toquinho & Vinícius de Moraes - Carta ao Tom 74

aapatsos

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: November 11 2005
Location: Manchester, UK
Status: Offline
Points: 9226

Posted: November 02 2007 at 11:47

Ghost Rider wrote:

schizoid_man77 wrote:

Football being soccer right?

Those soccer fans in europe trample each other like ants, and mercilessly beat each other, I've seen it a million times on tv.

Yes, every Sunday at least 100 people die all over Europe during football matches..

Seriously, things like the one you describe have happened, but they are NOT the norm. If such a situation happened in the US, with all the firearms going around, there'd very probably be 100 deaths a week as I jokingly said earlier. Perhaps you'd better g put things into perspective before saying things like that.

As a side note, it strikes me as odd that in the US they show things like that on TV when talking about Europe - they usually ignore our existence most of the time.

this is shocking, I am a huge football fan but never heard of 100 people die in football matches
probably, you mean at less known areas of Europe, right?
because I keep track of at least 10 major leagues and nothing has happened recently

stonebeard View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057

Posted: November 02 2007 at 11:57

^ She's being sarcastic, man.

My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want!

Raff

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: July 29 2005
Location: None
Status: Offline
Points: 24429

Posted: November 02 2007 at 13:02

stonebeard wrote:

^ She's being sarcastic, man.

I was indeed... Sorry I didn't manage to convey my meaning in the best possible way, but when I hear such generalisations, I just can't help myself. Wink

Dean

Special Collaborator

Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575

Posted: November 02 2007 at 13:11

Typical!

What?

GoldenSpiral View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: May 27 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3839

Posted: November 02 2007 at 13:29

Badabec wrote:

Rileydog22 wrote:

There is no reason that non-violent citizens shouldn't be allowed to protect themselves or enjoy safely firing their weapons at a local range.

There is: Preventing that they become violent citizens and so murderers. Wink

Schizoid_Man77 wrote:

No, when you take away guns, the government is free to take you over without much of a fight.

Hence communism was so big!

Like Ghost Rider I do not the see any context between guns and communism. Please explain your opinion.

He's referencing the REAL reason the 2nd Amendment was originally made... so the states could keep regulated militias so if the federal government became too powerful, they could overthrow it. One way some communist dictatorships maintain power is by forcefully taking guns away from the people.

Of course these days, you don't see too many regulated state militias. But people still prattle on about how they need to be able to carry a semi-automatic around wherever they go, just in case there's a psychokiller on the loose... makes sense to me.

http://www.myspace.com/altaic
ALTAIC

"Oceans Down You'll Lie"
coming soon

JJLehto

Prog Reviewer

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550

Posted: November 02 2007 at 16:18

It was like I said earlier...the 2nd amendment is outdated, just look at the time it was written in.

I know the constitution was written so it can be interpruted different ways but when I read the 2nd amendment....I see MILITIA. This is a generalization...but its just people who love guns and are using it as justification to have 70 rifles and automatic weapons.

Ghandi 2

Forum Senior Member

Joined: February 17 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1494

Posted: November 02 2007 at 16:58

JJLehto wrote:

I know the constitution was written so it can be interpruted different ways but when I read the 2nd amendment....I see MILITIA. This is a generalization...but its just people who love guns and are using it as justification to have 70 rifles and automatic weapons.

And as long as they aren't using it to attack anyone, what's wrong with that? I don't think people need automatic weapons or extremely high powered rifles, but those are illegal anyway.

GS, there does not need to be a psycho on the loose for there to be a need to protect yourself with a handgun.

GR, anecdotal evidence proves nothing.

And for everyone who says guns=murders, what about Switzerland? It's not proof, either, but I think the issue is more complex than that. Gun control is easier to accomplish completely in Britain because it's an island, so it's much easier to stop illegal guns than it would be in the US.

I know this is a completely biased article, but it cites sources and I thought it [urlhttp://www.gunowners.org/sk0703.htm]was interesting[/url].

aapatsos

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: November 11 2005
Location: Manchester, UK
Status: Offline
Points: 9226

Posted: November 02 2007 at 19:10

Ghost Rider wrote:

stonebeard wrote:

^ She's being sarcastic, man.

I was indeed... Sorry I didn't manage to convey my meaning in the best possible way, but when I hear such generalisations, I just can't help myself. Wink

oups...
I did not pay attention to the post you quoted... and the way you stated your answer Embarrassed

shame on me.... Sleepy

I apologise for any inconvenience brought to the thread Sleepy

(I had to prepare for an interview which was held today, so excuse me, my mind was filled)
now I'm ready to retire... LOL

I no longer deserve to be in PA Unhappy

Edited by aapatsos - November 02 2007 at 19:13

Gamemako

Forum Senior Member

Joined: March 31 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1184

Posted: November 03 2007 at 05:38

Schizoid_Man77 wrote:

No, when you take away guns, the government is free to take you over without much of a fight.

Hence communism was so big!

Like Ghost Rider I do not the see any context between guns and communism. Please explain your opinion.

1. You assume all gun-owners are 1. violent and 2. guns made them that way. That takes a leap of faith so massive the Catholic Church wouldn't dare it.

An object cannot be evil. Ask a gun why it killed some woman and it won't smirk at you and say "the bitch deserved it." But a person might.

Last time I checked (2004 or so), Britain's gun crime rate is rising along with its homicide rate. Problem is, citizens don't own guns.

As for communism and guns, I don't know, but there's a classic quote about the Nazis and gun control that someone here is bound to post eventually.

Furthermore, your anecdotal story about some guy who shot his daughter is pretty silly. You know what would likely have happened otherwise? He'd have knifed or clubbed her to death and it would have been that much worse.

Bluesaga, ownership of a knife doesn't hurt anyone except the people killed by one, right? Holy sh*t, stop the presses, we need to ban knives now!

micky, have you ever been in a fight in your life? Then you know that the effort really isn't particularly relevent.

GR, I'll try to put this in the least insulting way I can: your post is 32 shades of illogical. You first talk about history, then ignore it. There happens to be a much greater correlation between violent histories and violent presents than number of guns and gun crime rates. You act as if you'd get shot at in the United States. Nope, random murders are no more common here than in Europe. The people who get shot in the street are gang members. Living in the middle of a big city with a high crime rate, I often went out for jogs in the middle of the night, alone. Never robbed, never shot, nothing (granted, I'm a young male with a large build and I'm out running, so I don't look like the ideal target -- but I have been stopped by the police before). I have had two friends who were robbed before. Both by knives, not guns.

Now, for Columbine and Virginia Tech, wow. I have a few details about Columbine to add. They used quite a few explosives along the way. Homemade explosives. The alternative to the shooting rampage was just people being blown up instead of blown away. You think these disturbed people would really just walk away and stop if they didn't have guns readily available? Hell no. They'd get guns however they could or use whatever other means (such as explosives).

As for sports, again you show your ignorance. Perhaps you should look up some American football events. People don't get shot, but things do get smashed, just like European football (soccer). It's not any different here. People have guns, they just don't use them because they're pissed off that LSU lost a game.

Edited by Gamemako - November 03 2007 at 05:38

Forgotten Son View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: March 13 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 1356

Posted: November 05 2007 at 14:39

Ghost Rider wrote:

schizoid_man77 wrote:

No, when you take away guns, the government is free to take you over without much of a fight.

Hence communism was so big!

Perhaps you should get your facts straight and avoid sweeping statements of that kind. Communism was big for a series of reasons which have nothing to do with the people having guns or not. History and politics are much more complicated than that, I'm afraid.

Well said Ghost Rider.

darqdean wrote:

very few Russian peasants had guns in 1905 and 1917

Other than the millions strong conscript army, you mean? And then the white and red militias that fought for several years, resulting in as many as 13 million dead.

Ghandi 2 wrote:

Gun control is easier to accomplish completely in Britain because it's an island, so it's much easier to stop illegal guns than it would be in the US.

Theoretically, but Britain would have to turn into even more of a police state. It's no easier to prevent guns from entering the country than drugs, both have seen increases of late and in large part of linked.

Edited by Forgotten Son - November 05 2007 at 14:55

paolo.beenees View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: March 30 2007
Location: Italy
Status: Offline
Points: 1136

Posted: November 05 2007 at 14:51

I know a gun can't kill on its own will; of course there's always the hand of a person behind it. Nevertheless guns can be dangerous.

If I need a particular kind of medicine I can get it only with the written prescription of a doctor. Risky chemical stuff is not at anybody's hand. Sometimes even information is kept dark for security matters. In many US States you can't drink beer under 21...

... but you can buy a gun everywhere

Slartibartfast View Drop Down

Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630

Posted: November 05 2007 at 14:52

GoldenSpiral wrote:

Schizoid_Man77 wrote:

No, when you take away guns, the government is free to take you over without much of a fight.

Hence communism was so big!

Like Ghost Rider I do not the see any context between guns and communism. Please explain your opinion.

The actual reason the second amendment was added to constitution of the United States was because we had no natonal guard and the citizens were the only line of home defense at that time. Of course, now that most of our national guard has been sent over to Iraq, maybe we're in need of a new national guard. What kind of wepons should we be equiped with? Clearly muskets are outdated. Perhaps personal tactical nuclear weapons shoud be allowed? Frankly I don't have anything against personal firearms for self defense. But the NRA is out of control in this country as are most big money lobbyists. As much as the average citizens are oppressed here, a communist dictatorship wouldn't be much worse. Better to be oppressesed by a capitalist sytem than a communist one? It really depends on whether you are in tight with the oppressors, eh?

Edited by Slartibartfast - November 05 2007 at 15:03

Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...

GoldenSpiral View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: May 27 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3839

Posted: November 05 2007 at 15:34

Ghandi 2,

Yeah, Switzerland is great... but this is America. people are DUMB here.

http://www.myspace.com/altaic
ALTAIC

"Oceans Down You'll Lie"
coming soon

rileydog22 View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: August 24 2005
Location: New Jersey
Status: Offline
Points: 8844

Posted: November 05 2007 at 19:45

Gamemako wrote:

Schizoid_Man77 wrote:

No, when you take away guns, the government is free to take you over without much of a fight.

Hence communism was so big!

Like Ghost Rider I do not the see any context between guns and communism. Please explain your opinion.

Best post in this thread so far.

Clap

Dean

Special Collaborator

Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575

Posted: November 05 2007 at 21:11

Gamemako wrote:

1. You assume all gun-owners are 1. violent and 2. guns made them that way. That takes a leap of faith so massive the Catholic Church wouldn't dare it.

No one has made that assumption.

Gamemako wrote:

An object cannot be evil. Ask a gun why it killed some woman and it won't smirk at you and say "the bitch deserved it." But a person might.

A nonsensical statement. A gun is a weapon - it has no other purpose.

(I don't think anyone in this thread has made the "guns are evil" statement, but I haven't read back every page to check.)

Gamemako wrote:

Last time I checked (2004 or so), Britain's gun crime rate is rising along with its homicide rate.

Number of Homicides in the UK (the peak in 2003 was down to one man - Dr Harold Shipman and his 200+ poisoning victims):

source: http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/page40.asp

The trend has definitely been downwards since then.

Gamemako wrote:

Problem is, citizens don't own guns.

UK citizens can own guns.

Gamemako wrote:

As for communism and guns, I don't know, but there's a classic quote about the Nazis and gun control that someone here is bound to post eventually.

Furthermore, your anecdotal story about some guy who shot his daughter is pretty silly. You know what would likely have happened otherwise? He'd have knifed or clubbed her to death and it would have been that much worse.

Who knows - it's pure supposition, she may have been able to run away, she may not, but no one can out-run a bullet.

Gamemako wrote:

Bluesaga, ownership of a knife doesn't hurt anyone except the people killed by one, right? Holy sh*t, stop the presses, we need to ban knives now!

No you don't, but you do need to control them better. There is no justification for carrying a knife of any sort, let alone a 6 inch hunting knife.

Gamemako wrote:

micky, have you ever been in a fight in your life? Then you know that the effort really isn't particularly relevent.

A gun can kill at a distance, you don't get drive-by strangulations.

Gamemako wrote:

GR, I'll try to put this in the least insulting way I can: your post is 32 shades of illogical. You first talk about history, then ignore it. There happens to be a much greater correlation between violent histories and violent presents than number of guns and gun crime rates. You act as if you'd get shot at in the United States. Nope, random murders are no more common here than in Europe. The people who get shot in the street are gang members. Living in the middle of a big city with a high crime rate, I often went out for jogs in the middle of the night, alone. Never robbed, never shot, nothing (granted, I'm a young male with a large build and I'm out running, so I don't look like the ideal target -- but I have been stopped by the police before). I have had two friends who were robbed before. Both by knives, not guns.

The main use for a weapon in any crime is intimidation, not to inflict injury.

Gamemako wrote:

Now, for Columbine and Virginia Tech, wow. I have a few details about Columbine to add. They used quite a few explosives along the way. Homemade explosives. The alternative to the shooting rampage was just people being blown up instead of blown away. You think these disturbed people would really just walk away and stop if they didn't have guns readily available? Hell no. They'd get guns however they could or use whatever other means (such as explosives).

Columbine was an exception in that it was two people, not one.

Gamemako wrote:

As for sports, again you show your ignorance. Perhaps you should look up some American football events. People don't get shot, but things do get smashed, just like European football (soccer). It's not any different here. People have guns, they just don't use them because they're pissed off that LSU lost a game.

The sports comment was sarcastic rebuff to a generalised remark about soccer violence. Violence at football matches in Europe is not common at all and is grossly exagerated in the press.

Edited by darqdean - November 05 2007 at 21:13

What?

Shakespeare View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: July 18 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 7744

Posted: November 05 2007 at 21:18

"People should be able to protect themselves, and should be able to own a gun"

yet

"If people don't have a gun, they'll find other means to kill someone."

Why can't you defend yourself by these other means?

micky

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46833

Posted: November 05 2007 at 21:34

nice response Dean.... started to reply... and deleted it... this isn't the place for it.

One thing I will say though on the subject

guns don't make people violent, guns make violent people more deadly..

The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip

Gamemako

Forum Senior Member

Joined: March 31 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1184

Posted: November 06 2007 at 00:04

darqdean wrote:

Gamemako wrote:

1. You assume all gun-owners are 1. violent and 2. guns made them that way. That takes a leap of faith so massive the Catholic Church wouldn't dare it.

No one has made that assumption.

Check the post I responded to.

Gamemako wrote:

An object cannot be evil. Ask a gun why it killed some woman and it won't smirk at you and say "the bitch deserved it." But a person might.

A nonsensical statement. A gun is a weapon - it has no other purpose.

(I don't think anyone in this thread has made the "guns are evil" statement, but I haven't read back every page to check.)

So is a bow, but what about archery in an age when bows are no longer used to kill humans? Or a javelin, as used in the Olympic games?

Gamemako wrote:

Last time I checked (2004 or so), Britain's gun crime rate is rising along with its homicide rate.

Number of Homicides in the UK (the peak in 2003 was down to one man - Dr Harold Shipman and his 200+ poisoning victims):

source: http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/page40.asp

The trend has definitely been downwards since then.

Hmm, seems to have reached a peak in 2003/2004 if you don't include the skewing from the previous year. That is, I was more or less right when I said '04. Just needed to get up-to-date since.

But more importantly, check other figures. Violent crime, for instance:

http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/page66.asp

Not any more impressive.

Gamemako wrote:

Problem is, citizens don't own guns.

UK citizens can own guns.

If they have a good reason approved by the government, meaning you're either an established hunter or you're not going to get one. Foreigners, of course, have a lovely time getting a license (a friend of mine who recently graduated as a civil engineer moved there working with an American company in a foreign operation and was not able to get a license for his hunting rifle), and handguns are entirely, 100% illegal. Britain's pistol shooting team can't even train in the country. Pump shotguns are illegal. 10-gauge shotguns are illegal. There are a massive list of illegal weapons, and they're now attempting to make it larger as well.

Who knows - it's pure supposition, she may have been able to run away, she may not, but no one can out-run a bullet.

Which assumes that she saw him coming, had an escape, saw the knife, and had anticipated that he was going to use the knife to kill her. And that she would outrun him (unlikely) or escape otherwise. A more likely scenario? He approaches her in a room where she has no escape but through him. Dwellings are not usually built with escape routes in mind. Look around your own place. In the room you're sitting in now, could you get away? I certainly couldn't -- there's one entrance into this room and bars on the windows.

Furthermore, if there is an exit, there's a decent chance an inexperienced and emotional shooter will miss the moving target (and he's not going to hit if he's chasing and shooting unless he's just really lucky).

They say 68% of homicides in the U.S. are perpetrated by guns. 32% are not, and that alone is more than the British statistic (which includes gun crimes as well -- removing guns, you have about 1.8 versus 1.3 per 100K population). Around 3/4 of gun crimes in the U.S. are committed by illegal weapons. Barring those, you have less than 1 per 100K in gun murders. It's the illegal weapons that have the greatest impact in the United States -- they account for more than half of all murders.

Gamemako wrote:

Bluesaga, ownership of a knife doesn't hurt anyone except the people killed by one, right? Holy sh*t, stop the presses, we need to ban knives now!

No you don't, but you do need to control them better. There is no justification for carrying a knife of any sort, let alone a 6 inch hunting knife.

This made me laugh. I carried my chef's knife with me to a friend's the other night (we had a barbecue). A person in my high school district several years ago (back when I was a senior in high school) was nearly expelled for having a machete in the tool box in the back of his truck. Of course, he had it because he was a landscaper. Half of the people I work with carry pocket knives with them all the time (4 inches at least) for utility purposes -- cutting plastic ties, for instance.

There are plenty of reasons to have a knife. I could go on and on about it.

Gamemako wrote:

micky, have you ever been in a fight in your life? Then you know that the effort really isn't particularly relevent.

A gun can kill at a distance, you don't get drive-by strangulations.

But you do get people knifed in the street and in other places, like Tupoc. That's where the old "cloak and dagger" phrase comes from -- assassinations with a knife in the street (the cloak would be used to hide the action as well as the knife).

The main use for a weapon in any crime is intimidation, not to inflict injury.

When I last visited the USA I was warned (by the locals) of neighbourhoods to avoid at night, and some to be careful in during the day. To be fair, I can think of a few areas of London I would warn visitors of too.

It doesn't matter where you live; you can always find some place worthy of disdain. Not to impose, but I'd wager you've probably never been to those areas yourself, either. It's usually a word-of-mouth thing.

Columbine was an exception in that it was two people, not one.

Uhh, how is that relevant?

The sports comment was sarcastic rebuff to a generalised remark about soccer violence. Violence at football matches in Europe is not common at all and is grossly exagerated in the press.

The point is that the countries share the same occasional sport-related excesses, and the availability of guns doesn't have any effect on the outcome.

I'd also like to point out two things which micky so eloquently noted. First, guns do make it easier for people (especially women) to commit murder.

Shakespeare makes an awesome point because of things noted previously. First, most murders in the United States are not committed by registered firearms. So you'd literally be bringing a knife to a gunfight. Second, a 55-kilo 155cm female can't defend herself with a knife from an assailant who weighs in at 90 kilo and 190cm. It doesn't work too well.

http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/page27.asp

That said, the vast majority of non-crime-related (gangs, drug dealing, et cetera) homicides as well as rapes are committed by acquaintances or family of the victim.

Some Brit will have to tell whether tasers are legal there, but there are so many pushes to ban all other kinds of ~~nonlethal~~ less-lethal weaponry, I'd be surprised to see them legal. Fear effects weapon policy.

Oh, the other thing micky noted? Nobody here is going to be convinced of anything but the way they live now. I grew up with guns -- my father was a naval captain -- and I've lived around guns my entire life. In the 'States, I go target shooting every once in a while for fun. I don't fear them: I've yet to lose a friend to a gun, but I've seen several fall to alcohol and cars. But that's not going to lead me to seek prohibition and mandatory public transport. Not to be condescending (as it will inexorably sound), but I won't let fear dictate my beliefs. And so, I certainly won't support banning guns. Others grew up in an area where firearms were verboten, and would certainly not ever consider what it would mean to have them otherwise (an illogical fear of what could be from my viewpoint, and a logical conclusion from theirs). We're all products of our respective environments.

Edited by Gamemako - November 06 2007 at 00:07