Quote
Manlove

Quote
$tevie
Obviously, you cannot read for comprehension. You have a lot of nerve calling anyone else an idiot.

What precisely do you think I am unable to comprehend? And yes, Hal is being an idiot.
I am a little concerned by the apparent inability of some of the people here to be flexible in their thinking, but apart form Avenger, who seems like a total moron, I have not name called until people were rude. At which point, they deserve what they get called.

I think most here understand your point, but just don't agree with it.

---

MR/F Guestmap: [www.mapservices.org]

Quote
Manlove
I don't know why except possibly that the American political system has shifted so far to the right that "this den of lefties" is actually more conservative and generally right-wing than they think they are.

Could be . . .

But I have to ask:

"You lot . . ." are you British, or have you just sucked up Lord Sugar and The Apprentice U.K. (as have I?)

---

MR/F Guestmap: [www.mapservices.org]

Quote
rgG
Ok, I am done. It is clear that a reasonable discussion is not what the OP wants. Sorry.

I'm with you. Another lost cause in trying to have a civilized, intellectual discussion.

Plus his entire premise rests on Martin being the victim.

But with the limited evidence that has been released, either party is plausible as the attacker.

Who is legally responsible depends on who started the _physical_ fight, but we'll likely never _know_ who attacked first.

Martin was the victim.

Quote
Dennis S
Martin was the victim.

And you know this how?

---

Comedy Central: Best news channel that isn't a news channel.

Fox News: Best comedy channel that isn't a comedy channel.

Are we trying to redefine victim now?

A person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action

Victim implies innocence in common parlance. Anybody who gets killed may not be a victim.

Yep, if Martin started the physical confrontation, he's not a victim.

Instead he would be the perpetrator killed in the commission of a crime.

Look for two very different narratives at trial.

Unless Zimmerman obtains pre-trial relief via "Stand Your Ground."

Quote
freeradical

Why some denizens of this side feed the trolls is beyond me...

Hal, I apologise for my bellicosity.
Black, you are right, few understand and few to none agree. I will back down.
To all who jumped the bandwagon and felt that I'd somehow personally affronted them, well, I certainly did not intend to when I posted my question. Pops, you were fairly rude also, but I am sorry for offending or angering anyone.

I learned something about the American Legal System, via a video and an authoritative post on this specific subject by Ca Bob. I also learned how a general, albeit mac-specific sample feels about guns and culpability.

Thank you all for a..ride.
I am English. I have shot rifles whilst at school- I was a marksman for our Cadet unit. I have never shot anyone in anger and nor do I own a gun. If however, someone was trying to kill or hurt my wife or daughter, I would do whatever it took to stop them.
The law at that point could do whatever it felt it needed to do with me.
I am not a troll. I am a FREEMAN!! jk

"Do you really think that we're all crazy and you're being rational?"
And lastly from me, no Hal of course I don't think you all crazy (other than by virtue of being Americans) (kidding), but I do feel from having lived here for 15 years that you are all a bit blase´ about guns.
Do I think I was being entirely rational throughout the course of the post, no, probably not, but I do think that a relatively outside perspective on issues such as guns could be useful for anyone. And my perspective is definitely outside the mainstream!

Again, sorry to offend, I just don't play by the rules much and hence tend to step on toes.

Definition of victim:

Noun:

1. A person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action.

[fficial&client=firefox-a" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" >www.google.com]

OK, since the thread owner (and a strange monicker it is) decided to ask a complex and difficult question, I'll play too. Suppose that minority citizens had been armed in the days after the Civil War and into the beginning of the 20th century. Would the @#$%& and the Jim Crow system been able to survive at the level it did, and would suppression of human rights been as effective as it was?

This is kind of the mirror (even though it didn't happen at the time) to the right wing, white wing argument. It's a curious thing, but the fringe part of the gun owners are always talking about their Constitutional rights with the strong implication that gun ownership allows the mass of citizens to protect themselves against an overly authoritarian central (or state) government. They seem to fantasize about socialism and communism rather than right wing fascism, but a gun's a gun, and it could be used against any kind of overbearing authority provided that enough people felt rebellious enough to shield the rebels. To make things doubly ironic, it is obvious that the white wing (pun intended) meant not only to protect itself from an overbearing government, but from its own minority citizens as well. In many cases, it seems to have been the case that enforcing racial segregation was the more serious motive.

But ignoring for the moment the really evil side of gun ownership and its association with the white supremacy movement, there is the point that an armed citizenry is harder to round up and transport to reeducation camps. So there may be something to be said for the insanity which I refer to as the American sickness -- close to universal ownership of firearms, such that the one percent or so of the population who are truly weird and sicko can do great damage, and another couple of percent who might use a firearm just out of opportunism.

In short, we can kill each other in great numbers for crime or just for sport, but we can't be conquered and subdued by our own people, not if they want to leave most of us alive.

In historical fact, the protection of minority rights by indigenous gun ownership did not occur. At that level, radical reconstruction of the post-Civil-War south failed to protect its newly minted citizens.

And here's another point, which is somewhat of a change of direction. I think that if you are going to talk about gun owners in the US, then you need to understand that you are talking about 3 or 4 substantially different types of people and reasons for owning guns. I realize that the following may seem strange to folks who haven't experienced close hand the different kinds of gun ownership here, but I would argue the following: There are gun collectors just like there are butterfly collectors and coin collectors and collectors of antique swords. Some of them enjoy target shooting and skeet shooting, and some of them less so. I've known some, and I don't know of any of them who made a big point about the right to concealed carry or any of that. For one thing, a lot of gun collection involves rifles of historical interest, old military weapons that have military history associated with them, and even pistols that are kept clean and shiny for display. They have to be cleaned and oiled, just like collector automobiles.

Then there are people who keep a gun in the house with the idea that it is the last and final element of self-protection. I've read arguments that the appropriate weapon is a shot gun, and that the sound of chambering a round is enough to deter most criminals. I suspect that a lot of this imagery is mostly fantasy, since burglers for the most part make a strong effort to find a house that has neither a human nor a dog at home. There is probably some real deterrence in the American system of freely available ownership of rifles and shotguns, since (we are told) there are more break-ins in the UK where the residents are home -- since the burgler is less likely to find an armed inhabitant, it is safer to commit a break in even in the presence of the residents.

Then there are the crooks and gang members who carry guns while knowing it is against the law. Their law breaking is part of their life style, community, and culture, and a term in prison is sort of a coming of age ritual for them. What's interesting is that we have seen a decrease in random crimes against the public that has been pretty steady for the past ten years or so. Nobody has a sure fire answer to why this is. I suspect that some of it involves the fact that numerous states passed and enforce "three strikes and you're out" laws. In California, the second conviction for a violent felony (after doing time for the first) gets you a substantially longer sentence. The third strike is a life term. It is extremely obvious that professional criminals understand the 3 strikes system, resent it terribly, and for the most part bend their behavior to a certain extent. In any case, we have seen a substantial decline in crimes like armed robberies of stores, murders, and other serious felonies.

Finally, there are the scared types like Zimmerman -- but a major characteristic of right wing authoritarians is their exaggerated fear, so we can classify a lot of gun carrying dudes in the same way -- and they seem to carry pistols in some ritualized way that deals with their underlying fear and their general sense of resentment. Statistically they tend to be more racially polarized (or just plain racist) which accounts for the ethnicity of Zimmerman's victim. I think we spend a lot of rhetorical energy on this group, when in fact it is less of a concern than the criminal gangs. It is true that there is the occassional Zimmerman type atrocity, but they are relatively uncommon, which is why this case has gotten so much press coverage. And I think it is obvious that a substantial fraction of this sort of thing represents the racist impulse carried to an extreme. But if you compare the number of gang related shootings to the Zimmermans, it's not even close.

Here's the homocide blog from the Los Angeles Times website for the week of June 2-9.

[projects.latimes.com]

It shows 15 violent deaths, mostly by gunshot, and a couple or so by stabbing. There are a couple of killings where some clear cut motive seems to exist, such as a domestic quarrel, and one case where a couple of men beat a club bouncer to death because he excluded them from the club. Most of the remainder appear to be gang related, and one involves a Latino who didn't know enough not to wear a purple shirt and seems to have been killed randomly by a gang member whose enemies wear purple. These killings seem to be spread over the ten million people who live in LA County, which would come to an average rate of about 7 homocides per hundred thousand people per year, a rate not too different from other civilized countries, but horrifying nonetheless.

In other words, it isn't the more or less normal guy who has a bit of a chip on his shoulder who is the main problem. A guy like Zimmerman is that type, and he killed somebody, but meanwhile we have people dying by the dozens in every month of the year, and it's being done by people who don't care a whit for the Constitution or freedom of expression, and a large fraction of them will eventually end up doing life terms in the state prison system. For these people, the gun really is just a tool of domestic terrorism, and not a fetish object. Guns are bought and sold on the street. The gun that killed my friend Laurence was later sold by the killer to a stranger for $50, as the killer stated in his confession.

Quote
Manlove
I have shot rifles whilst at school- I was a marksman for our Cadet unit. I have never shot anyone in anger and nor do I own a gun.

So you held a loaded weapon and practiced to the point of being an expert, yet you never killed anybody.

Why have these skills if you aren't going to use them?

Quote
Lux Interior

Quote
Manlove
I have shot rifles whilst at school- I was a marksman for our Cadet unit. I have never shot anyone in anger and nor do I own a gun.

So you held a loaded weapon and practiced to the point of being an expert, yet you never killed anybody.

Why have these skills if you aren't going to use them?

Switched to Nunchucks and throwing stars?

Quote
Manlove
If however, someone was trying to kill or hurt my wife or daughter, I would do whatever it took to stop them.
The law at that point could do whatever it felt it needed to do with me.

So after thousands of words and dozens of exchanges you end it by saying something that could have been lifted straight from an NRA publication? You'd like this for your signature,

"Better tried by 12 than carried by six".

EDIT:

I think I can sell you that 38.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/17/2012 09:35AM by Avenger.

Again, this is a misrepresentation of the facts.

We know why he and his wife obtained CCW licenses - it wasn't for fear of humans, rather on the recommendation of an animal control officer who didn't think pepper spray worked quickly enough on dogs.

As for whether or not is was an 'atrocity' it all comes down to who physically attacked first.

If Zimmerman, the best he can hope for is manslaughter.

If Martin, then he bears full legal liability for the outcome, and would certainly not be considered a 'victim'.

Quote
Ca Bob
Finally, there are the scared types like Zimmerman -- but a major characteristic of right wing authoritarians is their exaggerated fear, so we can classify a lot of gun carrying dudes in the same way -- and they seem to carry pistols in some ritualized way that deals with their underlying fear and their general sense of resentment. Statistically they tend to be more racially polarized (or just plain racist) which accounts for the ethnicity of Zimmerman's victim.

Quote
Manlove
Again, sorry to offend, I just don't play by the rules much and hence tend to step on toes.

Sorry, not a good enough excuse, at least for me.

I assume that when most people post a question here, they actually want an answer and not just to insult and berate anyone who tries to answer that question. We have a few posters who are usually not soliciting a true discourse and I guess you will fall into that category, in my eyes from now on. For me at least, you don't get to act the way you did, and then think that posting the trite statement above absolves you of your rude, disingenuous, and boorish behavior.

---

Alpharetta, GA (Atlanta suburb)

Blimey, so gracious in victory!
I asked a question, got told basically that I was talking @#$%&, asked why people thought I was talking @#$%&, got told it was because things are just a certain way and that's the way they are and just deal with it, found that hard to accept from "liberals", received some interesting and useful information which no one but myself and one or two other people really commented upon, apologised for offending even though I was offended against and moved on with my life.

I was not wrong to ask a question that most of you seem to accept as already having been answered. I don't. I think there is grey. Some of you seem offended that I would not agree that your argument that there is no grey was right. Well.

Manlove = rude, disingenuous, and boorish...

Quote
Lux Interior
So you held a loaded weapon and practiced to the point of being an expert, yet you never killed anybody.

Why have these skills if you aren't going to use them?

Because I was 14 and at my school we had to choose one of the Cadet units to join- Navy, Army, RAF- and it turned out that through no fault of my own I was a good shot. Why be accidentally good at something if I don't intend to use it later in life to what, shoot people?!
Do you know how stupid you sound?

RgG, you seem like a nice lady ( I think), but you are close minded and wrong. I think you mistake my not agreeing with you as me personally attacking you. I am not American, I do not think or talk like an American.
"I assume that when most people post a question here, they actually want an answer and not just to insult and berate anyone who tries to answer that question."
Yes I posted a question, on this side of the forum. it was not "what RAM does my 2008 iMac use" which has a definite answer, it was a question that one or two people here recognised as being nuanced ie. it has no definitive answer. Telling me repeatedly that the Law (as it is) states that the word means what it says it does and that that is an end to the matter, is both narrow minded and short sighted.
I am not rude or boorish in person. I don't back down when I am outnumbered, nor should anyone.
I saw through all this so few people who actually wanted to talk about the issue. As I said before, as soon as gun control (or total removal) came up the majority of you became so annoyed that you stopped thinking. I heard, between the lines "You can take my gun from my cold dead hands."

People like SDGuy who sit on the side lines and throw at uncalled for remarks when they have said nothing in the field are irrelevant to me.
Avenger (who seems actually slightly insane) and Pops ("I'm with you. Another lost cause in trying to have a civilized, intellectual discussion." neither of you added anything to the conversation I'm afraid, and yet you feel justified in taking your (possibly gunslinging) stance.

I asked a question, many of you told me what you thought. It seems that I should have left it at that. I ask- you tell. But I didn't I asked back, and pointed out inconsistencies and hidden assumptions, and some of you (I'm guessing the older ones) didn't like that. They (you) felt I was being sassy and not falling into place in the Forum Hierarchy. Because of this I was being 'rude and boorish' 'drunk' 'ridiculous' and many over choice words. I was not offending. I was asking. you say I didn't want a conversation. Well, I didn't want to be told that the only possible conversation was the one that some of you were telling me was the only one to be had.

Again, thanks to those who are able to see beyond me writing style (or lack thereof) and actually try to be both helpful and instructive. To all those who think they are capable of actual conversation but actually are barely capable of thinking beyond their knee-jerk response to someone suggesting that ...(can you imagine?) guns are bad and people who carry them in the streets, loaded, are potential killers one and all, I hope their is hope for you. And I'm glad I don't live in your mental world.

Quote
Manlove

Quote
Lux Interior
So you held a loaded weapon and practiced to the point of being an expert, yet you never killed anybody.

Why have these skills if you aren't going to use them?

Because I was 14 and at my school we had to choose one of the Cadet units to join- Navy, Army, RAF- and it turned out that through no fault of my own I was a good shot. Why be accidentally good at something if I don't intend to use it later in life to what, shoot people?!
Do you know how stupid you sound?

Not terribly awfully acquainted with sarcasm, are you, mate? What ho! Bloody shame, that.

Quote
SDGuy
Manlove = rude, disingenuous, and boorish...

Apparently, rude, disingenuous, and boorish is what brings out the crowd over here . . .

congrats on a hit thread, Manlove!

---

MR/F Guestmap: [www.mapservices.org]

Manlove, I live in Florida but don't own a single firearm. I see no need but my friendly next door neighbor, a retired LEO, who carried a gun throughout his career but never had to fire it, has more than enough for a small war.

I think the "Stand your ground" law is one of the dumbest ever enacted. You need to remember who instigated this law. Yes that's right, a lobbyist for the NRA. The same NRA who's policies are responsible for the deaths of many more Americans than all the worlds islamic terrorist organizations combined. The NRA and all their members with bloody hands should feel very proud.

Yes the rest of the developed world are horrified and bemused by the american love affair with hand guns. It defies reason and is a blot on the national escutcheon but its all part of American Exceptionalism, don't ya know.

I am surprised that after living in this country for 15 years you haven't come to terms with this aberration.

---

Comedy Central: Best news channel that isn't a news channel.

Fox News: Best comedy channel that isn't a comedy channel.

Manlove - you come across as a ranting fool. You 'asked a question', but no matter what is said, you hear, "You can take my gun from my cold dead hands."

Which is simply insane...

There is no point in saying anything more since you clearly can't hear me...

Manlove,
First, I am not a 'nice lady.' I can get plenty of people to attest to that, if you need corroboration.
Second, I never said whether or not I think carrying a concealed weapon should be legal or not, you just assumed that I thought it was OK because I stated some legal facts. You also assumed that I am an American, yet you never asked about that either. How do you know I am an American, because I have studied American history or because i live here? You never asked about either of those, you just assumed that I was, because I tried to explain the reasons why, in a legal sense, just carrying a hand gun did not make any and all assaults or killings committed by a person legally carrying a concealed weapon premeditated. If you don't believe me, re-read my posts. Never did I offer an opinion on hand gun control or the lack thereof, I just pointed out why things are the way they are. I also tried to give you a short lesson in American History, that explains why the right to bear arms is considered to be such a fundamental right by many citizens in this country. I did state that I think Florida's Stand and Defend law, or whatever exactly it is called, is a flawed law and needs to be either rewritten or repealed. You were assuming facts not in evidence, as they would say in a court of law. I mistakenly thought this thread was about why a particular crime was not premeditated. In that one instance, I fully admit I was wrong, very wrong indeed.

Next, I am not closed minded on many subjects, especially not guns and gun control. I am closed minded on certain other subjects like a woman's right to choose how to control her own body and destiny, and cruelty to animals, to name two. You would be hard pressed to change my mind on either of those subjects, but on guns and gun control, I am not closed minded, I merely stated that as the constitution now stands, it is a guaranteed right, like it or not. For those that do not like it, then they should try to change the laws that govern guns and hand guns. And, as I pointed out, but that you apparently chose to ignore, there have been many restrictions and changes made to hand gun laws over the years. The fact that each state has its own set of laws that govern hand guns is another quirk in the way the U.S. is set up. Again, that is just a fact, not an opinion. New York's laws are quite different from those in Florida, just as an example.

If you want to have a discussion about whether or not hand guns should be banned in their entirety, then state that as your premise. Don't ask a bogus question just to incite people and then go off on them when the honestly try to answer the question you asked. That is the definition of a troll, at least to me. If you don't want to be treated like a troll, then don't act like one. Post your true question or topic for discussion and go from there. Don't make blanket unfounded assumptions about people that you do not know nor seem to care to find out about.

Finally, as I said before, each person has the ability to work toward change for things they consider unjust, unfair, or immoral. Working toward this end would be a better use of your time than assuming facts not in evidence about people on this forum and then making personal attacks against them. Just some free advice from a not so nice person of undetermined heritage, citizenship, and who holds who knows what opinions on hand guns and gun control.

---

Alpharetta, GA (Atlanta suburb)

Quote
Manlove

Quote
Lux Interior
So you held a loaded weapon and practiced to the point of being an expert, yet you never killed anybody.

Why have these skills if you aren't going to use them?

Because I was 14 and at my school we had to choose one of the Cadet units to join- Navy, Army, RAF- and it turned out that through no fault of my own I was a good shot. Why be accidentally good at something if I don't intend to use it later in life to what, shoot people?!
Do you know how stupid you sound?

Yes. I was trying to sound stupid by using your initial premise in my post. I'm very happy that you have had an epiphany.

He's a Brit and assumed the fact since you were living in and posting from La Belle France, not an altogether unreasonable conclusion. Closest emo I could get to a Union Jack.

I am always amused by Europeans who for whatever reason leave the continent and make America their home and immediately start noticing flaws in every corner, often in the most structural elements of the country that cannot be easily changed.The starting point often is why don't we love soccer.

Quote
Lux Interior

Quote
Manlove

Quote
Lux Interior
So you held a loaded weapon and practiced to the point of being an expert, yet you never killed anybody.

Why have these skills if you aren't going to use them?

Because I was 14 and at my school we had to choose one of the Cadet units to join- Navy, Army, RAF- and it turned out that through no fault of my own I was a good shot. Why be accidentally good at something if I don't intend to use it later in life to what, shoot people?!
Do you know how stupid you sound?

Yes. I was trying to sound stupid by using your initial premise in my post. I'm very happy that you have had an epiphany.

yes, that wasn't lost on us - had me laughing out loud!

I am disappointed with 70% of you.
You made no attempt to answer the question in a constructive fashion other than by repeating each others statement that a word only means what the law says it means.

Some of you have been helpful and have furthered the discussion by adding personal insight and pain in some circumstances. Thank you for that.

To the gun owners out there who feel safe because they carry guns... you aren't.

Lux, Hal, Avenger- you are like giggling school girls on the back of the bus, egging each other on to be naughtier and naughtier.

Spock- it's hard to come to terms with because my daughter has to live in a society where aberrational thinking like this is the norm!

Black- do I get a prize for most personal insults received in a thread?

rgG- I would like to talk to you in person, because in this thread we have missed each others points as if our lives depended upon it. Of course that won't happen, but I harbour no ill will.
"Don't ask a bogus question just to incite people and then go off on them when the honestly try to answer the question you asked. " It wasn't a bogus question. It was just one that some people seemed to think had a clear cut and simple answer. Apparently, it doesn't.

Ca Bob- you know a lot about this and the surrounding subjects and seemed willing ( and more than able) to talk about them. I'm sorry if I was unable to respond to you- I was busy trying to sort out the cacophany of abuse! You might have noticed that no one else apart from Bill in NC responded to you either.

"Not terribly awfully acquainted with sarcasm, are you, mate? What ho! Bloody shame, that."
Real classy Gutenberg, you dick!

And as to my moniker, which some of you seem to have a hard time with, it refers to an episode of Top Gear (UK) in which they buy junker cars and drive across Southern America. In Alabama, I think, they are being silly and try to get each other in trouble by 'decorating ' each others cars. One of the slogans written upon a ford pickup was 'Manlove'.
Americans in the South had a hard time with it then, too! You could look up the episode, but be careful, The South doesn't paint itself in a good light.

Quote

I am disappointed with 70% of you.

I am disappointed with 100% of you, I win.

This is like flunking some dumb internet quiz. Oh, boo hoo.

---

"Stop thinking about art works as objects, and start thinking about them as triggers for experiences." ~ Brian Eno

I'm bored with trying to be nice ...@#$%& you!
You know nothing ignorant morons who are so quick to judge. The same sort of person infact as Zimmerman. "Hey I have a gun and I have bullets and I walk around the street and if I don't like you, well @#$%& you, I'm gonna shoot you because I can".

West you said nothing that I can recall as relevant to the question which makes you a rat picking up scraps.
And Stevie, you have no reason to be such a @#$%&. I did not personally insult you once, yet you feel, and I assume this is because I dared to suggest that people who carry guns are somehow not quite completely compos mentis, you freaked out and decided to make me the villain.
The truth is that you represent as a group Americas ability to talk and think about why you are all so keen to keep and carry guns. You are an accurate reflection in my experience of how important guns are to this culture. Even you 'lefties' as Hal called you aren't quite as liberal as you think you are. I did not start the shouting I just refused to back down in the face of your ignorance. I read the laws before I posted. My original post says everything I wanted to ask and your reactions have shown that America is not ready to take a look at itself and discuss whether or not guns are really such a good idea.
Individually I suppose you might be talked with, but as a group you are rats with one aim in mind- destroy the idea that doesn't fit. Some of you talked about the castle law and the stand your ground law, and for that matter about high powered rifles and other elements of gun control, but still the right to bear arms supercedes your ability to think clearly.

To those who answered the question (and stating a law that I had already read and comprehended (thanks Stevie- you really are a genius) was not really answering the question) I thank you.
I was never rude unless I was first insulted. I know some of you will find that hard to see now and will almost certainly not be going back to read what you actually said and in what order. I became a convenient target for your mistrust of those who would take your precious killing tools away from you.
And that's what guns are- whatever neat stories you tell yourselves. America was founded upon guns and slavery (and disease). It's what you still are to some extent. In some of your lifetimes, black people could not sit at the front of the bus, which is why I mentioned slavery earlier. In some of your lifetimes people were having shootouts in corrals. You are living a fantasy in which Murricans are the heroes and your laws should prevail throughout the world. You consider the spread of American style democracy to be more important than the lives of the people whose countries you invade to democratise them. Hence you allow your politicians and generals to convince you that might is right and American truth must prevail.
This just begins to scratch the surface of the blight that America is on the world. Not that it had to be this way, it's just that you couldn't help yourselves from going in all guns blazing.

This country will fall. It has a crumbling infrastructure, precious little manufacturing, no long-term health care strategy for the masses, and an education system in ruins. And when I ask a question which requires a little consideration, rather than being able to do that you resort to calling me names and belittling the idea.
I asked about one man and the ramifications of carrying a loaded weapon. What you don't see is that America is a loaded weapon and it is pointed at itself.

Laugh if you want- if it makes you feel better. But guns kill people and people kill people. But people with guns kill people a damn sight faster and more efficiently.

Peace.
Boohoo.

When you interpret disagreement as an insult, it's pretty hard to be cordial.

I can remember a line from a science fiction novel to the effect that every new generation thinks that it invented sex. That line, transmuted to the debate on firearms, seems to be what was going on here. It's not at all that the American people are deaf and blind to the issue of guns, gun violence, and the national death rate. It is that we have been involved in this discussion off and on since November 22, 1963. By now, there are well-worn arguments on both sides. The final argument by manlove takes it a couple steps further, to the level of a generalized critique of American culture, and this critique includes a generalization that more or less wraps up all American thought, including that of liberals, with the exceptionalism taunt that ought rightfully to be directed at the neocons.

In short, the fight to reduce death from firearms has been going on a very long time -- the majority of most of our lives, even for some of us who are a little older on the average -- and we have long since figured out that it is mostly a waste of time. At least it is a waste of time at this stage in our political process.

But in another way, the argument has not gone away at all. It is with us but couched in surrogate arguments. For example, the "stop and frisk" rule that is being protested by minorities in New York City this week is really about an attempt to limit the carrying of weapons. The routine deployment of magnetometer screening in public buildings and hospitals (hospitals!) is another manifestation.

And finally, the fact that somebody who was not born here notices differences between the US and the home country is not all that surprising. Americans love to quote Toqueville, who established that franchise a long time ago. And guess what? We do the same. We notice that the English have certain deficits compared to our system, including the lack of a well defined set of rights, particularly in the form of a written document. This isn't just carping. The existence of an official secrets act allows the British government to do things that the US government can't. What the criminal law can't do, the civil law can over there, because the British approach to libel law is far more injurious to freedom of speech and of the press than our own. And then there's the room temperature beer.

There is one other issue that we don't argue much amongst ourselves, but was a substantial undercurrent of the entire 20th century -- the European propensity to fight wars all over the continent, between the continent and Britain, and basically to have an unstable international politics that led to multiple invasions of Russia, Poland, France, Czechoslovakia, Hungary (I'll stop here but the list goes on and on). We've ourselves had that one big one from 1861-1865, but it was about slavery and it solved the question. We don't have a lot of worries about Iowa invading Illinois or nevada going after Utah, and it's due to our federalist system.

We don't even have to mention the holocaust to consider the virtues of having an armed citizenry, even if we perhaps should be a little more careful about it being in the form of a well regulated militia, as the 2nd Amendment mentions. Barbara Tuchman wrote about old graveyards in the lowland countries that are full of stones referring to people who were "shot by the Germans." (I'm giving the translation here.) The post-WWII history of continental Europe began with what one eminent historian referred to as "adult supervision" by the Americans. It seems to have worked. Obviously our biggest 20th century failure was our inability or unwillingness to provide such supervision in the aftermath of the first world war (I would say it was both).

Another point that I have noticed among the foreign born is a certain deafness or insensitivity to the fact that democracy works -- they concentrate on the result rather than on the overall strength of the process and system. We as Americans are exquisitely sensitive to the nuances such as the electoral college system for electing presidents, and we debate that part of the system endlessly because it is real, it is important, and it is subject to change by Constitutional amendment. We don't much argue about abolishing the Bill of Rights except to nibble at the edges, and this is done almost exclusively in the realm of Supreme Court decisions regarding criminal prosecutions. One writer recently noticed something interesting about the trend in amendments to our Constitution. There have been a series of amendments that expanded the right to vote. These have included race, gender, and age. In addition, they have built up protections against individual states putting limits or unfair requirements such as poll taxes or literacy tests. In other words, the long trend that begins with the post-Civil-War amendments is a steady increase in the scope of democracy through voting rights. We as a people are engaging in a serious argument over expanding rights of citizenship even to those who are here illegally, but it is part of this long running process.

By this set of criteria, any national entity that has something called a House of Lords perhaps shouldn't criticize us. Sarcasm aside, there were reasons for the American Revolution which can be laid right at the door of the British Parliament, and the Bill of Rights (including our 2nd Amendment) comes out of that experience. It may be less than perfect, but it comes out of a historical context in which an authoritarian government enforced its wishes by, in effect, occupying centers like Boston with what was, for all intents and purposes, an invading army. Those of you who know the 2nd Amendment by heart should also review the 3rd, which refers to "quartering troops in time of peace," a direct slap at what the British overlords did in the years leading up to 1775.

Or we might just take note that as recently as the 1940s and 1950s, France, Belgium, Norway, Czechoslovakia, Russia, Germany, Austria, Italy, North Africa, the Phillipines, Manchuria, and Korea were attacked, occupied, and ruled over by invading armies. Perhaps I should include Japan in this list, but is something of an outlier. On the other hand, countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan in the present day seem to be able to resist occupation (even by the country that likes to think of itself as the world's only remaining superpower), and they do it without having an airforce or a navy, or even much of a standing army.

This just begins to scratch the surface of the blight that America is on the world.

OK, I guess I now see where you are really coming from.

Where in this world would you think is the best place to live? What country has no faults or shortcomings and has solved all their problems? I know of no such perfect place. This country is certainly not perfect, but for over 200 years people from all over the world have come here and tried to make it a better place than the one they left. If you came here of your own volition, then you should try to effect changes to make this a better place to live. If you think America is truly doomed and cannot be changed for the better, then maybe you should relocate, again.

You have said you are from England. Why did you leave there? I have visited the U.K. several times, and find it a lovely place. Maybe you had to come here because of your work. Maybe your parents brought you here as a child and you had no choice. I don't know, but if you choose to stay here, of your own free will, why would you not work to improve the things you see as wrong here, instead of just hurling insults and painting everyone in the U.S. as thinking and acting the same? If you have lived here a while, as I believe you said you have, you should know that Americans are very diverse and hold many different opinions on every subject. There are many Americans who would like to see all handguns banned from this country. Some states have gone pretty far to enact laws to do just that. You see, that is how it works here, you change laws to make things better. It isn't often easy and many have died trying to change the laws here, to make things better.

You keep pointing out that America has had and still has racial problems. Yes, we do. Name one place that has a diverse population that does not. You mention that not too long ago a black person could not sit in the front of the bus. True, but not now. We changed. Some people here still have not accepted that change and probably never will, but legally they have to, because many people fought and died to change those laws. Do you see my point? If you want to make this your home, and I am not sure it sounds like you do, then do something positive instead of just mudslinging at your adopted home. That, or find that Utopian place to live where every problem has been solved and all men and women live together in perfect harmony. Funny, saying that makes me want a Coke, for some inexplicable reason. And yes, Coke, the Imperialist drink served round the world, was invented right here in Atlanta, in the good old USA. And, it was meant to be served COLD, dammit.

---

Alpharetta, GA (Atlanta suburb)

House keeping note here:

This thread has walked pretty close to the edge of violating the TOS, and there are rules, even on this side of the Forum, so keep it civil, no need to use the F word, or posts will have to be pulled.

---

Alpharetta, GA (Atlanta suburb)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/19/2012 07:59AM by rgG.

Isn't there an association of some sort that goes with Manlove? Anyway, I get a sense that you are not happy in this country. I am an immigrant too and cannot imagine moving my family to some place that is so morally repugnant to me. No matter how outlandish your posturing is, the fact of the matter is that you preferred America to England. End of story. In fact, at some point you were on your knees praying that your paper work goes though. Now keep your head down and go to work.

Manlove, I am a Quaker who supports gun control laws, yet you have assumed I am a gun toting homicidal maniac because I disagreed with your premise. You know nothing about me and yet you made a huge mistaken assumption about me. So yeah, I guess I did act like a "b*tch" but you deserved it. You are insulting people for no reason except for that they disagreed with you. Don't dish it out if you can't take it. And now I shall bid you farewell. You are too self absorbed to hear what anyone is saying to you and frankly you seem to be a bit off your rocker.

---

"Stop thinking about art works as objects, and start thinking about them as triggers for experiences." ~ Brian Eno

Quote

West you said nothing that I can recall as relevant to the question which makes you a rat picking up scraps.

Haha, I must agree. Participation in your argument and its flawed premises is akin to dumpster diving. Keep wallowing around down there, I am sure you can learn something.

Quote
Ca Bob
I can remember a line from a science fiction novel to the effect that every new generation thinks that it invented sex. That line, transmuted to the debate on firearms, seems to be what was going on here. It's not at all that the American people are deaf and blind to the issue of guns, gun violence, and the national death rate. It is that we have been involved in this discussion off and on since November 22, 1963. By now, there are well-worn arguments on both sides. The final argument by manlove takes it a couple steps further, to the level of a generalized critique of American culture, and this critique includes a generalization that more or less wraps up all American thought, including that of liberals, with the exceptionalism taunt that ought rightfully to be directed at the neocons.

In short, the fight to reduce death from firearms has been going on a very long time -- the majority of most of our lives, even for some of us who are a little older on the average -- and we have long since figured out that it is mostly a waste of time. At least it is a waste of time at this stage in our political process.

But in another way, the argument has not gone away at all. It is with us but couched in surrogate arguments. For example, the "stop and frisk" rule that is being protested by minorities in New York City this week is really about an attempt to limit the carrying of weapons. The routine deployment of magnetometer screening in public buildings and hospitals (hospitals!) is another manifestation.

And finally, the fact that somebody who was not born here notices differences between the US and the home country is not all that surprising. Americans love to quote Toqueville, who established that franchise a long time ago. And guess what? We do the same. We notice that the English have certain deficits compared to our system, including the lack of a well defined set of rights, particularly in the form of a written document. This isn't just carping. The existence of an official secrets act allows the British government to do things that the US government can't. What the criminal law can't do, the civil law can over there, because the British approach to libel law is far more injurious to freedom of speech and of the press than our own. And then there's the room temperature beer.

There is one other issue that we don't argue much amongst ourselves, but was a substantial undercurrent of the entire 20th century -- the European propensity to fight wars all over the continent, between the continent and Britain, and basically to have an unstable international politics that led to multiple invasions of Russia, Poland, France, Czechoslovakia, Hungary (I'll stop here but the list goes on and on). We've ourselves had that one big one from 1861-1865, but it was about slavery and it solved the question. We don't have a lot of worries about Iowa invading Illinois or nevada going after Utah, and it's due to our federalist system.

We don't even have to mention the holocaust to consider the virtues of having an armed citizenry, even if we perhaps should be a little more careful about it being in the form of a well regulated militia, as the 2nd Amendment mentions. Barbara Tuchman wrote about old graveyards in the lowland countries that are full of stones referring to people who were "shot by the Germans." (I'm giving the translation here.) The post-WWII history of continental Europe began with what one eminent historian referred to as "adult supervision" by the Americans. It seems to have worked. Obviously our biggest 20th century failure was our inability or unwillingness to provide such supervision in the aftermath of the first world war (I would say it was both).

Another point that I have noticed among the foreign born is a certain deafness or insensitivity to the fact that democracy works -- they concentrate on the result rather than on the overall strength of the process and system. We as Americans are exquisitely sensitive to the nuances such as the electoral college system for electing presidents, and we debate that part of the system endlessly because it is real, it is important, and it is subject to change by Constitutional amendment. We don't much argue about abolishing the Bill of Rights except to nibble at the edges, and this is done almost exclusively in the realm of Supreme Court decisions regarding criminal prosecutions. One writer recently noticed something interesting about the trend in amendments to our Constitution. There have been a series of amendments that expanded the right to vote. These have included race, gender, and age. In addition, they have built up protections against individual states putting limits or unfair requirements such as poll taxes or literacy tests. In other words, the long trend that begins with the post-Civil-War amendments is a steady increase in the scope of democracy through voting rights. We as a people are engaging in a serious argument over expanding rights of citizenship even to those who are here illegally, but it is part of this long running process.

By this set of criteria, any national entity that has something called a House of Lords perhaps shouldn't criticize us. Sarcasm aside, there were reasons for the American Revolution which can be laid right at the door of the British Parliament, and the Bill of Rights (including our 2nd Amendment) comes out of that experience. It may be less than perfect, but it comes out of a historical context in which an authoritarian government enforced its wishes by, in effect, occupying centers like Boston with what was, for all intents and purposes, an invading army. Those of you who know the 2nd Amendment by heart should also review the 3rd, which refers to "quartering troops in time of peace," a direct slap at what the British overlords did in the years leading up to 1775.

Or we might just take note that as recently as the 1940s and 1950s, France, Belgium, Norway, Czechoslovakia, Russia, Germany, Austria, Italy, North Africa, the Phillipines, Manchuria, and Korea were attacked, occupied, and ruled over by invading armies. Perhaps I should include Japan in this list, but is something of an outlier. On the other hand, countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan in the present day seem to be able to resist occupation (even by the country that likes to think of itself as the world's only remaining superpower), and they do it without having an airforce or a navy, or even much of a standing army.

Allow me . . .[rolls up sleeves]

*Ahem*

CaBob, you ignorant @#$%&...

---

MR/F Guestmap: [www.mapservices.org]

Quote
rgG
House keeping note here:

This thread has walked pretty close to the edge of violating the TOS,

Little late for that!

Quote
Manlove
And as to my moniker, which some of you seem to have a hard time with, it refers to an episode of Top Gear (UK) in which they buy junker cars and drive across Southern America. In Alabama, I think, they are being silly and try to get each other in trouble by 'decorating ' each others cars. One of the slogans written upon a ford pickup was 'Manlove'.
Americans in the South had a hard time with it then, too! You could look up the episode, but be careful, The South doesn't paint itself in a good light.

---

__________________________________
Never underestimate the predictability of stupidity

Thanks for finding that pic Bazookaman.
Apologies to all for swearing, but not for defending my position.
I think Ca Bob hit the right note when he (?) talked about the entrenched arguments from the left and the right, the pros and the cons, of guns and control in this country that has raged for many decades, to which I have not been privy.

I am pretty much against adult people in a civilised society owning guns (obviously). I don't see the need for them. You cannot argue that the purpose of guns is not for killing, because it is. You can, and have argued that carrying a gun is not the same as intentionally looking for someone to kill (which I know you seemed to think was the message of my original question). Okay, I'll accept that, but why on earth would a man in his 30's be walking around his neighbourhood at night with a LOADED gun, unless he was looking for trouble and ready to mete out his version of justice should trouble arise?
Please stop calling me insane or crazy, because I'm really not. As someone else says elsewhere on the forum, America is further right now than at almost any time in its history, and like it or not this really clouds what you perceive as rational and openmided discourse.
Oh, and by the way, decent beer does not need to be served ice cold!

Quote
Manlove
...why on earth would a man in his 30's be walking around his neighbourhood at night with a LOADED gun, unless he was looking for trouble and ready to mete out his version of justice should trouble arise?...

So - I take it you also take issue with law enforcement officers walking around with loaded weapons? Why else would they have them, unless they were planning, on a daily basis, to blow someone's head off? You know the type - they get a power trip just by wearing a badge and can't wait to exert their authority over someone...

Yes, I hate the fact that I have to be so careful around the police. Okay, I don't, particularly, because I am white, educated, middle class and relatively articulate, but many people do.
Police need guns because the population has guns. I really don't like the fact that they have loaded weapons strapped to their hips...it doesn't make me feel safer around them.
Actually if you watch the motorcycle video you can see how many times the cop has his hand hovering over his weapon. Yes, I am making an unsubstantiated claim, but it does seem like he is itching to use it. Maybe this is his training kicking in- ie. be ready at any second to deal with the threat- but the rider has done NOTHING to provoke him. The cops attitude is amped up and provocative.
That does make me nervous. And I am not nervous by disposition!