Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Scotus rules 2nd amendment is an individual right
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 136 of 176 (476351)
07-23-2008 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by Dr Adequate
07-22-2008 9:09 PM


Re: Gun laws
If you have a society (such as my own) in which only bad guys, plus the police and the Army, own guns, then you can use possession of a gun as a way of identifying the bad guys, and as a reason to jail them.
Yes... This also worked well in Germany and the Soviet Union -- in the 1930's and 1940's. The only problem was, the bad guys were the government. Both Stalin and Hitler confiscated weapons, effectively making it impossible to defend themselves in the face of tyranny.
When the Constitution was written, it was during a tumultuous time in its early history where it wanted its independence from England. Instead of fleeing the problems of the King, the King followed them and started declaring the nation was an extension of himself. Obviously, a revolution broke out. It became very necessary that the citizens be able to defend themselves, not only physically, but financially, and any other way one's freedoms would be protected.
And as I've argued before, the Second Amendment is far too ingrained within the culture for the government to make the mistake of trying to have her citizens surrender their arms. They won't do it for the sole fact that a new revolution would ensue.
If you have a society in which only bad guys plus the police and the Army and licensed gun-owners own guns, then you can use possession of an unlicensed gun as a way of identifying the bad guys, and as a reason to jail them.
That is how it is done now.
Or if you have a society in which only bad guys plus the police and the Army and licensed gun-owners who have to do a course on gun safety before they get their license and who have to use chemically marked ammunition own guns, then you can use possession of an unlicensed gun or unfingerprinted ammunition as a way of identifying the bad guys, and as a reason to jail them.
Chemically marked ammunition would have to be molecularly different for each individual case of ammunition. That would be very difficult to do for each armed citizen in a laboratory. Plus, it would not mean that the person that was issued said chemically marked ammo necessarily pulled the trigger. It would be a good way to frame someone for murder.

“I know where I am and who I am. I'm on the brink of disillusionment, on the eve of bitter sweet. I'm perpetually one step away from either collapse or rebirth. I am exactly where I need to be. Either way I go towards rebirth, for a total collapse often brings a rebirth." -Andrew Jaramillo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-22-2008 9:09 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-23-2008 12:39 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 137 of 176 (476378)
07-23-2008 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by anglagard
07-22-2008 2:35 AM


How weird. When due to business I walk around downtown Houston, Dallas, and San Antonio, the 4th, 6th, and 8th largest cities in the US, each one full of over a million supposedly crazy Texans, I am surprised by how friendly and accommodating almost all people are in such urban centers.
Do you guys have CCW in the cities?
Is Saint Louis a hellhole or are you wandering around at 3 am?
Its, like, the "most dangerous city" in the U.S. Well, StL or Detroit....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by anglagard, posted 07-22-2008 2:35 AM anglagard has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 138 of 176 (476381)
07-23-2008 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by Rrhain
07-23-2008 2:47 AM


The "problem" is that the Second Amendment clearly indicates that your right to bear arms as one of "the people" is not based in a right to self-defense, hunting, pleasure shooting, etc. It is based specifically on the need for "a well regulated militia."
Clearly? Isn't the 2nd the least clear of all the amendments?
But anyways, I don't agree that it is based specifically on the need for "a well regulated militia." The need for the militia is for the security of the free state. The 2nd doesn't explicitly say that the right to arms is specifically for the militia and it doesn't say that we don't have a right to self-defense, hunting, pleasure shooting, etc.
I read your interpretation of what the 2nd says, but to me it seems that you are simply wrong. I don't care enough to respond to the individual points you made, but in general, you seem to be basing you interpretation on your conclusion rather than visa versa. You start with the presumption that the second doesn't grant the right, and then do whatever interpreting you have to do to get there.
I just don't think that "your" way of reading it is the only way.
You are not a militia.
Why not?
Note, this doesn't mean you don't have an individual right to own a firearm.
It simply means that the Second Amendment is not what protects that right. The ruling is bad law not because of the result, in and of itself, but because the justification presented does not actually support the conclusion.
That, or you're just wrong in your interpretation of the 2nd.
quote:
What is the argument against me having this right?
That you are not a militia.
Why not?
The Second Amendment grants you the right to a firearm so that you can use it as part of the militia. Scalia's argument is backwards, focusing on "the people" rather than on the restriction: "A well regulated militia."
The Second Amendment has always been interpreted as being in reference to a militia...up until now.
Again, my point is not that you don't have a personal right to a firearm. It's that the Second Amendment does not protect that right and this decision, based upon a prima facie misreading of the Second Amendment, is a bad decision.
So if I am a part of the militia, then its all good.
Other than your opinion that the argument is "backwards", which I couldn't care less about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Rrhain, posted 07-23-2008 2:47 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Rrhain, posted 07-24-2008 3:35 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 139 of 176 (476393)
07-23-2008 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Hyroglyphx
07-23-2008 8:27 AM


Re: Gun laws
Yes... This also worked well in Germany and the Soviet Union -- in the 1930's and 1940's. The only problem was, the bad guys were the government. Both Stalin and Hitler confiscated weapons, effectively making it impossible to defend themselves in the face of tyranny.
This seems to me to be a self-defeating argument. According to this narrative, German and Russian gun-owners didn't use their guns to defend liberty and oppose tyranny, and when asked for their guns by the tyrants, they handed them over.
This is hardly an example of guns being a bulwark against tyranny. If your story had ended "... and then Hitler decreed that gun-owners should hand over their weapons, so they shot him", then you'd have a point.
And as I've argued before, the Second Amendment is far too ingrained within the culture for the government to make the mistake of trying to have her citizens surrender their arms.
I'm not arguing.
That is how it is done now.
So I gathered, and no-one's saying "... than only criminals will have unliscenced guns".
Chemically marked ammunition would have to be molecularly different for each individual case of ammunition. That would be very difficult to do for each armed citizen in a laboratory.
I don't think you've grasped how the technology works. It's actually rather easy, and no laboratories are involved until the point where you dig the bullet out of the murder victim.
Plus, it would not mean that the person that was issued said chemically marked ammo necessarily pulled the trigger. It would be a good way to frame someone for murder.
I guess we'd better just hope that the police officers conducting homicide investigations aren't complete idiots then.
Actually I was kinda hoping that anyway.
Yes, obviously every scientific method available to the police is suceptible in principle to a sufficiently cunning fraud. But that is not a reason to hope that the police should not have scientific methods available to them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-23-2008 8:27 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Chiroptera, posted 07-23-2008 1:04 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 140 of 176 (476398)
07-23-2008 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by Dr Adequate
07-23-2008 12:39 PM


Re: Gun laws
This is hardly an example of guns being a bulwark against tyranny. If your story had ended "... and then Hitler decreed that gun-owners should hand over their weapons, so they shot him", then you'd have a point.
Come to think of it, are there many actual examples from history where "a well-armed citizenry" did manage to prevent a tyranny? And off-hand I can't think of an example where a government banning weapons successfully prevented a civil war when the population was determined to wage one -- in fact, in most civil wars the warring factions usually have no problem getting weapons from outside sources.

Speaking personally, I find few things more awesome than contemplating this vast and majestic process of evolution, the ebb and flow of successive biotas through geological time. Creationists and others who cannot for ideological or religious reasons accept the fact of evolution miss out a great deal, and are left with a claustrophobic little universe in which nothing happens and nothing changes.
-- M. Alan Kazlev

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-23-2008 12:39 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 141 of 176 (476471)
07-24-2008 3:35 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by New Cat's Eye
07-23-2008 11:44 AM


Catholic Scientist responds to me:
quote:
Isn't the 2nd the least clear of all the amendments?
Not at all. That's why there haven't been that many lawsuits regarding it.
What part of "well regulated militia" is so difficult to understand?
quote:
I don't agree that it is based specifically on the need for "a well regulated militia."
Even though it directly says so? So when an amendment specifically says it is about a militia, we can just ignore it?
quote:
The 2nd doesn't explicitly say that the right to arms is specifically for the militia
(*blink!*)
You did not just say that, did you? So when the amendment says, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed," it isn't actually talking about a militia. That word "militia" isn't actually in the amendment. It's just a "liberal" plot.
quote:
it doesn't say that we don't have a right to self-defense, hunting, pleasure shooting, etc.
And since I never said that, one wonders why you're bringing it up. See, this is why you have to actually read the posts before you respond. The amendment is justifying why you have a right to a gun and the reason that it gives is not hunting, self-defense, pleasure shooting, etc. Instead, it says that the reason you are allowed to have a gun is so that you can use it in defense of the State.
That doesn't mean you don't have any rights to hunting, self-defense, pleasure shooting, etc. The Constitution is not a laundry list. The Ninth Amendment is still there: There are rights not enumerated that are still protected. What it means is that the right specifically mentioned in the Second Amendment is there because of the need for a militia. Remember, States are independent nations unto themselves, to a degree. The military does not have jurisdiction within the borders of the US. That's what the militia is for.
quote:
in general, you seem to be basing you interpretation on your conclusion rather than visa versa.
Incorrect. I am basing my interpretation on the direct statement of the amendment:
A well regulated militia.
Since it directly says that it is talking about a militia, how does one justify ignoring that when interpreting the text? Here is the text of the Fourth Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Where is the justification for why we have this amendment? It isn't in the text. We have it "just because." The Second Amendment, however, justifies itself:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
It does not start with an ellipsis.
quote:
quote:
You are not a militia.
Why not?
Because you are not well regulated. Because you shooting an intruder or hunting or going to the shooting range is not an act of defending the State. Your right to own a gun is justified by you being called up to defend the State as part of the militia.
quote:
So if I am a part of the militia, then its all good.
That's what the National Guard is for. By statute, they are the "militia."
This gets back to the status of DC. The District of Columbia is not a State. Since the Second Amendment is about the militia coming to the defense of the State ("A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"), how does that apply to a region that is not a State?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-23-2008 11:44 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-24-2008 10:45 AM Rrhain has replied
 Message 143 by AZPaul3, posted 07-24-2008 11:31 AM Rrhain has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 142 of 176 (476500)
07-24-2008 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by Rrhain
07-24-2008 3:35 AM


What part of "well regulated militia" is so difficult to understand?
What constitutes the "militia", how is it "regulated", and at what point does it become regulated "well"?.... pretty much the whole thing is ambiguous.
quote:
I don't agree that it is based specifically on the need for "a well regulated militia."
Even though it directly says so?
The perfatory clause sets up the principle behind it but doesn't base the right specifically on it.
quote:
The 2nd doesn't explicitly say that the right to arms is specifically for the militia
(*blink!*)
You did not just say that, did you? So when the amendment says, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed," it isn't actually talking about a militia. That word "militia" isn't actually in the amendment. It's just a "liberal" plot.
Can you read? I'm not saying that at all...
The right to arms is for the people, not for the militia. The militia is for the security of the free state and you need to have the people armed to have a well regulated militia.
Here is the text of the Fourth Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Where is the justification for why we have this amendment? It isn't in the text. We have it "just because." The Second Amendment, however, justifies itself:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
It does not start with an ellipsis.
Right, it starts with a perfatory clause which is the "justification". But rights don't need to be justified and the 2nd is the only amendment with a perfatory clause... a justification. That should raise a red flag right there that this justification is not the limit on what the right is for. The amendment is not meant to say that the people need guns just so they can have a militia.
Besides, the amendment was all kinds of chopped up and reworded and misworded. It doesn't necessarily say that the reason that people need arms is for the militia. It is just justifying the need by providing one reason that having arms is a good thing.
quote:
quote:
You are not a militia.
Why not?
Because you are not well regulated.
I/We could be. It depends on what is regulated and when it is well.
Because you shooting an intruder or hunting or going to the shooting range is not an act of defending the State. Your right to own a gun is justified by you being called up to defend the State as part of the militia.
That was just the one justification that was used, but it doesn't limit the right to just for the militia and the justification wasn't even needed in the first place.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Rrhain, posted 07-24-2008 3:35 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Rrhain, posted 07-28-2008 3:37 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 143 of 176 (476506)
07-24-2008 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by Rrhain
07-24-2008 3:35 AM


The amendment is justifying why you have a right to a gun and the reason that it gives is not hunting, self-defense, pleasure shooting, etc. Instead, it says that the reason you are allowed to have a gun is so that you can use it in defense of the State.
Exactly right. And this was the Court's reasoniong in recognizing the 2nd Amendment as embodying an "individual" right to keep and bear arms.
The question now turns on whether that "right" is necessary any longer in our modern society. And in deciding this the Court, rightfully so, determind...
quote:
We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding “interest-balancing” approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government”even the Third Branch of Government”the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad.
quote:
Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.
The process of changing the Constitiution is well documented and well used. The Court's ruling, as you yourself have acknowledged, is correct. For the purposes of forming a militia the people have an indiviual right to keep and bear arms. And the Court recognizes their power to take away this right is non-existant. Only through the people and the amendment process can this be accomplished.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Rrhain, posted 07-24-2008 3:35 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Rrhain, posted 07-28-2008 3:50 AM AZPaul3 has replied

Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 144 of 176 (476514)
07-24-2008 12:29 PM


just made you sad wanker of the month. Bit of growing up to be done, me thinks.
How about following the board rules? specifically #10.
I'll happily criticise Britsh law where I think it is stupid.
It none of my business, and I don’t care.
To get back to the subject at hand - I think the right for everyone to arm themselves is frankly mad.
Not quite as mad as trying to argue with some one about guns who has self admittedly never seen one up close, nor has fired one.
Yes. For example, in post #105, you disparage Britain for being a monarchy, which is a part of our constitution just as the Second Amendment is a part of yours.
Could you be more hypocritical?
I’m not the thread jacker who brought up your laws. Unless I’m horribly mistaken this thread is about the SCOTUS ruling on the 2nd amendment. Start a thread on ridiculous laws in the UK, I got tons of ammo on that one, but this is neither the time nor the place.
Wrong. The capital letter at the beginning of sentences, like the period and the space at the end, is there to make it easier to distinguish between sentences, so that reading is easier.
I’m using MS word now, so it auto capitalizes, I should have better posts now for the grammar Nazis.
You clearly haven't been paying attention. My style of posting is to respond pretty much to every single word the original poster wrote. It pisses some people off since it generates very long posts and it can come across as being pedantic.
Your style is trollish. Game recognize game, fo sho.
Personally, I would like more guns about. I'd like to carry one myself and assume the man next to me also has one. I bet that all these assholes I bump into on the streets of St Louis would be far more cordial if they thought I was packing. That they "know" that I'm not yields all sorts of assholishness that I bump into everyday (well, maybe not everyday, but all the days that I do go downtown. I mean, no body ever says "excuse me" anymore. No simple "hellos", nothing but a bunch of assholes bumping into each other without remark. It sucks ass. Nobody is friendly and it really "grinds my gears" [thanks Peter Griffen]. I honestly believe that if all of the law abiding citizens were "packing", then those assholes would be less assholish. Its that fact that we really cannot do anything about it, that permits the behavior. Now, having a gun on your hip doesn't mean you could actually "do anything" about it. Their use is strictly regulated. But it certainly, to me, makes people more friendly to each other. No talking shit or failing to excuse thyself would not be "acceptable" and people would be more cordial.)
Word.
Gotta say, CS, that has to be one of the scariest paragraphs I have ever read on EvC
Welcome to the US, or not.
Come to St. Louis and walk around with me for a while. That'll give you a benchmark with which to judge scary-ness. You might even want to have a gun afterwards.
DC is worse, mainly because if you are law abiding you are not allowed to defened yourself. In tha STL you can carry.
Its, like, the "most dangerous city" in the U.S. Well, StL or Detroit....
According to these guys (Yahoo) Detroit is #1 in 2008 and St. Louis is #2.
In 2007 it was (Safest and Most Dangerous U.S. Cities, 2007 )
Detroit#1 and St. Louis#2
In 2006 it was (http://money.cnn.com/...s/2006/real_estate/best_worst/2.html)
St. Louis#1 Detroit#2 (we beat them in crime and baseball that year!)
That's what the National Guard is for. By statute, they are the "militia."
"What of the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."---George Mason
"The right of self-defence is the first law of nature. When the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."---John Locke

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-24-2008 12:55 PM Artemis Entreri has not replied
 Message 150 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-26-2008 11:13 PM Artemis Entreri has replied
 Message 151 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-27-2008 12:03 PM Artemis Entreri has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 145 of 176 (476518)
07-24-2008 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Artemis Entreri
07-24-2008 12:29 PM


Come to St. Louis and walk around with me for a while. That'll give you a benchmark with which to judge scary-ness. You might even want to have a gun afterwards.
DC is worse, mainly because if you are law abiding you are not allowed to defened yourself. In tha STL you can carry.
You cannot carry in the city....
There was a good point made though, that since DC is not a State, then the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to it. But still, it is the People, the individuals, who have the right to be armed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Artemis Entreri, posted 07-24-2008 12:29 PM Artemis Entreri has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by subbie, posted 07-24-2008 3:41 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 146 of 176 (476540)
07-24-2008 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by New Cat's Eye
07-24-2008 12:55 PM


quote:
There was a good point made though, that since DC is not a State, then the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to it. But still, it is the People, the individuals, who have the right to be armed.
Actually, this point is in error.
There is nothing about the Second Amendment that suggests that it doesn't restrict the ability of the federal government. By its terms, it states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It doesn't say that the states shall not infringe the right. It doesn't say that the federal government shall not infringe the right. It says the right shall not be infringed. It is equally as applicable to the federal government as to the state.
Were it otherwise, the Heller court could not have decided the case the way it did. Obviously, since the Court concluded that the D.C. regulations at issue violated the Second Amendment, the Court must have concluded that the Second Amendment applied.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-24-2008 12:55 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 147 of 176 (476555)
07-24-2008 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by anglagard
07-22-2008 10:19 PM


Re: Gun laws
Sheesh NJ, you are already lecturing me on the error of my ways before I even stated any position. You obviously don't know me very well. I grew up with guns and had that little medal that said expert when I was in the army. I still have guns in the house, two pistols and a rifle.
Well, then I apologize if I jumped to any conclusions. You seemed as if you were arguing that no one needs a weapon to defend themselves in a major city. If I somehow misconstrued that, then I wholeheartedly apologize.
I was avoiding this argument because I think each side has an excellent point that does not translate across the Atlantic. The UK ways work great, for the UK. The US ways are the way things are and I can't see any realistic possibility for change.
Well said.
I believe that the relatively, and immensely higher, rate of violent crime in the US is largely, but not exclusively, due to the philosophy of hate and fear of the other and the different...Otherwise why wouldn't the Swiss be blowing each other away with those government issued machine guns that go to every male twixt 18 and 45 last I heard?
That was what I was alluding to -- that society plays the biggest role in violence, not the guns or even the accessibility to them. Americans are often shrewd, arrogant, and in general, consumed by violence. As an American, I don't like to even admit these inequalities. But really they are apparent when you compare them with, as you did, the Swiss. Why precisely this is the case, I do not fully know. I suspect there are so many variables at play that to speculate would only detract from something else that invariably compounds the problem.
IMO Michael Moore (aka the AntiChrist to conservatives) made some excellent points concerning gun ownership in the US in the documentary Bowling for Columbine Namely that the availability of firearms is not a predictor of violence.
I watched that movie, and the whole documentary seemed to have him explaining why the accessibility of guns perpetuated gun violence. Have a look-see. Now, of course I would agree that dumb asses exist. Just have a look at this pointless, and idiotic spectacle that only serves to perpetuate the stereotype. Forget the fact that it is a complete waste of ammunition. What's with lighting it on fire? That's just stupid.
Now as to why the crime rate is so high in the US, perhaps the answer is not just poverty, guns, racism, or even the philosophy of fear and hate preached by politicians, religious leaders, and the media. Rather I think it is the complex interaction of all these factors that are responsible.
Well, I would be inclined to agree. Americans have owned guns since its inception. And while we had pockets of unmitigated violence -- Wild West, 20's era gangsters, 90's era gang violence, etc -- the history of gun ownership has been pretty tame. High schools used to have gun clubs, for chris'sakes. Could they do that now? Absolutely not. And that is because American society has changed. It has grown very callous, very dejected, very angry, very cynical, and very violent.

“I know where I am and who I am. I'm on the brink of disillusionment, on the eve of bitter sweet. I'm perpetually one step away from either collapse or rebirth. I am exactly where I need to be. Either way I go towards rebirth, for a total collapse often brings a rebirth." -Andrew Jaramillo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by anglagard, posted 07-22-2008 10:19 PM anglagard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by anglagard, posted 07-26-2008 6:52 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 148 of 176 (476776)
07-26-2008 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by Hyroglyphx
07-24-2008 5:12 PM


Re: Gun laws
NJ writes:
Well, then I apologize if I jumped to any conclusions. You seemed as if you were arguing that no one needs a weapon to defend themselves in a major city. If I somehow misconstrued that, then I wholeheartedly apologize.
Actually I found it more humorous than insulting that you seem to automatically think I oppose everything you believe in. I take no offense and am glad to see that you are willing to admit it should you make a mistake (which is a lot more than I can say for some people around here).
I was avoiding this argument because I think each side has an excellent point that does not translate across the Atlantic. The UK ways work great, for the UK. The US ways are the way things are and I can't see any realistic possibility for change.
Well said.
Thanks, I figured someone needed to say that just because the US and UK are different does not make one or the other 'better' or that solutions that may work quite well for one nation would automatically work as well for the other.
/snip/
IMO Michael Moore (aka the AntiChrist to conservatives) made some excellent points concerning gun ownership in the US in the documentary Bowling for Columbine Namely that the availability of firearms is not a predictor of violence.
I watched that movie, and the whole documentary seemed to have him explaining why the accessibility of guns perpetuated gun violence.
I think that was part of the message but not the whole message. Notice how, as usual, Moore compares the US to Canada. Here he shows that Canadians, even in large cities like Toronto, don't lock their doors. That class-cutting Canadian 'delinquents' don't think of automatically resorting to firearms in a dispute. Yet Canadians appear to have nearly as much access to firearms as any American citizen.
Notice also how the argument that the US is an inherently violent society due to its past is punctured rather neatly by showing pictures from the Nazi era in Germany.
I think Moore showed that it didn't seem to matter if guns were accessible or not, if their youth were obedient or dyed their hair pink, even if a given nation had a rather murderous past, all other industrialized nations have a much lower gun violence rate as in less than 10 percent of the US rate per capita at most. (However, notice the glaring omission of China or Russia, I am NOT arguing that Moore is above selective editing to favor a particular point.)
I think the main point of Bowling for Columbine is not that access to guns, or even a nation's history, is a predictor of gun violence but rather in the case of the US there are several factors, including an atmosphere that promotes fear and hate of anyone different.
Now as to why the crime rate is so high in the US, perhaps the answer is not just poverty, guns, racism, or even the philosophy of fear and hate preached by politicians, religious leaders, and the media. Rather I think it is the complex interaction of all these factors that are responsible.
Well, I would be inclined to agree. Americans have owned guns since its inception. And while we had pockets of unmitigated violence -- Wild West, 20's era gangsters, 90's era gang violence, etc -- the history of gun ownership has been pretty tame. High schools used to have gun clubs, for chris'sakes. Could they do that now? Absolutely not. And that is because American society has changed. It has grown very callous, very dejected, very angry, very cynical, and very violent.
Well, if it is of any consolation, IIRC the rate of violent death due to firearms in the US is half of what it was 20 years ago. Perhaps we are getting less callous, dejected, angry, cynical, and therefore less violent over time.
Then again, there are twice as many people who declare no religious affiliation in the US as there were 20 years ago. But that would be the topic for another thread.
Edited by anglagard, : clarity

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon
The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-24-2008 5:12 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-26-2008 7:56 PM anglagard has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 149 of 176 (476788)
07-26-2008 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by anglagard
07-26-2008 6:52 PM


Re: Gun laws
Actually I found it more humorous than insulting that you seem to automatically think I oppose everything you believe in. I take no offense and am glad to see that you are willing to admit it should you make a mistake (which is a lot more than I can say for some people around here).
I know it's really, really hard to believe, but... I am actually not infallible. I know, I know... Twilight Zone kind of weird, right? But it's nonetheless true.
I think that was part of the message but not the whole message. Notice how, as usual, Moore compares the US to Canada. Here he shows that Canadians, even in large cities like Toronto, don't lock their doors. That class-cutting Canadian 'delinquents' don't think of automatically resorting to firearms in a dispute. Yet Canadians appear to have nearly as much access to firearms as any American citizen.
Actually they don't. They used to be just as accessible in Canada, but it changed has slowly changed. Regardless, there still is a noticeable disparity in general attitudes.
Notice also how the argument that the US is an inherently violent society due to its past is punctured rather neatly by showing pictures from the Nazi era in Germany.
I don't think its past has anything to do with it. Americans seemed far more respectful and less violent in general, certainly more so than the extremely violent era of the 1990's.
all other industrialized nations have a much lower gun violence rate as in less than 10 percent of the US rate per capita at most. (However, notice the glaring omission of China or Russia, I am NOT arguing that Moore is above selective editing to favor a particular point.)
He certainly is good at making entertaining documentaries. I just happen to also think he caters to a very specific demographic.
Well, if it is of any consolation, IIRC the rate of violent death due to firearms in the US is half of what it was 20 years ago. Perhaps we are getting less callous, dejected, angry, cynical, and therefore less violent over time.
Compared to the 90's, violent crime in general has gone way down. Again, why?, I have no idea. It just serves as a testimony that, as you already stated, it is a very complex issue. There is no single reason why America is more violent than the Swiss. There are multiple reasons, and they each play a role in that.
Then again, there are twice as many people who declare no religious affiliation in the US as there were 20 years ago. But that would be the topic for another thread.
Well, when you have mobsters praying the rosary right before they give some poor soul a Colombian neck tie, you have to wonder whether or not their religion has more to do with cultural influence than it does with an actual well-thought-out acceptance of said religion.

“I know where I am and who I am. I'm on the brink of disillusionment, on the eve of bitter sweet. I'm perpetually one step away from either collapse or rebirth. I am exactly where I need to be. Either way I go towards rebirth, for a total collapse often brings a rebirth." -Andrew Jaramillo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by anglagard, posted 07-26-2008 6:52 PM anglagard has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 150 of 176 (476831)
07-26-2008 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Artemis Entreri
07-24-2008 12:29 PM


It none of my business, and I don’t care ... Start a thread on ridiculous laws in the UK, I got tons of ammo on that one.
You're getting good at this hypocrisy thing, aren't you?
Not quite as mad as trying to argue with some one about guns who has self admittedly never seen one up close, nor has fired one.
Have you ever seen a monarch up close or lived under a constitutional monarchy?
Have you ever seen heroin up close or injected it?
Have you ever seen a murder up close or committed one?
Does driving too fast make a man especially qualified to set the speed limit?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Artemis Entreri, posted 07-24-2008 12:29 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Artemis Entreri, posted 07-28-2008 6:04 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024