Gun control

[Tor]

No worries on taking time to reply. I understand all too well what it can take to put together a properly considered reply on potentially flame-inciting subjects.

I'm not entirely sure what the link you posted has to do with anything. On this subject I've paid far more attention to the arguments and the numbers than the antics of various individuals. Ted Nugent is a name I've seen before, but I wouldn't have pulled up anything more about him without prompting. What happened with that post? An insufficiently checked amusing picture passed along ill-consideredly? I can't say I much care either way.

Near as I can verify, the correlation in the u.S. between increased gun control and enforcement thereof and increased crime is well-demonstrated. While correlation is not causation, I haven't seen a reputable claim that you can have causation without correlation. In the face of that, I have to regard any proposal for increased gun control in any way as highly suspect at best.

Carl: I've seen the suggestion that the Presidential race in the u.S. is between Satan and Ahriman. Who is who is up for debate. I fear that one candidate represents a fast track to 1984, while the other is all to likely to trigger "civil" or world war. I'll just add the note that the totalitarian government civilian body count for the 20th century is rather greater than the 20th century war casualty body count.

As for sport hunting targets: from the statistics I've gleaned, I'm not sure it isn't already the case that civilians of any colour are "sport-hunting" targets for the police. Unless the statistics are inaccurate or flat wrong (I believe it comes from some u.S. agency), it seems that white people are killed by cops more often in the u.S. than black folk. I haven't checked that against relative population, though, and don't recall it being in the articles I've read.

[crfriend]

I've seen the suggestion that the Presidential race in the u.S. is between Satan and Ahriman. Who is who is up for debate. I fear that one candidate represents a fast track to 1984, while the other is all to likely to trigger "civil" or world war.

I look at it through an economic lens, and what I see is a choice between "Putin Lite" [sic] and Dubya in [cross-dressed] drag. One represents a dead-end for what used to be the middle-class here in the US and the other represents the possibility of nuclear annihilation when "Putin Lite" gets rebuffed by his beloved. Neither one is a pretty picture, but I can make a "devil's advocate" case for trying to get it over with quickly (using the "they shoot horses, don't they" notion) rather than dragging it out over another four long years (what I see is that what was the middle class in the USA will be almost entirely extinct by 2020 -- it's that close).

As for sport hunting targets: from the statistics I've gleaned, I'm not sure it isn't already the case that civilians of any colour are "sport-hunting" targets for the police. Unless the statistics are inaccurate or flat wrong (I believe it comes from some u.S. agency), it seems that white people are killed by cops more often in the u.S. than black folk. I haven't checked that against relative population, though, and don't recall it being in the articles I've read.

I'm using the number of cases where even a cursory "internal investigation" has been conducted in a police-killing of a black citizen (and "internal investigations" are, at best, laughable), hence my allegation that "sport-hunting" of black citizens is now tacitly legal for police. The true watershed will come when nothing ever issues from "internal investigations" dealing with white deaths at the hands of police -- at that point we will have one master-class and one single under-class. I'm waiting for it. I give it about six years' time.

[Tor]

I look at it through an economic lens... ...Neither one is a pretty picture, but I can make a "devil's advocate" case for trying to get it over with quickly...

I think we're pretty close to thinking much the same in slightly different terms here - and perhaps my thoughts on the direction of the one candidate are merely looking a few extra years ahead. Not that the end result is much different. As for your "devil's advocate" case, the old saying about frogs and pots comes to mind here.

I'm using the number of cases where even a cursory "internal investigation" has been conducted in a police-killing of a black citizen (and "internal investigations" are, at best, laughable)

I suspect you pay a more attention to the details of the news in this case than I do. Though I have seen people claim that the media and some political bigwigs seem to be trying to foment a race war in the US, and though I can't verify it (nor am I certain anyone can), I certainly can't refute it. I would be interested in seeing reasonably trustworthy hard statistics on this, but I'm not sure it makes enough difference to spend my time trying to find them.

If I'm not much mistaken, the skins of the would-be master class are much less safe in the US than in most any other country. As hazardous to the health of under-class folk as that may be, I fear the lesson of the 20th century is that the alternative is even more hazardous to health.

[Sinned]

And yet here in Blighty I feel safe walking the streets even at night and as a bit of an insomniac I often do take a midnight stroll or cycle ride no traffic, in a skirt of course. With the exception of the town centre on a weekend night when the nightclubs are full of the razzled and semi-naked. I have yet to see an armed cop outside of some media event such as a gig or major soccer match. Certainly not on the streets of our little city. Last time I handled a gun of any sort was in my early teens when we learnt to assemble/disassemble one or two and learnt to shoot straight and hit the target. Always awkward for me shooting a rifle as I am blind in my right eye and have to shoot left handed but I am normally right handed. Speed loading I ain't good at.

[Ray]

We're also not worried about our government turning tyrannical. Oh, we complain about politicians, but we're not going to arm ourselves to prevent a perceived government oppression. Seriously?

As Sinned said, walking the streets of the UK is pretty safe. We don't need guns. Our police force tend to enforce without the use of firearms.

Last point - gun regulation is not the same as a wholesale ban. It's a restriction on ownership and use. The use of cars and aircraft is restricted; I have yet to hear of any compelling reason why firearms are not similarly regulated.

[Tor]

Best I can tell, governments always creep in the direction of increasing and excessive meddling in people's affairs. Somewhere along that continuum exists the line marked "tyranny". Movements towards less meddling tend to be sporadic, jumping, and brought about by either force or a complete collapse in the legitimacy of the government in the eyes of the people. I can't pull up examples of the latter without an intervening stage that a decent, aware, and willing to stand up for what is right person has much of any chance of surviving. Those who see it coming either get out or are highly unlikely to survive one way or another.

And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.

Try reading the transcript of Kitty Werthmann's speech. The parallels may not be exact, but they are more than close enough to just about every first-world country I can think of to scare me.

[Ray]

Thanks for the link, Tor.

Unfortunately I'm not sure I can place too much reliance on the speech, or automatically extend it to other national governments. The warnings are valid, but bear in mind that Hitler came to power in a nation denuded of rights, self-esteem and economic influence in the wake of WW1. Austria, while less affected, still saw Hitler a one of their own.

In the age of free speech, information dissemination and global trading, one government heading off into tyranny - in stable countries - is far less likely than was the case in the past. Having a six-shooter tucked under your pillow is not really going to help.

Thus, for me, the argument that a populace must have unfettered rights to firearms in case of government tyranny, regardless of consequence, is a reductio ad absurdum. It suggests a self-serving paranoia.

[john62]

Free speech left Australia a long time. You can not even tell Irish or Catholic or Jewish or any jokes as you may upset someone. If you say anything about immigration than you are racist, if you say anything about marriage then you are are homophobic. Being political correct is destroying this country.

John

[PatJ]

Free speech left Australia a long time. You can not even tell Irish or Catholic or Jewish or any jokes as you may upset someone. If you say anything about immigration than you are racist, if you say anything about marriage then you are are homophobic. Being political correct is destroying this country.

John

I found a way around all those issues of ethnic jokes. The solution is quite simple. Simply tell the same jokes and pick a group of people that cannot be offended.

My research indicated that as a group of people, the Hittite people are extinct. They are all dead so there is no way you can offend them. Just substitute Hittite for what ever the ethnic joke called for and you are safe.

For example: "There were these two Hittites, Ole and Lena ....."

[Judah14]

Free speech left Australia a long time. You can not even tell Irish or Catholic or Jewish or any jokes as you may upset someone. If you say anything about immigration than you are racist, if you say anything about marriage then you are are homophobic. Being political correct is destroying this country.

John

Well that is just social pressure, not government-enforced censorship. At least you will not get libel or go to jail for such jokes. Political correctness can be annoying when taken to the extreme though.

[Fred in Skirts]

Free speech left Australia a long time. You can not even tell Irish or Catholic or Jewish or any jokes as you may upset someone. If you say anything about immigration than you are racist, if you say anything about marriage then you are are homophobic. Being political correct is destroying this country.John

Well that is just social pressure, not government-enforced censorship. At least you will not get libel or go to jail for such jokes. Political correctness can be annoying when taken to the extreme though.

But it is enforced by the government through the court systems. If you tell an ethnic joke you can be prosecuted. Being a racist (not necessarily actually being one you are labeled one for telling the joke) is a punishable crime in some countries.

Fred

[Judah14]

Free speech left Australia a long time. You can not even tell Irish or Catholic or Jewish or any jokes as you may upset someone. If you say anything about immigration than you are racist, if you say anything about marriage then you are are homophobic. Being political correct is destroying this country.John

Well that is just social pressure, not government-enforced censorship. At least you will not get libel or go to jail for such jokes. Political correctness can be annoying when taken to the extreme though.

But it is enforced by the government through the court systems. If you tell an ethnic joke you can be prosecuted. Being a racist (not necessarily actually being one you are labeled one for telling the joke) is a punishable crime in some countries.

Fred

My opinion is based on my experience, as I don't think such jokes count as libel and no one got charged for libel here for telling racist jokes.

[r.m.anderson]

Free speech left Australia a long time. You can not even tell Irish or Catholic or Jewish or any jokes as you may upset someone. If you say anything about immigration than you are racist, if you say anything about marriage then you are are homophobic. Being political correct is destroying this country.

John

I found a way around all those issues of ethnic jokes. The solution is quite simple. Simply tell the same jokes and pick a group of people that cannot be offended.

My research indicated that as a group of people, the Hittite people are extinct. They are all dead so there is no way you can offend them. Just substitute Hittite for what ever the ethnic joke called for and you are safe.

For example: "There were these two Hittites, Ole and Lena ....."

As Ronald Reagan would say "Now there you go..."!

OK so you Hittite people - Ole and Lena which Ark did you immigrate on getting out of the promise land ?
Maybe even that is going too far - Bible - Jews - Christians - middle east country places and destinations.

But then there was Nathan Hale who regretted that he had only one life to give for his country !

I may disagree with what you say but in my country I will defend your right to say it very carefully - it is after all your head - I am keeping my mine for the moment !

[Tor]

In the age of free speech, information dissemination and global trading, one government heading off into tyranny - in stable countries - is far less likely than was the case in the past. Having a six-shooter tucked under your pillow is not really going to help.

That increased information is a good way to slow or perhaps stop tyranny I fully agree with. However, consider your caveat: "in stable countries". I know of no country I am sure is both economically and politically stable over the next decade. Certainly not the US, by which laws and customs (for better or worse), this discussion is mostly based.

However, there have been various floated by various governments that would put in place controls that could (perhaps not legally) be used to stifle free speech on the internet. If they were implemented and used to such purpose, what then?

Thus, for me, the argument that a populace must have unfettered rights to firearms in case of government tyranny, regardless of consequence, is a reductio ad absurdum. It suggests a self-serving paranoia.

Near as I can verify, the correlation in the US between increased gun control and enforcement thereof and increased crime is well-demonstrated.

Consider also the Moody paper I linked earlier (firearm accessibility correlated with homicide rates in Europe). Given these, I remain unconvinced the consequences of unfettered rights to firearms are on balance deleterious, even from a perspective only considering accidents and common criminals.

I hear the situation in the UK is improving, but for a while, as I understand it, if an armed burglar had you cornered in your house at 3:00AM, and you bashed his head in with a frying pan you could expect to be arrested and convicted of murder. From the perspective of both justice and trying to lower crime, that policy, to me, is insanity. cui bono?

[crfriend]

My opinion is based on my experience, as I don't think such jokes count as libel and no one got charged for libel here for telling racist jokes.

It's not known as "libel" here, but rather as "hate crime" -- and can definitely land one in jail. One must be exceedingly careful of what one says, and to whom one says it to.