Little Things that Irk You: Episode V

[JazzFunk]

Not c*pcomsuicide?

[endo]

Lol, no. The dude who posted the Capcom logo in most of his posts. Proper mental.

[The Moleman]

For me, the whole guns in America issue is a fallacy of democracy.

There's just too many pro gun voters for any sort of country-wide democratic process to go anywhere. I'm not even sure on how much power Obama really has in the US, I hear a lot of Americans praising our parliament system for the speed in which laws can be created and put into practice. From what I'm aware of, any new law in the US has through the US senate whereby it takes years for them to agree on it.

Guns are a part of American culture now, unless there is a tyrannical, undemocratic, sweeping decision to remove all guns the cycle of public shooting sprees will continue.

[Asura]

When you look at the amount of gun deaths, I don't think it's tricky at all. If you have a major problem and don't deal with it in any way whatsoever, it will just keep on happening.

Anyone want to look up figures for US human deaths caused by bears, mountain lions, coyotes and compare them with deaths caused by people with guns? If anyone opens up a book, let me know because I know where my money is going.

Dogg Thang, I like you, so I don't want to be a dick about this, but c'mon man.

It is tricky, and you selectively read my post.

Here, on an internet forum (one not frequented by that many Americans) it's easy to pull out some figures and compare the gun deaths, number of guns per capita and say it shows they should just ban guns tomorrow and be done with it.

Unfortunately, not everything is so simple. All of Europe's energy needs could be taken care of via a relatively small solar farm in the Sahara. It doesn't happen because of politics. On paper it makes perfect sense but in pragmatic terms it's impossible.

The only way to get America to disarm would be to convince the vast majority of people (the the effect of 99 out of 100) to disarm. You can't strongarm them because the entire purpose of granting the general populace firearms (the second amendment) was for the purpose of allowing them to defend themselves from a government that might try to oppress the people a tyrannical way. This is a self-reinforcing problem. As the government, you've armed people and told them to stop you if you try to disarm them.

For me, the whole guns in America issue is a fallacy of democracy.

There's just too many pro gun voters for any sort of country-wide democratic process to go anywhere. I'm not even sure on how much power Obama really has in the US, I hear a lot of Americans praising our parliament system for the speed in which laws can be created and put into practice. From what I'm aware of, any new law in the US has through the US senate whereby it takes years for them to agree on it.

Guns are a part of American culture now, unless there is a tyrannical, undemocratic, sweeping decision to remove all guns the cycle of public shooting sprees will continue.

This is the nature of it.

There's no point in comparing stats of deaths, the legitimate reasons for gun ownership vs the actual reasons for them, or the number of guns per capita. That's a foregone conclusion. We reached the answer ages ago; guns are a problem and people shouldn't generally be allowed to own a tool which is designed for killing stuff. That simple logical conclusion doesn't resolve anything.

The only thing I meant when talking about bears etc. is that it's a slightly more nuanced situation than in the UK, where gun ownership is genuinely unnecessary. No-one's going to get killed by a badger. There's nothing in the UK you can't just as easily kill with a garden fork.

[Dogg Thang]

You see, for me (and it's just my opinion), when you say it's tricky, you already try to validate the current status - and the current status is that large numbers of people, including kids, are dying from gun deaths. The wild animal thing is not seriously in any way a justification for these gun deaths and can be struck off instantly. So that's only tricky if you're seriously trying to insert it as any kind of reason to keep guns, which it isn't. And the rest really follows on from that: God-given rights, defending our homes from intruders and so on. They are just as valid as the wild animal thing. By which I mean not valid at all and just thrown on as if it is actually tricky. As if it isn't as simple as you say yourself: guns are a problem and people shouldn't generally be allowed to own a tool which is designed for killing stuff. It is simple. Anything else is seeing a dead body and saying, shame really but it's tricky so what can you do?

[fishbowlhead]

Well said Asura and I'm sure we all understood your points. I for one was poking fun really on the whole wild animal thing, which I don't see as a valid justification at all, it's a joke of a justification in reality.

It's not going to change there, even if it did, it would all be instantly undone by he next person lobbying for votes. It's all self defeating system.

[Brad]

You know what they should do with that second amendment? Amend it.

I do actually agree that it's tricky, as in it won't be easy, but that doesn't mean you just sit back and allow massacre after massacre. If you are in charge of running an entire nation you should expect to have to make difficult decisions sometimes. I have no idea how they should go about it because I'm a software engineer.

[Asura]

You see, for me (and it's just my opinion), when you say it's tricky, you already try to validate the current status - and the current status is that large numbers of people, including kids, are dying from gun deaths. The wild animal thing is not seriously in any way a justification for these gun deaths and can be struck off instantly. So that's only tricky if you're seriously trying to insert it as any kind of reason to keep guns, which it isn't. And the rest really follows on from that: God-given rights, defending our homes from intruders and so on. They are just as valid as the wild animal thing. By which I mean not valid at all and just thrown on as if it is actually tricky. As if it isn't as simple as you say yourself: guns are a problem and people shouldn't generally be allowed to own a tool which is designed for killing stuff. It is simple. Anything else is seeing a dead body and saying, shame really but it's tricky so what can you do?

Seriously?

When I say it's tricky, I mean that getting rid of firearms in the US (I mean actually doing it - convincing people, then holding amnesties, going door-to-door, really going out and doing it) would be a difficult thing to do.

It's "tricky" as opposed to just "difficult" as gun-ownership is a thing very rooted in their culture. You can't just hold up some simple stats and expect everyone to just comply. It's nuanced. I'm not trying to defend it, or say that people are right to defend the 2nd amendment, or they're right to harp on about needing to protect their family from bears. I'm just saying that people can and will say those things. I've heard people say it, face-to-face, unironically.

You approach this from an arrogant standpoint - saying "guns are bad m'kay", with supposed infallible logic and suggest people should follow that. I'm saying it's "tricky" because the world doesn't work that way. Logic doesn't sway a fairly large portion of people. That should be obvious.

It's tricky because if you were going to get America to disarm, you have to deal with every nuanced aspect of the culture - you can't just say "it'll result in less gun deaths" and just expect people to start turning in their firearms. You need to deal with illegal weapons, registered weapons, hunting culture and bloodsports, gun hobbyism and collection, people in remote areas, people in urban areas who struggle with gang violence, the criminal element... It's tricky. It's a nuanced issue.

I don't mean to sabotage the discussion of American gun culture being an irk. I guess it's just that after so many years of the same rhetoric over and over, it just bugs me that nothing has happened. Nothing ever gets done. It leads me to think that nothing will ever happen.

[fishbowlhead]

Seriously?

When I say it's tricky, I mean that getting rid of firearms in the US (I mean actually doing it - convincing people, then holding amnesties, going door-to-door, really going out and doing it) would be a difficult thing to do.

It's "tricky" as opposed to just "difficult" as gun-ownership is a thing very rooted in their culture. You can't just hold up some simple stats and expect everyone to just comply. It's nuanced. I'm not trying to defend it, or say that people are right to defend the 2nd amendment, or they're right to harp on about needing to protect their family from bears. I'm just saying that people can and will say those things. I've heard people say it, face-to-face, unironically.

You approach this from an arrogant standpoint - saying "guns are bad m'kay", with supposed infallible logic and suggest people should follow that. I'm saying it's "tricky" because the world doesn't work that way. Logic doesn't sway a fairly large portion of people. That should be obvious.

It's tricky because if you were going to get America to disarm, you have to deal with every nuanced aspect of the culture - you can't just say "it'll result in less gun deaths" and just expect people to start turning in their firearms. You need to deal with illegal weapons, registered weapons, hunting culture and bloodsports, gun hobbyism and collection, people in remote areas, people in urban areas who struggle with gang violence, the criminal element... It's tricky. It's a nuanced issue.

I don't mean to sabotage the discussion of American gun culture being an irk. I guess it's just that after so many years of the same rhetoric over and over, it just bugs me that nothing has happened. Nothing ever gets done. It leads me to think that nothing will ever happen.

It won't ever change there Asura, same as there health care. When you have people at the top of a system that taking kickbacks, shares & lobbying money from gun and medical industries (amongst many other industries) nothing will ever change. It's nothing we can ever affect or change, nice to have a moan sometimes however.

I thought for a split second Obama would be able to make a small dent on this issue, now he's on his way out I think the issue will be come even worse.

[Dogg Thang]

I'm not trying to defend it, or say that people are right to defend the 2nd amendment, or they're right to harp on about needing to protect their family from bears. I'm just saying that people can and will say those things. I've heard people say it, face-to-face, unironically.

I completely agree with you. And yet what you actually wrote in that post I replied to was that, in some places in the US, owning a gun is perfectly reasonable. Not that some might argue it. So please forgive me if I picked that up incorrectly - it reads that way. And that, for me, has and always will be working against the problem. First step - call it a problem. For me (and again, just my own personal mindset), the second you start making it reasonable, you allow for the doubt whereas I feel the simplicity of the issue which we both recognise should be out in the open at all times.

We're actually sharing the same irk, Asura. And I get where you're coming from with this post now. I don't feel it is a nuanced issue in any way. It is clouded with rhetoric and propaganda and big business interests but I don't see that as the same thing as it actually being a nuanced issue. The simplicity is clouded in all sorts of history and rhetoric and conflicting interests that I don't believe should ever be validated, and perhaps that's what you mean when you say nuanced. Perhaps we're on the same page. Perhaps it is language.

What we clearly agree on is that it is a stinky situation and people shouldn't be dying as a result. We agree where it counts.

[The Moleman]

The thing is, these massacres aren't being committed with bolt action hunting rifles or personal defence 6 shooters. They're being committed with semi auto assault rifles. There is simply no reason, ever, for civilians to need to own such weapons.

[Brad]

Ah but their second amendment rights have been interpreted in such a way that bearing automatic weapons is their right. Sometimes the government has to just do things that some people don't like and getting rid of semi and automatic weapons is one of those things.

[Dogg Thang]

Yep. Exactly. And as you say, it was an amendment in the first place - it has change at its heart.

Different irk - I mentioned that Netflix is letting me down with its lack of permanence. I went to put on The Wraith and it's gone and so I thought I may as well splurge on the Blu-Ray. Turns out there is no Blu-Ray! Jeeeeeeez.

[Kit]

The thing is, these massacres aren't being committed with bolt action hunting rifles or personal defence 6 shooters. They're being committed with semi auto assault rifles. There is simply no reason, ever, for civilians to need to own such weapons.

Pretty much. Since when did you need a m60 to protect yourself?

The only place gun laws are valid are in the sticks. This is one of the reason you don't get many 'gypo' types in the US. If you start using some blokes land as a toilet and stealing you only have yourself to blame. We've seen how not having gun laws in these situations have worked for us.

[fishbowlhead]

The thing is, these massacres aren't being committed with bolt action hunting rifles or personal defence 6 shooters. They're being committed with semi auto assault rifles. There is simply no reason, ever, for civilians to need to own such weapons.

Yep, weapons of war have no place in hunting, completely unjustifiable.