0
ManagingPrime

Enough with the gun talk...lets talk about violence.

Recommended Posts

Quote

having a big gun does NOT increase the size of your dick.



typical liberal, all the assumptions are backwards

you need to take a LITTLE gun and then hold it next to yourself - that'll make your dick look bigger



(of course, you're the guy that plays with model rockets.......)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, using your logic, the average skydiver will NEVER need a reserve... so why on earth would anyone EVER have one? Hell, it would save me money!
In every man's life he will be allotted one good woman and one good dog. That's all you get, so appreciate them while the time you have with them lasts.

- RiggerLee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Please actually do some research before trotting out the hysteria from the NRA


Even as the gun-control debate rises again in the U.S. in the aftermath of the horrific school shooting in Newtown, Conn., the gun-loving Swiss are not about to lay down their arms. Guns are ubiquitous in this neutral nation, with sharpshooting considered a fun and wholesome recreational activity for people of all ages.

Even though Switzerland has not been involved in an armed conflict since a standoff between Catholics and Protestants in 1847, the Swiss are very serious not only about their right to own weapons but also to carry them around in public. Because of this general acceptance and even pride in gun ownership, nobody bats an eye at the sight of a civilian riding a bus, bike or motorcycle to the shooting range, with a rifle slung across the shoulder.


http://world.time.com/2012/12/20/the-swiss-difference-a-gun-culture-that-works/

Gun politics in Switzerland are unique in Europe. Switzerland does not have a standing army, instead opting for a people's militia for its national defense. The vast majority of men between the ages of 20 and 30 are conscripted into the militia and undergo military training, including weapons training. The personal weapons of the militia are kept at home as part of the military obligations; Switzerland thus has one of the highest militia gun ownership rates in the world.[1] In recent times political opposition has expressed a desire for tighter gun regulations.[2] A referendum in February 2011 rejected stricter gun control.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

Guns are deeply rooted within Swiss culture - but the gun crime rate is so low that statistics are not even kept.
The country has a population of six million, but there are estimated to be at least two million publicly-owned firearms, including about 600,000 automatic rifles and 500,000 pistols.

This is in a very large part due to Switzerland's unique system of national defence, developed over the centuries.

Instead of a standing, full-time army, the country requires every man to undergo some form of military training for a few days or weeks a year throughout most of their lives.

Between the ages of 21 and 32 men serve as frontline troops. They are given an M-57 assault rifle and 24 rounds of ammunition which they are required to keep at home.

Once discharged, men serve in the Swiss equivalent of the US National Guard, but still have to train occasionally and are given bolt rifles. Women do not have to own firearms, but are encouraged to.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1566715.stm

That was easy.

I picked those two countries because they have high rates of firearms possession; assault weapons at that. They are required to for national defense. And yet, those firearms are not resulting in higher murder rates.

I've seen the reports that they don't have many firearms and firearms are strictly monitored. They like to talk about private ownership. They ignore the government owned, but privately stored weapons. Those weapons are clearly available for murder, but don't get used for it. So, my conclusion is that it is not availablility of the weapon, but the intent of the individual. Thus, I agree with the OP that a discussion of the causes of violence would be most productive.



Both are right.

Possession in switzerland is high, but that doesn't mean people are allowed to carry them.

IE, you are not allowed to take the military issued rifle out to your backyard and start shooting with it. Or decide that you need it with you while grocery shopping.

So, in the end, using Switzerland as an example is flawed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Please actually do some research before trotting out the hysteria from the NRA


Even as the gun-control debate rises again in the U.S. in the aftermath of the horrific school shooting in Newtown, Conn., the gun-loving Swiss are not about to lay down their arms. Guns are ubiquitous in this neutral nation, with sharpshooting considered a fun and wholesome recreational activity for people of all ages.

Even though Switzerland has not been involved in an armed conflict since a standoff between Catholics and Protestants in 1847, the Swiss are very serious not only about their right to own weapons but also to carry them around in public. Because of this general acceptance and even pride in gun ownership, nobody bats an eye at the sight of a civilian riding a bus, bike or motorcycle to the shooting range, with a rifle slung across the shoulder.


http://world.time.com/2012/12/20/the-swiss-difference-a-gun-culture-that-works/

Gun politics in Switzerland are unique in Europe. Switzerland does not have a standing army, instead opting for a people's militia for its national defense. The vast majority of men between the ages of 20 and 30 are conscripted into the militia and undergo military training, including weapons training. The personal weapons of the militia are kept at home as part of the military obligations; Switzerland thus has one of the highest militia gun ownership rates in the world.[1] In recent times political opposition has expressed a desire for tighter gun regulations.[2] A referendum in February 2011 rejected stricter gun control.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

Guns are deeply rooted within Swiss culture - but the gun crime rate is so low that statistics are not even kept.
The country has a population of six million, but there are estimated to be at least two million publicly-owned firearms, including about 600,000 automatic rifles and 500,000 pistols.

This is in a very large part due to Switzerland's unique system of national defence, developed over the centuries.

Instead of a standing, full-time army, the country requires every man to undergo some form of military training for a few days or weeks a year throughout most of their lives.

Between the ages of 21 and 32 men serve as frontline troops. They are given an M-57 assault rifle and 24 rounds of ammunition which they are required to keep at home.

Once discharged, men serve in the Swiss equivalent of the US National Guard, but still have to train occasionally and are given bolt rifles. Women do not have to own firearms, but are encouraged to.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1566715.stm

That was easy.

I picked those two countries because they have high rates of firearms possession; assault weapons at that. They are required to for national defense. And yet, those firearms are not resulting in higher murder rates.

I've seen the reports that they don't have many firearms and firearms are strictly monitored. They like to talk about private ownership. They ignore the government owned, but privately stored weapons. Those weapons are clearly available for murder, but don't get used for it. So, my conclusion is that it is not availablility of the weapon, but the intent of the individual. Thus, I agree with the OP that a discussion of the causes of violence would be most productive.



Both are right.

Possession in switzerland is high, but that doesn't mean people are allowed to carry them.

IE, you are not allowed to take the military issued rifle out to your backyard and start shooting with it. Or decide that you need it with you while grocery shopping.

So, in the end, using Switzerland as an example is flawed.



Israel and Switzerland really don't compare to the US. Even if Switzerlands gun laws mirrored those of the US I don't think we would see comparable gun rights. Israel has external threats which are reflected in their gun laws.

I would have to look at the numbers, but I'm willing to be that since World War II American society could take the award for the most violent. Violent people with guns make for gun violence...that is simple to understand on a very basic level.

The real question is, if America is in fact a violent society, why? Could it have something to do with how we define violence and differentiate between acceptable violence and unacceptable violence? For instance, we've all heard the "I'll 'fight' (read kill) to protect my property rights (read gun)" What has not been articulated, but what is generally understood is there are those who would also kill (read law enforcement) to take someones property, given the legal authority. In the case of these opposing parties, does one actually possess moral high ground, do both?

EDIT TO ADD: The general idea with the OP is that America has a gun culture like no other. American may be a more violent society than it's peers. To get to the core issue violence needs to be addressed, not guns....then we can find commonality with societies that do not have the gun culture. After all, if it were not for violence we would not be having this discussion regarding guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Violence is part of not only the american culture. The entire human culture. Why is it so easy to forget that not too long ago...people actually had to hunt for food. Was PETA out there having protests? No. Now I see yesterday that some animal rights activists were getting upset that a man in florida who literally handcaught a 6 foot tarpon with his hand and then wrestled with it for 30 seconds or so before it fell back in the water. If anyone gets upset about that then definately dont go fishing with me. We have this thing called cut bait where we catch a small trash fish and then cut it up into pieces to catch bigger fish. But yet people will pay good money to watch two men beat the shit out of each other at UFC fights...or even boxing in general. I understand that as a part of civilized soceity we are to learn and grow from those barbaric times and evolve into a peaceful soceity, but it wasnt that long ago humans were killing to put food on our tables. I bet there were precious few vegetarians back then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Very true,a big gun will not increase the size of your dick.
It also will not give you big swinging balls and a dick if you do not already have them.
I know some very hot mothers,or MILF's as some might say, who have guns that are far larger and more powerful than anything I own,and they shoot them very well.
Since they are mothers,I would bet that they do not have big dicks or balls nor do they hope to grow them through using big guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


I think part of it is our culture isn't any more inherently violent than any other, but it's our sense we can literally do anything, anywhere and any time we want regardless of who is involved and how many lives we trample over. We also easily recognize this mindset in others which stokes both our ego to ensure it's not us who get trampled on and ironically makes it easier for the situation to escalate. You can call that a form of entitlement if you want to.



Its really interesting to hear you say that, definitely from the outside looking in that is the general perception of the American psyche outside of the USA.
When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Well, using your logic, the average skydiver will NEVER need a reserve... so why on earth would anyone EVER have one? Hell, it would save me money!



Please post a link to anywhere that I suggested no one would ever need a gun.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Where do you get off telling me what I can or can't do to defend myself? Don't tell me how to live my life.



Ladies and Gentlemen, I rest my case.



A point well made Quade.
When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Well, using your logic, the average skydiver will NEVER need a reserve... so why on earth would anyone EVER have one? Hell, it would save me money!



Please post a link to anywhere that I suggested no one would ever need a gun.



My apologies, I hit quote on the wrong reply. It was Quade that said this...

Quote


The average person does not need a weapon of any kind in their lives. Really, they don't.



So, using Quade's logic, my argument stands.
In every man's life he will be allotted one good woman and one good dog. That's all you get, so appreciate them while the time you have with them lasts.

- RiggerLee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not sure what aspect of violence you want to discussed but putting to death a death row inmate because he murdered two other inmates in protest that he was not put to death has nothing to do with violence. See Virginia case happening right now. This is tax saving. 2 dead, one who will now finally be put to death as he should be put to death. No more state funded housing and meals. OK now you can talk about the violent death of the first victim. What can you say?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I think part of it is our culture isn't any more inherently violent than any other, but it's our sense we can literally do anything, anywhere and any time we want regardless of who is involved and how many lives we trample over. We also easily recognize this mindset in others which stokes both our ego to ensure it's not us who get trampled on and ironically makes it easier for the situation to escalate. You can call that a form of entitlement if you want to.

...

The average person does not need a weapon of any kind in their lives. Really, they don't. The odds of being attacked do not, for the vast majority of people, justify the increased risk of danger to ones own family members.

...

No. You do NOT have full control of the universe. You live in it with other people. Society will actually dictate certain things whether you want it to or not.

Unless, of course, you go live on your own island isolated from the rest of the world, then knock yourself out. Just don't go crazy.



This is a good summary, and an important admission of gun control advocates (and really both sides of the argument's) viewpoint.

It's all simply about who gets marginalized (and by who.)

I don't have trouble with the idea of more background checks because I don't have problems passing background checks, but I have to admit that I'd be marginalizing people who "wrongfully fail" a background check. People who choose not to own a gun have no trouble with any law (as silly as the definitions it contains or ill-conceived the restrictions it imposes are) that reduces firearms in circulation because to them, any gun that's not theirs or the governments is either in the hands of a bad guy or just waiting to get into the hands of a bad guy, but they have to admit they are marginalizing any people who would own those firearms for any reason other than committing crimes. People against additional laws must admit that future victims of gun violence that would have been prevented by any new measures are being marginalized.

But here's the thing about that last one in contrast to the first two...

Society can dictate a lot of things about who wins and who loses and it's not often fair*, but Government shouldn't be so quick to. Just because life isn't fair* doesn't give the government carte blanche to make it more unfair* because Society calls for it. Look at Prop 8 in California. It's a case of government marginalizing a group of people because society called for it. Preventing crap like that is why we have a constitutional republic in the first place. Giving equal weight to people being marginalized by government action and people being marginalized by government inaction is a pretty serious assertion, and I hope you realize that.



*fair is ill-defined, so I'll just call it any situation where all you have to say is "suck it up cupcake."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
People against additional laws must admit that future victims of gun violence that would have been prevented by any new measures are being marginalized.
_____________________________________________

You also have to make the case that these future incidents of gun violence would actually have been prevented by the new measures proposed. So far I haven't seen much proof of any of that. Simply that 'we have to do something'
If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know one thing, with all this proposed talk of legislation, bans, etc., guns and ammo producers can't even keep up. Over the counter ammo is out of stock in my area a hundred mile radius. Dicks, Walmart kaput. Plus with all the old ladies and teachers in the gun shop buying pistols, there's a huge waiting period as ATF can't even handle all the applictions. And as newbies buy guns and what ammo there is left, they'll want to go to the range and shoot so try getting a bench! Better take up a hobbie that is less problematic than shooting sports. OUT OF AMMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Simply that 'we have to do something'



Are you saying it's okay to do nothing?




to begin with, this is not a gun problem. It's a people problem (perhaps more exactly a mental health problem).
frankly, unless I'm confidant that the measures taken would have the effect of reducing what we want to reduce, and not have other adverse effects that we aren't thinking about yet, I would say yes, it would be ok to not change gun control laws. Increased background checks, yes;perhaps increased training and emphasis on secure storage of weapons, yes; but banning assault rifles and large capacity mags, no. Not without knowing that it will achieve a noticeable improvement.


We simply have to look at some of the plants/animals that have been imported from other areas of the world in order to solve particular problems in north america, to see what havoc they can cause without any natural checks.

Doing a kneejerk 'something' without knowing that it would have the effect you want, (and only that effect, in this case for example not increasing the number of home invasions or violent assaults due to increased confidence among thugs that civilians will not be armed) is not a viable solution.
If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Simply that 'we have to do something'



Are you saying it's okay to do nothing?




to begin with, this is not a gun problem. It's a people problem (perhaps more exactly a mental health problem).

frankly, unless I'm confidant that the measures taken would have the effect of reducing what we want to reduce, and not have other adverse effects that we aren't thinking about yet, I would say yes, it would be ok to not change gun control laws.

We simply have to look at some of the plants/animals that have been imported from other areas of the world in order to solve particular problems in north america, to see what havoc they can cause without any natural checks.

Doing a kneejerk 'something' without knowing that it would have the effect you want, (and only that effect, in this case for example not increasing the number of home invasions or violent assaults due to increased confidence among thugs that civilians will not be armed) is not a viable solution.



Japan Tsunami. Unbelievable the damage this will cause.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/18/japan-tsunami-debris-hawaii-fridge_n_2502019.html?utm_hp_ref=green

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"The average person does not need a weapon of any kind in their lives. Really, they don't."

Wow. This may be the most bullshit statement I have ever seen in this forum.

Lets see: My own personal experience:

Age 13: Was a smart, scrawny, underweight little know-it-all that never knew when to shut up, tended to attract bullies like flies. Targeted by group, surrounded, unarmed. Result: Was savagely beaten, stomped, repeatedly kicked in the head face and crotch, left to bleed in the dirt.

Age 13, again: Targetted by group of 4 on bicycles. I was on foot, was followed home and attacked on front lawn. Grabbed a nearby political sign as improvised defensive weapon. It enraged them, some kept me busy while others fetched weapons..."Go get your axe handle!" With nowhere left to run, I engaged them, took a few hits, used political sign to disarm one, took his axe handle away from him and used it on him. Fought my way free, took shelter in the house. They got more weapons and began trying to smash their way into the house. I defended the doorway with an enormous butcher knife, stalemate against thrown rocks until police arrived and ended it.

Age 14: Still smart, still scrawny, still attracting attention from the jocks and other scum. Had begun carrying knives. Cornered behind a house by group. Pulled a knife and bared my teeth and began hacking at the first one that thought I was bluffing and got in range. Did not need to actually cut him. They freaked and ran.

Age 17: Living in Philippines. Targetted for robbery at bus station, 2-on-one while burdened with more luggage than I could easily move. Displayed weapon. Aggressors kept distance. Aggressors continued trying to maneuver to get at my luggage until the bus actually started moving at which point they gave me the finger with both fists, faces twisted in frustrated rage. I blew them a kiss.

Age 19: Living in low-end housing, Concord, NH. My neighbor (a "hispanic gank-sta type" ) had tried to "prank" me by attempting to kick me into a laundry room filled with pepper gas. His idea of "fun", Gas The Gringo. I had known something wasn't right, when he made his move, (kicked me in the back) I was ready, grabbed the doorframe, flipped back, slammed him into a wall and told him off, then left. Neighbor decided this means I had "dissed" him, kicked in my door late that evening and tried to strangle me in my sleep, macing me first. Fought him blind, (had a grip on his shirt so I knew exactly where he was) and would have slain him but when he discovered that gassing me did not render me helpless he broke free and ran. Slept with blades close at hand ever since.

Age 20: Local gang fight in front yard, attacked the moment my roommate and I stepped out front door to investigate. Produced massive shotgun. Gang ran away.

Age 22: Rancho Cordova, California: Again living in next-to-ghetto housing. White man living in an almost all-black neighborghood. Random crackhead (bulging eyes, puffing and blowing, trembling, sweating profusely, huge muscles, outweighed me by 100 lb) had been terrorizing parking lot for 2 days, attacked me on sight. Had to jump a 6 foot spike topped wrought iron fence to do so. I backed away... when he got within 15 feet I produced the 18 inch imitation Samurai sword I kept handy, and drew it. Crackhead froze. I told him to go away. He did. The next time he saw me when he pulled in, he panicked at the sight of me, jumped back in his car and fled. Now thats more like it.

Age 22: Rancho again. Bought a cheap K-mart mountain bike. Hadn't owned it 48 hours before one of the locals decided to jump me for it. I chose escape over weapon since I was already getting on the bike when he charged me. Guy fell on his face from the leap he made trying to take me off the bike. I was quicker. Once rolling he gave chase, trying to cut me off from parking lot exit till I produced an Asp baton. Around corner, saw whole ghetto family poking heads around corner of house to see if Deshawn Gankstaballa had succeeded in bagging today's prey. When they saw I had a weapon they vanished.

Age 28: Attacked in traffic by road-rager. When rager attempted to open my vehicle I pulled a knife and showed it to him, told him I'd use it, colorfully. He got back in his car like a good little boy and behaved himself.

I've led a more interesting life than average, but I know one thing: We, are monkeys, and fundamentally the behavior of our species, absent the restraint of weapons, is no better than the Gombe chimpanzee groups documented by Jane Goodall in the 70's which occasionally tried to wipe each other out...and occasionally succeeded. Violence is in our nature, and anyone who ventures outside Leave-it-to-beaver polite white suburbia will find that out.

We are an incredibly violent species. You are either armed, or you are a victim. When the shit hits the fan there is no middle ground. To this day I have never hurt anyone except a couple of arms I broke when jumped for my bike in 5th grade. There were only two of them so I rather absently broke their arms and left, no weapons required that time. Just because -I- believe in nonviolence doesn't mean THEY do. You're either prepared, or helpless. Choose.
-B
Live and learn... or die, and teach by example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think that exactly counts as an average experience.

Maybe mine isn't either:

Ages 0 - 67. never attacked, never robbed, never had need for weapon of any kind. Lived on S. Side of Chicago for 3 years, worked on S. side for 35 years.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

"The average person does not need a weapon of any kind in their lives. Really, they don't."

Wow. This may be the most bullshit statement I have ever seen in this forum.

Lets see: My own personal experience...


I don't think that exactly counts as an average experience.

Maybe mine isn't either...



As davjohns pointed out, the "average experience" is kinda silly to talk about. On average, we all have a gun and we'll all almost never be shot by one... so what's all the arguing about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

"The average person does not need a weapon of any kind in their lives. Really, they don't."

Wow. This may be the most bullshit statement I have ever seen in this forum.

Lets see: My own personal experience...


I don't think that exactly counts as an average experience.

Maybe mine isn't either...



As davjohns pointed out, the "average experience" is kinda silly to talk about. On average, we all have a gun and we'll all almost never be shot by one... so what's all the arguing about?



Yet to go by some posters on here you'd think they were fighting off armed criminals on a daily basis.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0