h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

"From a world perspective, I am more concerned with the US monetary debauchery. I am not sure why so many people are more concerned with guns in the US, although it may become relevant if the US does enter a depression that brings out the guns. Then the world may also suffer even greater economic hardships in the near future while the US falls into some kind of dark-age.

And car safety; that is not even worth mentioning compared to the significance of …. "

It isn't a matter of either or being concerned about guns precludes concerns about the economy, road safety or climate change it is just this thread is about guns. although one hates to think what would have happened in the riots that resulted from British "monetary debauchery" in 2001 if guns had been readily available.

As regards to national cultures it is worth noting that not all countries have homogenous cultures and several cultures can exist in one country, that is certainly the case in the US where a wide cultural divide seems to be developing.

Sorry that should have read 2011 riots.

You used the word "precludes," I did not!

Sam Harris has followed up on his previous gun violence article I post here (and here is another link, I recommend it: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-riddle-of-the-gun ) with a FAQ of sorts regarding some of the reactions he's received about it. It is also quite enlightening and well thought out.

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/faq-on-violence

He addresses several of the arguments that have been stated here.

I note with sadness that even as we have been having this
discussion, an American housewife was forced to shoot an
intruder in the face. Five times.

How does anyone survive five gunshot wounds to the head?

He was later picked up by police driving under the influence
of lead in his head.

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/article/291078/5/Woman-shoots-intruder-neighbors-flock-to-gun-shop


~jwf~

Alex Jones vs Piers Morgan on CNN-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-tsHlDviuA

Pro gun extremism taken to it's illogical conclusions.

Alex Jones and Piers Morgan?!

I just don't think I can bring myself to click that link. I definitely couldn't do so while I'm at work lest I risk getting fired for the loud stream of profanities that would burst through my office walls.

Come to America. In the decades since since the civil right revolution, our law enforcement community is far more professional and better trained than ever. The police have started community oriented policing programs to help the police and communities and citizens work together to solve crime issues. We have fully embraced the philosophy of Sir Robert Peele: The citizens are the police and the police are the people. In this atmosphere of trust and cooperation, we no longer see the need for the protections of the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments.

We may appreciate the military. They may do a fine job now. That doesn't mean that I think the Second Amendment should be suspended.

Assuming that the military would turn on the people, (which I think is quite unlikely. The military appreciates the principles of the Constitution more than any politician that I can think of), what could we do? The US was defeated in Vietnam, we were fought to a stand still during the occupation of Iraq by insurgents with weapons inferior to those that are in contention today, and it's unclear if we will be able to defeat the Taliban.

The American military is pretty small compared to nation as a whole. If they know where to strike, they're unbeatable. If you want to invade a nation, no problem. Ask them to occupy a hostile nation, and we're not very good at that.

We don't need the Second Amendment now, but who knows what might happen?

So at, we've only amended the Constitution once in a way that restricted our liberty. I don't think we should do it again.

To clarify, I'm not all that concerned about the military. As I wrote, they care about the limits of government power far more than the elected officials they serve. It's deeply ingrained in them.

However, Nosebagbadger seemed to want to discuss the this bit, so there it is. The ultimate reason for the Second Amendment is to be an check on federal power.

And to complete the sentiment, please look at the picture at this link:
http://www.ammoland.com/2010/10/montana-shooting-sports-association-update/

And also, a friendly, "Yeehaw," from Dixie.

As far as the recommended Sam Harris bit on post 584…

Quote:
Just as I can say to a moral certainty that I’m not going to open a meth lab or start a dog-fighting ring, I can say that I’m not going to commit suicide or murder my family. There are people who experience much more chaos in their lives who cannot honestly say the same. Such people should not own guns.

My Reaction:
You can say you will not [whatever] but so would most who will!
Therefore you should not own guns.

Quote:
But when all else fails, a gun in the hands of a woman trained to use it is the best solution that civilization has found for the problem of male aggression.

My Reaction:
“The great equalizer” would be in both male and female hands and no court could adjudicate the result.

Quote:
Frankly, I don’t know what it means, in terms of aggregate human suffering, to trade 2 murders per 100,000 people for 400 assaults.

My Reaction:
To that I agree, but not to make your intended point! Firstly, you do not understand that the bases of such statistics in different countries are not compatible as they emanate from different sets of legal systems. Secondly, you do not try to understand that the word “assault” covers a vast range of injustice, some of which may be heinous while many are but spit on the ground.

Quote:
I will simply observe that men like Steve and Nev make the ethical case for putting weapons in the hands of good people better than a philosopher ever could.

My Reaction:
*GASPING* Not even the barkeep would have survived!

Such polar views seem irreconcilable with reason.

Cool story bro.

Puts everything else you've been saying into a new light though.

"The citizens are the police and the police are the people."

The problem is that the US police, from an outsiders perspective, are frightingly militarised.

And if the government aren't tyrants and the military are not likely to turn on the people, the 2nd Amendment is no longer relevant, no matter how you twist your viewpoint.

Not that I expect you to bother addressing the points I'm making seeing as you've done a pretty good job of ignoring me so far.

Relative calmness seems to have returned (not that my absence would make things calmer...of course not )


"Assuming that the military would turn on the people, (which I think is quite unlikely. The military appreciates the principles of the Constitution more than any politician that I can think of), what could we do? The US was defeated in Vietnam, we were fought to a stand still during the occupation of Iraq by insurgents with weapons inferior to those that are in contention today, and it's unclear if we will be able to defeat the Taliban.

The American military is pretty small compared to nation as a whole. If they know where to strike, they're unbeatable. If you want to invade a nation, no problem. Ask them to occupy a hostile nation, and we're not very good at that. "

The terrain in Vietnam and Iraq is better suited to insurgency then the US (despite its range of terrains, and excluding Alaska, which would be a nightmare)
I also would say there is a higher degree of radicalism, of various sorts, in Iraq or Vietnam then there is the US, despite either the various videos we've seen (where said people might be radical, but also idiots) or the obvious patriotism in the US.

With or without guns, the US could quite easily eliminate its military by causing significant damage to its economy/industry/transport system - modern militaries have such complex systems that they have to be put together in a country which can completely trust its internal security - of course the problem doing this is you would also be damaging the economy and industry you need to survive -

With the exception of Green on Blue attacks, rarely are coalition soldiers killed by guns - even when ambushed the kill results are always one-sided in coalition favour
IEDs and suicide bombs do heavy damage (either physically or to morale) - can you buy grenades? While you may or may not (in an American sense, not you personally) have the ability to gain access to explosives, having or not having guns wouldn't make that any easier

Another problem is that in pretty much any scenario the US population will split between those pro the soldiers and those against, both sides with tens of thousands of guns - one more problem to think about, whether or not it would help the overall problem

We're being trolled for goodness sake!

Name - "Two bit trigger pumping moron"
Thread - Gun Control
Viewpoint - "Guns are good, m'kaay", "Criminals to be shot on sight". "Yee-haw"

I absolutely disagree. The name is a perfectly good geek reference to his actual profession, and he's rationally and reasonably presenting a viewpoint with which you happen to disagree.

Furthermore, it's not a viewpoint he's espousing simply to get a rise out of people, it's one he's consistently presented on this site for over twelve years (!).

swl: I don't think you know what "trolling" is, because this most definitely is not it.

Oh I know what trolling is and this fits the bill.

From Urban Dictionary -

"Trolling
The art of deliberately, cleverly, and secretly pissing people off, usually via the internet, using dialogue.

The most essential part of trolling is convincing your victim that (you) truly believe in what you are saying, no matter how outrageous"

Come on, when it gets to the stage that he's calling the US Military (bigger annual budget than the 12 next highest spenders *combined*) "quite small" don't you get the feeling that someone's taking a rise out of you?

This is a cop arguing for more guns on the street in a country where over 1300 cops have been shot dead since 1990.

His viewpoint is neither rational nor sensible.

And yet he selectively chooses which counterpoints he addresses. I am consistently shooting down (if you'll excuse the expression) a lot of the stuff he's saying and yet he never responds to me. Once is an oversight, to do it throughout an entire thread is simply rude and makes me wonder how well he can actually defend such viewpoints as killing intruders.

And Hoo's right () it's not actually trolling if the person genuinely holds the views they are expressing.

Ahem -

" it's not actually trolling if the person genuinely holds the views they are expressing."

"The most essential part of trolling is convincing your victim that (you) truly believe in what you are saying"

It was a .

I don't think his viewpoints are particularly solid or defensible, but I do not get the impression that they are anything other than his. And I assure you I am not naive in the ways of the internet.

2bit is not oblidged to respond your posts Mr D

I don't think that he is trolling in that I think this is a genuine viewpoint and I don't think he has been deliberately antagonistic

Even if I have been suckered, as strongly as I disagree it hasn't pissed me off and he has presented a fair enough reflection of an opposing view