"Bill's Politics: Bad for TMP Business?" Topic

Bangorstu, I agree that if our government did decide to send our military against the people our rifles, shotguns, and handguns would not stand up to Abrams tanks and drones, but possessing guns at least gives us a chance to defend ourselves rather than simply having no recourse. Being a little paranoid about one's government isn't necessarily a bad thing. You seem to be rather quick to point out our governments' repression of other peoples around the world and then defend our government's attitude toward its own people.

We Americans, at least some of us, do cherish our democratic rights. But even democracies can turn into dictatorships in extreme circumstances. There are certainly examples of this in the 20th century. Do I think this will happen in the U.S.? No. Will I prepare myself for the possibility? Yes.

To understand the 2nd Amendment one must read the entire text: "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." While some use the first part of the quote to argue that only a state-sponsored militia has the right to arms, and it's a fair argument, it seems that the second part of the quote is rather clear that it is a right of the people.

As I was trying to point out earlier there are more reasons for people to own guns besides being scared of criminals or their government. Many here in the US use firearms for hunting. For some poorer families their kills supplement food sources throughout the year when they would otherwise be dependent on government programs or charity. Some hunters donate the meat to local homeless shelters or other charities. These ideas seem rather noble to me and might not be possible without the use of firearms.

Many collect old firearms to preserve the history. Many own firearms simply because they are fun to take to the range and blast off a few hundred rounds while target shooting. Some even own firearms in preparation for the zombie apocalypse. I own firearms for most of the reasons stated above…well maybe not the zombie apocalypse.

Keeping hunting rifles I can understand.

It's the people who claim a right to assault weapons and concealed handguns I baulk at.

Bill has a political viewpoint?

Don't know what it is. Don't care to know.

Desire to read this thread: nil.

Best thing TMP ever did was to move the CA boards to the Fez.

It's the people who claim a right to assault weapons and concealed handguns I baulk at.

Assault weapons just look like so darn much fun, though. As for concealed handguns, I suppose they are better than people walking around with exposed holsters.

Best thing TMP ever did was to move the CA boards to the Fez.

But then again…how many subjects run to six pages of comment. That alone seems to be clear that people want to be able to speak out at times. For wargamers with more experience of life than the painting desk and a game table, that looks to be popular!

No other democratic nation seems so utterly -scared of its government, nor so utterly contemptuous of the democratic process.

I must admit I find this an endless source of amusement.

For those of us who really do live in freedom it is a prime example of what propaganda can do to the human mind. Keep telling people from early childhood that they live in the land of the free, the land of democracy. the best country on earth and they will believe it.

Tell them from childhood that they have the right to bear arms, the need to protect that right and the childish believe of needing to have ones own personal 'bang bang' in the house, car or on the hip will remain into adulthood.

Tell them from childhood that it is to protect the people from the big bad government….which by the way they elect….and they will believe it into adulthood.

Tell them that the big bad government…which they elect…will send in people with guns to take away what they have and give it to those who need it more….and they will believe it.

Is it any wonder we, the rest of the world, wet our pants laughing, when we see American politicians on our TV news, sprouting off about democracy and how all citizens are equal and always end it by saying they are all living in the greatest country on earth. Its better than a comedy show for a great belly laugh. Partly because they say it….and partly because of all those shiny tears in the eyes true believer faces looking up from the crowd and believing every word of it!!!!

Downright bloody hilarious. Especially when you know many of those faces will leave the event packing guns because they fear the society around them and feel they might need them to protect themselves from the very people they have just been listening too!

The Monty Python show could not have come up with a more funny skit, because its such a silly, situation. Paranoia alive and kicking, on full display. Whilst in the meantime, the mega rich industrialists wheel more money into the bank and throw up defences around their mansions to protect themselves from the people they have sold those guns too!

The old snake oil salesmen gave up decades ago…now they promote the need for guns and sell them instead. And of course if citizen A has a gun to protect against citizen B, then citizen B needs one to protect against citizen A and they both need one to protect against the govenment they democratically elected and which might take away their personal property.

And just in case anyone doesnt believe the critical need to own guns, the mega rich idustrialists pump money into an organisation called the NRA so that can terrify the population with stories of why they need guns. Then lobby politicians as to why there is a need to preserve the right to carry them. And if that is not enough, well then there is the fear of other countries, rabid dogs, Big foot and girl scouts with fake poison laden cookies.

Its a self renewing fear campaign that keeps a lot of people very very rich.

And has the sad result of regular gun massacres. an incredible murder rate, houses with inbuilt panic rooms and a belief that by having more and more guns you can protect yourself from the people who already have far too many guns!

Been living in the USA for a long time have you Mal?
The USA your describing is one I don't live in.
Here in Texas the reddest of the red states where I have resided for about 39 of my 45 years we own guns, we hunt,
target shoot etc. I don't fear my government, my neighbor,
the hoody clad youth walking behind me on a dark night.
I don't know what dark sinister hollywood version of America your describing.
Yes I could die in a gun massacre, I might die in a car wreck, of prostate cancer or an industrial canning accident.
I don't dwell on it.
I have served overseas and traveled to other nations mainly in the south pacific so I don't consider myself some country rube.

Respectfully,
Mongo

Not my America either, Mal.

I have been a gun owner, and a crossbow owner too, and neither purchase was driven by fear of government or the citizenry, or training/brainwashing. I shoot because I like to shoot.

I too am a gun owner and have no fear of the government. I am a target shooter and collector for the most part. I like to shoot poor defenseless targets . And occasionally hunt. I also carry my rifle/musket for Living History and the same previous reasons too. Robert

Been living in the USA for a long time have you

National media certainly can give you screwy ideas about the rest of the world, particularly when others differ from your obviously superior customs and laws. It's an old story but it sells. I didn't recognize America viewed through the lens of British papers when I lived there. I'm sure I wouldn't have recognized the version of Britain in the American media if it was better developed. One of the things about America for better or worse is they aren't interested enough in their neighbors to slander them, except maybe France, for some reason we like to make (quite untrue in my experience) wisecracks about France.

Derek H said:

And then I'll be grateful that I live in a part of the world where people suggesting that it's a good idea to carry guns into restaurants are generally considered to be complete loons.

I've (nor anyone else that I know of here) have never suggested for anyone to do anything of the sort. I made a self-personal choice since my lady wanted to try the restaraunt and the neighborhood is in a high crime area.
No one seems to question an LEO carrying a firearm on his side while eating lunch or dinner at an establishment…so why not a law abiding citizen that is well within his rights?

But then again, Scotland is a lovely place, since you have no problems with gun crimes or loons, right?

link

It's a good thing for the rest of the world that only we in the U.S. are subject to propaganda.

As for concealed handguns, I suppose they are better than people walking around with exposed holsters.

Governor Mary Fallin of Oklahoma recently signed "open carry" into legislation. In Utah, technically you can open carry even without a CC permit; but depending on the company you're keeping, or the cop who sees you, open carry can be considered dodgy behavior or even rude….

Indiana does not differentiate on open or concealed carry. You can carry the damn thing duct taped to your forehead if you wish….
Although certain town police departments (such as Gary and Hammond, and Terra Haute), have these strange notions that state laws and the state constitution doesn't mean anything and it's what "Officer So and So says, that IS the law"….

I have no fear of the government…just a distrust on certain policies that certain agencies are doing, and a certain concern over the fact that recent court rulings over the last decade has said that "the police are not responsible for the safety of the individual from crime, but for the public…at large"…

Murphy – I guess you just like living in a nation where violent death is relatively common.

Violent death is common in every country Stu…yours included….

I like living in a country where we get one mass shooting every decade.

And yet if you are still having a mass shooting every decade…it proves that your gun control laws aren't working…since you are still having mass shootings…

Mal wrote:

Downright bloody hilarious. Especially when you know many of those faces will leave the event packing guns because they fear the society around them and feel they might need them to protect themselves from the very people they have just been listening too!

Mal…long ago when we were young, we were taught to "respect and obey" LEO's because "they would protect us"…
You're a former LEO, what's YOUR take on this?

YouTube link

Watch the entire video….

This officer, before he was fired from the force for THIS incident had had SIXTEEN PREVIOUS IA investigations on him for his conduct.

Now…please tell me once again, Mal and Bangorstu, HOW and WHERE is it justified that LEO's can threaten to "execute citizens" simply because they are obeying the cops instructions?

If a gun isn't available then the next best thing will be used. In these instances a "sharp instrument, such as a knife" did just as well. Nothing like getting up close and personal.

Of the 636 murders in 2010/11, the biggest single number used a sharp instrument, such as a knife, for the murder weapon
• The vast majority of child murder victims are killed by a parent – 36 out of 56. In total, 43 of those victims knew their murderer
• The same goes with total murders – 64% were known to their victim, 33% were friends
• 60% of murders are caused by a quarrel and loss of temper. Only 3% are as a result of theft or robbery

link

RE: YouTube link

The cop was a dick. plain and simple.

For sure scared, and for sure working to protect himself in a threatening situation, but…

…he's a cop: that means he has to sacrifice himself for justice. That's part of the job.

"…please tell me once again…HOW and WHERE is it justified that LEO's can threaten to execute citizens…"

It doesn't have to be justified: Any armed LEO can execute anyone they choose at any moment, and for any(no) reason.

Do you think that 'justification' makes the victim any less dead?

To my knowledge Virginia has never had any laws criminalizing open carry of firearms. One may carry a pistol in a holster as long as it is clearly visible or carry a rifle or shotgun slung over the shoulder. Even though it is legal to do so I have rarely ever seen anyone actually go about their daily business with a pistol holstered on their side. Of those few I know that actually do carry openly I would say they tend to fall into the category of being extremely paranoid of the government.

I believe some of you may be misunderstanding how democracy works in the U.S.. We elect local, state, and federal governments. The people have more control of their governments the closer to the local level and considerably less control as you move up the chain. For the federal government the people from any given state are only voting for one president, one state representative from your locality, and two senators that represent the entire state. We Americans as a whole elect one president, 435 members of the House of Representatives, and 100 members of the Senate.

Yet there are nearly 2 million people working for a government bureaucracy who are not elected. Keep in mind that this is just the civil servant portion of the government. If one includes postal workers, military personnel, government contractors, and government grantees the number goes up significantly. So yes, while we do vote for some of our government the vast majority is appointed and the people have little or no control over them.

Well gee, guys. Was it something I said?

I'm not apologetic for the post that sent me to the stony lonesome. Not in the least. I did it because I feel that the ban on political speech is unevenly enforced. Every week I see threads containing political opinions, and it seems as if those coming from one particular end of the ideological spectrum are able to do so with near impunity, while those from the rest of the spectrum get slammed. That's just my perception, anyway, and maybe someone with more ambition might want to do an objective count and tell me whether or not I'm way off.

So anyway, after seeing several such posts last week, I came across yet another one and I guess I just snapped. I knew it would end up as a DH, had an opportunity to delete it, but decided to leave it anyway. Sure enough, my comment was punished while the political conspiracy theory that was posted by the other guy was allowed to let stand.

Personally, I couldnt care any less if occasional political opinions are expressed either way, but the (apparent) selective enforcement is irksome. I suppose some are more equal than others.

I was somewhat impressed that Wartopia's post generated so much discussion. It ended up touching on a wide range of topics from religion to gun control to how utterly wrong non-Americans are about absolutely everything*, and it was fun to read. It looked almost cathartic.

One positive result of my incarceration was that it pushed my stifle count up significantly higher, to a nearly respectable level. I'd like to push it a little highr, though, and get into the top 100 club. I notice that one particular ideological segment of the population is demonstrably touchier than the rest of us, and maybe by targeting those folks I can get a few more stifles out of it. Maybe I could… I dunno… Maybe point out that privately owned guns are not doing a thing to make this country a safer place at all or how the Tea Party has done little beyond splitting the republican party, alienating the rest of the country, and basically screwing up everything they've touched since gaining congressional seats, or maybe how from nearly the founding of this nation, most of our social, political and even dietary problems have come from the South. Or he'll, maybe I could pull out the big guns and talk about Mormons (although that one might actually go either way). I say this, of course, with young firmly in cheek. Really. Honest. But hey, if it will get me a few more stifles….

*In case you miss it, I'm being sarcastic here

how utterly wrong non-Americans are about absolutely everything

I don't think you can be right or wrong about things like 'private citizens shouldn't have firearms', 'AGCC is an emergency' or 'the British have no reason to be grateful to the Americans' but you can be wrong about particular reasons or facts you bring forward to support your belief. You have to decide for yourself whether the corrected information is enough to change your mind.

It's a good thing for the rest of the world that only we in the U.S. are subject to propaganda.

Everyone should live abroad until they can see things from another cultural perspective, even if they never come to agree with it, just really understand it. The only people I really shake my head at are the ones who say "I'm not the one with a bias…you are!"

…with young firmly in cheek…

Damned auto-correct.

Violent death is not "common in every country"', but similarly there is no direct correlation between gun ownership rates and intentional homicide. The two countries in Europe with highest gun ownership, Switzerland and Sweden, have some of the lowest homicide rates in Europe.

Gun ownership for hunting is sensible, ownership of historical weapons seems reasonable, but I do question the view that people need the right to bear arms to protect them from their own government in a democracy; what possible reason (in a true democracy)? I am of course biased by where I live with the largest military personnel per capita in Western Europe at 8 times higher than USA. Of course there are only around 23,000 permanent military personnel, the other 350,000 (out of 5 million total population) are reservists i.e. the army is the people, so how can we be scared of them?

There are other polarizations implied earlier in the thread which do not hold true in my mind. For example being green and being a capitalist. As an example we installed geothermal heating a few years back. When discussing with environmentalists it is an "easy sell" as it greatly reduces our carbon footprint, but equally it is an "easy sell" on the basis that it paid for itself in five years and we are now saving thousands of euros a year on our heating bills (it is cold much of the year in Northern Finland).

Finally as a "senior" scientist, I would like to know where the gravy train leaves from. Perhaps then I could drive a new BMW instead of the 20 year old Nissan Sunny with nearly 400,000 on the clock (most of which we have driven – in my 40s and yet to buy a new car). Then perhaps I don't want to know, if I did I would have chosen a different career.

I too am a gun owner and I am a Lefty

Bangorstu wrote:

"No other democratic nation seems so utterly Bleeped text-scared of its government, nor so utterly contemptuous of the democratic process."

That's true in many places here in the U.S. but the fundamental problem is that many people think of "the government" as this big, scary, autonomous entity when in reality, it's just your uncle, your neighbor's wife, or an old classmate who ran for public office.

That's it. Nothing more.

They're just people like you and me. Not all of them are bad. Not all of them are honorable.

Until the majority of our country wakes up and realizes that these elected politicians are Constitutionally obligated to work for us, their constituents, and until we wake up and accept the fact that they're just people (not scary powers from some other planet), they'll continue to hold the cards.

it's just your uncle, your neighbor's wife, or an old classmate who ran for public office.

If I was inclined to be fearful that is precisely what would scare me about them.

Two of my uncles were alright, the third I wouldn't have trusted to hammer a nail, not only would it not get done you'd never see the hammer again. One of the neighboring wives is certifiable and two of the others are nice enough but couldn't think their way out of a paper bag in a rainstorm. And I would not want to see more than half my high school class sitting across from me in a jury box if they had to decide anything more complex or important than whether a neighbor's tree was overhanging my lot.

But the real consideration is what happens when you give people power. Lord Acton had it right of course but it's important to understand precisely how power corrupts, it's not just stealing and arrogance, there is a lot more. There is an extensive psychological literature on the subject everyone should be familiar with.

Murphy – violent death may be common in the ISA, but it's not common here.

The UK, with a population twice that of California has 600 murders on average a year. California has on average 2500…

And our gun laws work because we ONLY have one gun massacre every decade.

After Dunblane we banned handguns. not had a problem with handguns since – and that was nearly twenty years ago.

You are 40 times more likely to get shot than I am…

Still I guess you'll not bother believing anything like statistics.

As for Switzerland – I've got a mate whose Swiss.

Yes, they all have assault rifles. But the ammunition is sealed, and checked regularly. If any ammunition is missing, serious questions are asked.

How they're sealed I don't know but the idea is to stop people using those rifles except for their intended purpose.

You are 40 times more likely to get shot than I am…

Still I guess you'll not bother believing anything like statistics.

Actually probably not. This is the problem with statistics, they depend on the frame. You could just as easily frame the question on where (in America and Britain) and how you each live and then it would still be more likely (the mere presence of guns insures that) but nothing like 40 times and so remote as to be negligible.

As I said above, this is an issue you can't resolve on statistics, it calls for a judgement on values. It isn't an estimate like 'is this enough string to tie up a package' where you can objectively test, it's more like 'is it more important for an individual to be able to defend himself or reduce the general exposure to risk'. A question like that doesn't have a correct answer, only an opinion.

But the real consideration is what happens when you give people power. Lord Acton had it right of course but it's important to understand precisely how power corrupts, it's not just stealing and arrogance, there is a lot more. There is an extensive psychological literature on the subject everyone should be familiar with.

"It has been learned by sad experience that it is the nature of almost all men that when they get a little authority, so they suppose, they immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion…" – Joseph Smith

The Founders of the USA knew this well and built as many checks and balances into their gov't as practical. It is also the nature of almost all men that they will not pay any attention to anything happening beyond the end of their noses; until it is too late; then they will react fearfully, irrationally and ultimately violently. The checks and balances of the US form of gov't also pester the common man ceaselessly for his attention: if we the people do not involved ourselves continuously in the management of our own Gov't, at all levels, then the lower intellects will occupy office; because the smarter intellects naturally want nothing whatsoever to do with managing the affairs of others. And that is the weakness inherent in the system of self gov't.

I like the proposal that ALL civil servants be reduced to a bare minimum necessary to attend to maintenance for the common good only: and that ALL such civil servants, from the local mayor up to the president of the world, be picked at random (easily done in the age of computers), from amongst those deemed qualified to fulfill the office in question: and that said-chosen individuals fill their office as a civic duty: failure of which will result in a prison term not to exceed twice the amount of time they would have served in office. One year per term of service seems about right to me….

– violent death may be common in the ISA, but it's not common here.

Only on the nightly News. I have never seen anyone die violently. I have not even known personally a person who died violently (traffic accidents excepted). The gang-bangers cannot make the same claim. There's the vast majority of your violence in the USA; it is very limited. Out here in the wild, wild west, violence is and has always been a very rare occurrence; even when you threw in the Indians into the mix. Violence always made the News, because it was rare enough to actually be News. Far more Mormon pioneers, for instance, shot themselves by accident, than ever got shot in all the acts of violence that occurred in all of Utah Territory….

Obviously a lot of violent death is going to happen to criminals.

It's not like we don't have street gangs here, the fact is however that in the UK by and large our gangs use knives which are a lot less lethal.

And cause a lot less collateral damage..

T Meier – you're correct about stats. Suffice to say the average American is 40 times more likely to get shot than the average Briton, though obviously if your lifestyle does include drug dealing this will vary…

There's the vast majority of your violence in the USA

On the subject of tricky statistics, the median age of males in the U.S. is 35 in the U.K. it's 40 and it's even older in most other European countries. Young males are far more likely to commit violent crimes yet the crime statistics compare crime to overall population.

I'm not arguing about the safety of different societies here, just pointing out you have to be careful how you use statistics, they don't generally say exactly what you might think at first glance.

Iceland the median age of males is less than USA but the homocide rate is 4x lower than that of the UK. Statistics are complex.

@T Meier

That's a really valid perspective that I never really thought about. Not that I don't know neighbors, aunts, uncles, friends, etc. etc. etc. that are scary, but I think that as long as I (and the majority around me) continue to see those people as just people, it's a way of diminishing their perceived power and separation from the rest of society.

Iceland the median age of males…

Having been to Iceland I would put that down to the difficulty of finding another person to murder most of the year.

Just kidding, the whole place reminded me of one of those Norse-descended small communities in Minnesota, also people very little inclined to social violence, give them a uniform though and they get the job done.

Been living in the USA for a long time have you Mal?
The USA your describing is one I don't live in.

I've only visited. The people I met were nice friendly ordinary folk. The only guns I saw were on cops and at airports. I didnt see any gun racks in be back window of pick up trucks in Texas. It was all very normal.

My observations are based entirely on comments by TMP members, others on the www, your Politicians and various individiuals on TV news programs, correspondence with friends and others, and some others. Plus hilarious comments such as the pompous well heeled looking bloke on

Page 5.
This guy says it well:

Who looks like he has about as much compassion for those in need of help, as a hungry lion would have for a wounded Gnu.

These are the 'arguments' we get exposed too outside the USA. The gun massacres, followed by idiots suggesting that if all teachers in school were armed it wouldnt happen….that every citizen needs to carry a gun to protect them from other citizens….and th'guvmint.

Outside of the USA we are bombarded with that sort of stuff on a daily basis. Hell it there is yet another gun massacre you cant escape your news media gleefully reporting 'updates' like iots a sporting event of some kind.
The reasons given of fear of your own government being a need to carry a gun. You dont HEAR that sort of thing outside of the USA, and countries who's name inevitably ends in "stan" or some banana republics.

For the rest of the world it is all an amazing and fathomless spectacle.

Obviously Mal you've never heard of Suzanna Hupp…

An argument of fear. If she had had a gun she might have reached into her purse to shoot back and the guy blown her away anyway! Just as likely an outcome. She is arguing one possibility only.

The real argument is that the lunatic should not have had access to a weapon like that in the first place. The reason he did have access and other gun massacre perpetratords did, and the future ones still waiting to happen will have access, is the stupidity…nay the CRASS stupidity of believing that if you have more people carrying guns it wont happen again because they can all shoot back. They can all defend themselves.

How about the argument not of everyone being able to shoot back….but of the gun massacres not happening at all?
Not happening because th'guvmint elected by the people and for the people, is trusted to take the guns away and trusted to make protecting the people its priority!

After an American style gun massacre Australians trusted our Government with a massive and overwhelming support to remove most guns from society. We've not had a gun massacre since. Some murders yes, but on a rationale of head of population to head of population, nothing close to the USA.

Yes we have Bikie gangs in particular, and some Middle East drug gang immigrants that arm themselves to the teeth despite the laws….but fortunately, they are almost exclusively used in shooting up other Bikie gangs or drug gang immigrants. Of the 500+ weapons found to be smuggled into one state in the past couple of years, they nearly all originated in the USA!

And at least we know that the Police regularly disarm the Bike gangs, which is why they have to keep trying to smuggle more in.
They have almost no local access from which to replentish their arsenal because the public are not armed amd the cant steal any from them. There are no gun shops and gun fairs loaded down with heavy weaponry, into which they can walk in and purchase replacements.

The high incidence of attempted smuggling by criminal groups is proof of how successful the handing in of guns was.

Sure, if you have a legitimate reason to need a gun and are a fit and proper person, you can get access. We still have people go out hunting. Farmers inevitably need guns, security guards etc. But it is controlled, checked and far from willy nilly.

Very recently there was an incident near my home that had me chuckling. Some bikies had been warring with each other over a couple of weeks and although they only shot each other, the public were obviously a bit jittery. I was sitting right where I am now just on dusk when I heard a series of loud bangs and then some so close together that it sounded like automatic fire. I was startled and surprised and looked out of the window, puzzling to myself that I didnt know of any bikies in my part of the city. While looking out the window I noticed several neighbours had come out into the street and were looking about too. Then all of a sudden it all became clear. Up into the darkening sky a skyrocket rose and burst. It was a birthday party. The neighbours laughed and went back inside. Next day one told me he hadnt really believed it would be a shooting, but the stories on the news over recent days, had his wife a bit nervous.

Another point to the story is that not one neighbour rushed out armed and ready to defend. One had called the Police and then laughed at himself later for not checking first.

The occasional crack of celebratory fireworks is about the most dramatic most Aussies expect to hear and I hope it stays that way.

Children shot dead in US schools/universtiies since 2000 – 136

Same stat for Europe – 63, 20 in Finland which has very lax gun laws.

Same stat for the UK?

Zero.

Yes, you can just tell how safe guns are making American schools…..

Anyone who feels the need to carry a handgun to do the shopping frankly needs to grow a pair.

Bangorstu, Finland does not have "very lax" gun laws the laws on use, storage etc are very strict. However, it does allow more people to have guns than in the UK. 18 of the victims in schools were in two incidents. The first was by a psychotic, the second probably knew the first and was possibly a copycat. Both tried to use petrol as well as a gun and in the second case a police inspector was tried as a gun licence should never have been issued and other major mistakes were made by the local police.Guns featured but not in the clear cut way you are suggesting.

Try also not to be selective in your stats, since 1995 UK stat in schools was 17 in Finland 20. Suddenly the difference is not so big. Pick the right year any anything can be "proven". Similarly how about the statistic over the past 5 years 56 children a year were killed in England and Wales. Even one is aterrible tragedy, but guns are not the only evil in the world.

Guns should be controlled, but for some uses eg hunting, gun ownership does not cause the mass negative societal effects you suggest.

ps I do not, have not and will not own a gun. I have fired guns on only one day ( at a shooting range) and have no intention to repeat the experience.

Who looks like he has about as much compassion for those in need of help, as a hungry lion would have for a wounded Gnu.

I guess it just goes to show you can't judge a book by it's cover. That's Penn of Penn & Teller, a pair of stage magicians. I don't know a lot about him but he does do considerable charity work. He came from poverty himself and perhaps that has colored his views; he's from the old 'help people to be self-sufficient' school of compassion. I get the impression the tendency of the welfare state to make some people dependent repels him.

He's also an outspoken atheist BTW.

I still think Shakespeare says it better, particularly in the context of the play. the definitions of 'mercy' and 'charity' were not as distinct then as now. The problem with forcing people to be charitable (and all government ultimately rests on coercion) is it is a purely mechanical solution to the problem. It ignores the element of human psychology with deleterious effects on society. I don't know if the benefit is worth the harm but it's absurd to pretend the harm isn't real or that it's somehow the fault of the people who feel it, if they weren't bad, greedy and uncaring they wouldn't resent taking the fruits of their labor and giving it to someone else without their consent, as though they were children having their allowance docked by a parent to give them moral instruction.

The psychology of charity can be a win all around (though not always) the psychology of coerced charity is commonly poisonous, though you obviously still get the material benefit. Those coerced can feel insulted and degraded, those receiving, seeing the resentment feel no gratitude but hostility, driving deeper the wedge dividing people socially.

Getting back to the OP's topic of climate change, I found this article yesterday to be a refreshing point of view.

link

Kim

A good article, the only part I'd modify is "You (in science) iterate towards the truth. You don't know it." to 'you mostly…', there are times in science when you turn things on their head and find all your small steps weren't leading where they seemed but in an entirely different direction.

Just to clear up some thoughts on carrying firearms. I can't tell you the last time I saw a non law enforcement person carring a weapon in public. I have worked with a few guys who had permits and had them locked in their vehicle. I am not saying I may have seen someone who may have had a weapon in a consealed holster. I'm just getting the idea here of non USA people who think its like a western movie that every other person is packing. Most everyone I know has a weapon in their homes, in what shape is a unknown.

Not happening because th'guvmint elected by the people and for the people, is trusted to take the guns away and trusted to make protecting the people its priority!

Priority, Hah! The police have no obligation to protect individuals in individual circumstances, not in the USA or the UK. The police say so. If this were not so, then individuals could sue the police for not preventing the violence from occurring.

Any gov't that is trusted to take away guns is a bad gov't and its people are stupid. What happens if down the road the gov't has morphed into a dictatorship that oppresses various classes of people? It has happened too many times to tell. It is happening in the world right now in too many places to tell. And the people who cannot arm themselves have no chance of rebelling to take back control of their gov't. The cost of rebellion is death for some; without arms, rebellion is far more costly in lives: first those lost to the oppressive regime, and then those who arm themselves must learn all over again how to even use their arms; the time lost is measured in needlessly lost lives. Whereas, if the people are already armed, the gov't never has a free hand to become corrupted to that degree: before the people take up their arms, muster for war and compel their gov't to obey their will.

Using extreme, denigrating imagery such as someone needing to be armed to do the grocery shopping; or all adults openly carrying weapons because they feel the need to protect themselves from their fellow citizens, is not only inaccurate it is pitiful. I can't feel insulted, because if you actually believe what you say I can only wonder at the gullibility of one who forms such a view of life in the USA from the Media. It is well known that liberals heavily populate the Media and seldom miss a chance to tell a story if it can be twisted into an anti gun piece….

Some interesting statistics I came across, subject to the usual caveats.

The U.N. does a survey of crime in various countries because it has found crime statistic are not comparable between nations

link

According to this the crime rate in the U.K and several other E.U. countries is higher than the U.S., particularly when you consider the demographics.

Seems crime was higher in the U.S. before 1988 but since has been steadily dropping while it shot up in Europe, peaking in the mid 1990's and has since been falling slowly.

This is an interesting site:

link

It seems the rate of violent crimes other than murder is about double in the U.K. than the U.S. 2.8% of people in the U.K. and 2.4% of Australians have been victims of assault versus 1.2% in the U.S., .9% of the U.K population and 1% of Australians have been victims of rape versus .4% in the U.S.

Curious.

Diadochoi – sorry if I offended.

To a British person the Finnish gun laws do look relaxed, just as yours would look extreme to you.

But even if we included Dunblane, the fact is that the UK has a smaller total from a population an order of magnitude higher.

T Meier – when you start dealing with 'violent crime' you run up against the barrier of definitions.

For example if I get mugged by three people si that three crimes or one? And the definition of rape is notoriously difficult to pin down, and reportage of that crime depends on a huge number of factors.

Still, I never said my nation wans't violent. Just that we don't die as often. Given the choice between being punched (a violent crime – and prevalent on Friday nights outside pubs) and murdered I know what I'd choose.

Still, I guess you lot regard a few dead school kids every year as a price worth paying.

KimRYoung – Lovelock is just saying what I mentioned a few pages back – too many people rely on hysteria rather than science.

And that includes people on both sides of the debate.

you run up against the barrier of definitions

Yes, that's another problem with statistics, another of the ways they can be 'framed' but in the United Nations survey they try to allow for that, comparing like to like. I don't know about the other study.

I know what I'd choose

But if you have to choose between a 1 in 1,000 chance of being killed and a 1 in 50 chance of being raped, it's not so straightforward.

The murder rate in the U.K. is 1.23 per 100,000 the U.S. is 4.8 by the way, though as you point out the murder by firearm statistics are much more lopsided. If I had to be murdered I can't say personally I would care much how but I suppose some people might.

I recall seeing a more precise breakdown of the comparative murder rates of our two countries by age, occupation & etc. it concluded when you compare the same sort of people living in the same sort of place, doing the same sort of things the murder rate was only slightly higher in the U.S. something like 20%, which is probably down to firearms and their greater effectiveness as a means of killing. I don't know how reliable it was and can't find it now.

Anyway I don't see how the argument over whether civilians should have firearms can hinge on crime statistic unless you already accept the premise that it's more important to reduce the average chance of being killed than to give the individual access to this means of self-defense. It's an individual liberty versus collective advantage issue, it's the same reason you and we don't just execute a person convicted of a felony; from a purely statistical perspective it would be much more advantageous to society to do so but both our societies believe individual rights trump the collective statistical advantage in that case.

I just thought the crime statistics were interesting particularly when you consider things like the younger population of the U.S. and other demographic differences like wealth distribution. You might think greater differences in wealth in the U.S. would generate more crime, particularly more property crime but instead the U.S. seems to have less, a lot less.

People do seem to be complicated.

For a site whose paradigm is history, nobody has considered US history in this gun debate.

The US Constitution was written after a long and ugly war between the colonists and the British crown. Since the hot-heads that started the rebellion were also tight-wads (no new taxes!), they preferred to remember the victory coming from the efforts of 'patriots' and state militias, not the Continental army. They felt that not only had an armed citizenry won the war against its' oppressors and their jack-booted thugs the redcoats and their dirty German mercenaries, but only an armed populace could prevent a repressive government from rearing its' head again.

And so we get to own guns.

Never mind that the world is an entirely different place now.

There are plenty of people in high places that desire a 'strict interpretation' of the Constitution (whatever that means), and so easy access to guns is a given in this country.

And like any topic, some folks are for it and some are against it. Ugly or not the mass of voters won't act on it, and so gun violence is a way of life here, much to the dismay of outsiders.