Debate about Gun Control

[playwrite]

(07-07-2016, 03:12 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(07-07-2016, 11:31 AM)playwrite Wrote:

(07-06-2016, 09:05 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(07-06-2016, 08:51 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(07-05-2016, 12:24 PM)playwrite Wrote: There it is.  I knew you get around to the false equivalency of banning military weapons platforms to illegal drugs.  I guess comparing such a ban to  say ownership of bazookas, chemical warfare shells, tanks and ICBMs is just too far afield, ey?

Are you sure you're not just trying to talk yourself into opening up your own Meth lab?  Maybe too many Breaking Bad episodes?  pssss, most, by far, get caught or killed eventually.   As far as I'm concern, it's a triple: less military platforms in civilian hands, less ammosexuals running free, and a devastated GOP.  Whooo-hoo!

There we go with ad-hominum / strawman again.  You know full well that the above is not what I represent or advocate, but that's all you've got, lies and insults.

Hmm…  I don’t know if it is that you can’t get it, or that you don’t want to get it, or that some sort of defense mechanism that protects your world view is kicking in.  To me, what I’m trying to express is very simple.  I’ll go around one more time.  It’s not that I think you are open to basic human decency, it’s for the other people reading at this point.

What is the opposite of partisan?

A partisan has a culture, set of values and/or world view that he is extremely fond of and has grave difficulty moving outside of.  Anything that meshes with his home culture is obviously and absolutely correct.  Anything that opposes it must therefore be wrong.  

The opposite mode of thinking acknowledges that one can have differences in self interest without being wrong.  It might line up with the Myers Briggs distinction between Judger and Perceptive.  The Judger sees things through a system while the Perceptive tries to see things as they are.  My own perspective weighs heavily that if a whole bunch of people are strongly affiliated with a culture, there is a reason the culture came into existence.  If it is an old culture, there was likely a time when said culture worked very well.  If it is a new and rapidly changing culture, it likely developed out of an older culture that had significant problems, or someone had a theory which sounded really good and took root among lots of people.

Neither a conservative or progressive culture is necessarily ideal.  A conservative culture or world view is apt to ignore problems that are important to some but not others.  On the other hand, not every new idea is a good one.  Marxism at one time seemed like a good idea.  So did alcohol prohibition.  People can work up a ton of enthusiasm for something untried and spend considerable effort creating a disaster.

The key, no matter whether one is attached to a conservative of perspective approach, is the attitude towards those with conflicting perspective.  The partisan will ignore, disparage and reject conflicting ideas.  The opposite would be to respect, acknowledge and perhaps incorporate aspects of conflicting world views.

I will admit to disliking the heavily partisan approach.

One aspect of the uber partisan approach is the techniques used to reject an opposing world view or culture wholesale.  One labels the rival group with some extremely preparative ugly label, then state it obvious that anyone so labeled is wrong.  Labels that might be used include stupid, religious fanatic, insane and authoritarian.  This can become argument by insult.  It can be and often is ad-hominium, as one is not dealing with ideas or history, one is just disparaging the individual.  It is often strawman, as the labels are not always accurate or relevant.

But if one is sufficiently partisan, if one insults someone, it seems to follow that one has invalidated his culture and won the argument.

The recent examples are “ammosexual” and “Narcissist”.  These are variations on the insanity offense.  If everyone on the other size is crazy, one can presumably ignore everything they are saying.  Thus a common partisan tactic is to scatter shot accusations that anyone who disagrees with one is insane.

The opposite is to assume that they other guy has reasonable and valid reasons for his beliefs.  The way I try to understand history, if one sees a culture, a way of perceiving the world, there is presumed to be a valid reason why that culture formed.  If one wants to truly understand a history, a culture, a people, one should not strive always to insult and demean, one should seek to understand and respect.

This doesn’t mean one has to always agree.  If I am living somewhere where a new and very real problem is not being addressed, and some other guy lives somewhere where the problem hasn’t become a problem yet, and doesn’t want to pay a lot of money to fix what doesn’t seem to be broken, that ought to be interpreted as reasonable differences of opinion on what it would take to improve life in one place or another.

Differences of opinion should not lead one to jump instantly to the conclusion that the other guy is evil, stupid, insane, authoritarian and/or etc…  The primary approach to understanding and resolving ought not to be to disparage, insult and lie.

Very reasonable response. I have listened to both sides on this issue too and both have some points that are very reasonable and understandable to me.

Oh, that's just great.

Could you write a letter explaining it to the moms of these Sandy Hook kids -



I think it would be particularly helpful to the moms who had closed-caskets, given that most of the head of their kid had been blasted away.  I'm sure they would particularly find comfort in your seeing both sides.

Myself?  I had this reaction to your discovering Bob's 'reasonableness' -

Back to your cage, little man.

Have you written you letter to the Sandy Hook moms yet explaining your discovering of Bob's 'reasonableness?'

Or, are you too busy trying to find the next bigoted thing to say against 320 million Americans?

[playwrite]

(07-07-2016, 03:32 PM)Odin Wrote: I see Playwrite has decided to play the classic authoritarian gambit of politicizing tragedies in order to silence opposition.   

Playwrite, you are officially no better than the Neocons who used 9/11 to force through the USA PATRIOT Act and the Islamophobes like Trump who use the Orlando Massacre to promote their "deport all Muslims" bile. You have no fucking shame.

I make no apologies for reminding shXt-for-brains of the consequential carnage of their support of the status quo of unfettered civilian access to military weapon platforms.

These are real kids that were gunned down.  You don't like hearing that, too F'n bad.

And you should be ashamed at your trying to equate prohibition of these mass killing weapons to whatever ugliness comes into your little brain - its simply stupid.

[playwrite]

(07-07-2016, 03:19 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(07-07-2016, 01:33 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(07-07-2016, 11:57 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Gun control is not prohibition, and gun control advocates are not advocating prohibition of civilian guns.

Well, I don't think you are Noah Webster, nor an official representative of the Dictionary Police.  If you are advocating that possession and use of something be prohibited by the government, you are by definition advocating a prohibition.  The root word is the same.  More important, there are practical implementation problems with prohibitions.  These shouldn't be ignored or glossed over.  In general, the prohibition of mind altering substances has resulted in massive and often violent criminal behavior that the government struggles to keep in check.  I have no reason to expect anything different if other things are prohibited.

(07-07-2016, 11:57 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: I admit I made a typo and at first wrote gin control (u is next to i on the qwerty keyboard). You can chuckle at that and think what you want about it

The sort of gin control that implies one shouldn't have more than a few glasses I can sympathize with.  The sort of gin control attempted in the 1930s?  Not so much.

(07-07-2016, 11:57 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: It often seems like you talk from both sides. I may seem uncivil and partisan to some like you and Taramarie because I am clear about things in my own mind, and say so, but I prefer it that way for myself. I just try to explain the truth as I see it the best I can, and learn from others who know things that I don't know, even if I don't agree to their worldview or ideology. And my passions come through too at times, because there's lots to be passionate about (to paraphrase Mrs. Thatcher).

I see reviewing and respecting both sides of a question to be a feature rather than a bug.  I guess if I followed up on that, I'd have to review and respect partisan thinking as well.  There are times when it is appropriate to go partisan, when the other guy is wrong and dangerously wrong.  My father's generation was quite partisan in their attitudes about Hitler, for example.  Even then, it doesn't hurt to understand how and why he managed to gather a following.  Even if one can in no way tolerate a particular set of values, it is prudent to understand them.

Exactly. Trying to get them to change does not seem to work. So understanding them is the better way to go around it. Understanding both sides and weighing them up against each other, negatives and positives and finding a solution that way while showing you are listening to the others may be the best way to go around it. What do you think?

There is no more chance of changing ammosexuals' views that there was to change 1860 plantation owners' 'minds' about slavery.  There's no more chance of changing ammosexuals' views than there is with changing deeply religious fundamentalists views on homosexuality.

You don't change these people, you beat them.  Preferable through politics at the polls, but if necessary, by going all Abe Lincoln on them.

Any one who believes otherwise is at best uninformed or an idiot (I'm still deciding which for our resident Kiwi) or is attempting a ploy;  I'm pretty sure you're not uninformed or an idiot.

[playwrite]

(07-07-2016, 03:39 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(07-07-2016, 03:32 PM)Odin Wrote: I see Playwrite has decided to play the classic authoritarian gambit of politicizing tragedies in order to silence opposition.   

Playwrite, you are officially no better than the Neocons who used 9/11 to force through the USA PATRIOT Act and the Islamophobes like Trump who use the Orlando Massacre to promote their "deport all Muslims" bile. You have no fucking shame.

Exactly. He seems to think the kiwi supports guns. No, I don't. I have mentioned many times how I am so happy I live in NZ and not over there because we do not have access to the sorts of guns they do as well as it is illegal to carry guns around. I despise guns. BUT understanding the way the others think is not a bad thing. It may open up conversation in fact. It may even teach you something. Cramming one way of thinking onto another just tends to make the other side buckle down on their ideal. It is not an intelligent strategy.

I despise ammosexual enablers nearly as much as I despise ammosexuals.

And buying into Bob's sanctimonious false equivalency that is just a plea for the status quo that continues to allow unfettered civilian access to military weapon platforms is about as ammosexual enabling as one can get.

And your layering on additional sanctimonious crocodile tears of your supposed dislike of guns from the safety of your far-flung cocoon of Oz doesn't change that.

[playwrite]

Dallas
Likely many of the officers that were shot in the first 10 minutes. It makes obvious the firepower of these military weapons platforms and how much they overpower police force standard issue. The targets being well-armed and well-trained police force lays waste to the "good guy shooter" nonsense. What it should really make clear is if you hear someone state that these weapons are no different, you are listening to a moron and should move on.

Odin, I hope my pointing out the latest mass shooting doesn't put you into a rage again. Again, however, if it does, too F'n bad for you.

[playwrite]

(07-08-2016, 10:19 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(07-08-2016, 08:45 AM)playwrite Wrote: Dallas
Likely many of the officers that were shot were shot in the first 10 minutes.  It makes obvious the firepower of these military weapons platforms and how much they overpower police force standard issue.  The targets being well-armed and well-trained police force lays waste to the "good guy shooter" nonsense.  What it should really make clear is if you hear someone state that these weapons are no different, you are listening to a moron and should move on.

Odin, I hope my pointing out the latest mass shooting doesn't put you into a rage again.  Again, however, if it does, too F'n bad for you.

Maybe a nit, but these days most LE are fairly well militarized. SFPD have issued Glock and Sig now for years. In terms of rifles the cops have military gear.

I don't think there's a single police-at-fault shooting that involved their use of any military weapons platforms like an AR-15 style weapon.  As far as I know, every one of these events, including the recent LA and MN shootings, were with standard issue handguns.  The police bring out the military hardware once an event has escalated.

I have big problems with local police force having military weapons platforms as standard issue.  I just got back from Paris, FR, and the police fire teams with military issue were patrolling all over the place.  Given their situation, that's understandable, but it is a mood killer - do we want that here?  On the other hand, I want the police to be able to outgun the bad guys.  Solution, take the military platforms out of the hands of civilians - this is not rocket science.

[Bob Butler 54]

(07-08-2016, 10:50 AM)playwrite Wrote: I don't think there's a single police-at-fault shooting that involved their use of any military weapons platforms like an AR-15 style weapon.  As far as I know, every one of these events, including the recent LA and MN shootings, were with standard issue handguns.  The police bring out the military hardware once an event has escalated.

I have big problems with local police force having military weapons platforms as standard issue.  I just got back from Paris, FR, and the police fire teams with military issue were patrolling all over the place.  Given their situation, that's understandable, but it is a mood killer - do we want that here?  On the other hand, I want the police to be able to outgun the bad guys.  Solution, take the military platforms out of the hands of civilians - this is not rocket science.

There are some who oppose SWAT teams with full military kit serving search warrants in the middle of the night, leading off with flash bangs thrown into the house at random.  One of the more notable incidents had the flash-bang land the baby's crib.  Some jurisdictions do this in response to rumors of pot being grown in a house.  The people sleeping inside can't really be expected to respond rationally after a sudden awakening.  Things go wrong too often.  Local jurisdictions can afford to accept free military surplus equipment, but they can't afford the expensive training required if you want the missions to go well.  PBS did a recent series of programs on the problem.  The primary thing I took away from it is that if you can't afford to train your people in paramilitary missions in a civilian environment, you shouldn't hand out the weapons or launch the missions.  Otherwise, mistakes happen.  A lot.

Another factor that came up in the PBS specials is lawyers.  Make a mistake, you can get sued big time.  Thus, if a police officer makes a mistake, you can't admit to anything having gone wrong.  This reinforces the Blue Wall of Silence.  As a result patterns of mistakes that happen often are not being publicized.  Training cannot be improved to train officers to avoid the common mistakes.  The failure to accept responsibility or admit fault when fault obviously exists results in distrust and resentment by the public.

This should be considered an almost separate issue from many of the other problems.  It is generally accepted and traditional that officers can use deadly force if they feel threatened.  The recent LA an MN incidents had cops that felt threatened when the civilian had a gun but was making absolutely no attempt to use it.  This sort of situation comes up with little to no notice.  As a result, the police will have only their side arms available to respond.  It's not at all the same situation as the midnight search assault. A good part of the answer may still be better training that many police departments don't think they can afford.

Not rocket science, but wishful thinking won't get it done, either.  Better training would help a lot, but are we willing to pay for it?  Having superior firepower immediately available, assuming one is trained to use it, isn't a bad idea.

[Webmaster]

I realize this topic gets heated but could everyone avoid gratuitous personal insults.

[Galen]

(07-08-2016, 05:06 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(07-08-2016, 05:02 PM)Webmaster Wrote: I realize this topic gets heated but could everyone avoid gratuitous personal insults.

Thank you. I also have put Playwrite on ignore so that will not continue.

I know what you mean.  Playwrong is right up there with Eric the Obtuse for his ability to ignore reality.   As a previous poster noted Switzerland is not a very violent place despite the fact that the citizens have fully automatic weapons.  Indeed, my understanding of the situation reminds of what the Militia Act of 1798 required of Americans.  Given how small they are it doesn't surprise me that they would go with the militia solution to supplement their defense.

[Galen]

(07-09-2016, 03:16 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(07-09-2016, 03:07 AM)Galen Wrote:

(07-08-2016, 05:06 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(07-08-2016, 05:02 PM)Webmaster Wrote: I realize this topic gets heated but could everyone avoid gratuitous personal insults.

Thank you. I also have put Playwrite on ignore so that will not continue.

I know what you mean.  Playwrong is right up there with Eric the Obtuse for his ability to ignore reality.   As a previous poster noted Switzerland is not a very violent place despite the fact that the citizens have fully automatic weapons.  Indeed, my understanding of the situation reminds of what the Militia Act of 1798 required of Americans.  Given how small they are it doesn't surprise me that they would go with the militia solution to supplement their defense.

Yes culture and history also plays a part in a relationship with guns. I found the commentary very interesting as that had not been part of the original picture before and only gave us part of the story of the swiss and guns.

In my experience when someone decides on violence as a solution to their problem then they will find the tool.  Firearms are simply a tool like any other.

[Galen]

(07-09-2016, 03:48 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(07-09-2016, 03:32 AM)Galen Wrote:

(07-09-2016, 03:16 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(07-09-2016, 03:07 AM)Galen Wrote:

(07-08-2016, 05:06 PM)taramarie Wrote: Thank you. I also have put Playwrite on ignore so that will not continue.

I know what you mean.  Playwrong is right up there with Eric the Obtuse for his ability to ignore reality.   As a previous poster noted Switzerland is not a very violent place despite the fact that the citizens have fully automatic weapons.  Indeed, my understanding of the situation reminds of what the Militia Act of 1798 required of Americans.  Given how small they are it doesn't surprise me that they would go with the militia solution to supplement their defense.

Yes culture and history also plays a part in a relationship with guns. I found the commentary very interesting as that had not been part of the original picture before and only gave us part of the story of the swiss and guns.

In my experience when someone decides on violence as a solution to their problem then they will find the tool.  Firearms are simply a tool like any other.

I saw some commentary from some folk from Switzerland who had gone to the black market to buy ammunition which is what i tell people here that would happen in America but they do not listen. It opens up a market to someone. Someone will eagerly cash in.

That happens with pretty much everything. Ban something and they will find a way to get it.  Government edicts can only go so far.  My great-grandmother pointed that out to me when I was a kid.  She also called the police crooks which is a major condemnation coming from a Victorian era women who didn't use obscenities.  Which tells you how long this sort of crap has been going on.  The cell phone camera and YouTube just make it so obvious that it is hard to ignore.

[Galen]

(07-09-2016, 04:15 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(07-09-2016, 04:05 AM)Galen Wrote:

(07-09-2016, 03:48 AM)taramarie Wrote: That happens with pretty much everything. Ban something and they will find a way to get it.  Government edicts can only go so far.  My great-grandmother pointed that out to me when I was a kid.  She also called the police crooks which is a major condemnation coming from a Victorian era women who didn't use obscenities.  Which tells you how long this sort of crap has been going on.  The cell phone camera and YouTube just make it so obvious that it is hard to ignore.

Agreed. I take it your great grandmother was a lost generation member? She sounds like she had a wise head on her shoulders. Yes I made the comparison to alcohol prohibition but the kiwi knows squat apparently.

Yes, she was Lost.  Even by my time there were not very many of them left.  The Boomers ignored them but you have no idea how much trouble she saved me from.  Twenty-three years dead and she is still worth listening to and I can't say that about many of the living.

The kiwi is telling them that their Utopia is not possible which is something they can't handle.  So they decide to ignore reality. Consider the following quote:

      The Guide is definitive. Reality is frequently inaccurate.

                - The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams

This is the mentality you are dealing with.

[Galen]

(07-09-2016, 05:40 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(07-09-2016, 05:12 AM)Galen Wrote:

(07-09-2016, 04:15 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(07-09-2016, 04:05 AM)Galen Wrote:

(07-09-2016, 03:48 AM)taramarie Wrote: That happens with pretty much everything. Ban something and they will find a way to get it.  Government edicts can only go so far.  My great-grandmother pointed that out to me when I was a kid.  She also called the police crooks which is a major condemnation coming from a Victorian era women who didn't use obscenities.  Which tells you how long this sort of crap has been going on.  The cell phone camera and YouTube just make it so obvious that it is hard to ignore.

Agreed. I take it your great grandmother was a lost generation member? She sounds like she had a wise head on her shoulders. Yes I made the comparison to alcohol prohibition but the kiwi knows squat apparently.

Yes, she was Lost.  Even by my time there were not very many of them left.  The Boomers ignored them but you have no idea how much trouble she saved me from.  Twenty-three years dead and she is still worth listening to and I can't say that about many of the living.

The kiwi is telling them that their Utopia is not possible which is something they can't handle.  So they decide to ignore reality. Consider the following quote:

      The Guide is definitive. Reality is frequently inaccurate.

                - The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams

This is the mentality you are dealing with.

Yes it is impossible to talk to people who put idealism over reality. I am for idealism.....if it is DOABLE. If not it is a complete waste of time and money. They also have to consider that in some places the culture is different. Here in NZ for instance sure we have guns and we have murders. We have a black market (particularly in weed as it is still not legal here) but we do have a different outlook when it comes to guns. Think of my reaction when i saw people carrying them around with them in SA. People there were ok with it. They thought it made them safe. But in my own country it is viewed in the opposite way. Someone carrying one would be viewed as dangerous. People go ape shit and go into lock down if they see a person marching in somewhere with one (which is illegal). Culturally we are way more sensitive to seeing a firearm on someone and view it quite differently (due to our laws) than America which has a very different history connected with guns and their 2nd Amendment right. It won them their independence from the British and the Nazi threat for instance and is their 2nd Amendment right. It is viewed as a problem solver and security. Here, security for some but mainly a sign of danger. Our laws could be created due to a different history, culture and mindset. Over in America....I highly doubt it. As some Americans tell me....."over my dead body they will. They will have to pry it from my cold dead hands before I hand it over." Now for tighter regulations that even gets them jumping up and down. I would like to know what kind of regulations they are considering. As a non American I do not hear of everything so I have only heard about tighter regulations but that is it. For a country that demands its freedom especially when it comes to free speech and guns forgive me if i am skeptical about the work-ability of such laws without someone making big in the black market!

In a very real sense the question you have to ask is not: Do you trust the government of today but rather the one of tomorrow?  History is filled with examples of governments that were benevolent that later became oppressive and tyrannical.  Famous last words: It can't happen here.  The Germans felt that way in the during the Weimar regime but that gave way to the Nazi era and that did not end well.  I like to think of the Second Amendment as a canary in the coal mine.

Consider the following graph of trust in the federal government:


I was born in 1965 throughout the entirety of my life trust in the major institutions of the US has been generally down and I don't see the general trend changing. While there have been upswings the general trend has been downward and you have seen how its enforcers regard the little people.  Under such circumstances would you trust them with a monopoly on force?  Governments under stress tend to get very abusive.

This is the problem that we face.  Bankrupt governments are also notorious for not being able to provide security for their people.  By any historical measure the US Federal Government is bankrupt even if most of its citizens are incapable or unwilling to recognize this fact.  Such governments are also notorious for abusing their citizens and it seems unlikely that the US will be any different.  To my mind the only way to prevent such an outcome is to deny them such a monopoly on the use of force.

Consider what the the following link from the University of Hawaii:
   https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/MURDER.HTM

I know that there are many here who think that the kiwi doesn't know anything but you are willing to look at the data and that puts you seriously ahead of Eric the Obtuse and Playwrong.  I understand your position on the matter but I provide the data for others to look at so they may understand the conversation if they choose.  The fact that you understand the general case of what government prohibitions tend to do means that you have a better insight into human nature than most of those who are older than you.

There is an idea that a fourth turning leads to an increased trust in the usual institutions but that doesn't take into account the end of empires.  I am fairly certain that the American Empire which got its start in 1898 is about to end and it will not be quick or painless.

[pbrower2a]

(07-09-2016, 06:29 AM)Galen Wrote: to taramarie --

In a very real sense the question you have to ask is not: Do you trust the government of today but rather the one of tomorrow?  History is filled with examples of governments that were benevolent that later became oppressive and tyrannical.  Famous last words: It can't happen here.  The Germans felt that way in the during the Weimar regime but that gave way to the Nazi era and that did not end well.  I like to think of the Second Amendment as a canary in the coal mine.

Consider the following graph of trust in the federal government:


I was born in 1965 throughout the entirety of my life trust in the major institutions of the US has been generally down and I don't see the general trend changing. While there have been upswings the general trend has been downward and you have seen how its enforcers regard the little people.  Under such circumstances would you trust them with a monopoly on force?  Governments under stress tend to get very abusive.

This is the problem that we face.  Bankrupt governments are also notorious for not being able to provide security for their people.  By any historical measure the US Federal Government is bankrupt even if most of its citizens are incapable or unwilling to recognize this fact.  Such governments are also notorious for abusing their citizens and it seems unlikely that the US will be any different.  To my mind the only way to prevent such an outcome is to deny them such a monopoly on the use of force.

Consider what the the following link from the University of Hawaii:
   https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/MURDER.HTM

I know that there are many here who think that the kiwi doesn't know anything but you are willing to look at the data and that puts you seriously ahead of (distorted handles redacted).  I understand your position on the matter but I provide the data for others to look at so they may understand the conversation if they choose.  The fact that you understand the general case of what government prohibitions tend to do means that you have a better insight into human nature than most of those who are older than you.

There is an idea that a fourth turning leads to an increased trust in the usual institutions but that doesn't take into account the end of empires.  I am fairly certain that the American Empire which got its start in 1898 is about to end and it will not be quick or painless.

1. What matters is that the debt not rise faster than the population. It may seem paradoxical, but the currency in your wallet and the money in your bank account is all government debt. That debt is easy to transact -- far easier than gold.

2. Of course I would distrust a Trump administration -- so much that if my job did not depend upon remaining in the USA I would have an extended "workation" in some other country. I understand that New Zealand is very nice. Contrast Australia, which has some of the most dangerous wildlife, and South Africa, which has some very dangerous people.

3. The solution I see is to cut out the crony capitalism and reduce the role of the federal government to welfare, law enforcement, and defense. Except for some work on the Census I have gotten nothing from the federal government without paying for it. Census pay? At least I worked for it as if for a private employer.

4. An empire in decline? First the society must go undemocratic, and government by lobbyist is not democracy.

5. Hitler was a freakish situation. American minorities are far better organized than was the model minority (the Jews!) of Germany. We know what a dictatorship looks like from film clips of Germany, a country with obvious similarities of culture to the United States, between 1933 and 1945.

We do not have a recent hyperinflation. We do not have a recent, crushing defeat that polarized the nation between doves who wanted no more war and hawks seeking to settle scores with other nations. Gutter racism is socially unacceptable socially. It's telling that the people who use religious and racial slurs are the same people who use copious four-letter words. In short, such people lack impulse control.

[Classic-Xer]

(07-09-2016, 02:51 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(07-09-2016, 06:29 AM)Galen Wrote: to taramarie --

In a very real sense the question you have to ask is not: Do you trust the government of today but rather the one of tomorrow?  History is filled with examples of governments that were benevolent that later became oppressive and tyrannical.  Famous last words: It can't happen here.  The Germans felt that way in the during the Weimar regime but that gave way to the Nazi era and that did not end well.  I like to think of the Second Amendment as a canary in the coal mine.

Consider the following graph of trust in the federal government:


I was born in 1965 throughout the entirety of my life trust in the major institutions of the US has been generally down and I don't see the general trend changing. While there have been upswings the general trend has been downward and you have seen how its enforcers regard the little people.  Under such circumstances would you trust them with a monopoly on force?  Governments under stress tend to get very abusive.

This is the problem that we face.  Bankrupt governments are also notorious for not being able to provide security for their people.  By any historical measure the US Federal Government is bankrupt even if most of its citizens are incapable or unwilling to recognize this fact.  Such governments are also notorious for abusing their citizens and it seems unlikely that the US will be any different.  To my mind the only way to prevent such an outcome is to deny them such a monopoly on the use of force.

Consider what the the following link from the University of Hawaii:
   https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/MURDER.HTM

I know that there are many here who think that the kiwi doesn't know anything but you are willing to look at the data and that puts you seriously ahead of (distorted handles redacted).  I understand your position on the matter but I provide the data for others to look at so they may understand the conversation if they choose.  The fact that you understand the general case of what government prohibitions tend to do means that you have a better insight into human nature than most of those who are older than you.

There is an idea that a fourth turning leads to an increased trust in the usual institutions but that doesn't take into account the end of empires.  I am fairly certain that the American Empire which got its start in 1898 is about to end and it will not be quick or painless.

1. What matters is that the debt not rise faster than the population. It may seem paradoxical, but the currency in your wallet and the money in your bank account is all government debt. That debt is easy to transact -- far easier than gold.

2. Of course I would distrust a Trump administration -- so much that if my job did not depend upon remaining in the USA I would have an extended "workation" in some other country. I understand that New Zealand is very nice. Contrast Australia, which has some of the most dangerous wildlife, and South Africa, which has some very dangerous people.

3. The solution I see is to cut out the crony capitalism and reduce the role of the federal government to welfare, law enforcement, and defense. Except for some work on the Census I have gotten nothing from the federal government without paying for it. Census pay? At least I worked for it as if for a private employer.

4. An empire in decline? First the society must go undemocratic, and government by lobbyist is not democracy.

5. Hitler was a freakish situation. American minorities are far better organized than was the model minority (the Jews!) of Germany. We know what a dictatorship looks like from film clips of Germany, a country with obvious similarities of culture to the United States, between 1933 and 1945.

We do not have a recent hyperinflation. We do not have a recent, crushing defeat that polarized the nation between doves who wanted no more war and hawks seeking to settle scores with other nations. Gutter racism is socially unacceptable socially. It's telling that the people who use religious and racial slurs are the same people who use copious four-letter words. In short, such people lack impulse control.

The money in my wallet and bank accounts and wherever else it's located is mine. The same applies to him. Whether it's government debt or not isn't going to matter to us or anyone who has money. The question is, do we answer the call or do we ignore the call when big government needs more money. What happens then? Questions Democrats should be asking themselves considering their going to be in up to their necks. Do we lend a bunch of self centered, lying, stealing, low life cheats wearing fancy clothes who have been insulting us for years or do we say good bye as their going down. Do you think I'm going to feel bad when Playdude jumps out a window? I think you continue pumping up the blacks as your pissing down on whites. LIBERAL WISDOM AT IT'S BEST.

[Eric the Green]

(07-09-2016, 03:07 AM)Galen Wrote:

(07-08-2016, 05:06 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(07-08-2016, 05:02 PM)Webmaster Wrote: I realize this topic gets heated but could everyone avoid gratuitous personal insults.

Thank you. I also have put Playwrite on ignore so that will not continue.

I know what you mean.  Playwrong is right up there with Eric the Obtuse for his ability to ignore reality.   As a previous poster noted Switzerland is not a very violent place despite the fact that the citizens have fully automatic weapons.  Indeed, my understanding of the situation reminds of what the Militia Act of 1798 required of Americans.  Given how small they are it doesn't surprise me that they would go with the militia solution to supplement their defense.

Galen is not listening to the webmaster's advice.

[Eric the Green]

Switzerland according to the stats I've seen has more gun deaths and violence than other developed countries, although the USA is far ahead of Switzerland in that dubious distinction. Americans and Swiss alike are fools to allow citizens to have military weapons. I'm not sure just what exactly the Swiss are allowed to have tho; not taking Galen's word. I imagine though that if Swiss citizens are part of the "militia" which is their armed forces, then they are well trained and regulated. Our militia here in the USA? We've seen pictures of them....

[Bob Butler 54]

(07-09-2016, 05:35 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Galen is not listening to the webmaster's advice.

It's been an a hard week.  Too many shootings.

The board goes through rough times.  Usually there is one poster, sometimes a poster in long standing who has long more or lest behaved, who just decides to abandon civility.  When one guy goes wild with insults or similar stuff, and the webmaster doesn't step on it firmly, the rest of the contributors will match the behavior of the worst actor.  It's the 'well, he's getting away with it' school of civility or lack thereof.  This time some folks aren't responding to the webmaster.  Well, Playwright seems to be missing.  Anyway, this is a test of whether the new board with its new management is going to be sustainable.  Would everybody please revert to the default usually mostly civil mode?

[Eric the Green]

The gun fanatics say that gun control is "prohibition," and then trot out the reasons why prohibition doesn't work. Irrelevant straw man. Or they think that banning military weapons is violating our rights. Both non-starters. Gun control is not gun prohibition, and military weapons are different from civilian guns.

I am not advocating prohibition, at least not in the foreseeable future, or by forcible confiscation. But that will not stop the gun fanatics from claiming that I am.

[Bob Butler 54]

(07-09-2016, 05:40 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Switzerland according to the stats I've seen has more gun deaths and violence than other developed countries, although the USA is far ahead of Switzerland in that dubious distinction. Americans and Swiss alike are fools to allow citizens to have military weapons. I'm not sure just what exactly the Swiss are allowed to have tho; not taking Galen's word. I imagine though that if Swiss citizens are part of the "militia" which is their armed forces, then they are well trained and regulated. Our militia here in the USA? We've seen pictures of them....

People might want to visit Wiki's list of countries by international homicide rate.  I plucked out a few numbers in homicides per 100,000 population.

Switzerland 0.5 in 2010

Europe as a whole, 3.0

The United States, 3.9 in 2013

The US Virgin Islands, 52.6 in 2010    !!!

Switzerland is often mentioned by the gun rights activists as it is extreme case of a heavily armed country having a very good homicide rate.  Israel is another such country often mentioned.  The militia system can work, and did work in the United States as well for quite some time.  What it isn't is a model that can be copied trivially.  Switzerland has an unusual culture.  The militia system has been part of it for quite some time.  Putting Switzerland's military structure and weapons laws in place in a country without their culture and traditions isn't apt to result in the sort of homicide numbers Switzerland sees.  I also can't see a country moving to a militia system unless there is a threat that is well answered by a militia.  Even in rural areas in the United States with strong gun cultures, do you think people will want to give up weekends to train up when there are no real threats suitable for a militia response?

I'd note that the United States isn't that far behind Europe in this point.  At one point we were around 10, significantly higher than Europe, and a lot of the gun prohibitionist propaganda was written in that time.  Some don't keep up with the numbers and continue to say we're well behind Europe.  Homicide rates are not determined solely by gun policy.  Drug, race and wealth inequality are major factors, often dominating gun policy.  In fact, the homicide rate for non-blacks in the United State is entirely compatible with Europe.  We're right smack dab in the center of their bell curve.  Our problem is drugs, race and wealth inequality, not gun policy.

And what is it with the US Virgin Islands?  A quick trip around the web says they have large drug problems.  Again, people shouldn't look at homicide rates and blame everything on gun policy.  Drugs, economics and race shouldn't be ignored.