Debate about Gun Control

[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.