Summations Only

I was speaking to an American colleague the other day who was trying to give an insight into the mind of some Americans on this. He said something like the following: Imagine if after a huge motorway pile-up in which lots of people died the UK government decided to impose stringent restrictions on car use. The right to own a car was removed for many. Cars with engines over a certain CC were outright banned. The number of journeys and total amount of miles per week for those lucky enough to have a car was legally limited. Any infringement of road laws (e.g. parking violations) would result in the immediate confiscation of one's car and license.

​

People wouldn't put up with this would they? They would see it as a massive act of government intrusion and outrageous removal of liberty that is out of all proportion to the incident that nominally sparked the "need" for such measures. It would cause rioting and there would be a complete refusal to accept the new lawsNow neither he nor I are genuinely comparing gun restrictions to the above hypothetical regarding cars. And the guy in question isn't a particular gun advocate.He was just trying to give some insight into how some Americans view the right to guns. So I thought I would share it.

You don't think this comparison accurately reflects the view of many Americans towards guns? If everyone were as enlightened and informed as you no doubt are there would be little need to confront any misapprehensions about anything.

Is that because they associate them with liberty in some way? I think that was what the car comparison was trying to convey. Albeit it far from perfectly.

Because they see it as all about self-reliance over reliance on the state for personal safety? Gun regulation is seen as the state taking power away from people to be self-reliant and making them more reliant on the state for protection. It's strengthening the role of the state and weakening the individuals ability to oppose the state at the same time.I dunno... I'm speculating.

That was the point really. I'm not arguing..... More?

Unless they are trained or experienced in such situations on what basis do they make that judgement call?

No doubt this is what the overwhelming majority of gun owners sincerely believe. But statistically we know it isn't true for the majority of gun owners don't we? On what do you base this conclusion?

Do you personally acknowledge this? Are you disputing the data presented in this thread or are you just unaware of the studies that have been cited in this thread because you have ignored them? So are you saying the presence of this gun:A) Makes your home more safe
B) Makes your home less safe
C) Makes no difference to the safety of your home

This is effectively a reply to Message 782 but moderators have requested that posts on this subject be posted to this thread instead. Oh. My. God. What kind of live-in-fear-batton-down-the-hatches kind of world do you want to live in? I just don't know how to convey to you, and like minded Americans, just how alien and demented this suggestion of yours sounds to so many of us around the world.Faith, imagine a school. It has a climbing frame shaped like a pirate ship in the playground and some impressively old trees in two of the corners. There is a slightly decrepid looking flowerbed where in the spring 5 year olds plant seeds as part of their first foray into the joys of scientific investigation. The closest thing to onsite security is Mr Aspinall the slightly surly janitor armed with his broom and Val the office administrator who holds reign over the entrance door buzzer. When Val isn't present the slightly dippy (but surprising authoritative) finance officer, Mrs Jackson, is on buzzer duty. None of the teachers have guns. In all likelihood none of them have ever even held a gun or seen one close up. To the children guns are no more or less real or part of their lives than the Batmobile, time-travelling phone-boxes or talking robots that can turn into an array of vehicles. The notion that gun-armed security guards should be present would cause parents, teachers, governers and indeed the entire nation to recoil in horror at the idea of turning infant schools into places that resemble maximum security penetentiaries rather than places of learning and care for innocent little kids.Where is this school? Did I invent it? Might it be an actual school in a ridiculously affluent and priveliged quaint little English village that is so far removed from most normal experience as to be irrelevant? No. None of the above. It is my son's school in inner city South London. An area with all the social problems you would expect of such an urban setting.The mindset that thinks gun-armed security guards in infant schools is a good thing rather than something out of a dystopian nightmare is a mindset that I just cannot, and don't think I ever will be able to, identify with or understand.When all is said and done I think it really depends on whether you view the metaphorical bolts on the door to be a way of keeping the bogey-man out or a form of self-imprisonment. Is liberty achieved by having the right to own guns? Or is true liberty achieved when you live in a society where guns aren't commonly needed or present? Which should we be aiming for? Again - I can only try to convey to you the astonishment and bewilderment that so many outside the US experience when confronted with this kind of talk. The people you are talking of are not seen as the defenders of freedom againt a tyrannical government (as you seem to see them). If anything the specific sort of gun-nuts in question are viewed as the ones to be feared with their arsenals of weapons, bunkers, years-supplies-of-tinned-food-just-in-case and talk of over-throwing democratically elected governments because the democratic process hasn't yielded the sort of "true Americanism" their dangerous sounding and rather narrow ideology would prefer.I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm simply trying to convey how most of us who are non-armed-yet-still-members-of-advanced-Western-democracies see the sort of views you are putting forward.

I don't think it is realistic to describe the bulk of the free world oustide of the US (many nations of which have conservative governments of one form or another) as "leftwing nuts".It is your position here that is indisputably and demonstrably the extreme one Faith. Do you honestly believe that my son's school as described to you would be a better place if the teachers carried guns? Seriously? I would love to see the face of the headmaster if someone like you were to genuinely suggest this at a parent-teachers meeting here. The polite nervous laugh as he works under the assumption that you must be making a bad joke followed by the slow incredulous realisation that he is actually being confronted by someone who is deadly serious and then the shocked murmerings around the room as people react in much the same way that they would if it had been seriously suggested that 5 year olds undergo public floggings at playtime as punishment for talking in class......Again - I am simply trying to convey to you just how alien and deranged your suggestion would be considered here. The real world isn't a comic book or a Jon Wayne film. Simplistically splitting people into gooddies who can always be relied upon to do the right thing and baddies who will commit their evil deeds come-what-may isn't a remotely sensible approach to anything . Every person has a breaking point. Every person is potentially capable of doing terrible things if the circumtsances they find themselves in are extreme enough. As long as humans are mentally and emotionally imperfect a proliferation of deadly weapons in society will inevitably exacerbate people's worst violent inclinations. Who is this "somebody" Faith? Is it the same "somebody" that has apparently hoodwinked most of the rest of the free world? Is there a global conspiracy at play here? If so - Who is mastermanding it?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Ian and Nicole Hockley from Hampshire in England moved to Newtown two years ago. They lost their 6 year old son Dylan in the recent massacre.

quote:

---

His father Ian urged the US to address its gun control laws immediately.

​

Mr Hockley urged Washington to act on a number of different areas, saying: "The unthinkable has happened. All the shootings that have come before have indeed been terrible tragedies, but now it's sunk so low that very small children have now been the target of this. How could it possibly get worse? If they cannot address this now, it's as if they think they can never address it and they will give up and this will go on."

---

LinkYou have got to stop with this infantile insistence on labeling people as either goodies or baddies. The world doesn't work in the black and white terms that your position demands.You may think I am misguided, stupid even. But in terms of never having murdered, tortured, raped, in terms of never having had any remote inclination to do any of these things, I surely qualify as a "good guy" right?But imagine I lose my job. Imagine I get depressed. Imagine I start on a downward spiral of drink and depression. Imagine that my wife leaves me and takes the kids back to Argentina making it practically impossible for me to have any contact with them. Imagine my depression and drink and flawed nature continue to spiral out of control until one day half out of my mind I decide that my life is worthless and that the world at large has somehow betrayed me. Imagine that I decide to end it and to take with me or hurt as many other people as I can in the process.Is this so far fetched? Is this the tale of an evil person or just a flawed human being who has lost the plot? Would you want this person to live in a society where deadly weapons are so prolific, so prevalent, so everyday and accepted that you can buy them at supermarket along with your bread and milk? Or would you want this person to live in a society where such devices in the hands of civilians are so rare that the mere sight of a gun in a populated public area would be considered a cause for evacuation and lock-down.As long as human beings are flawed and human societies have problems - A proliferation of deadly weapons in society will only ever exacerbate the effects of our lowest moments and worst human tendencies. You are talking about a culture of perpetual fear. You are talking about a culture where you have to bolt yourself in and arm yourself up because there is the relentless but-never-specific threat of the "bad people" lurking around every corner. That isn't liberty Faith. That is a form of mental imprisonment!!You want to talk about tyrannical oppressive regimes? If a population is so immersed in fear, so brainwashed by propaganda that ever more fences and and ever more guns are deemed the only response, then the oppressive regime has already done it's job.Modern democratic societies are unlikely to be subjugated with tanks and missiles. If they are going to be subjugated it will be more subtle than that. It will be through fear and propaganda. The faceless enemy. The faceless threat. Because there is no need to physically nullify those who have already mentally subjugated themselves to the tyranny of perpetual fear. I suspect that, much like the parents of Dylan Hockley, the headmaster would want to ensure that all weapons of the sort used in that terrible event are as far away from the children he cares for as is humanly possible.

Fascinating. I had always been under the impression that the Poles were armed only with horse-riding-sword-wielding regiments, or something ridiculous like that.Turns out they had an airforce, tanks, ships and submarines!!But even despite this their equipment was so inferior and small in number as compared to that of the Germans that to this day people still think of them as effectively unarmed.This should cause those who subscribe to "Red Dawn" reasoning (i.e. an armed civilian population is required in order to defend against national, home or foreign, military powers) to think again.

So on one hand you deny that your extreme position on armament is based on a culture of fear and yet a few posts later you state that gun totin Americans are all that stand between the wrath of God and some sort of implied Armageddon-oblivion-end-of-the-world type scenario.Do I really need to point out the contradictory nature of this? Do I really need to point out which of us is engaging hyperbolic fanaticism? It isn't the majority of the free world that are gun-control-fanatics Faith. It is you that indisputably lies at the extreme end of opinion on these matters.One thing about which you are correct is in identifying the approach I have taken conversing with you as "emotional". I know from past experience that presenting you with facts and evidence and purely reasoned arguments is a fruitless endeavour. Anything that disagrees with that which you believe will just be rejected and dismissed regardless of it's veracity.I had however hoped to successfully convey to you on a more emotional level that there are many places in the world where people are going about their business free from tyranny, free from perpetual fear of whatever faceless threat is presently being touted as that which will bring an imminent end to your liberty and free from the notion that the world will end if they don't surround themselves with deadly weapons.There are millions of people out there enjoying life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness without any need for guns to play a role in their lives at all.There is a better way........... Genuine threats will be confronted.But our response to such possible threats must not be shaped by the relentless and incessant fear-mongering of talking heads who are solely interested in ratings and the promotion of ideology.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Had you forgotten that Moses himself was president of the NRA?

If this doesn't qualify as consistent with fostering a culture of fear what does?Faith - Seriously - If Obama's proposals were to get through in full what exactly do you think would happen?