New Gun Control... Necessary or Politically Expedient

Glaucus said:
Of course you'd also need to add armed cops in malls and subways and transit buses and all large box stores and boat cruises and city parks and sporting events where ever else large groups of people gather and make inviting targets of themselves. And none of that would guarantee anyone's safety.
Click to expand...
And THEN you would need a more heavily armed group to police the police to make sure that none of them police are abusing that gun power. (Perhaps that's just too hypothetical since there never has been a case of a police officer abusing his power).
 
faethor said:
@Fluffy
Strangely those GOP who declare they want the USA to return to it's Founding (Paul for example). Somehow want to maintain a standing army. The military is the single largest discrectionary spending in the USA's Budget.
Click to expand...

I take it you are not really familiar with Ron Paul's stance on the military.
 
Robert said:
I'm not really a fan of Harris.
I don't think I share any of his beliefs, only the one he lacks. ;)
Click to expand...

I sort of feel the same way. I'm not at all keen on his positions on morality which seem to be rooted in very short term thinking and lots of hand waving about how one set of behaviours is "clearly" superior to another. Mind you, I haven't read his work on this, merely heard talks, and perhaps talks don't lend themselves to deeper analysis.

The quote you gave didn't elevate his analysis of the human condition in my eyes. The aggressive man can get away with a lot for a time but it takes so much more to carry it off. 12 men may not stop the one incident out of a sense of self preservation, but they will work together to protect themselves and their families thereafter and unless the aggressive man is socially smart enough to disrupt that alliance or somehow give a convincing justification for why his victim deserved what she got then aggression will not necessarily be enough to afford him long term success. To insulate themselves from consequences so that you can act as you wish requires social skill and the ability to build alliances and compute who is buyable with what and who needs to be intimidated and how.

In small social units aggression and physical superiority is all part and parcel of deciding who get's what resources - it's the pecking order - and once established the amount of inter-member aggression decreases. Where you do see more aggression is between group members who are fairly closely matched, especially when resources are scarce, since the closely matched members immediate subordinates and superiors in the pecking order.

The same is true with human societies (beneath our social sophistication) and the problem with guns is that they ARE equalizers - which means that anyone has the power to attack and kill anyone else. Now, instead of the biggest and strongest winning, it's the ones most willing to kill and the ones who think of killing first rather than waiting to see if they are under threat who win. Many guns in a society (without a compensatory discipline provided by a compelling social myth or strong group identity) leads to an increase in confrontations especially among young males and this is made worse if resources are hard to come by and densities are high.

These factors are not limited to guns but are more or less applicable to all weapons. Guns just happen to be particularly effective and lethal weapons.
 
Robert said:
Whilst that's true, I also have to acknowledge that the statistics tell a rather complex and confusing story.
Click to expand...
And part of the problem is that much of the confusion is there intentionally. The US gun lobbies have done all they can to ensure that no one spends any real time or money on studying the issue in the US.

Their first line of defense is: "It's too soon" to talk about. Their second line of defense is simply keeping any facts out of the discussion.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
The quote you gave didn't elevate his analysis of the human condition in my eyes.
Click to expand...

Quite. In my opinion it's idiotically shortsighted, which was why I decided to highlight it.

As I've already said, I was maybe being a little harsh on him by singling out that part but, again, there's plenty worse in the rest of his article.
 
Here's some more "propaganda":
312454_519883651375426_533955831_n.jpg
 
It takes a rare and special kind of talent to out-arsehole Piers Morgan but this Jones chap appears to have an abundance of it:
 
Robert said:
It's an interesting article but I have to say I disagree with most of it.
Click to expand...

While I don't love guns or have any interest in them (except as machines and engineered sculptures) I do respect people who take training /educating seriously. That doesn't make these people better than me. But I'm probably safer.

What I think Harris and I understand since we live in America is that Some Americans have a knee jerk reaction to the Idea of a gun. They actually think it solves problems. If I held up a picture of a gun for these people they would have a deep reaction. I would rather use pictures of guns to keep the peace. :D
 
Glaucus said:
This however seems to be a common argument amongst gun advocates, that the firearm has some kind of crime nullifying properties. Put armed cops in schools and *poof* all our spree-killing problems go away. Of course you'd also need to add armed cops in malls and subways and transit buses and all large box stores and boat cruises and city parks and sporting events where ever else large groups of people gather and make inviting targets of themselves. And none of that would guarantee anyone's safety.
Click to expand...

there is NOTHING that can guarantee safety

gun free zone just become attractive attack targets

When your life is in danger and seconds count, remember the police are only a half hour away ... unless your outside the city limits ... and when they finally arrive, their cars will be fully stocked with white chalk and yellow crime scene tape.

If you want to live in a country with extremely strict gun control laws, I suggest Mexico

In related news, Torreón, Coahuila, has replaced Ciudad Juarez as the most dangerous city in Mexico, and not because Juarez got any safer.
 
Twice in quick succession?
On two different threads?
:lol:
Too funny.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
Yes. That plus placing cops in schools is just dumb anyway. It just leads to kids getting tasered and arrested.
Click to expand...
Well ya, I was just wondering if he was in disagreement with the NRA's position.
 
Glaucus said:
Well ya, I was just wondering if he was in disagreement with the NRA's position.
Click to expand...
ROFL

Both School districts in Laredo already have their own school district police force, and separate campuses for those expelled from the other district schools (have a security entrance and razor wire fence around these "special" disciplinary schools too)
 
metalman said:
ROFL

Both School districts in Laredo already have their own school district police force, and separate campuses for those expelled from the other district schools (have a security entrance and razor wire fence around these "special" disciplinary schools too)
Click to expand...
BURP
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top