I probably shouldn't post this...
-
Well, generalisations are always dangerous, but the idea that society has learned nothing about how to make government since the founding fathers is, to me, ignoring change. Despite your obvious distain for Europe, some parts (always dangerous to group too many people together under one label, and "Europe" is a very broad label) are clearing moving forward in terms of social structure. And to think that the environment of the late 1700's is the same, or even close to the same, as today seems highly dangerous to me. America's governmental problem is not the inherent untrustworthyness of government (which does exist, but is, as you say, a part of the beast), it's the fact that there is a choice of "right", or "more right" in the political process. The constitution is a great idea, but to me it is not a set of limits imposed by the people on the government (although in effect it plays that role) - it establishes a framework for conversation between the people and the government. And like the people and the government it must change over time. Anyway, you seem to be arguing in a circle - on the one hand the constitution is there to protect you, on the other hand the current (and recent) governments are ignoring it. SO it's there, but it doesn't work ? In whcih case, it's not really there, right? Yes, lets not get started on the Civil War.
I've got to get off this, but I would just add that the constitution was designed from the very beginning to change over time via a process of amendment. The founding father's knew things would change, and planned for it. I have nothing against change, so long it is done according to the mechanisms defined within the document itself. I don't quite see how I'm arguing in circles when, as you accurately describe, I believe the constitution to be increasingly irrelevant as a means of addressing our dissatisfaction with our government. Hence, the gun argument.
-
Mike, I think you may have misunderstood me with my C++ analogy. I was referring to a case where there's a group of developers who need to write code and want to do it in C++. The manager would then say, "No, use Java 'cause it's safer". My argument is: No, they can use C++ as long as they get proper training and become responsible with how they use it. In other words, make them happy but make sure they know what they're doing before even starting with it. It wouldn't be an option, it would be a prerequisite. I think your last statement about "demonstrating a need" is where I don't agree. If I need to own a gun to boost my ego, or to shoot squirrels, or to hang high on the wall, or to feel safe, that's my problem. I shouldn't need to demonstrate a need that pleases you or any government. The government should be content with me being capable and responsible with the weapon. The need part is none of their business. Also, I'm not sure about this, but I've always heard that there's a 7-day waiting period before a person can buy a gun, during which a background check is run. So it's not quite as simple as "got money? have gun". Unfortunately for the gangsters and thugs it's different, they typically get guns through illegal sources. Regards, Alvaro
Well, you are right - we probably disagree on "need". To me, 'intent' is an important criteria in demonstrating 'responsibilty'. How can you judge a person's 'mindset' if they refuse to answer questions? Would you hire someone who answered any and all questions at an interview with "Look, I'm trained in C++ - why I want the job and what I'm going to do when I'm working in it is my business". And bottom line is that 'background checks', etc can only work for people who have already failed some type of test (been arrested, etc) - it means nothing for the vast majority of American gun owners, who easily pass such simple tests.
-
Christian, I could throw a rock into any trailer park in Oklahoma and hit someone intelligent enough to, with six weeks of training, program as well or better as you or anyone else on this site. So, please, enough of your analysis of other people's intellect based on their agreement with your political views.
Mate, I wouldn't be working in your environment then. :(( What can they do with 12 weeks training ? Point a gun at someone ? X|
-
Ray, I would rather see this planet go spiraling into the sun with all hands aboard than to see me and mine become part of anything even remotely resembling the European community.
That American mentality again, why do you feel a need to take the rest of us with you ? Just because of some paranoid 'threat' of becoming slightly more like the community from which you migrated. :confused:
-
I live in the San Francisco Bay area. So the costs are the same but San Diego is a lot prettier, the ocean water is warmer, there is a lot less traffic. I just wasn't sure about the job market there. I lived there for 3 years. I went to U.C. San Diego. After my son was born and I graduated I needed to be near my parents so I moved back up here (free babysitters). I miss it. Thanks for the information. :) Cathy
Wow. My brother was working for a startup out there, and he was paying $2100 for rent (somewhere in Pacifica) for a 1-bedroom studio. After being unable to find a job, he moved to Phoenix. San Diego isn't that bad yet (but you'll be lucky to find an apartment with 2 bedrooms for less than $1000). You should move out of California. :-)
-
Ah, welcome back John !!
I was just trying to show that I do have a serious, thoughtful, sensitive, and even articulate side. However, those times which require such a response are few and far between. It's simply easier to call people names and threaten them with violence (because it requires many fewer words than being nice). :)
-
Well, generalisations are always dangerous, but the idea that society has learned nothing about how to make government since the founding fathers is, to me, ignoring change. Despite your obvious distain for Europe, some parts (always dangerous to group too many people together under one label, and "Europe" is a very broad label) are clearing moving forward in terms of social structure. And to think that the environment of the late 1700's is the same, or even close to the same, as today seems highly dangerous to me. America's governmental problem is not the inherent untrustworthyness of government (which does exist, but is, as you say, a part of the beast), it's the fact that there is a choice of "right", or "more right" in the political process. The constitution is a great idea, but to me it is not a set of limits imposed by the people on the government (although in effect it plays that role) - it establishes a framework for conversation between the people and the government. And like the people and the government it must change over time. Anyway, you seem to be arguing in a circle - on the one hand the constitution is there to protect you, on the other hand the current (and recent) governments are ignoring it. SO it's there, but it doesn't work ? In whcih case, it's not really there, right? Yes, lets not get started on the Civil War.
> the idea that society has learned nothing about how to make government since the founding > fathers is, to me, ignoring change. Everyone has, I think, learned how to make a government, but otherwise decent well-meaning people get all weirded out when are thrust into a position of power and control. Things do tend to get out of hand, and they start bending the rules and getting greedy. It happens everywhere (not just here). > Despite your obvious distain for Europe, some parts (always dangerous to group too many > people together under one label, and "Europe" is a very broad label) are clearing moving > forward in terms of social structure I don't think he's showing "disdain for Europe". He was merely indicating that the majority (indeed ALL?) of imigrants to this country in the 1700's were from Europe. > [The Constitution] it must change over time That will probably never happen, because the people won't let it happen. I certainly don't think it would be a good idea to change it because all of a sudden, we'd have legal battles up the wazoo where someone thinks that the "new" Consititution could shed new light on their court case. There are changes that must be made, but none of the changes involves altering the Consititution. I now return you to "the real" John Simmons, Outlaw Programmer. Maybe we should simply take every other politician or government official and launch them into the sun. Maybe this would serve as enough of a warning for everyone else.
-
Mate, I wouldn't be working in your environment then. :(( What can they do with 12 weeks training ? Point a gun at someone ? X|
Actually, that's how I got my start. I was standing in my trailer park down by Gotebo one day scracthing my ass, drinking a beer and loading my Smith and Wesson when I was suddenly hit by a rock. Some guy asked me if I wanted to learn to program computers. I didn't know what a computer was, but, after I shot him, I got to thinking that might not be a bad idea. The rest is history...
-
Alvaro, You were almost there, but fell at the last hurdle. Your analogy is quite good, but you just took a sudden turn at the last minute. You are right - no one is advocating the complete removeal of guns from all levels and forms of society. Also, proper training and resposibility should be part of gun ownership. I think you need to slightly modify your final statement. Instead of : "C++ is a language which in the hands of trained professionals can be used to efficiently write software. We shouldn't take it away; rather, we should train everyone to use it correctly and make them responsible for their usage. Thus, if a developer purposely misuses the language to cause havoc, he/she should be fired." It should read : "C++ is a language which in the hands of trained professionals can be used to efficiently write software. We should take it away from those who don't understand it, don;t need it, and have easy access to safe alternatives. We should train those who have need for it's power to use it correctly and make them responsible for their usage. Thus, if a trained and licensed developer purposely misuses the language to cause havoc, he/she should be fired." Really, I must admit I cannot understand how you can make the argument that (a) you admit it is dangerous in the wrong hands, and requires skill, training and a responsible attitude to be used correctly, and then state that (b) anyone should be allowed to have it, and it's up to the owner to decide whether they meet the criteria, and wheterh they will get training or not. What could be the problem with a society that says "No guns as a general rule. Prove yourself capable, demonstrate a need (shooting cans in the backyard doesn't count as 'need'), and accept responsibility for your actions, and you can have a gun". At the moment, America says - "you've got the money, we've got a gun for you". There seems to be quite a distance between these two statements.
> It should read : > > "C++ is a language which in the hands of trained professionals > can be used to efficiently write software. We should take it > away from those who don't understand it, don't need it, and > have easy access to safe alternatives. We should train those > who have need for it's power to use it correctly and make them > responsible for their usage. Thus, if a trained and licensed > developer purposely misuses the language to cause havoc, he/she > should be fired." Actually, he/she should be fired into the sun or strapped to a rock and beaten to death.
-
"I am a trained combat officer in the U.S. Army (inactive), I have hunted on a regular basis my entire life. I am very familiar with weaponry of virtually every kind. I can assure you that the existence of combat style weaponry in the hands the citizenry *will* give any government pause when it comes to suppressing a people." The French seem to manage absolutely fine without guns when their government does ANYTHING they don't like. They just bring the tractors into town, blockade the ports, block main roads. Every single time, the government backs down. Cheers, Peter
-
Yes, guns definitely provide an advantage. That's it. They're not designed to kill people. They're designed for anyone wishing to fire a projectile at high speed to do so with minimum effort. Whether that projectile is aimed at a human heart, a human leg, a rabbit, a snake, or just hung on a shelf, is another story. This is just stupid. Guns provide an advantage BECAUSE they are designed to fire a projectile at high speed towards something with the intention of bringing it harm. I haven't studied criminal behavior but I would assume that the criminal stops because he's afraid of what the gun could do to him. It could kill him or just injure him -- either way he would eventually have to stop so might as well avoid making things worse for himself. Whatever the reason, the gun in this case is a good thing, don't you think? The point is that it's a good thing *because* it's common knowledge that it was designed to point at people you want to hurt. If the community can't get their hands on Counter Strike but is responsible with guns and loves to shoot targets, why not? Let them have their fun. I don't think anyone wants to "arm the community". I think it's a few members of the community who seek to arm themselves, for whatever reason. As long as they do their "arming" responsibly, why not? Well, I'd love to have a go at target shooting myself. I'd be most comfortable with that if the guns were kept at the place where I did it, under secure lock and key. Well, I have an axe for that purpose. It will do nicely, given that in Australia someone who invades my home is unlikely to have a gun. In the US, it's pretty much a given, I'd guess. Well an axe is good, but wouldn't a gun be better? You never know when an American may come around... The axe is for chopping wood, it happens to be by the door and therefore also available if the need arises. Statistically the odds of someone coming to my house with a gun, American or not, are very remote. Isn't it better if guns are harder to get for everyone ? Yes, we shouln't just sell a gun to anyone, and as far as I know, we don't. There's a seven-day background check on everyone who buys a gun in the US. A subset of the people who would clearly pass such a check seem to be the people responsible for the schoolyard/workplace shootings that seem to occur so often over there. And this is my main point. Such unhinged people are less likely to kill as many people if their only option is a knife. They are unli
Guns provide an advantage BECAUSE they are designed to fire a projectile at high speed towards something with the intention of bringing it harm. Yup. There are only two cases where a gun isn't harming something -- it's not being fired (broken, sitting still, whatever), or the bullet hits nothing. (Of course, those cases don't imply that the gone isn't being used to harm something, since you could club someone with it too.) Well, I'd love to have a go at target shooting myself. I'd be most comfortable with that if the guns were kept at the place where I did it, under secure lock and key. You surprise me. What about the twisted person who wants to go shoot a bunch of people? Can't he walk into a shooting gallery, check out a gun, and kill a few of the people there who actually were using the guns properly? Responsibility is the real issue, not the tool. I don't have a gun and I feel free. I don't feel that I'm being treated as a criminal for not owning a gun, I feel not being a criminal in a society where there are not many guns means I don't need one. There are a lot of people in the U.S. who think similarly, mostly because they've never used guns and don't care to. So, those people aren't giving up anything that they wanted. However, they're trying to force others to give up the freedoms they have -- hunters are the biggest example. I live in the upper midwest (WI), where it seems that 5 out of every 6 people hunt at least one deer every season (I never have). Eliminating guns would be an incredible infringment upon the freedom of these people -- who by the way are extremely unlikely to cause the lethal problems seen in other parts of the country where hunting is much less popular. It is not government's job to prevent me from accidentally hurting myself; otherwise we'd have no freedom to go skydiving, parachuting, bungee(sp?) jumping, etc. It is the governments job to provide disciplinary consequences for the times when I harm someone else by any means -- con jobs, murder (of any form), robbery, rape, mugging, etc. The problem is that some legislators here are trying to cross the bridge from enforcing punishment of wrong actions to preventing people from doing anything that might hurt someone (including themselves). That is the reason I desire to keep our gun freedoms. If we let them take that away, what goes next? Bows and arrows? Knives? Axes(which you obviously don't have a problem with)? Each of those have had a primary use as lethal weapons in the past, an
-
It is funny, Chrisitan, that the NRA's numbers are all propaganda but the "Brady's" numbers are all factual. Its *all* propaganda, dude. It is obviously ridiculous to compare numbers of "gun" deaths out of a population of 270 Million + to war time deaths out of a few hundred thousand troops in combat. Of *course* it's all propoganda, I thought I said as much. But the figures that interested me were gun deaths in the US compared to other countries. The site had figures per 100,000 population, and you guys still 'win' hands down. Virtually every American I know believes they have a God-given right to own whatever kind of weaponry they please and it is a waste of breath to try to convince them otherwise. I don't own a gun myself, and probably never will, yet I fully believe that a free man does not have to ask permission to defend himself, and I like knowing that, if needed, I could avail myself of weaponry as I please. This is the problem - you have a culture that can't see the issue of human rights beyond your own right to see the world through gun sights if and when you desire. So while the school shootings and workplace shootings continue, the odds of the situation coming under control are pretty much zip. Could disarming the American public bring gun deaths down? Well, duh! Well, thank you. This is my sole point. But people who are determined to kill each other will find a way to do it even if they don't have guns. Timothy McViegh killed, what, 180 something - never fired a shot. Yet, you could also bring those numbers down not by getting rid of the 2nd amendment but by getting rid of the 1st. When I was a kid people were heavily armed, and far fewer people were being murdered, because we were a more moral nation (in that regard). The thought of shooting your classmates was simply not an option. Today, after 40 years of the "if it feels good, do it" mentality, people are far more inclined to solve their problems with guns. Shut Hollywood up for a few years, teach Chrisitan morality in school again, and I can assure you those numbers *will* go down. To me, as an American, one option is as onerous as the other. Sorry, are you saying that teaching respect for life is an onerous idea ? I said last time we discussed this that the 'right' to bear arms was given to a nation with totally different values, a nation more likely to be able to be trusted with that right. I am a trained combat officer in the U.S. Army (inactive), I have hunted on a regular basis m
This is the problem - you have a culture that can't see the issue of human rights beyond your own right to [do whatever you want]. Or, as the Bible puts it, "Every man did that which was right in his own eyes." Which was always followed by nasty societal problems and/or war. That's exactly the problem, and no amount of governmental regulation is going to fix it. Guns are a side issue (although obviously a significant one). The real, best, proper fix is for people to be _responsible_ (i.e. care about everybody else as much as they care about themselves.) Hey, that sounds incredibly like the "Golden Rule" doesn't it? Anyway, removing the freedom to hold a gun isn't going to remove the problem that makes gun-holding an issue. John
-
> the idea that society has learned nothing about how to make government since the founding > fathers is, to me, ignoring change. Everyone has, I think, learned how to make a government, but otherwise decent well-meaning people get all weirded out when are thrust into a position of power and control. Things do tend to get out of hand, and they start bending the rules and getting greedy. It happens everywhere (not just here). > Despite your obvious distain for Europe, some parts (always dangerous to group too many > people together under one label, and "Europe" is a very broad label) are clearing moving > forward in terms of social structure I don't think he's showing "disdain for Europe". He was merely indicating that the majority (indeed ALL?) of imigrants to this country in the 1700's were from Europe. > [The Constitution] it must change over time That will probably never happen, because the people won't let it happen. I certainly don't think it would be a good idea to change it because all of a sudden, we'd have legal battles up the wazoo where someone thinks that the "new" Consititution could shed new light on their court case. There are changes that must be made, but none of the changes involves altering the Consititution. I now return you to "the real" John Simmons, Outlaw Programmer. Maybe we should simply take every other politician or government official and launch them into the sun. Maybe this would serve as enough of a warning for everyone else.
>> I don't think he's showing "disdain for Europe". Well, my favorite all time joke is: "If you're an American when you go into a bathroom, and you're an American when you come out of the bathroom, what are you while you're in the bathroom: Yer a pee'n!":-D
-
That American mentality again, why do you feel a need to take the rest of us with you ? Just because of some paranoid 'threat' of becoming slightly more like the community from which you migrated. :confused:
Or just a prime example of the American art of exaggeration. It's the Europeans who arrogantly assume that anyone with any brains would be following their lead, despite centuries of moronic political failures and being saved twice by us. "Oh, look, look everyone, we've finally got it right this time!"
-
Hmmm, guns are designed for the sole purpose of killing people? I don't think so. Really ? You don't think guns were designed to give their designer an advantage in warfare over the guys with the bows and arrows, in the same way that bows & arrows were designed to give an advantage over the pointed stick brigade ? Guns are used by police to defend themselves, to stop and apprehend runaway criminals, and to deter people from causing trouble. In the hands of the police, guns are good. Why does the criminal stop ? Because guns make a loud noise, or because he knows they are an instrument designed to kill people they are pointed at ? In the hands of hunters or target shooters, guns are good too. They allow hunters to catch the prey they're after, or target shooters to experience the thrill of aiming at something, pulling the trigger, and hitting it. You probably don't know what I'm talking about, but target shooting is actually fun. I'm sure target shooting is lots of fun. So is Counter Strike. This does not give good reason for arming the community. In the hands of the common folks guns can be good or bad. If a drug addict or a compulsive gambler has a gun then he/she is more likely to hold up the liquor store, like you said. I'm sure if you or I had a gun, the last thing on our mind would be to use it for that purpose, right? We would probably keep it safely at home in case someone ever tried to invade our property. Well, I have an axe for that purpose. It will do nicely, given that in Australia someone who invades my home is unlikely to have a gun. In the US, it's pretty much a given, I'd guess. Your point seems to be that guns should be taken away from everyone because they facilitate crime in the hands of a derranged minority. Isn't that a lot like your boss dictating that all developers are now going to use Java because it's a safer language? I don't think you would agree, right? You'd probably say, "C++ is a language which in the hands of trained professionals can be used to efficiently write software. We shouldn't take it away; rather, we should train everyone to use it correctly and make them responsible for their usage. Thus, if a developer purposely misuses the language to cause havoc, he/she should be fired." Well, I don't know of anyone being killed with Java. My point is that the only 'reason' for the decent portion of society to have guns seems to be that the criminals have them. Isn't it better if guns are harder to get for everyone
>Well, I don't know of anyone being killed with Java. My point is It only feels so... Christian Skovdal Andersen
-
In 1998, 30,708 people in the United States died from firearm-related deaths – 12,102 (39%) of those were murdered; 17,424 (57%) were suicides; 866 (3%) were accidents; and in 316 (1%) the intent was unknown.v In comparison, 33,651 Americans were killed in the Korean War and 58,193 Americans were killed in the Vietnam War. For every firearm fatality in the United States, there are two non-fatal firearm injuries. In 1996, handguns were used to murder 2 people in New Zealand, 15 in Japan, 30 in Great Britain, 106 in Canada and 9,390 in the United States. In 1999, there were only 154 justifiable homicides by private citizens in the United States. So out of 1.9million Amaricans who own guns, only 154 of them actually needed them. I would be interested to see the stats on number of people killed when they tried to pull their dinky 22 on a would be robber who had a uzi...... Christian Secrets of a happy marriage #27: Never go to bed if you are mad at each other. It's more fun to stay up and fight.
So what are the stats for murder without a gun in these other countries? I'd say that the issue to be concerned about is the murder rate, not the method of murder wouldn't you? There are very few shooting deaths in prison, but stabbings are very very frequent, and often result in death....should we outlaw knives in America based on that fact and all use sforks (the lovely platic spoon/fork provided in plastic wraps)?
