As always, people are the problem, not weapons or the availability of weapons. Yet I'll address the availability issue from a pragmatic perspective, simply put, you can't put the genie back in the bottle. The right to bear arms is deeply ingrained in our culture and any so called solution needs to address that reality. Now on to the real problem. People. Murder is almost universally frowned upon, has been since, well forever. Yet not a day goes by without one of us killing another. Heck not a day goes by without one nation being at war with another. And let's be honest, a great number of folks were killed long before gunpowder was invented. And IIRC the Rwandan genocide (1994) consisted of over 800,000 deaths, most caused by pitchforks and machetes. So instead of wasting time lamenting an evil tool let's fess up. As a species we are a murderous lot. How do we address that problem?
Absolutely. The expectation that you can change the gun culture in the US is completely absurd - everyone should have access to firearms without background check or licensing. I see the brilliance in what you propose. What we really need to do is alter the people! There are no possible unintended consequences that could arise there. I mean, seriously man, science!
So, seriously, what are you thinking Clyde? Something in the water supply? You are going to need a really serious method of dispersal. Planes dropping aersoled anti-psychotics? We can make them look like crop dusters! Or maybe something in a product everyone uses. I know, insert something in the fluoride in the tooth paste! I like the way your mind works!
Oh, no, I know what he means. He means we need to stop being a Godless society! God will fix people! Even better!
First of all, we have to determine if it's a problem. I'm serious here. Every character trait has its advantages and disadvantages. They are the two inseparable sides of the same coin. Aggressivity is a character trait. Its disadvantages are obvious. They can be seen in wars, massacres, crimes, and the general suffering that human beings inflict on one another. No society and no period of history has ever been free from this. The advantages of aggressivity are numerous as well, though, and are often overlooked. The same aggressiveness that causes a person who doesn't care about others to harm those around him will cause a person to strive for the best he can do, to improve his lot in life. When aggressivity is manifested against innocent people, it is a very, very, very bad thing. But when it is manifested against the difficulties of life, it is the primary driving force of human advancement. The least aggressive people I know are the Madagascans. Murders are rare, as are armed robberies. Both exist, but not on a scale known in the West. If the same social problems that have shaken the country for three years were manifested in Africa, there would have been a very bloody civil war long ago. One of the things that has preserved the Madagascan people is their lack of aggressivity. And that same lack of aggressivity is the reason why they do not progress much. There is very widespread discontent with the current "president" who took power in a military coup and has been planning elections "next year" ever since he took over. (It has become a standard joke among the people now: The elections will always be "next year.") Yet they do nothing. They continue with their lives, struggling against ever worsening financial conditions, constantly wishing "someone would do something" but never deciding that it is time to "pledge their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor" to throw the usurper and his corrupt puppets out. Technologically, they do the same things. I can give them more ideas on how to improve roads, dams, schools, production and general living conditions in one day than they can come up with in a year, and their reaction is always: "Wow, that's a good idea!" Sometimes they even put them into practice. But it simply doesn't occur to them to say: "There has to be a better way!" Europeans (and I use the term in reference to an ethnic origin, rather than a geographic location, so that it includes all Western peoples, including Americans) are one of the most murderous, aggressive peoples the world has ever seen. European history is full of constant wars, invasions, massacres, and oppression. Europeans managed to turn the teachings of a man whose basic message was "Love others as much as you care about yourself" into one of the most murderous religions in history, perhaps the most murderous. Europeans invaded the whole planet, and turned it into their little playground, through colonization, slavery and genocide. And yet that same aggressivity caused European peoples to break all the technological barriers the world has ever known. The rest of the world today is simply trying to imitate what the European peoples have been doing technologically. So far, the Chinese and Japanese seem to be about the best imitators. The Chinese are a good example of brilliant people who are not as aggressive as they could be. The Chinese invented gunpowder, paper, and printing, after all. They had the building blocks to become the most dominant culture in the history of the world. But they didn't, because they simply aren't aggressive enough. (And it is worth noting that the Madagascans are ethnically much closer to the Chinese than to Europeans -- or even to Africans.) The Europeans took the inventions of the Chinese, the Arabs, and anything else they could find, improved them, applied them aggressively, and imposed their society on the whole world. They did a huge amount of harm with that, but they also built a society that reached heights the world never dreamed of before that. Americans, in particular, are among the most aggressive of the European peoples. History "sorted out" the worst -- or best, depending on how you look at it -- of the Europeans, by opening up a whole new continent to invade but requiring that it be done without the protection of long-established kings and armies. "The cowards never left and the weak died on the way" is perhaps a caricature of American history, but like all caricatures it contains an element of truth. Americans were the most murderous lot in the second World War (over here they say: "When the Germans fired, the French ducked; when the British fired, the Germans ducked; when the Americans fired, everyone ducked"), but they also fought the war on two massive fronts and prevailed, simply because they were more aggressive than the Germans, the Japanese or even the Russians. It is not a simple accident of history that there is a "gun culture" in America. The same aggressivity that was the driving force behind 20th century technological progress, when it lashes out at innocents, does so with frightening brutality. I don't think the solution is to get rid of aggressivity. We are "a murderous lot," sure, but that murderous attitude can be applied to overcoming adversity and the limits of nature just as much as it can be applied to killing others because they annoy us, or because we want what they have, or even just to "make a name for ourselves." The question, then, is one of application: Where do we apply our murderously aggressive nature? It is only in teaching people to care about others that aggressivity becomes a positive trait without the negative aspects. And that is not something that can be done with laws. Perhaps, though, it would be a good thing if the West was not so philosophically bankrupt. If we would admit that there is such a thing as true right and wrong, that it is not just an arbitrary invention of culture but a fundamental principle written into the very nature of the universe (if people with as different outlooks as RickDeckard and myself can agree on this, it shows that it does not have to be a question of "religion"), there would perhaps be some hope. At present, though, the general attitude is that right and wrong do not really exist, there is no such thing as "sin," and it's all arbitrary. The only thing that counts is "Have as much fun as you can during the few short years you have to live, because it will be all over very quickly." And if what a person considers "the most fun" is murdering as many people as possible, then we are horrified by that, but he is, after all, simply doing what we taught him to do: making his own rules of right and wrong, because we have told him there aren't any "higher" rules than that. IOW, the problem is not in technology (guns), or even in psychology (aggressivity), but in philosophy: We know how to do many, many things, but we not only don't know much about what we ought to do, we are more and more prone to say that isn't even a meaningful statement, and to condemn anyone who says "This is right, and that is wrong." That's why I say we are philosophically bankrupt, and that I don't really think there is any hope for us in that philosophical vacuum. But I am not at all sure that we are willing to fill it, either. Or let anyone else do so.
Why is a societal attitude towards guns simply not for consideration. The refuasal to even entertain the notion in favour of regulation is as closed minded and obstinent and the pro-gun people who refuse to discuss anything other than keeping things as is. Why should America not look at it's society and consider the place that guns have in it? There are many questions to be asked. Have guns become glorified? Is there an attitude of machismo attached to them? Are children properly taught about the dangers of them? Have hobbyists lost sight of the purpose of gun ownership in favour of their enjoyment of them? Does the media influence American attitudes towards firearms? Is there any impact from movies, television and video games? Is gun advertising innappropriate? These, and countless more questions, can be discussed before any regulation takes place. You can't tell me that none of these questions raise issue with the place of firearms in American society? I simply don't buy that. This whole Newton debate has descended into yet another regulation vs status quo argument, with the cause of these events once again quickly dismissed as "mental health nutcases". You're never going to get to grips with it until your soociety starts asking questions as a whole, instead of rushing to hide behind old and worn out arguments. These events should not be happening in the civilised world, gun ownership or not. It's that simple.
It's funny that you mention me as an example contrary to this, yet still make the claim. Have you any evidence to support it? While their observance of dogma may be limited, most people still profess belief in a deity that defines morality. And secondly, as you note, a large proportion of those of us who are not religious still value concepts of right and wrong. As regards your general argument, I'll note once more that overall instances of violence per person in western societies has continued to decline. That's no reason not to reduce them further, but I think it's mistaken to insist that we've gone to the dogs.
No more than computers, cars, homes, etc. Only among people with small penises - or would that be pini? Not among the "guns are scary" crowd. Thus when and ifthey do ever handle a gun they accidently shoot themselves or someone nearby. They should teach gun safety in schools. Not at all. Hobbyists understand guns and their dangers more than almost anyone. Thus hobbyists aren't the problem 99 percent of the time. The ignorant thug who buys one for criminal activity doesn't give a shit about the danger. The media influences attitudes towards violence in general, which is to desensitize us to violence, and to simplify it. And gun advertising is appropriate. The more sane people see other sane people behaving responsibly toward firearms, the better for everyone.
Fair point, considering our biological success it seems whatever we're doing is working. The capacity to kill hasn't killed us off and may well have helped us to survive.
When put like that I question whether the ends justify the means. btw - Apologies for responding in bits, but your post was rather lengthy.
Turns out reality is chock full of stuff that "should not be happening". And be honest, you haven't a solution either.
When the "mentally challenged" (nut jobs) are unable to find (steal) firearms, they'll turm to other methods of destruction. They may go to an IRA website to find bomb making instructions or a military site to make booby trap type bombs. Maybe drive a motor vehicle onto a crowded playground. Shouldn't the question be; what will we do about the mentally ill in our society? The state of Conneticut has the fifth most stringent guns laws and yet it is nearly impossible, thanks to the ACLU, to have someone institutionalized for mental illness. And aren't ALL of these shooters mentally ill? But the cause of these horrific tragedies are blamed on the firearms. I would respectfully like to know WHY!
No, the ends do not justify the means. The means were wrong, and nothing justifies them. Futhermore, the means were not the only way of achieving the end. All I am saying is that, absent any effective way of changing human behavior for the entire race, there is no way at present to separate the wrong application of aggressivity from its correct application. But that does not make the wrong application any less wrong. Ya think?
Isn't altering the people what changing the "gun culture" is all about? Are you for or against it? Do you even know which side you're on?
