water cannon

[unreasonable]

I think I understand the proplem for our US contributors: they probably do not want to come out and say that other peoples do not have the right to decide their own gun laws, since this is so obviously unreasonable, but they worry that the arguments used by other peoples to reach the conclusion that stringent gun controls are a good thing might be applied to the US too, and be used by the government to undermine or limit their current rights to carry arms. So not being content to defend their own gun laws they feel the need to criticise other people's laws as well.

At the extreme, to safeguard the 2nd Amendment from the dreaded "wedge" argument, the rights of all other nations in the world to manage their own affairs according to their own traditions, culture and laws has to be, if not denied outright, denigrated, held up to ridicule and contempt, and condemned as a slippery slope on the road to totalitarian enslavement.

So I would really appreciate it if any of the US contributors would step up to the plate, play the game, man up, stop evading the issue, and state whether or not they believe that the people of the UK, via the mechanism of their own constitution and law, have the self-evident right to limit the right to keep and bear arms.

Come on, you know you want to...

[ATAG_Doc]

Originally Posted by unreasonable

I think I understand the proplem for our US contributors: they probably do not want to come out and say that other peoples do not have the right to decide their own gun laws, since this is so obviously unreasonable, but they worry that the arguments used by other peoples to reach the conclusion that stringent gun controls are a good thing might be applied to the US too, and be used by the government to undermine or limit their current rights to carry arms. So not being content to defend their own gun laws they feel the need to criticise other people's laws as well.

At the extreme, to safeguard the 2nd Amendment from the dreaded "wedge" argument, the rights of all other nations in the world to manage their own affairs according to their own traditions, culture and laws has to be, if not denied outright, denigrated, held up to ridicule and contempt, and condemned as a slippery slope on the road to totalitarian enslavement.

So I would really appreciate it if any of the US contributors would step up to the plate, play the game, man up, stop evading the issue, and state whether or not they believe that the people of the UK, via the mechanism of their own constitution and law, have the self-evident right to limit the right to keep and bear arms.

Come on, you know you want to...

Of course they do. They've chosen this and it isn't ever coming back while there is a civilized government in place.

Lately there seems to be mobs of people not getting along well and I am worried that this could spiral out of the governments control. Then when that happens what then?

Hungry people don't make wise decisions.

[jimbop]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...ted_death_rate

Um, have any of you guys looked at the list? One of my family is in those stats and I wish guns were even harder to get hold of where I live.

[Wolf_Rider]

Guns don't kill people though... people kill people, and the only difference between this happening in the stone age and today is, today we have developed a much more efficient means of doing so.

Until the "why" is recognised and dealt with, we'll only continue to develop even more efficient means of killing each other.

Take the guns away and people will use knives/ swords, take them away and people will use clubs or what is in the cutlery drawer, take that away and they'll resort to what is under the kitchen sink... remove that and they'll turn to grandma's knitting needles. Meanwhile, others have fashioned a workshop in their backyard shed.

[jimbop]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

Guns don't kill people though... people kill people, and the only difference between this happening in the stone age and today is, today we have developed a much more efficient means of doing so.

Until the "why" is recognised and dealt with, we'll only continue to develop even more efficient means of killing each other.

Take the guns away and people will use knives/ swords, take them away and people will use clubs or what is in the cutlery drawer, take that away and they'll resort to what is under the kitchen sink... remove that and they'll turn to grandma's knitting needles. Meanwhile, others have fashioned a workshop in their backyard shed.

True but the efficiency with which guns do the job is the point. You can't honestly be saying that if you replaced all the firearms with knitting needles that there would be as many homicides, surely?

[Wolf_Rider]

Its not the body count which is the problem (the body count is the symptom)... the problem is "why" there is a need for the body count in the first place.

Replace guns for knitting needles? look in the kitchen cabinet and you'll find much more efficent means than a gun

[jimbop]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

Its not the body count which is the problem (the body count is the symptom)... the problem is "why" there is a need for the body count in the first place.

Replace guns for knitting needles? look in the kitchen cabinet and you'll find much more efficent means than a gun

Couldn't agree more about it being a symptom but I certainly do see the body count as being a problem. Should be reduced where possible.

[unreasonable]

Originally Posted by timej31

Of course they do. They've chosen this and it isn't ever coming back while there is a civilized government in place.

Lately there seems to be mobs of people not getting along well and I am worried that this could spiral out of the governments control. Then when that happens what then?

Hungry people don't make wise decisions.

Fair enough, thank you. From some of the posts in the thread I was beginning to wonder.....

As for the situation getting out of control - I do not think that is likely, provided that the people at large are not armed, which is I imagine the main point of difference between the US and European views.

IMHO, the mobs have been mostly apolitical youths out for some excitement, and judging from how fat some of them looked on the TV pictures they were certainly not hungry. Presumably they got bored waiting for the next CloD patch...

Some combination of carrots and sticks will be applied, mostly without any real belief that anything fundamental will change. The underclass will go back to their ghettos. The middle-class opportunist gansta wannabees will go back to their sociology courses at "university". And the bankers and politicians will go back to fleecing the society they have come to believe does not exist.

O tempora, O mores!

(For non-classicists, this translates roughly as "this tempura is tasty, give me some more", a suitable lament for the failings of a multicultural, materialist nation).

[Skoshi Tiger]

[QUOTE=unreasonable;323490]

IMHO, the mobs have been mostly apolitical youths out for some excitement, and judging from how fat some of them looked on the TV pictures they were certainly not hungry. Presumably they got bored waiting for the next CloD patch...

Some combination of carrots and sticks will be applied, mostly without any real belief that anything fundamental will change. The underclass will go back to their ghettos. The middle-class opportunist gansta wannabees will go back to their sociology courses at "university". And the bankers and politicians will go back to fleecing the society they have come to believe does not exist.
QUOTE]

Ah! So what your saying is the hash gun laws in the UK are designed to maintain the centurys old class based system and repress the majority of the population? Maybe the guys in the US have got it right after all?

[unreasonable]

[QUOTE=Skoshi Tiger;323513]

Originally Posted by unreasonable

Ah! So what your saying is the hash gun laws in the UK are designed to maintain the centurys old class based system and repress the majority of the population? Maybe the guys in the US have got it right after all?

Firstly, I am not sure that it is useful to speak of them being "designed" at all.

For US law (at least for constitutional law on which other law is based) it is meaningful to speak of design, since we know who the designers were, and through the texts of the laws themselves and various other writings we know much about their deliberate purpose and the intelligent way they went about constructing a system that, they hoped, would realize their goals.

In contrast, in English law a multiplicity of various accretions added over the centuries, driven by the needs and whims of the moment, in accord with the procedural principles of the time. Close scrutiny of judicial decision making, or in particular of debates within the House of Commons (the legislature) will reveal few signs of intelligence or purposeful activity at all, except on those few occasions when the system as a whole is in danger, when a brief spasm of defensive adjustment can be observed.

So while the US law and constitution may be compared to a motor vehicle (in which one passenger controls the steering wheel, another the "gas pedal" and a third the brakes), the UK constitution and law is better described as a termite colony, or perhaps a sponge.

Speaking of purpose in complex evolved systems of this kind is fraught with difficulties, and often leads to fallacy. The argument from design is the most familiar example, but neo-darwinian evolutionists do it too on occasion.

(For instance, we have probably all watched those interminable nature morality tales masquerading as documentaries in which we watch, for example, the antics of the bat eared froogle, whose large twitching ears are described as "perfectly evolved to suit the environment").

Secondly, whether the guys in the US have "got it right" is another matter: it rather depends on what "it" is.

What is wrong, for instance, with "maintain[ing] the centurys old class based system and repress[ing] the majority of the population?" The events of the last few days demonstrate only too clearly what happens when this vital task is neglected.

If in fact the "harsh gun laws" are, or are perceived to be "designed to maintain the centuries old class based system and repress the majority of the population", the fact that they are overwelmingly popular suggests that the vast majority of the population wants and needs to be repressed.

This is quite plausible, as the feeling of struggling against a powerful evil force is much more satisfying than facing the mundane challenges of work and family, at least for males. We both have the WOT and the WOD: for those youths too weak, cowardly or intelligent to enter the military there is the war on "the Feds" and "the establishment" as a substitute.

For females, the need for a strong (calm assertive) male dominant presence is obvious, as shown in "The Dog Whisperer", or indeed in the charming american romance featured in a previous posting. In the US the dames feel safe when their man has a gun. In the UK the gals feel safe when no-one has a gun.

On the class system: better just to think of it as a hugely entertaining national pastime.