02-27-2004, 12:40 AM | #61 |
Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 61
|
>> That's why you don't see this kind of violence in other types of cultures. That's why it's more dangerous living in the city than it is in the jungle.
Part of the problem with Moore is that he simulated such a violent society. It's part of the fiction he's created. Americans pay huge amounts of money for social programs out of compassion (even though those programs cause more harm than good). We give more to charity PER CAPITA than people in any other nation. We give more to help people in other countries PER CAPITA than any other nation. It's not because we're special. It's because we have more money to give. During the Reagan era which people call the "me decade" we gave more to charity then we have before or since. >> I did notice that. But that statistic really doesn't prove anything. Who else is going to stop a crime? Like science, I don't expect data to prove anything. It just helps explain. That study explains that guns stopped around 2 million crimes, depending on whether you believe the government or independent research. 400,000 people think they might have been killed, and that's way way more than the number of criminal uses of guns. >> But just because you're carrying a gun on you doesn't mean that you're safe. Especially since a lot of gun owners don't have a lot of experience using them and have no business owning one. Guns require very little training and experience; they are truly *point and shoot* It's not a problem, and guns don't go off when you drop them like you see on TV (plus people don't drop them to find out). Most states where people can carry guns require some kind of training, and I have no problem with that. I think gun safety should be taught in schools, but parents have that irrational fear that it will turn their children into criminals. And sometimes people with no experience using guns DO have business owning them. For instance if you live in a ghetto, it might be more important to have a gun than to have experience using it, because then at least you have some chance to defend yourself even if you can't afford to spend time and money learning how to shoot. Anyway, carrying a gun means you're a lot safer, the people around you are safer, and less crimes are committed because criminals are afraid of being shot. http://www.guncite.com/ >> The down side is that such judgments are very often wrong. And then when people see that black people commit more crimes than whites they think, "Those darn blacks are causing trouble again." So it just reinforces that bias. We need to realize, though, that it has nothing to do with race. The point is that Michael Moore tried to pass it off as sort of urban myth or irrational when it's in fact a very real concern. I saw his interview on the Oprah Show when he implied such and went on to make some actual racist statements. Right after saying blacks aren't any more violent than whites he said that things would have been different on 9/11 if there were blacks in the planes that were hijacked, because they would have been able to overpower the terrorists. So he's not even consistent. Race simply isn't a factor to me, not is it the most important factor affecting Americans these days. America has become the least racist country according to studies. Black individuals here are more successful than anywhere else in the world, and they certainly aren't leaving the country to live somewhere else. In fact, just blacks in America make up something like the worlds 3rd or 5th largest economy (I forget which, but they're both pretty high up there) even though they only make up a small percentage of our population. That's because capitalism absolutely requires that people are judged only by their own individual merits. Companies don't care what color you skin is. They care how much money you can make them. Racist employers who don't hire the best person for the job go out of business because they can't compete with companies who do. >> Well, you should at least watch it before criticizing it. Whatever you think you know about Moore's points, you can't really know anything for sure until you actually hear what he has to say, not somebody else's interpretation of it. I have read plenty of what he's written, and like I said before, I've seen most episodes of "The Awful Truth." I've seen him in at least 10 interviews. I'm not really criticizing it; I'm just pointing out the lies. I think by attributing our problems to trivial things, he's causing people to totally miss the real problems. He's also using his lies to push an authoritarian liberal agenda which would harm people if enacted. >> I have to say I did find some of Moore's methods questionable, but I do agree with his overall point. I have to at least give him credit for looking at the matter seriously and raising awareness about some of the underlying factors. His methods are dishonest and misleading. Most of the awareness he has raised is false, so I can't give him credit. >> In fact, many of the international transfer students I know, particularly those from Asia, say that their experiences with the school systems of their own countries emphasize that cutthroat attitude more than the American school system does. Yeah, I don't get it either. School for me was mostly just sitting there waiting for the bell to ring. I had to learn almost anything substantial on my own. |
02-27-2004, 03:27 AM | #62 |
Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 61
|
>> Uh, are you seriously comparing the right to own a gun to freedom of speech?
I don't think I did yet, but I can. Human beings have a right to do anything doesn't take away the equal rights of another human being. The right to bear arms is especially important because it's the physical mechanism that secures our right to live, own property, assemble, and speak freely. Without that physical guard to our freedom, we don't have rights, but only Post-It(TM) notes from the government that say "Trust us." The big problem with that is a few years down the road when the people in the government have changed 5 times over and don't remember who wrote that note. The founders who wrote the Constitution wrote a lot about the reasons for the second amendment. >> What about our right to own cocaine and heroine? Do you not have the right to swallow liquid Drain-O? Likewise you have the right to ingest any harmful substances you wish. It's your body and you rule it. You rule it well because you're a reasonable human being. >> Child porn? Child porn is not a right because children aren't old enough to consent to such acts. It would physically harm children, and the government must protect a children's equal rights as well. >> Weapons of mass destruction? Guns are often necessary tools for self-defense, but weapons of mass destruction are not. If someone tries to kill me, mass destruction is not a viable defense. >> I personally can't draw any parallel between basic rights of human beings (ie. freedom) to centuries old laws which, in the first place, were only created to help citizens fight possible intervention of Red Coats. There's a lot more to it than that. Guns are a defense against criminals, a fact which I have clearly demonstrated, and it is necessary for securing our own rights. http://guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html You'll find in history that democracies that gave in to tyranny first lost their ability to have useful weapons, then their ability to assemble and speak freely, then their money, then their lives. It's been happening for thousands of years. >> As far as my knowledge of history goes (I may be wrong), people in Germany were not forced to form the Nazi Germany, they willingly followed their charismatic leader. Nazi Germany was not ruled by law like the U.S., it was a democracy of some sort. Under democratic rule it's perfectly legal to transfer power to the state, or even to kill everyone with red hair if you can convince enough people to go along with it. The people rule. The most common problem with that has always been that poorer minority votes to redistribute wealth from the rich to their own pockets until the economy is damaged. Eventually most people become poor (except for those who profit from government services that are forced upon people), and a police state must be formed to deal with increasing crime and civil unrest. Once a state can no longer survive on its own it must start invading neighboring countries to steal resources. The solution to that problem instituted in American government is the "rule of law." Our Constitution doesn't limit individual rights. Instead it limits government power to the job of protecting individual rights. Our federal government actually has no constitutional authority to do two-thirds of everything it's currently doing, like build roads or inflict these crappy public educations on us (which, by the way don't inform citizens of our own rights). Likewise our Bill of Rights doesn't "grant" rights even though most Americans seem to believe that. The Bill only ensures the rights every individual is born with are protected. For this reason some of the founders were actually against enumerating specific rights. No man or government can *legally* take away our rights, no matter how charismatic our so-called leader. The president is only the chief executive of one third of our government. The presidents oath is simply to do whatever is necessary to defend the Constitution from both foreign and domestic threats. http://memory.loc.gov/const/bor.html What's rotten in America is that the government *is* taking our rights. It started with the civil war, then got worse in the early 1900's when income tax was legalized, and finally socialism was enacted by FDR when he stacked the supreme court with justices who were willing to purposefully re-interpret the constitution to match their own ideologies. (Liberals like to call our Constitution a "living breathing document" despite the fact that it's a lie.) We are now behaving like a democracy and voting rights away. >> Of course, there were those who didn't embrace the change but they got along or moved out of the country - I don't see a university professor making it his duty to use a handgun to destroy the Nazi agenda? That's a good example. The wise minority in Germany had the right to speak freely, but that's pretty useless when they can be shot for it! Read more about Hitler's gun control and the resistence: http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel052203.asp In the U.S., the police themselves aren't so quick to violate our rights, because they're too afraid of risking their own lives. Homes and businesses aren't raided at the mere whim of some government official, because those who actually would do the raiding don't want to risk dying for a mere whim. It's crude, but realistic, and it works better than Post-It(TM) notes. Last edited by Todd; 02-27-2004 at 03:34 AM. |
02-27-2004, 03:32 AM | #63 | ||
Puts the 'e' in Mark
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,138
|
I haven't read all of what's been written since yesterday, so apologies if I repeat anything.
Quote:
Quote:
In countries like Holland or Germany the police is generally considered "your best friend". Not in France, by the way. In France the cops are total assholes. But in some other parts of Europe they are really friendly and make you feel safe and comfortable. You know, if you need directions somewhere, you best bet is either a cab driver or a cop. You can even make jokes to Dutch cops, which I wouldn't really dare to in the States. On the reality cop shows over here half the time they're rescuing kittens from trees, or helping someone who lost his keys, or just getting some bums off the street. But if there's a burglar or something they really do kick his ass. I don't want to present this as a black/white thing, but in very general terms I think the differences are there? Is this a cultural difference? Just curious. |
||
02-27-2004, 03:40 AM | #64 | ||
Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 61
|
Quote:
Quote:
If you've ever tried talking to police here, you'd find that they're normal people. My dad's best friend is a retired LAPD lieutenant, and he's one of the nicest people I know. |
||
02-27-2004, 03:55 AM | #65 | |
Puts the 'e' in Mark
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,138
|
Yeah, I know. I mean, I asked a US police officer for directions to a payphone once and he was a totally nice guy etc. (Same with the French police.) It's not a black/white thing at all. But the general sense and attitude of the US police is a little more like "we're mean guys, watch out". Maybe it's something you don't see if you don't have any other reference material. It's something that struck me, anyway.
Quote:
Edit: Oh, yeah, I'm pretty sure about that. Erm... I don't know if I feel like digging for evidence right, but maybe I will. |
|
02-27-2004, 03:58 AM | #66 |
Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 61
|
>> Edit: Oh, yeah, I'm pretty sure about that. Erm... I don't know if I feel like digging for evidence right now, but maybe I will.
You can just name the country and I'll be able to find data pretty quickly. |
02-27-2004, 04:01 AM | #67 |
Puts the 'e' in Mark
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,138
|
Okay, erm... how about comparing homicide rates between the US and the Netherlands?
|
02-27-2004, 05:35 AM | #68 |
Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 61
|
>> Okay, erm... how about comparing homicide rates between the US and the Netherlands?
Ok, that won't say much, but I'll do it. If you want to learn something about gun-control (and maybe save some lives), why not compare the homicide and crime rates in various European countries before and after gun-control laws were passed? http://www.tsra.com/Lott54.htm You will see that these laws are causing crime and death for no reason except that people fear guns. _______________ I got most info from here: http://qsi.cc/blog/archives/000144.html Years: 1998-2000 (average I think) Per: 100,000 people Murder Rate: US: 5.6 (63.4% involving guns) NL: 1.11 (got info from FBI) Robberies: US: 148.5 (42.0% involving guns) NL: ? Aggravated assault: US: 318.5 (18.3% involving guns) NL: ? Gun-related crime totals: US: 124 NL: 30 (highest: 72 in Amsterdam) Violent crime rate: US: 504.4 NL: 625.4 (24% higher than US) Property crime: US: 3656.1 NL: 5684.4 (55% higher than US) The crime rates in the U.S. have been declining for 30 years. They seem to be staying pretty constant in the Netherlands for the last 3 years (which is all I've read) and gun laws seem to be pretty constant as well. It seems to be much easier for law-abiding citizens to attain guns in the Netherlands compared with other European nations. In nations that have banned guns the U.K. crime and murder rates are increasing. Here's an interesting statistic that should tell you something about where our high murder rate is coming from: In 1993, the homicide rate per capita for the United States was 9.5. In the same year, the per capita homicide rate of black males between the ages of 18 and 24 was 183.4, nearly 20 times the US homicide rate. (FBI/UCR 1993) For the average non-gangbanging American, even with all these guns, we're just about as likely as you to be murdered, and yet we also have a choice about gun ownership so we can choose to defend ourselves if we so desire. I also find it interesting that while only about 2% of households in the Netherlands have guns compared to 40% of U.S households, we only have 4 times as much gun crime. 20 times as many homes here have guns, and yet we're much less likely to be the victims of violent crime and property crime here. If we could somehow legalize drugs here, and end welfare, I suspect the U.S. crime and murder rates would decline greatly so that we'd be many times safer than Europeans in all categories. I'm half Dutch by the way |
02-27-2004, 05:38 AM | #69 | |||||||
Senior Member
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
But the founding fathers knew this. That's why they included the Second Amendment. Remember, they had just won their independence in a revolt to overthrow the British government. They knew what a tyrannical government could do, and they knew that government couldn't be completely trusted. I think this is where a lot of people who talk about the Second Amendment go wrong. Look at the actual text: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Do you see anything in there about hunting? Do you see anything about fighting crime? No. It's for the purpose of "a well regulated militia." The Second Amendment exists so that cops don't have all the guns. It exists so that the power doesn't rest solely with the state and we don't have people like Hitler or Mussolini taking over the country. mag |
|||||||
02-27-2004, 05:51 AM | #70 | |
Joop Sloop
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: next to my PC
Posts: 295
|
Quote:
But todd, I advise you to take a look at europe (and the Netherlands in specific) to see how we handle things like this... The whole idea that you need a gun to defend yourself is stupid, defend against what? other people with guns? Last edited by ysbreker; 02-27-2004 at 06:02 AM. |
|
02-27-2004, 06:00 AM | #71 |
Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 61
|
>> That may be they're job, but it's not going to happen. And it doesn't matter how many welfare programs they cut. It's an impossible task. You can't just take out the criminals and leave everything else because we have a situation that makes people want to be gang members and drug dealers. If the incentive weren't there we wouldn't have the problem.
Exactly. If the opportunity weren't there, we wouldn't have the problem. So where is the opporunity coming from? Please read the Ten Steps above which talks about how to decrease that opportunity. >> This is one of the biggest myths about the invincible American economy ever hatched. If you get a job and work hard you'll be successful. Well, most schools actually do teach that. The reason kids don't believe it is because they can see the reality for themselves. Everything in the world isn't just. Hard work is not directly related to success. Most poor people work way harder than the rich ever will, and it's still not enough for them to get by. It *is* enough to get by. If you go to school and learn, you will get a job that pays you enough to survive. You probably won't become a millionaire, but you will get by. >> He actually didn't simulate. Did you read the page about all his lies? That's what I call "simulation." >> We actually do have about 10,000 deaths from gun murders a year (give or take a few thousand, but around that ballpark). That may not sound like a lot to you, but I find it very disturbing. 1 is too many! >> If you look at most hunter/gatherer societies, they don't have this kind of problem with violent crimes. And when I say they don't have this kind of problem I don't mean they have a lot less of it. I mean they have none of it. And the reason is that their society doesn't provide people with the incentive to kill each other. How do you know that? Do hunter/gather societies keep books? I've taken my share of anthropology classes, and even hunter/gather apes murder each other sometimes. >> How is it a rational concern to label an entire race of people as murderers and thieves just because they've been forced into a lower class of society? Don't take this badly, but I don't believe that's a rational concern nor even a rational question. |
02-27-2004, 06:06 AM | #72 |
Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 61
|
>> But todd, I advise you to take a look at europe (and the Netherlands in specific) to see how we handle things like this...
I have been looking at Europe for years. What are you talking about specifically? Haven't you read anything I've posted? Why don't you read some of the articles? Or is gun-control a religion with you? Because with a lot of people it is. >> The whole idea that you need a gun to defend yourself is stupid, defend against what? other people with guns? No. They can be used to defend life from attackers with guns, no pants on, knives, swords, flower pots, chains, bare fists, etc. It really doesn't matter. An estimated 1,500,000 to 2,500,000 Americans *do* use guns to stop crimes every single year. An estimated 400,000 believe it probably saved their lives. Tell them it's stupid. Find a person who wouldn't be here today if they didn't have a gun when they needed it, and tell them they're stupid for having the sense they needed just to be alive today. |
02-27-2004, 06:15 AM | #73 |
Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 61
|
Hey, I'm not going to be able to come back for a couple days... but I will as soon as possible. Need to finish up some work since I've been spending too much time here
|
02-27-2004, 06:28 AM | #74 | ||
Joop Sloop
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: next to my PC
Posts: 295
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
02-27-2004, 06:33 AM | #75 | |||||
Senior Member
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Now, their societies are by no means perfect. Is there some violence? Yes. But it's very limited, especially compared to the violence we have in America. First of all, most tribal fighting is targeted against a different tribe. That's not really the same as murder. It's more what we'd call a war. And even their wars are on a far lesser scale than ours. Do they have intertribal murders? I haven't read about any so far, but I suppose it's possible. It's just extremely rare. That's because you depend on others in the tribe for survival. It doesn't make sense to kill one of them. And if you do you probably won't be in the tribe much longer. That puts you in a very bad position as it's unlikely a person will last long on his own. Quote:
mag |
|||||
02-27-2004, 09:03 AM | #76 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,459
|
http://www.battleroyaleonline.com/
There you go, Todd. Gee, I never knew the country I grew up in was like Nazi Germany, what with all the lack of guns and all. Thank you for pointing that out to me. Anyway, you seem to want your country to be in a constant state of guerilla warfare, with wide-spread paranoia, every man for himself and all money to those who are already rich (really, who cares about poor people anyway?). This leads me to the conclusion that you are a very scary person and I dearly hope people like you will never run a government. Of course, in some cases they are already doing just that, but I guess we can only hope the damage will be limited. I'm through with this discussion. |
02-27-2004, 09:07 AM | #77 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 8
|
Quote:
|
|
02-27-2004, 09:21 AM | #78 | |
Puts the 'e' in Mark
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,138
|
Quote:
|
|
02-27-2004, 09:33 AM | #79 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,459
|
Yeah, I never really wanted to watch it because the theme seemed pretty sick to me, but I saw it with my friends the other day and found it was actually a brilliant film.
|
02-27-2004, 10:20 AM | #80 | |
Senior Member
|
Quote:
Anyway, the point isn't that all countries that ban guns are totalitarian states. The point is that it sets up a situation that makes it much easier for such states to emerge. I know that people immediately shut down whenever they hear the Hitler comparison, but there are valid historical comparisons to be made here. If you want complete control over a country, the first thing you need to do is take away the weapons. And that's not just modern dictators like Hitler and Stalin. That's a tradition that goes all the way back to the Roman Empire. If citizens have the right to own guns, that does a little bit more to balance out the power. I certainly don't want to see any nation resort to guerilla fighting and civil war, but it seems to me that people who want the government to control all the guns are putting a little too much faith in the state. mag |
|