If Ronnie Pickering (who?) had had a gun we may not have ended up with this gem:



Actually I'm sure Ronnie would have refrained from shooting and he regrets what happened here. But I've seen more chaotic and less funny videos of confrontations.

An armed society is a polite society, as long as there are no parking disputes — Landru Guide Us

So it is with cold weapons, Landru the Chairfighter.

From exactly the same site that you took the parking dispute gone bad news: Police: Man stabbed to death for taking last piece of chicken. That's what happens when cold weapons are in everybody's reach.

So it is with cold weapons, Landru the Chairfighter.

From exactly the same site that you took the parking dispute gone bad news: Police: Man stabbed to death for taking last piece of chicken. That's what happens when cold weapons are in everybody's reach. — ssu

If that were true then you shouldn't mind guns being banned, since you can cling to "cold weapons" just as desperately.

But of course you're talking nonsense. It's really hard to bludgeon or stab a man to death, not to mention several men, and they can always run away (as this guy probably could have if only a knife were involved). And of course most people survive stab wounds. In contrast it's relatively easy to pull a trigger and kill a man . . . or two . . . or three.

So this is another counterfactual and bad faith argument from the gun nut chorus.

By the way, love the chair fighter reference. I can easily beat a guy with a knife if I have a chair. If the guy has a gun, not so much. But continue with your gun porn. It's a disease.

Tie a knot.

So this is another counterfactual and bad faith argument from the gun nut chorus. — Landru Guide Us

No, just to show how illogical and totally emotional based your argument is.

You are for a total ban on guns, yet you don't see any problem with knives. In fact to even ridicule and belittle what danger they are. And in your totally black and white world anybody pointing at anything else about gun legislation than total ban are gun nuts.

If there's some problems with the regulations, for example for hunters, shooting sport or even training military reservists as here will be, you don't simply care. Who cares, because they are the repulsive gun nuts. You simply fail to understand that somewhere else the discussion about gun legislation isn't as inflamed and as adversarial as in the US between those who are in "for" and are "against". That somewhere else the gun nuts have accepted regulation and basically understand regulation ...and haven't an ideological point coming out of a interpretation of the constitution and act like the NRA. But of course, you don't care at all about that.

Legislation made on an emotional basis without any consultation of those who actually the law effects is simply bad legislation in my view. Yes, lobby groups of gun owners or shooting sport association might find restrictions bad, but at least there should be some rationality. And when the objections to gun restrictions are made by both the interior minister and the defence minister, their argumentation isn't about gun owners rights, really.

Politeness and gun-ownership has nothing to do with each other.

I have come to the conclusion that most, if not all, of society's problems is a result of bad parenting, or a lack of parenting. Being polite has to do with if you were raised to be polite. Whether you were raised to be polite can effect how you interact with others in the future, whether you own a gun or not. If your parents didn't love you enough to teach you to be polite, and you end up owning a gun, then we have problems like we do here in the U.S. where these particular kinds of people end up being impolite with their gun. Most gun-owners are polite, responsible gun owners, not because they own a gun, but because their parents loved them enough to teach them how to interact with other people in a productive way. Impolite people who don't own guns exhibit their impoliteness in other ways (verbal abuse, selfishness, etc.)

Removing all the guns in a society won't solve the impoliteness in a society. I would argue that raising a child is a much bigger responsibility than owning a gun. If we're going to decide who can own a gun or not, shouldn't we be consistent and also decide who can have kids or not?

Legislation made on an emotional basis without any consultation of those who actually the law effects is simply bad legislation in my view. Yes, lobby groups of gun owners or shooting sport association might find restrictions bad, but at least there should be some rationality. And when the objections to gun restrictions are made by both the interior minister and the defence minister, their argumentation isn't about gun owners rights, really. — ssu

If you look under "Projection" in the encyclopedia of Psychology, you'll find excerpts of gun nuts claiming gun control advocates are too emotional

Looks like the armed polite people have struck again, killing 14 in California in another gun massacre.

I'm glad they didn't have knives!

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/03/us/san-bernardino-shooting.html?_r=0

If you look under "Projection" in the encyclopedia of Psychology, you'll find excerpts of gun nuts claiming gun control advocates are too emotional — Landru Guide Us

When any debate about an issue becomes too heated, it usually becomes emotional. At worst, opposing sides will have their own experts with their own statistics that don't simply match. That usually doesn't mean that one or the other is lying about the statistics, but that the statistics are totally differently. And the opposing sides will basically approach the topic as a fight with a religious zeal and belief in their cause to be just. They really aren't there to listen what the other side has to say.

In my view the basic reason for gun legislation to be so heated in the US is that the second amendment has made gun control a far bigger issue for many than just the guns in the US, and hence the gun lobby approaches the issue quite differently as for example here. Especially the Supreme Court decisions have made this a far different thing than basically something to do with the defence of the country (which I suspect the actual idea was with the second amendment).

Now gun control never has been such a hot potatoe in Europe, but for example nuclear power has (which is naturally a different topic).

If we're going to decide who can own a gun or not, shouldn't we be consistent and also decide who can have kids or not? — Harry Hindu

Guns don't leave you when they are 18-21 years old. ; )

I assume that when people talk here about armed society they think of a society where people carry arms for their personal protection basically against other members of the society. The politeness is then more like prudence or simply or caution. It's common sense not to start picking a fight with somebody who is armed. This kind of caution masked in politeness is naturally present... for instance with diplomats. They usually are really polite people, but that politeness is also prudence. They usually are polite because upsetting personally a representative or a leader of another country can really have disasterous consequences, even if it doesn't mean that the two countries go to war.

If then again the arms of for example to prevent a bear attack in the Wilderness of Alaska, it's a bit different as then the potential threat is totally different and doesn't imply that there is something wrong in the society. And here I have to give an anecdote: Here's a quote from the guide about bears and humans from the Alaska Department of Natural Resources:

You are allowed to carry a gun for protection in state parks. Remember, though, that more people are hurt by the guns they carry than are hurt by bears.

(Pepper sprays are even said to work against Polar bears. I wouldn't try...)


If then the arms of the society are for state's defence purposes for an potential external aggressor, then again it is different. And so it is also when the society is rural and hunting is very common. If on the other hand on class or ethnic group is armed to defend from others in the society, then this society has huge problems. How many firearms there are don't correspond with how much violence there is as there a multitude of factors why some society may have or lack social cohesion and may be violent or peaceful. If there's easy availability to guns and there are problems in the society, sure, there will be more violence than without the guns. And to say the obvious, if their is a necessity to be armed, something is wrong...

(An civilian vigilante group in Mexico)

Looks like the armed polite people have struck again, killing 14 in California in another gun massacre. — Landru Guide Us

With this frequency, Obama may get something through. Yet how would I know, it's your country.

I assume that when people talk here about armed society they think of a society where people carry arms for their personal protection basically against other members of the society. The politeness is then more like prudence or simply or caution. It's common sense not to start picking a fight with somebody who is armed. — ssu

More gun porn fantasies. As if people so insecure that they need to carry guns to a Starbucks are likely to act "prudently".

Insecurity and prudence go hand in hand.

You might want to hold your fire, so to speak. The "armed polite society" was most certainly at play in this shooting, you are just choosing to focus on those with an agenda, to harm innocent people using firearms AND explosives in this case.
Where is your call for laws against fireworks where enough explosives can be extracted from to cause mass casualties?
Where is your call for every remote controlled toy car to be destroyed because it was going to be used as tripping device on the explosives?
The firearm is easy for you to rail against because it cannot rail back. How about looking at the people behind the firearms first?

I can't see what you wrote, but you said an armed society is wary and cautious, and indeed, the primary purpose of arms is 'security' - but what does that really mean? One need ask what is feared and why and what underlies this lived sense of personal insecurity. It's a deeply psychological question, because there are those who go about unarmed that, even realising they are in a dangerous world, indeed bulleting along on what amounts to speck of dust in the galaxy, who feel quite secure personally, and hence, have no inclination to arm themselves since there is no immediate real and present threat to their lives.

I merely conclude that people shooting each other is impolite, and there are much less harmful ways to be rude.

Ted Alcorn, the research director for Everytown for Gun Safety, a nonprofit organization that advocates gun control, said the shootings with multiple victims were a tiny subset of everyday gun violence in America. “You have 14 people dead in California, and that’s a horrible tragedy,” he said. “But likely 88 other people died today from gun violence in the United States.”

What I said was "An armed society is cautious, wary, and nervous." in response to the idea that an armed society is a polite society.

"I merely conclude that people shooting each other is impolite, and there are much less harmful ways to be rude."

Emily Post suggests we not shoot each other. Bad etiquette. Right.

Ted Alcorn, the research director for Everytown for Gun Safety, a nonprofit organization that advocates gun control, said the shootings with multiple victims were a tiny subset of everyday gun violence in America. “You have 14 people dead in California, and that’s a horrible tragedy,” he said. “But likely 88 other people died today from gun violence in the United States.” — Bitter Crank

As even this thread shows, those 88 cases aren't actually the one's looked at when one makes gun legislation, but the discussion focuses on the "gun massacres".

The following graph I find interesting. Because to put it simple, there's not actually a direct correlation between gun deaths and gun ownership. The fact is that "gun deaths" is a more complicated issue than just the density of guns. Yet obviously the more popular guns are, it's likely that someone that really shouldn't have one ends up having them. And more accidents there are. I would argue that with some well thought legislation the situation could be radically improved in the US. Because banning all handguns (etc.) or similar drastic things aren't reality. Unluckily the debated is so agitated that much won't happen. Just look at the tone here even on a philosophy site.



The most ludicrous aspect of it all is that terrorist attacks (like Paris) and these kind of media frenzies give both ammunition to the anti-gun lobby and then have Americans buying guns with record numbers (see Black Friday 2015 was record day for gun sales). And hey, there's coming a new Gun TV! See GunTV, America’s First 24-Hour Firearm Shopping Channel, Set for 2016.

Then on the other hand, crime is coming down in the US.

You might want to hold your fire, so to speak. The "armed polite society" was most certainly at play in this shooting, you are just choosing to focus on those with an agenda, to harm innocent people using firearms AND explosives in this case.
Where is your call for laws against fireworks where enough explosives can be extracted from to cause mass casualties?
Where is your call for every remote controlled toy car to be destroyed because it was going to be used as tripping device on the explosives?
The firearm is easy for you to rail against because it cannot rail back. How about looking at the people behind the firearms first? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Oh, dear, this gun fetish meme.

Fireworks are probably more regulated than guns in the US. In any case, if you think fireworks are such great weapons you shouldn't mind a gun ban - buy fireworks. I've notice most mass killers don't use fireworks; they use guns - I wonder why?

Of course, fireworks have utility beyond killing people. Guns are designed to kill people.

Now, lets all wait for the next gun meme, maybe something about how cars kill people.

Insecure people tend to be violent, not prudent. That why they're so whacked out they need guns to buy coffee at Starbuck's

Answer: C. A brain with a gun fetish and a gun

Insecure people tend to be violent, not prudent. That why they're so whacked out they need guns to buy coffee at Starbuck's — Landru Guide Us

Well, you simply don't get the point that people are trying tell you, so whatever, Landru.

Besides, The most likely people that end up having accidents with guns or shooting people have other difficulties in their own life. People that have mental problems, excessive moods swings and are extremely impulsive really don't make good gunowners. Now can this be done away with feasability exams, having to go to the doctor to get an OK pass for to get a gun licence? It's problematic, but sure, to make it really an effort to buy a gun will put off many people. Yet any system won't work optimally: some will really be treated unfairly and some who shouldn't get guns will obtain them. Then of course there is the question of a black market. How easy is that when the country is already filled up with guns?

Well, you simply don't get the point that people are trying tell you, so whatever, Landru.

Besides, The most likely people that end up having accidents with guns or shooting people have other difficulties in their own life. People that have mental problems, excessive moods swings and are extremely impulsive really don't make good gunowners. Now can this be done away with feasability exams, having to go to the doctor to get an OK pass for to get a gun licence? It's problematic, but sure, to make it really an effort to buy a gun will put off many people. Yet any system won't work optimally: some will really be treated unfairly and some who shouldn't get guns will obtain them. Then of course there is the question of a black market. How easy is that when the country is already filled up with guns? — ssu

Your argument reduces to a claim that gun restrictions can't be perfect; therefore why have them? Do I really need to rebut sophistry like that?

Let me help: Guns are dangerous instruments designed to kill people. People who think they need guns to go about in society are thinking about killing people. They are not to be trusted and normal citizen (like myself) have a right to be protected against these goofballs. Therefore, guns should be banned and then we can arrest the people who violate the ban knowing they are intent on killing people, before they actually kill people.

It's that simple. Works in the UK and Australia.

The indisputable fact is, if you scratch a gun advocate, you'll find a person who really wants to kill somebody.

The indisputable fact is, if you scratch a gun advocate, you'll find a person who really wants to kill somebody. — Landru Guide Us

That's a bit too far of an exaggeration, Landru. I'd just highlight here the point I made awhile back that you can't somehow escape violence in our society -- even if you prefer to delegate violence out. I'll note that in spite of the difficulties surrounding weapon ownership I still prefer to own weapons, and keep it that way.

I'm sure there is bound to complex social issues involved, like socioeconomic determinants for example, and to really get to bottom of it in terms of good legislation will be a quagmire of buck passing that places blame somewhere other than governance - usually ends up being 'individual responsibility' in some way. Placing the person as the cause and locale of problems is the usual tactic to distract from the broader issues of 'gun-culture'. They say, 'Guns don't kill people. People do', basically, but we don't go on to consider, 'but why exactly do they kill each other'. One could say that people merely fill subject positions which are prescriptively availed by the social body, and we could inquire into how killers with guns are written into the social discourse.

Unfortunately guns, gun ownership, gun violence, the 2nd Amendment, and some other issues have been become so intertwined they are inseparable.

• Most Americans (2/3) don't own guns.
• The 1/3 of Americans who own guns are not responsible for most of the deaths resulting from gun fire.
• A large majority of Americans want some kind of policy (nobody knows what this would be) which would reduce violence.
• The leadership of the National Rifle Assn. (NRA) are not entirely in step with their own members.
• Many of the guns used to kill people are obtained through less-than-legal means.
• But some massacres (Like the latest one) involved at least some legally purchased guns.
• Gun violence is not evenly distributed across the population.
• The community who suffers the most from reckless gun violence by gun owners (the black community) is at odds with the police.
• Some black deaths as a result of police fire were literally over-kill, but most of them were not.

The first problem we need to solve is how to reduce purely domestic, civil gun violence among the demographic groups that represent a disproportionately large share of the shooters and the shot.

The second problem we need to solve is is how to limit access to guns by the relatively small number of people who are deranged, mentally very unstable, delusional, and paranoid. (This can not be done with inadequate forensic psychiatric services.)

The third problem we need to solve is how to limit access to guns by the larger number of people who are engaged in criminal enterprises.

The fourth problem we need to solve is how to identify potential terrorists. (Terrorism might be scarier than routine run of the mill killings, but the far greater danger is from the low-lifes running around shooting at each other.)

The fifth problem, really the ultimate one, is how to change our society from the shithole it is becoming for large numbers of people, to one toward which most people feel much more loyalty, commitment, and from which they get more satisfaction. This problem makes gun control look like child's play, because it involves reorganizing national priorities, drastic reform of tax law, domestic re-investment, and a batch of other things that the ruling class really isn't all that interested in doing.

• We won't solve our violence problem as long as we have a large number of people (across races, age groups, sex) disappearing from the labor market because they can't find work.
• We can't solve our violence problem as long as we have a readily recognizable underclass which is largely confined to one race. (And the solution isn't to integrate the underclass by reducing even more people to lumpen status.)
• We won't solve our violence problem as long as we have a steadily diminishing number of jobs that involve production of sufficiently valuable goods to produce a decent income.
• We son't solve our violence problem as long as we continue to have an inflow of fairly low-skilled labor from countries with very low wage scales.

A lot of stuff has to happen if we are to solve our problems. I wouldn't suggest anybody hold their breath.

That's a bit too far of an exaggeration, Landru. I'd just highlight here the point I made awhile back that you can't somehow escape violence in our society -- even if you prefer to delegate violence out. I'll note that in spite of the difficulties surrounding weapon ownership I still prefer to own weapons, and keep it that way. — Moliere

There's a difference between a society with a police force and a militarized society where everybody is primed to engage in gun violence. One difference is that the latter consistently suffers from gun massacres and their public space is eroded. Which of course is the goal of the gun fetishists. Their attack is really on the notion of democracy and a public realm.

In any case, the proposition that a armed society (forced militarization of every citizen) is a polite society is utter and complete rubbish. It's just the opposite of course. And the opposite is the purpose.

Landru, how much damage do you think a skillful maniac could do with a carpenter's hand saw, or a ten litre tub of premixed Caustic Soda in a crowded mall, before being apprehended?

Landru, how much damage do you think a skillful maniac could do with a carpenter's hand saw, or a ten litre tub of premixed Caustic Soda in a crowded mall, before being apprehended? — John

Fortunately gun nuts aren't skillful maniacs -- that's why they use guns. And that's why we need to ban them.

But thanks for pointing out that explosive are dangerous, which is why we regulate them and the purchase of their constituent parts.

Here's a concept: you can buy an assault weapon at a gun store; you can't buy a explosive device at an explosive store. So if you're suggesting we should make it just as hard to buy a gun as to buy explosives, I'm with you. But you're not of course. You're just excusing gun violence by making an invidious comparison to dangerous devices gun nuts don't use because they're hard to use and because nothing excites a gun nut more than killing people with a firearm. Pretty lame.

I haven't mentioned explosives at all, but hand saws and Caustic Soda; both of which are freely available for purchase.