steps we can take on gun control

[whatever001]

honestly speaking.. I might want to use a phrase from Hamlet :"More matter, with less art." we can debate about how much water is good for a person later and thinking about how to get the water first.. start digging your mind for intermediate steps we can take for gun control... ( even though I guess it's pointless anyway... but a index of ideas may come in handy someday..)

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by hobbes_fan

Extremely offended by a comment like this. You've made me as a citizen look and sound like a racist redneck. My parents were immigrants and I've lived her almost all my life.

Imagine how I feel when a Westerner automatically labels Asians as being inscrutable and untrustworthy simply because we aren't as "open" or as "individualistic" as Western societies.

I apologise if my remarks on Australia were uninformed and insensitive, but those remarks were made in response to Vexx's swift assumption that Australia is not comparable to the US because it is more "homogenous" than the US. Given the growing size of legal Asian immigrants in many Australian cities, I hardly feel that that is a fair assumption.

And while I don't have official evidence -- granted, my fault -- I have come across anecdoctal evidence that racial tension is becoming significant in Australia.

Pure human nature. Humans are simply too willing to hate other humans who don't look like them, or who don't speak the same language as they do. Mind you, this is an issue we are constantly aware of in Singapore, where three major races and cultures live and work closely together, and not so comfortably as it might always appear on the surface.

[whatever001]

Originally Posted by Kyuusai

I went looking for statistics concerning Australia and found the same page you linked, but the page seems to present different data than your conclusion... the page you showed (estimated from the chart) a 33% increase in both assaults and robbery (armed and/or violent theft) starting in the year of the gun buy-backs.

Interestingly, all crime seemed to take a slight dip around 2001, give or take a year, though started rising again soon after.

after all, rome aint' built in one day, changes will took place in the long run instead... assaults and robbery rate is also indirectly past history of culture.. a gun-free enviroment may promote a non/less-violent enviroment in the long run..

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by whatever001

...we can debate about how much water is good for a person later and thinking about how to get the water first.. start digging your mind for intermediate steps we can take for gun control.

I agree, which is why I kindly suggest that Americans shouldn't be so defensive whenever outsiders criticise you about your gun culture, and try to understand that many of us feel that way because we live in societies that does not experience anywhere near the same level of violence per capita, gun-related or not.

To us, the obvious problem is that there are too many guns in the US, and it boggles us that so many of you feel that the solution to is to have even more guns. It's a domestic arms race you can never win.

But that is indeed an idealistic, and naive intepretation of the problem. Which is why I suggest that if you really do feel the need to keep guns, either: A) make sure every gun owner is regularly and continuously drilled on responsible gun usage, or B) own the gun, but not keep at home; store it somewhere so that responsible authorities can properly account for every firearm in their area of jurisdiction.

And please, this is not me telling Americans what to do, but me trying to suggest ideas for you to consider.

[hobbes_fan]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

Imagine how I feel when a Westerner automatically labels Asians as being inscrutable and untrustworthy simply because we aren't as "open" or as "individualistic" as Western societies.

I apologise if my remarks on Australia were uninformed and insensitive, but those remarks were made in response to Vexx's swift assumption that Australia is not comparable to the US because it is more "homogenous" than the US. Given the growing size of legal Asian immigrants in many Australian cities, I hardly feel that that is a fair assumption.

And while I don't have official evidence -- granted, my fault -- I have come across anecdoctal evidence that racial tension is becoming significant in Australia.

Pure human nature. Humans are simply too willing to hate other humans who don't look like them, or who don't speak the same language as they do. Mind you, this is an issue we are constantly aware of in Singapore, where three major races and cultures live and work closely together, and not so comfortably as it might always appear on the surface.

Mate, look racism will always be an issue. Even no matter how tolerant you are, there are certain things you will never understand about other races and will feel uneasy about. It's human nature. I'll never understand the muslin/jewish no pork thing and think they're strange for it. Even though I bear most of them no ill will I think because I find that strange its a little bit racist of me to think that they are strange. I don't thnk it's malicious but the fact that I do find their customs strange makes me biased. Vegetarians on the other hand I think are just crazy....

[TinyRedLeaf]

Yes I agree. Racism is a part of human nature, just as much as nationalism. I can't think of immediate reasons not to like an Australian (hang on, hmm, yes, you make the lamest of soap operas! ) (but thank you so much for Nicole Kidman, haha), but I'm sure some other narrow-minded individual easily can.

This is what I'm trying to get at, you see. Americans are being overly defensive whenever outsiders criticise their gun culture. They claim that we can't compare our countries with theirs, because America is unique.

Well, of course, the US is unique. But there are enough common areas worth studying too. If a country like Australia allows rural gun ownership, but does not experience the same desire to solve gun violence with more gun violence, why is that so? Singapore happens to be a multi-racial, multi-religious, multi-cultural society, but we haven't experienced the same urge to kill each other since the 1960s. It is worth studying how that has come about -- you'd notice that it starts with establishing legal authorities that you can trust and respect.

Can the same be replicated in the US? That's what I'm asking Americans to consider seriously.

[WanderingKnight]

What's all this talk about "human nature"? It's some kind of new religion, or something?

Hey, people, what you're naming as "human nature" is, in my opinion, nothing but a consequence of the society a person lives in. If the society is paranoid and xenophobic, then its people will probably be xenophobic as well. The capitalist system teaches us against collectivism and in favor of individualism, but that doesn't mean that inherently the human beings will try to harm other human beings. Of course, this is just a philosophical standing, but I'll always refuse to accept there exists a "human nature". Partly because we can't prove so. Show me any scientific research that states about the nature of the behavior of human beings. What you're calling "human nature" is nothing more than a recollection of what you see--but empiricism has fallen into disgrace a long time ago. We can't base ourselves in empiric knowledge anymore, we need some sort of logical backing and abstraction to affirm something. And there's no logical backing that can definitely prove the existence of a human nature determined by the will of harm other people. I'd rather see it sociologically, and believe that what pulls people towards individualism (which is probably the reason behind the "will to harm other human beings") is nothing but the society they're immersed in, and a society is an amalgam of a number of elements, one of which may be the economical system that's at its core.

I don't know if I'm making much sense, but I'd definitely not believe human nature is to harm other people, or that there exists any inherent element in human beings regarding behavior. Because, if I do so, it's much more easier to say, "there's nothing to be done about it, so why the effort? I'll just go my own way now". In fact, this way of thinking is at the core of the capitalist system and its intention to fragment the society, instead of uniting it.

And besides, in my opinion, the thought of an inherent behavior in human beings leads to racism.

[Kyuusai]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

I agree, which is why I kindly suggest that Americans shouldn't be so defensive whenever outsiders criticise you about your gun culture, and try to understand that many of us feel that way because we live in societies that does not experience anywhere near the same level of violence per capita, gun-related or not.

To us, the obvious problem is that there are too many guns in the US, and it boggles us that so many of you feel that the solution to is to have even more guns. It's a domestic arms race you can never win.

As you said, though, the violence exists whether it is gun-related or not. Between that and the fact that several other nations with even higher rates of firearm ownership, I can't say that guns are the problem.

Taking away guns certainly creates the immediate imbalance of power that can cause spikes in violent crime. Even if that were an ultimate solution with only a temporary spike in violence (I don't think it would be, but if it were possible), if it is possible to have both a peaceful populace as well as a populace equipped for self-defence, why would that not be the better choice?

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

And please, this is not me telling Americans what to do, but me trying to suggest ideas for you to consider.

I hope I haven't seemed too defensive. I understand where you're coming from.

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

This is what I'm trying to get at, you see. Americans are being overly defensive whenever outsiders criticise their gun culture. They claim that we can't compare our countries with theirs, because America is unique.

Well, of course, the US is unique. But there are enough common areas worth studying too. If a country like Australia allows rural gun ownership, but does not experience the same desire to solve gun violence with more gun violence, why is that so? Singapore happens to be a multi-racial, multi-religious, multi-cultural society, but we haven't experienced the same urge to kill each other since the 1960s. It is worth studying how that has come about -- you'd notice that it starts with establishing legal authorities that you can trust and respect.

Can the same be replicated in the US? That's what I'm asking Americans to consider seriously.

Hm, I'm not so sure that US advocates of private arms see their nation's circumstances as being a unique need, but merely being a unique example of the issue. And they generally only see gun violence as a solution to an immediate danger.

For the most part, though, the United States sees a sharp divide: Areas where there is a high rate of legal firearm ownership but low rates of violence (most rural areas), and areas where there is little legal firearm ownership but very high rates of violence (Chicago and Washington D.C.). The examples where high legal firearm ownership rates and high violence rates intersect do exist, but are less common (Miami), and generally sharply divided by smaller, very different areas within them that show the same divide as before.

But is trusting the state the ultimate answer? Granted, I do believe that everything possible should be done to maintain the trustworthiness of the state, but even if they were capable of being omnipresent to stop crimes in action (which they are not), how is the state any different in trustworthiness than the citizens it operates over?

If it is possible to establish the trustworthiness of the state and those in its employ by means of accountability, why can we not do the same in the process of empowering the average citizen? Likewise, if we cannot establish the trustworthiness of an individual citizen by accountability, how can we expect to make the state trustworthy? And that is assuming that the powers of the state don't try to remove themselves from accountability, which history shows us is a very common occurance.

[Kyuusai]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

What's all this talk about "human nature"? It's some kind of new religion, or something?

Hey, people, what you're naming as "human nature" is, in my opinion, nothing but a consequence of the society a person lives in. If the society is paranoid and xenophobic, then its people will probably be xenophobic as well. The capitalist system teaches us against collectivism and in favor of individualism, but that doesn't mean that inherently the human beings will try to harm other human beings. Of course, this is just a philosophical standing, but I'll always refuse to accept there exists a "human nature". Partly because we can't prove so. Show me any scientific research that states about the nature of the behavior of human beings. What you're calling "human nature" is nothing more than a recollection of what you see--but empiricism has fallen into disgrace a long time ago. We can't base ourselves in empiric knowledge anymore, we need some sort of logical backing and abstraction to affirm something. And there's no logical backing that can definitely prove the existence of a human nature determined by the will of harm other people. I'd rather see it sociologically, and believe that what pulls people towards individualism (which is probably the reason behind the "will to harm other human beings") is nothing but the society they're immersed in, and a society is an amalgam of a number of elements, one of which may be the economical system that's at its core.

I don't know if I'm making much sense, but I'd definitely not believe human nature is to harm other people, or that there exists any inherent element in human beings regarding behavior. Because, if I do so, it's much more easier to say, "there's nothing to be done about it, so why the effort? I'll just go my own way now". In fact, this way of thinking is at the core of the capitalist system and its intention to fragment the society, instead of uniting it.

And besides, in my opinion, the thought of an inherent behavior in human beings leads to racism.

I agree that racism is a matter of culture. We do have instincts, though, that lead us to trust and prefer things that are similar to ourselves. It's by these instincts that culture itself is formed. The problem comes when we allow these instincts to move unchecked and then form cultural and intellectual prejudices.

I wouldn't say that it's human nature to harm others, but that human nature is to protect first one's self and, by extension, the things one values. I would say that the ability and desire to help one's self without doing it at the expense of others is learned, though.

The innate tendency of individualism is the reason why many people are on both sides of the issue of statism. One side sees statism as the answer to the problem of man's natural tendency to consider himself first, while the other side sees that tendency as the ultimate argument on the failures of statism due to the reaction of those under it and the natural question of trustworthiness of administrators of the state who share that natural individualistic preference.

[Vexx]

Just to swirl some brain cells... when I tabulate myself on a variety of issues - I come out as very progressive but very leery of 'statist' solutions and am liberal in regard to human personal rights (including the right to adequate self-defense since the state cannot be depended on to *prevent* violence).

Survey takers hate me because I write in the margins on almost every poll.

I'd like to apologize about the 'homogenous' remark... what I meant by that is that Australia (until recently) had a substantially shared historical, social, and cultural background and set of values (even allowing for the native issues). In the last 20 years there has been an influx from the north - which has included not only asians but a fair-sized contingent of the believers of various forms of Islam. Bingo -- social tensions from the collision of different sets of axiomatic assumptions. The racial overtones just add to the disruption. Europe is having a somewhat parallel experience.

[ibreatheanime]

Over the years humans have judged people by their race, their religon and there culture. They have developed prejudices against people for thousands of years. Is it "human nature" or is it that children were raised to hate those different than them?

[Vexx]

It stems from the Ice Age and before... fear of anyone "not of the tribe" ... probably traces back to "protect my gene pool". It is definitely a socially transmitted meme though and conflicts at times with the need to keep the gene pool diverse (the polynesian cultures are an interesting example of the tension between the two contrarian impulses).

Sometimes I think of it as humanity's single greatest challenge in the experiment to see if mental capacity really *is* a good idea in the evolutionary tree.

[WanderingKnight]

It stems from the Ice Age and before... fear of anyone "not of the tribe" ...

The individualism has probably its stronger roots at the core of family as an institution. But, I believe it still doesn't make individualism part of human nature, since I think it's possible to overcome it. It may be hard, it may take generations, but it's possible. That's why I think there's no "human nature" respecting behavior that can become a hindrance to the evolution of mankind.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

Then why in the name of Jebus don't you do something about it? Why don't you people gather up and file a complaint to the government, instead of arming yourself, just because the police "won't show up"? Supervising the well-functioning of a government needs to be a strict responsibility of the citizens, in order to have a healthy society.

Sure, ideally it'd be the responsibility of the citizens. But what are we going to do, sign a petition asking for better roads? I'm fairly certain this has been done numerous times. To me, doing things like that is not much different than most forms of activism. It's making a big stink over an issue, but not providing any helpful solutions. And to be honest, living in Los Angeles, I can't think of any solutions.

Los Angeles just recently proposed to raise bus fare from $2.50 to $3.00. They want to do that so that they can fund a rail system. Sounds brilliant, right? A rail is a better public transit system than a set of buses. Better public transport means fewer cars, and that means less traffic (and pollution - rejoice, environmentalists). However, this suggested price hike came under criticism. People called it racist. Who uses the bus system primarily here? Based off of what I've read, that'd be blacks and hispanics, particularly those that are poor. Racist? We want to build a rail so fix a host of other problems, and you're saying not to do it - where the hell is the money going to come from?

It reminds me of an issue we had back in New York. A nuclear power plant in our area had a leak and part of it was shut down. It sparked a wave of activism to close the power plant. Close the plant? Where are you going to get your electricity from? Until you can suggest a viable alternative, sit down and be quiet.

My apologies for the rant, but my intent in showing these issues is to express that this isn't purely an issue of an ineffective government (which we've more than a bit of, too). I don't think that America is so unique in having this, but a possible difference is that our culture endorses everyone going out there for themselves, and everyone has their own opinions and agendas. You seemingly can't do something without angering a very large group of people.

And this is also partially where the argument of "trust your authorities" falls flat on its face. Because the authorities and the government generally obey the majority opinion and desire. Arguably, that's what they were designed to do. So before you go complaining to the government, you need to silence those with opposing agendas, either by quieting them or by showing that your reasoning/suggestion has more merit (and even then, things don't always work). Again, I'd imagine this occurs in other countries as well, but to what extent? More work falls to the invidivual, then.

And while I'm at it, I'll mention that problems aren't magically solved by the government. Perhaps there are some governments in the world that know how to hire people to do a good job and quickly, but I don't remember seeing it in the recent past here in America.

[TinyRedLeaf]

After reading my posts again, I realise that I make the "solutions" seem so easy. Quotes such as this:

To us, the obvious problem is that there are too many guns in the US, and it boggles us that so many of you feel that the solution to is to have even more guns.

...certainly do not help. If nothing else, they reflect my own cultural biases, which aren't relevant to the realities in the US. My apologies.

To clarify, when I recommend a "statist" approach, it's not as though I trust my government 100%. Of course they are abuses of power, and who knows, maybe even some hidden corruption. The fact that one family alone controls so much of Singapore's government alarms many of us, and it's not a situation that we are entirely comfortable with.

In any case, I think some of my original intention was lost -- it's not so much "trust" that I'm referring to, but "respect". When you appoint someone to be your leader, when you appoint someone to be your police officer, you ought to give them the respect due to their station. As long as they live up to that respect, you ought to co-operate with them as far as possible to make things work, and not condemn them at every step.

While I appreciate the importance of checks & balances to prevent abuse of authority, from looking at the examples in the US, it often feels as though Americans don't respect authority, and fight very hard to make sure that no one gets to tell each individual what to do and what not to do (the "me first" attitude).

I don't know. Am I splitting hairs here? Perhaps I am. "Trust" and "respect" do come hand-in-hand, and it's hard to imagine one without the other.

On final analysis, as more details on Cho become available, it's increasingly clear that the VT shooting is, on the large scale of things, a very isolated incident. It could indeed happen anywhere in the world, not just the US. It's unfortunate that since it happened in the US, correlations to gun control (or the perceived lack of it) are automatically made.

[Solace]

I think for the most part Americans have a respect for thier own laws and government, but this goes in hand with how such respect is returned. For instance, a lot of distrust in the police comes from things like the Rodney King beating, and distrust in the government comes from scandals like Watergate and Iran-Contra. Trust is something that needs to be earned, but events like those and others cause alot of damage to the respect and trust of your public.

Even today, there is growning sentiment that there needs to be more focus on our domestic problems that have grown out of control due to a seemingly heavier focus on foreign affairs. I think when presidential elections happen next year you'll see candidates try to bring up domestic issues more than foreign, the exception being the Iraq war which is still a heavily debated and sore point among many Americans.

I wouldn't really call it a "me first" attitude, but rather that people don't tend to think in grand terms, more in daily life. You could call it a form of being near sighted. There's so much on peoples minds now that sometimes it's hard to get enough people to focus on longer term or future matters. And it certainly doesn't help when some get too focused on one thing at the cost of ignoring the bigger picture.

[whatever001]

http://www.historyforkids.org/learn/...ople/index.htm

I find a great example online.. it's just kid's history.. .. but if the kid followed their instincts....

well.. I act like a kid too..

[Red Herring]

Gun control wont stop criminals from getting guns and killing people. It wont make it harder for them at all either.

[WanderingKnight]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

My apologies for the rant, but my intent in showing these issues is to express that this isn't purely an issue of an ineffective government (which we've more than a bit of, too). I don't think that America is so unique in having this, but a possible difference is that our culture endorses everyone going out there for themselves, and everyone has their own opinions and agendas. You seemingly can't do something without angering a very large group of people.

No apologies needed, you expressed yourself from your point of view inside your own country, now let me express mine, outside of yours:

The "everyone going his/her own way" you're seeing is a deep consequence of the capitalist system, since it's sustained by the basis of the system itself. Pair it with poor education (sorry, I don't wanna sound like I'm bragging, in fact, my country has some real educational problems; the 'poor education' is shown in the ignorance of what racism truly means in your railway example, and the ignorance on the safety of nuclear energy on the New York example) and you've got a population ready to scream "I'll save my ass!" before showing some commitment. I'm not blaming you, it's part of the world your society has been constructing from generations ago, in the dawn of the American dominance.

Europe, on the other hand, is much more committed, even when sometimes its people show a kind of snobbish attitude characteristic of a society with a history bordering some 3000 years worth of history. Countries like that sometimes show you that, while retaining the supposed "liberties" that capitalism provides to the citizens (I'm not in the mood to argue the concept of liberty in capitalism, even when I don't certainly agree with it), can show some kind of commitment to common cause.

Not that I was expecting your people to suddenly change their minds or something. In fact, it doesn't affect me a bit since I live miles away from there and in a rotten enough society to worry about yours. I actually understand the choice of arming yourselves to cover the lack of security service, but I'm not about to justify it, since there are clearly other options to it. Even when those options aren't certainly applicable in practice due to the inherent characteristics of the American society. I'm just trying to make a simple analysis and say, "Look, man, there are actually other choices". That Americans are actually self-centered enough not to take them into account is none of my business.

[Vexx]

For about 200 years... there were very little limits, always a horizon, always somewhere else to go, why clean up after yourself?
That's gone.... requires a gear shift that many people are having trouble coping with (especially the 'robber baron' class, ). That, coupled with a few decades of a starved educational process with less than competent steerage gives us the wonders we have today that some comedic shows are taking advantage of ... you know, the "just how stupid *ARE* people?" shows. Its hard enough to make good choices but especially so when the populace is so poorly informed or educated that they still think Iraq was connected to 9/11 or that have no idea that there's a Korea that we're allied with or why not going metric is costing us or have any clue why gas goes up or down in price or .... <sigh> right, time to lay in the dandeliion patch and watch clouds.