WTF is wrong with you Americans?

[Steve James]

From my point of view, this world is ruled only by violence through people who know only fear and must transmit fear to maintain control. There is no safety from violence in this world, but I can feel safe and secure in seeking truth because it is constant and, unlike my body, can not be destroyed or disfigured by violence, but it can be obscured from our minds by fear.

How much freedom does a person need to find truth?

Nice diversion. I was talking about where you are/were and your ability to protect yourself as you argue others here in the US should. Yes, the world is a dangerous place. Some feel they must have semiautomatic rifles in order to protect themselves. I was wondering about you, but I guess your answer would be no. I happen to feel the same way. That's why I don't argue for armed guards in my kids' schools.

[Michael]

I didn't intend to divert from your question, I was trying to give the best answer I could. I already said in an exchange with gzregorz that I have never owned a gun and don't need them to feel safe and I had incorrectly assumed that you were aware of that post when you asked me the question.

There might come a time where I would chose to have a weapon in order to protect myself or my family, but I doubt it and think there are better ways to deal with risk.

[Michael]

I was talking about where you are/were and your ability to protect yourself as you argue others here in the US should.

I went through this with gzregorz for a while when he kept bringing up the fact that I'm in PRC. Maybe you can explain the relevance to me because I still don't understand what my geographical coordinates have to do with anything.

It's not me who is arguing for changing the ways of self-defense, I'm just asking those who want to make changes what they want and why. I would like to hear at least an attempt at a logically consistent rationale for changing gun regs.

The conversation on CNN between Piers Morgan and Ben Shapiro says it very well. Here's what I think is the most relevant section.

SHAPRIO: This is what I wanted to ask you, Piers, because I have seen you talk about assault weapons a lot, and I have seen Mark Kelly talk about assault weapons. The vast majority of murders in this country that are committed with guns are committed with handguns, they are not committed assault weapons. Are you willing to ban handguns in this country, across this country?

MORGAN: No, that's not what I'm asking for.

SHAPIRO: Why not? Don't you care about the kids who are being killed in Chicago as much as the kids in Sandy Hook?

MORGAN: Yes, I do.

SHAPIRO: Then why don't you care about banning the handguns in Chicago?

MORGAN: We'll come to that. Let me ask you this: What was the weapon used in Aurora in the movie theater?

SHAPIRO: It was an assault weapon, sure.

MORGAN: OK. What was the weapon used in the Oregon shopping mall?

SHAPIRO: I believe it was an assault rifle, correct?

MORGAN: What was the weapon used at Sandy Hook?

SHAPIRO: It was an assault rifle.

MORGAN: What was the weapon used in the incident around Christmas, when the firemen were lured to their deaths?

SHAPIRO: And bought illegally? That was an assault rifle.

MORGAN: So, the last four mass shootings in America were with assault rifles --

SHAPIRO: -- but the vast majority --

MORGAN: That's is the reason, Mr. Shapiro. You can smirk at me and you can laugh at me --

SHAPIRO: I'm not smirking.

MORGAN: -- and you can accuse me of standing on the graves of dead children --

SHAPRIO: -- and being a bully, yes.

MORGAN: But that is the reason that people like me and Mark Kelly and Gabrielle Giffords want to have assault weapons like that removed from civilian hands.

SHAPIRO: Your passion on the issue doesn't really justify the rationale for why you want to ban assault weapons.

MORGAN: You don't understand why we want to remove the preferred weapon of choice, these killing machines, from the hands of deranged young men?

SHAPIRO: All I'm asking is for you to be philosophically consistent. If what you're worried about is the removal of killing machines from the hands for deranged young people then maybe we should talk about a blanket gun ban, and let's get to what the left really wants here. You know you say that you're really for the second amendment --

MORGAN: Why is it about left or right? Because in Britain this never is about left or right. Why is it here?

SHAPIRO: Well, we can talk about Britain in a second. I think that the reason it's about left and right here is because fundamentally the right believes the basis for the second amendment, and they believe in the second amendment. The basis of the second amendment is not really about self defense and it's not about hunting. It's about resistance to government tyranny. That's what the founders said and that's what the right believe in this country.

MORGAN: Which tyranny are you fearing, yourself?

SHAPIRO: I fear the possibility of a tyranny rising in the country in the next 50 to 100 years. Let me tell you something, Piers. The fact that my grandparents and great-grandparents in Europe didn't fear that is why they're now ashes in Europe. This kind of leftist revisionist history where there's no fear of democracy going userpatious or tyrannical, is just that. It's fictitious.

[bailewen]

Michael,

FWIW, I agree, your geographical coordinates are completely irrelevant. What, I think, he was getting at, was that you keep making arguments questioning the wisdom of allowing a government to make decisions over who gets to be armed with the implication that there is a threat of some sort of tyranny based on who is armed and who is not while you personally have made the choice to live in a place where exactly such tyranny exists. It does look, superficially, like a fair bit of cognitive dissonance going on there.

But as a fellow expat, I fully understand how easy it is for folks to mistake the path my life has taken for some sort of implicit endorsement of the system I have chosen to live under. It's an absurd conclusion for a couple of reasons:

1. My decision to live in China has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with my political or philosophical beliefs. (except perhaps in a very very indirect way)

2. As an American, I not actually live under the same sort of tyranny that a Chinese citizen has to deal with. I have to put up with a lot of stupid Chinese bullshit but, as an American expat, it's always a choice. I do not have to worry about being thrown into a work camp or a prison of some sort for my political beliefs. The single greatest "threat" to my life over here is that I may be deported and sent back to the good ole US of A. So living here doesn't really mean you live under this system.

So on that point, I get it.

On another note, if you can get ahold of a copy, regarding this topic, I highly recommend Steven Pinker's book, "The Better Angels of Our Nature". Last year, my Dad got me a Kindle which makes it easy to share books or to have him send me booksI want to read. (no expensive postage to deal with). Anyways, it's basically an 800'ish page meditation on the history of violence on the planet. It's a startlingly optimistic book, extremely heavy on statisics and has basically convinced me (only abotu half way through so far) that the decline in gun violence in the USA is real and that continued decline is inevitable regardless of the laws. So that's why, contrary to your implication on the thread(s), I have not argued for any specific policies whatsoever. I prefer to fight to change the culture and the general perception of firearms as a good thing or even as a necessary evil. It's just pre-modern machismo and it's stupid and the world has moved on. I predict that once gun culture has changed and most American's grow out of their adolescent infatuation with the damn things that the laws will follow. One argument I did hear recently for policy change was from Dan Carlin on his "Common Sense" podcast. He argued that the NRA should be arguing for basically what most folks would consider, draconian, penalties for. . . illegal use of firearms.

His argument was that we should make no moves whatsoever to limit weapon sales or ownership but that things like illegal possession or use of a firearm in a robbery should be punished by orders of maginitude more than current policy. He likened it to how we changed the culture of drunk driving. Once upon a time, getting pulled over for drunk driving meant being chastised by the cop and possibly even a ride home in the squad car. Now it means massive fines, immediate revocation of your driver's license and possibly prison time. If we had similar penalties for gun violence, the responsible gun owners could keep their guns unaffected but the overall culture could possibly be changes. Rob a convienence store at gunpoint and go to jail for 10 years. Just no fucking around with penalties. That would be my proposed change in policy.

[Steve James]

What, I think, he was getting at, was that you keep making arguments questioning the wisdom of allowing a government to make decisions over who gets to be armed with the implication that there is a threat of some sort of tyranny based on who is armed and who is not while you personally have made the choice to live in a place where exactly such tyranny exists. It does look, superficially, like a fair bit of cognitive dissonance going on there.

Well, I was trying to get Michael to realize that it was hypocrisy. But, that was far less important than the fact that people here are already being killed, and a civil war would be disastrous. Anyway, like I said, if the US had the same firearms laws as Switzerland, China, France, Britain or Mexico, it wouldn't make any difference for someone who doesn't own. It wouldn't be the difference between "freedom" and slavery, and people could survive perfectly well. US gun-rights advocates in the PRC prove the point.

[Michael]

Omar,

That sounds like an interesting book and I've heard people mention it before. Thanks for the tout. Of course I haven't read any part of it, but my first reaction to the idea that violent crime is in decline because people are growing out of it is strong skepticism. Human nature doesn't change, but behavior can be adapted, influenced, modified, etc. through education, e.g. realizing higher truth than previously understood, or through coercion, whether overt, e.g. Orwellian, or covert, e.g. Pavlovian or Dewey type training.

I don't think quantity of violence in society changes, but it can be channeled into different avenues and concentrated in certain areas. It's a little bit like money: the total amount can be constant, but it moves around, takes different forms, and gets concentrated in the hands of the powerful.

The military budget of the USA and its weapons production has skyrocketed in the last eleven years since 9/11 (and it was high before that, as well). Can we consider ourselves a less violent society as a whole, or believe we actually commit less gun violence, when those conclusions (assuming this is the case in your book, that it omits gun violence committed by USA Americans in the Iraq) are based on excluding the statistics of the gun violence committed by American soldiers and mercenaries simply because their victims were not of the same status or nationality as the perpetrator?

As far as penalties for illegal gun use and possession, I am generally against long prison terms for almost all crimes. I do not make an exception for gun possession, but for mass shooting or murder, I would.

[bailewen]

(edit: this post was supposed to be for Steve, not Michael)

Interesting. Hadn't looked at it from quite that angle. I mentioned cognitive dissonance. I wasn't prepared to go as far as hypocricy. I'm still not convinced it is. The other point though, the one about how irrelevant it is to someone who doesn't own...that one is well taken. I fall into that category. I suppose that is why while, on the one hand, I would support extremely strict gun regulations but, OTOH, I do not feel it worth my energy to argue for them. For me, personally, it's kind of a non-issue. If all gun ownership in the US was banned outright, it wouldn't really affect me one way or the other. I consider the "fight tyranny" argument to be a macho fantasy and I consider the "self defense" argument to be adolescent.

IMO, the only way things are going to change is if we change the culture. That doesn't mean that I don't support new laws. It just means that I feel that the laws are irrelevant unless they are matched by the culture. It's a bit like marijuana that way. There was just no way in this universe marajuana was going to be legalize before it became virtually completely accepted by the culture as an "ok" thing to do. The new laws legalizing it in Washington and...uh...I forget where else....came after the culture changed. They were and effect, not a cause.

[Steve James]

It's not me who is arguing for changing the ways of self-defense, I'm just asking those who want to make changes what they want and why. I would like to hear at least an attempt at a logically consistent rationale for changing gun regs.

Well, first off, this thread asks a question about you, (us), Americans. Secondly, you've strayed all over the place as far as what you've asked to hear. At one point, it was trust and who was trustworthy. Thirdly, even Stevie Wonder sees "Why" people want to change gun regs. The logic is the attempt to prevent or decrease further incidents of mass shootings. Thus far, I think it's been suggested the logic (or reason) for more gun regs is to take away the rights of ordinary citizens to protect themselves. Some think that's illogical.

The Morgan interview is interesting because it's true that most crimes are committed with handguns. But, perhaps you could look up what the proposed changes are. They want to eliminate the "gun show" exception. Then, they'd like universal background checks (since the standards vary from state to state). Afa "assault weapons" (which is a useful misnomer), they'd would like to limit the size of magazines (particularly for the AR series) and other features that make these weapons more "assault capable." For ex., they want stocks to be fixed. There are already lots of restrictions, though, such as flash and sound suppression.

In the US, there are officially almost a firearm for every man, woman and child. There are nations at war that don't have that proportion. So, again, the question that needs to be answered is "WTF" is wrong with Americans? People can walk around freely (with no guns in the schools) in communist countries. Holy quandary, Batman!

[Michael]

What, I think, he was getting at, was that you keep making arguments questioning the wisdom of allowing a government to make decisions over who gets to be armed with the implication that there is a threat of some sort of tyranny based on who is armed and who is not while you personally have made the choice to live in a place where exactly such tyranny exists. It does look, superficially, like a fair bit of cognitive dissonance going on there.

Well, I was trying to get Michael to realize that it was hypocrisy. But, that was far less important than the fact that people here are already being killed, and a civil war would be disastrous. Anyway, like I said, if the US had the same firearms laws as Switzerland, China, France, Britain or Mexico, it wouldn't make any difference for someone who doesn't own. It wouldn't be the difference between "freedom" and slavery, and people could survive perfectly well. US gun-rights advocates in the PRC prove the point.

Steve, can you try and wrap your mind around a concept called time. Why do you have a go bag? Because in the future, something could happen that has already happened, like a blackout.

Why does the USA have a second amendment? Because in the future, something could happen that has already happened, namely a tyrannical government can murder its own citizens. If not proven by the Revolutionary War of 1776-83, then it was proven later in the 19th and 20th centuries as detailed in the exchange between Shapiro and Morgan that I posted. I think we're all familiar with those basic histories.

You all must give up on this fixation with my location. I would be saying the same thing whether I lived in PRC, USA, or Timbuktu. It is totally and in all ways irrelevant to the facts and to my own opinions about the second amendment.

[Steve James]

I would support extremely strict gun regulations but, OTOH, I do not feel it worth my energy to argue for them. For me, personally, it's kind of a non-issue. If all gun ownership in the US was banned outright, it wouldn't really affect me one way or the other.

That's the way it is for most people. I don't believe that most people would fight very hard to get all weapons banned.

It just means that I feel that the laws are irrelevant unless they are matched by the culture.

It's not about the laws. Imo, it is often about the fear of the laws or fears about the purpose of the laws. That fear is part of the culture, along with the violence. Americans have a history with guns for a reason. However, if there are things that we can do, then we should do them. Mandatory firearms training before allowing purchase would be fine.

[Steve James]

You all must give up on this fixation with my location. I would be saying the same thing whether I lived in PRC, USA, or Timbuktu.

I don't care where you are. I'm saying that what's good enough for you is good enough for me.

Why do I have a go bag? Do you? Do you also have an AR and a few thousand rounds of ammo? (Yeah, I know you don't have the AR. You can't. ) How about a bunker with hydroponic garden? (Yeah, I read what you said about people who "could" get off the grid, but are just waiting for the right time). So, iow, I'm saying that many of us here in the US are fine without those things, JUST like you. Get it. Just like you. We are free. We have no lost all our rights. I would never want to live in a place that wasn't free.

[Michael]

They want to eliminate the "gun show" exception.
Then, they'd like universal background checks (since the standards vary from state to state).
Afa "assault weapons" (which is a useful misnomer), they'd would like to limit the size of magazines (particularly for the AR series) and other features that make these weapons more "assault capable." For ex., they want stocks to be fixed.
There are already lots of restrictions, though, such as flash and sound suppression.

What effect would these changes have on gun violence in general or on mass shootings in particular?
I would say none on overall gun violence since rifles overall (I have no stats for assault weapons) account for only 3.5% of gun murders, and these changes would have almost no effect on mass shootings.

Universal background checks required for all gun transactions ought to be validated by stats on crimes committed with illegally obtained weapons. I don't know the answer to this question.

As Shapiro said on CNN to Morgan, Lanza had an AR-15 and two automatic pistols. Without the AR-15, would he still have committed the crime? I think yes, and probably with the same casualties if we believe he shot all those people at close range. The Luby massacre was done with handguns only, same with Virginia Tech. You don't need a rifle and it's probably easier without one. Handguns are easier to wield, especially with minimal training.

In the US, there are officially almost a firearm for every man, woman and child. There are nations at war that don't have that proportion. So, again, the question that needs to be answered is "WTF" is wrong with Americans?

This is a militaristic country that has been perpetually at war since its founding. A gun culture is advantageous to create soldiers. I have asked before why we're so worked up about 20 dead kids in Connecticut when we kill that many every month, or probably more frequently, with drone attacks in the Middle East. If the culture needs to be changed, it's the militaristic culture created at the top to fulfill an agenda to be the world's police, primarily in order to enforce economic contracts for multi-national, predatory lenders. See "War Is a Racket" by Smedley Butler, the USMC General who invaded Haiti for international bankers.

[Michael]

Why do I have a go bag? Do you? Do you also have an AR and a few thousand rounds of ammo? (Yeah, I know you don't have the AR. You can't. ) How about a bunker with hydroponic garden? (Yeah, I read what you said about people who "could" get off the grid, but are just waiting for the right time). So, iow, I'm saying that many of us here in the US are fine without those things, JUST like you. Get it. Just like you. We are free. We have no lost all our rights. I would never want to live in a place that wasn't free.

You really don't want to acknowledge the concept of time and planning, nor will you acknowledge that you have already lost all your rights, perhaps because the enforcement of the new system has not yet personally touched you. It may not later, that is unknown, but if you say you take people seriously when they talk about killing, do you take the Obama admin. seriously when it says it has the right to arrest, imprison indefinitely, torture, execute, and assassinate anyone in the world if they are merely accused of terrorism? Considering they have admitted to actually doing this in the past two years, do you acknowledge the possibility that this tyrannical trend may accelerate?

Obama appoints first ever Assassination Czar
http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-appoints-first-ever-assassination-czar

America Is Being Systematically Transformed Into A Totalitarian Society
http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/america-is-being-systematically-transformed-into-a-totalitarian-society

[Steve James]

What effect would these changes have on gun violence in general or on mass shootings in particular?

I would say none on overall gun violence since rifles overall (I have no stats for assault weapons) account for only 3.5% of gun murders, and these changes would have almost no effect on mass shootings.

You asked, but you already had the answer.

Universal background checks required for all gun transactions ought to be validated by stats on crimes committed with illegally obtained weapons. I don't know the answer to this question.

Oh, so iow you think that anyone should just be allowed to purchase a weapon? Or, who would you choose to have background checked? Hmm, you can find out whatever you want to find out usually. But, I'd bet that most crimes are not committed with legally owned weapons. They call such incidents "accidents."

[Steve James]

nor will you acknowledge that you have already lost all your rights

Nope, can't say that at all. Funny that you can, but forget it.