Of course, Godwin's Grammar Nazi law is always relevant.
Um okay...not sure what grammar nazi has to do with it other than the term. You used the idea that some one would strike him down with Hitler-esque (Godwin's law) syntax or prose lessons in the English language. I don't know why you suggest this since no one has teased or made fun of him, and rather he is the one that originally brought to our attention that he may have trouble with English and repeated to tell us, even though we took it in to consideration from the beginning.
Dude, keep calm and re-read what I wrote. If you don't get it then so be it.
It was a reference to the rather popular (read: we all know them) "keep calm" memes combined with the inevitable grammar nazi antics that plague those folk with English as a second language who frequent forums that expect English to be used.
I can't believe I had to explain that.
LMS, We are getting too off topic.
My post was both a reference to PIC (popular internet culture) and an acknowledgement that it was possible that his post would attract the ire of any number of grammatical internet brownshirts.
There was a fair amount of tongue in cheek humour involved but clearly it was taken, unsurprisingly, literally.
I'd say "lighten up" but am concerned I may be accused of suggesting you to be overweight.
But seriously, divest yourself of ballast in an upward manner.
For the record i voted for option 2.
I won't argue for or against but I will state this: back in 1996 this man did this thing and this other man (who I rarely praise but I do in this instance) stood up, 8 weeks into his term, and said ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.
I won't reply to any of my previous interlocutors because I recognize I haven't try to make myself clear enough and some of my ideas were to rough and basic to make a sound argument.
1. This thread is pretty much about some american users vs every person that "dares" to have a different opinion. That's my impression, not a fact.
2. You can't accept personal opinions; I've seen several times the link to an article titled "no one's entitled to their opinion". That's a position that can be usefull in some cases, but is not universal. On the other hand, I've read lots of posts by oponents to gun control with several claims and statements and just a few of them were supported by any type of source. Double-standard is self-evident throw out the thread.
3. Several times, people have missquoted other users and argue against them, leading to paralel discussions that originally weren't even there. (check the thread for yourself and you'll see it over and over).
4. You can't seem to comprehend that people can feel secure and safe living in countries where exists restict gun control. I can state how I feel living in Portugal (and I've been in other countries as well) and I don't have to provide any factual proof of how I feel. And the way I feel is the reason I think what I think. In my country I can legally purchase a weapon (I have to follow strict regulations to recieve a license, but I can). But I don't feel the need to go and buy one, or any other type of weapon. I never felt or saw any kind of gun violence and the few news I hear where people killing others with guns is in a large majoraty, inside their own families. "husband kills wife";"son kills parents";"men kills ex-wife and children", etc. I dont't remember of any mass shooting in this country or any similar to that.
5. You defend the 2nd amendment like christians defend the bible: as if it were written by god and it can't be wrong or modified.
And when confronted with examples of countries that have a different policy on gun control and have less crime related to it, you refuse to find some credit on those examples. It's always rubish and every source presented isn't adequate. Then, you all expect that people who don't agreed with you to accept all you have to say and all your sources (if there are any).
Why do you think the 2nd amendment isn't at least in some part, outdated? Back then, people could only shoot a gun once in 30sec (it's not a factual number, just an illustration) and now it's possible to shoot 10x faster, at least. That is an huge differense that carries some profound alterations in the relationship between people with their guns and the possible harm they can do with it.
6. I can comprehend that the situation in the USA is very unique. They're the major manufacturer of weapons and military equipment and it's a large economy that envolves a huge amount of people and a lot of money as well. I know that simply ban firearms would be a catastrophe in the short term.And in the long term.
But the situation has escalated to the point of today because people didn't care about it earlier, I assume. Yes I can be wrong. Giving easy acssess to a gun to virtualy any person can only mean that in time, more and more guns will be in circulation, augmenting the possibility of mass shootings, crimes envolving gun shots, illegal black markets, etc. And it's a basic social response to go and buy a gun to defend yourself if you see all this occouring arround you. I reckon that I would probably have a gun if I lived in the US. But since I don't, I can have a different opinion about guns and their impact in my sense of security and social well being.
I see a lot of conjecture and no fact or reasoning. There's your problem.
What about the huge number of robbed guns? There are a lot of "good people" that sees their legal guns robbed and those guns can kill someone afterwards.
Conjecture, facts, round and round we go. Defensive gun use estimates range from several hundred thousand to a few million per year in the USA. How many stolen guns are used in crime? How many are stolen from owners and not from other sources?
7. I can't comprehend (and I didn't find any information on this on the posts i've read) why the 2nd amendment and your right to own a gun or guns would make any difference against a threat of tyranny. I mean, the US army is by far the strongest in the world and is larger than almost all his allies armys combined. What difference would it make your gun/guns against an army of this magnitude? And if your response is "there is the possibility of the army not supporting the regime". In that case, the army would be on your side and the Tyrant wouldn't have any chance.
The US military with all of its tanks and drones couldn't stomp out a bunch of Afghani goat farmers with rusted Soviet AK's. What makes you think they could wage war against their own people?
8. What do you think of denying the right to own a gun to a person that has been convicted earlier in his/her life? Doesn't he/she payd already the price of his/her actions? Doesn't he/she have the same right to self-defense and defend his/her family, property and the country against a tyranny theat?
See earlier posts by Danoff.
9. Several people stated that they do not own a gun or guns to kill. They like to shoot to a paper sheet or to practice aim, etc. My question is: why do you need to practice aim, or shoot at paper sheets if your argument against strict gun control is self-defense?
I shoot guns for fun and self defense practice. Mostly fun.
[QUOTW]If it's self-defense, why do you buy a gun to shoot against a person. Why don't you practice bowling or golf if you want to practive aim? Or why don't you practice with something that doesn't have the potencial to kill?
Why do people race cars instead of golf?
It's fun.
You sound silly when you're criticizing somebody's hobby that you've never even sampled.
Several people brought the argument (in my opinion, correct) that guns were invented to harm, damage and kill. It's ok to own a gun and not have the purpose to use it for the purpose of its creation, but then again, why to buy it in the first place?
And every person who brought this up got destroyed. It's an idiotic argument that has been rehashed into oblivion. Read the thread.
Guns are not purposed to kill.
[QUOTE{10.In my country, 20% of the crimes were commited using white weapons (knives) or guns. In 1995, this number was 30,5%. From the crimes using firearms in the period from 2005-2010, the number droped 4.5% (from 14,9% to 10,4%). Crimes associated with knives (white weapons), in 1995 the number was 30%, in 2012 was 10,3% (only between 2005-2010 the number droped 13%). Crimes using poison droped too: in 1995 the number was 1,4%, in 2012 was 0,2%. Psycologic threats also droped drom 17% to 4,7%. The only exception to ehis numbers is the phisical violence that increased from 30,5% to arround 45%. This can be linked to the greater social awareness of domestic violence and the increase in situations reported to the police that a few decades weren't reported as such type of bheaviour was more "accepted" / less "condemned".
The context of this change in numbers is laergely related to alterations in the law of guns ownership. The last change was made in 2009 with more resctricion and a more strict regulation to achieve a license to own a firearm.
From this simple example from my country, I think I can assume that the less guns we have arround, the more safe we will be. More guns implies more guns in good people's hands and more guns in bad people's hand too. I'm aware that if a guy comes into my house with a gun I won't be able to defend myself as I could if I have one, but in the countries where there are less guns, I "believe" people have more respecto for the human life.
Sometimes I hear news of robberies for example to gas stations and the robbers carry a firearm. But usually they don't even use it. I don't remeber of anything like this from the last few years. The last time there was something involving a gun and killed people was in a small vilagge where a 70+ old man went to his ex-wife's house where she was with her mother, their dauther and another 2 women from their family and he shoot them all. He killed 2 and the other 2 were sent to the hospital. He was an hunter and had several guns. His reason to do this horrendous crime was that he and his ex-wife had gone through a recent process of divorce.
This happened in January I think.
This is the longest post I've ever made on GTP or any english forum I think. I hope at least that this time you find some reasonable things in what I'v said. If not, that's Ok. I wrote this with care and I've tried to be honest and reasonable. And one more thing, not getting a response doesn't make any person a winner on a particular argument. This isn't a trial. It's a forum where we share at least 2 things: our passion for cars/gran turismo and our disposition to write, think and learn about subjects and points of view we didn't knew or though of.
This is not the topic "Do you believe in God" or "Creation vs Evolution". So stop doing this comparison. Because if you do it, I can do it as well and I can put you in the "beliver/creationist" side as you do with people who disagreed with you.
About this subject there are 2 realities and not only one side of the argument is correct. You keep claiming that only your opinion is right and what other people think is wrong or is the result of misinformation. You're wrong. You can claim whatever you want, but you can't say we're wrong because we live in places where what we think is right, works. You can defend that these policies wouldn't work in your country but you can't claim we are wrong.
2 and 3. Whoever wants to verifiy can search the thread and see if what you're saying is right or not.
I won't even defend myself from that statement because what I said is here for people to check.
4. You don't care about our policies and gun laws but maybe, and I underline maybe, we care about people in your country and other countries that are directly affected by the mindset you have that having a firearm is a right and guns have nothing bad in themselves.
5. Was written by the founders long ago. As the bible. Bible endoreses slavery but we condemn it. The bible has been altered to and modified and translated. The question is that the core idea and message is the same and has not been changed. The same goes to the 2nd amendment, IMO. I love the original idea of the founding fathers and the US constitution (mainly because it's the first secular constitution with separation of church and state), but I can disagreed with the second amendemant, as many people do.
It isn't a fallacy. Precisely because the world changed. See @Badasp5.0 post.
6. People aren't dumb, it's true. But if it were illegal they wouldn't do it to easily. I gave you the example of my country and there are lots of countries like mine. We can have guns but we don't even care to have them. Why? Because we don't need and we don't feel the fear of being murdered at any time. I know the USA aren't the only one manufacturing guns, but we're talking about a country that has a "cultural" relation to guns and a great economy related to it. I don't have the knowledge to buit a gun but I could learn it. But way on earth would I lose time with that? Can you see how I ignore and disdain firearms? I don't need it. You can't seem to realize how real this feeling is and how I feel safe wihout guns arround me.
7. Do you anything about the revolution in my country against a ditactatorship in 1975? Not so long ago. It was a peacefull revolution (maybe the only one of this kind in the world) agaisnt a 40 years regime. Very litle people died (arround 5 or 10) that day. It's called the "Revolução dos Cravos" (revolution of carnation flowers). We had the army on people's side and the state resistance was to small. If the army were agaisnt the people, we couldn't do anything with firearms against tanks, bazucas, heavy machinery.
Syria? They have fought against the gov and how many victims they had from each side and where will that lead them? Are you aware that there are Jihadists fighting against Assad's regime as well? And if they take the gov down, wouldn't be to much different from what we have been seeing in Iraq recently? Sadam was a retarded bastard but he kept the islamic fundamentalists away. Now every kinf of islamic sek wan't to control Iraq and it's a kaos-like state. I remember that USA decided to attack them based on false claims about weapons of mass destruction (but that is a completely different topic).
8. I've asked it because I didn't knew it. And reading some things about the gun policy in the US, I've found this very akward. So you're saying that a person who comitted a crime somewhere in his past and payed for his actions, doesn't have the right to self-defense. If you were in a situation where a guy came to you and pointed a gun to your head and that ex-convicted person had a gun to save you, you would preffer for him not to save you and be consistent with what you're saying? (I think this sentence is not to well worded but I think the message is clear). There are citizens and citizens is what you're saying.
9. That hobby and that "passion" can carry serious problems to the society. I would let my hobby or my passion aside if I realized that would be better for my children and grand-children to live in a society without guns. But then again, this is my personal opinion.
10. I think it's quite possible to learn in an informal environment. Of course I don't disdain factual proofs or sources for very specific claims but there are general things that I can accept or argue against without any facts. How did you learn do talk? I learnd in the most informal way... living and breathing. I've learned to play GT in a very informal way and not my the manual. I think we can have discussions to a certain level without constantly asking for evidences, proofs, facts, sources, etc. If peoplea are intelectually honest, they won't create thing from thin air just to win an argument (except in the "Do you belive in God" threat ).
If you read the God thread you'll see that I don't like to have both sides of the coin. I've made a post in that particular thread, assuming openly that I changed my views on the god issue and I want the true and not what I like the most.
In this subject, as I said in the begining of this post, there isn't just 1 side that is right. Both sides can have relevant arguments. I've said that people have being harsh, not only to me but with other people too. You, for instance, called a user "Pierce Morgan" in a prejurative way. If that's not being harsh and hostile, I don't want to know what is it.
I find you guys quite capable of reason and thinking outside the box (because if you're athists like I assume the majoraty of you are), you are not blind by what people tell you. But I can't grasp that idea that "we're right, you're wong" about this guns issue.
@LMSCorvetteGT2
What's important regarding the amendment hasn't changed. You're not doing anything wrong if you're not getting in someone else's way. So buying/owning a gun is a non issue. It doesn't really matter what the amendment says, the right to bear arms is more fundamental than the law. If you want an objective moral system that puts all people as equals, why burden people with needless limitations?5. Was written by the founders long ago. As the bible. Bible endoreses slavery but we condemn it. The bible has been altered to and modified and translated. The question is that the core idea and message is the same and has not been changed. The same goes to the 2nd amendment, IMO. I love the original idea of the founding fathers and the US constitution (mainly because it's the first secular constitution with separation of church and state), but I can disagreed with the second amendemant, as many people do.
It isn't a fallacy. Precisely because the world changed. See @Badasp5.0 post.
This is not unheard of in the US.6. People aren't dumb, it's true. But if it were illegal they wouldn't do it to easily. I gave you the example of my country and there are lots of countries like mine. We can have guns but we don't even care to have them. Why? Because we don't need and we don't feel the fear of being murdered at any time. I know the USA aren't the only one manufacturing guns, but we're talking about a country that has a "cultural" relation with guns and a great economy related to it. I don't have the knowledge to buit a gun but I could learn it. But why on earth would I lose time with that? Can you see how I ignore and disdain firearms? I don't need it. You can't seem to realize how real this feeling is and how I feel safe wihout guns arround me.
Firearms are effective against people and without people, none of the other weapons you mentioned are any good. Being armed would at least force the military to go through a greater effort in trying to subjugate people and if there were a lot of people, that would spread them thin. As this would be in their own country, there's a chance that the military would end up cut off from supplies and resources as no one would be willing to provide any, they would have to exert a lot of effort to get any by fighting, and any territory they possessed would be surrounded by hostile forces.7. Do you know anything about the revolution in my country against a ditactatorship in 1975? Not so long ago. It was a peacefull revolution (maybe the only one of this kind in the world) agaisnt a 40 years regime. Very litle people died (arround 5 or 10) that day. It's called the "Revolução dos Cravos" (revolution of carnation flowers). We had the army on people's side and the state resistance was to small. If the army were agaisnt the people, we couldn't do anything with firearms against tanks, bazucas, heavy machinery.
So you're saying that staying under oppressive leadership is better than a bloody rebellion? What if the people fighting disagree?Syria? They have fought against the gov and how many victims they had from each side and where will that lead them? Are you aware that there are Jihadists fighting against Assad's regime as well? And if they take the gov down, wouldn't be to much different from what we have been seeing in Iraq recently? Sadam was a retarded bastard but he kept the islamic fundamentalists away. Now every kinf of islamic sek wan't to control Iraq and it's a kaos-like state. I remember that USA decided to attack them based on false claims about weapons of mass destruction (but that is a completely different topic).
And this goes for everything. So what makes guns bad, but gas powered cars good? At the very least we probably don't need racing. It burns gas and emits pollution, so shouldn't racing be banned?9. That hobby and that "passion" can carry serious problems to the society. I would let my hobby or my passion aside if I realized that would be better for my children and grand-children to live in a society without guns. But then again, this is my personal opinion.
- You've compared me to people that go to the "god" thread defending their religious ideas and beliefs. Right on your last post. I won't enter that game of you claimed, I claimed, you this, I that. It's all in the thread for people to read. I've point 2 times already and I won't do it again.
- I didn't said that you only care about guns. See how you like to read something that isn't there?
About this subject there are 2 realities and not only one side of the argument is correct. You keep claiming that only your opinion is right and what other people think is wrong or is the result of misinformation. You're wrong.
- If the founders could or couldn't envision the world as it is now I can't say. But we know that they were pro-slavery. It's nothing to do with guns, but it shows how a mindset can be outdated. If they were wrong about slavery why couldn't they be wrong about the "right" to own a firearm? Se security of the people and society has always been atributed to the state, at least in modern times (by police, army, etc). Why would people want to transfer that obligation to each individual?
- Other nations that have economy from weapons are on the same boat in my oppinion. But I won't discriminate specific coutries because we're talking mostely about USA. Some of those nations contribute with another large problems to the world as well but that's another discussion.
- In my country people have guns (as in any other country with gun control). I never said the opposite. The difference is the relationship with them and the culture. In my country the great great majoraty of guns are only for hunting and sports. In USA, the majoraty is for self-defense (from the articles people already posted). I can be wrong, but I guess that it wouldn't be much of a problem if the number of guns in Portugal was like in Switzerland for example. Because the society doesn't have that gun culture where we somehow/sometimes can do justice by our own hands. We think that guns are for police and security forces to carry.No where did I see an article that pointed out in recent pages that the majority of guns bought are for self-defense. Since you've made this claim I would kindly ask you to show this. There are vast numbers of people in sporting with guns and hunting. IPSC and IDPA in the U.S. regional have many members and I even participated for a time with it. I just showed you that the great majority of guns aren't owned, because the numbers show a nearly 50/50 in legal and illegal gun possession.
Also Switzerland has a gun culture, so I don't see the comparison you've made.
- I've proove your point? How excactly? If a revolution could garner more support for the people through the gov's own military why would people need firearms? Or am I misunderstanding you? I'm sorry if that's the situation.
Well I did say that if something like this happened there is a large chance that many in the military would join forces with citizens, rather that Gov't. However, that doesn't mean that there wouldn't be some that would follow orders and perhaps try to enact martial law on an unjustifiable ground to where people need to defend themselves.
So basically you've proven that yes a country in a revolution could have the support of the people who were once apart of the military. However, this doesn't mean that just because one event like your country saw happened all events in other areas will have the same outcome or nearly the same.
- Yes, I'm aware of that. My point is that it isn't USA dutty to go and invade those countries because they don't know how the result can be in the end. Of course I'm opposed to dictatorships. But if you went to Iraq today you'll probably find a lot of people saying that they were living better lifes than the ones they live today. Of course it was a repressive regime and had nothing to do with the will of the people. Are you afraid that some day the USA could trun into a Sadam / Assad state-like?
I never said it was the USA's duty to do that either nor hinted...there's a thread called the 2012 U.S. Elections in there I show that I was quite against many U.S. conflicts and still am, unless realistic provocation is shown and truthful. No currently I don't have that fear, nor do I imply it. You made the claim that small arms wont do much against a modern military, so I gave you examples of how they can actually provide a defense and did so with current world events/situations. My personal feeling on the manner wasn't part of the context originally since it wasn't asked so this tangent seems redundant, other than attacking from another angle as if I'd forget all of what you've said (not saying you said this just letting you know I don't forget easily).
- Again, if it's just sports, why do people carry a firearm and why do they think they have the right to carry a gun for self-defense? Is it a sport or it's not? In my opinion, is a questionable hobby.
You've yet to tell us why it is though? What does a non-sportsman who carries a gun strictly for self-defense have to do with a person who does practice the hobby? Also people think they have the right because it has been given to them, and it's a common right for human's to be able to defend themselves when needed. The choice of how to do this shouldn't be an issue.
The ownership of guns is multi-faceted yet you seem to be implying it only has a sole purpose and not a multi.
For instance, I've been whatching some advertisings of guns manufacturers and I find them all silly. I don't know if it's a cultural thing...maybe they are really bad ad's in general but none of their ideas could convince me to buy a gun. At least the ones I've seen.
- I'll repeat: I think we can have discussions to a certain level without constantly asking for evidences, proofs, facts, sources, etc. If people are intelectually honest, they won't create things from thin air just to win an argument.
Why have that optimism? Why not just be safe and show people where you are getting info from, that is how debate functions on here (ever since I've joined) and many other public forums. If this was just people going out for coffee sure, philosophical conversation on the subject is understandable.
However, we're on the internet where facts and statistics and proof is readily available and some of us have even stored it just because. It shouldn't be much to ask to look really quick, and to act as if it is, seems to be the real intellectual dishonesty of it all. Because instead you are arguing to make it easier to talk without being held accountable.
- Are you saying I'm infringing the AUP?
Here is that cultural difference thing I keep bringing up. The bolded part shows you know very little about US gun culture. It isn't even talked about unless there is a public campaign to restrict gun use. I have never been forced into making a decision on the matter. In fact, I only think about gun ownership in this thread. It's not like I walk into Walmart and have to walk through the hunting and fishing department to get to anything else. In fact hunting and fishing is squeezed between automotive and home improvement or automotive and sports, depending on the store layout. It's so unobtrusive that I only notice it when looking at fishing stuff, because I might look at the wrong shelf trying to find some fishing line.I don't see freedom as a linear equation, and I feel that I have in a sense greater freedom than those in the US are afforded. I can choose to own, not own, or ignore guns. To be honest I think that the last one is generally not a viable option for many in the US. I don't want to be an active non-owner thank you, and our context very much allows for that. Having to fight against myself just to achieve a state of indifference?.... screw that.
Here is that cultural difference thing I keep bringing up. The bolded part shows you know very little about US gun culture. It isn't even talked about unless there is a public campaign to restrict gun use. I have never been forced into making a decision on the matter. In fact, I only think about gun ownership in this thread. It's not like I walk into Walmart and have to walk through the hunting and fishing department to get to anything else. In fact hunting a fishing is squeezed between automotive and home improvement or automotive and sports, depending on the store layout. It's so unobtrusive that I only notice it when looking at fishing stuff, because I might look at the wrong shelf trying to find some fishing line.
OK, I take it back. I think about a gun every time raccoons get into my plants or bird feeders.
I honestly don't know where else to buy a new gun, legally or illegally. If I wanted a used gun I'd check a pawn shop or during the 127 Yard Sale, and I've only seen one guy selling them there. Outside of that, no clue.Let's not forget that most people serious about buying guns and doing research on it don't buy from Walmart...
Also that further supports your claim because now they're more likely going to an actual gun shop, which is even more so less blatantly obvious when you're driving around any major city in the U.S.
I honestly don't know where else to buy a new gun, legally or illegally. If I wanted a used gun I'd check a pawn shop or during the 127 Yard Sale, and Ive only seen one guy selling them there. Outside of that, no clue.
I know this wasn't aimed at me, but I don't understand. If you believe a gun is a form of self defense, why do you need to carry it all the time?- People already said they don't carry their guns all the time. So why do you think is morally correct and a good idea to have the resources to defend yourself if you buy a gun and you don't carry it with you every time? It isn't legal? Why?
It is consistent. Guns are self defense and a hobby.- Ill repeat the question: If it's an hobby why do you come with the right to self defense? You have to be consistent.
Guns don't exist to kill.I questioned the "hobby" because it seems like when confronted with the fact the firearms exist to kill or harm, people say they don't want to kill anyone but practice aim, or use it for sports, etc.
When has security ever been 100% up to the state? I'm pretty sure in most places it's legal to defend yourself and your property. It would be completely silly to change that and make it so that only the government could act in defense.@LMSCorvetteGT2[/USER]
- If the founders could or couldn't envision the world as it is now I can't say. But we know that they were pro-slavery. It's nothing to do with guns, but it shows how a mindset can be outdated. If they were wrong about slavery why couldn't they be wrong about the "right" to own a firearm? Se security of the people and society has always been atributed to the state, at least in modern times (by police, army, etc). Why would people want to transfer that obligation to each individual?
And here is the problem with law, it's not always right or complete. How can you point to the UDHR as a definitive list of rights when you don't even think it is complete?@Exorcet
- As I've said, to me the fundamental rights are in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (Altough I think the right to blasphamy should be there as well but due to religious problems).
This has nothing to do with one country intervening in another's affairs. It's about deciding what is objectively superior. If someone thinks that remaining peaceful under a dictator is the best course of action but someone else thinks that a rebellion is worth the cost, who is right and why?- If people fighting disagree they have their right. I don't think it's reasonable for another country to interevene in such problems. Saying under opressive leadership is worse. But the bloody rebellion in the case of Iraqi wasn't there before.
It's not on purpose, but it's still death. Why should accidental death be ignored? If the rate of death from car accidents was 10 times that of guns would you ignore it?- How many people die racing cars or kill other people on purpuse? I know that car accidents are a huge problem (I guess all arround the world... maybe not so much in Amsterdam ) but we people who die in car accidents aren't killed on purpuse or in self-defense.
Time spent living isn't a definitive measure of the quality of life and neither is risk of death, so I would not say that increasing either is de facto better.- Do you think that living longer with a lower chance or death is better? If so, why do you think that having guns is the better option to achive that goal?
Here is that cultural difference thing I keep bringing up. The bolded part shows you know very little about US gun culture. It isn't even talked about unless there is a public campaign to restrict gun use. I have never been forced into making a decision on the matter. In fact, I only think about gun ownership in this thread. It's not like I walk into Walmart and have to walk through the hunting and fishing department to get to anything else. In fact hunting and fishing is squeezed between automotive and home improvement or automotive and sports, depending on the store layout. It's so unobtrusive that I only notice it when looking at fishing stuff, because I might look at the wrong shelf trying to find some fishing line.
OK, I take it back. I think about a gun every time raccoons get into my plants or bird feeders.
I'm certain this will have effect to a degree. I realize this post wasn't directed towards me, but just to note: It still doesn't change my personal experience that I didn't have any exposure to guns, threat of one, or politics associated with it. Not until I joined the party by choice, maybe about ten years ago, by choosing to go shooting with friends. Seen guns on TV, read about them in papers, but as far as my impression go, absolutely irrelevant topic to everyone I knew.Is it possible that you really don't recognise certain aspects of the culture you live inside of, because you've maybe not lived outside of it?
Perhaps I would agree with the "higher purpose". Again, hardly scientific, but with every single people I know, it's not at all fear of others, or fear of the Government. It's frustration, even anger. Clearly, there is a political force within the U.S. that would like to see firearm ownership phased out. This is the kind of politics that not only affect a lot of people, but it fires them up.I know people that use guns as tools, and have a love for those tools. I also know people that use guitars as tools, and have a love for those tools. Comparing Australian and US guitarists I really see no difference in attitude. Comparing Australian and US shooters I do see a difference. It's like the US shooters feel that they have some higher purpose or something, rather than just having what they need to get the job done. I see fear, and attitudes that extend from that fear. I don't know if that comes across as offensive, but it's what I've arrived at through observation.
So, are you saying that as a member of an international community you don't have that third option either? Do you read it and have to ask yourself if you wish to be a shooter or not, or do you ignore it?Oh I reckon I've seen a few gun-related sigs on GTP.
It's possible. But odds are equal that you noticed it due to cultural shock, while the average American ignored it, something which you suggest they might not have the option to do. Heck, not recognizing certain aspects means ignoring it to the point of obliviousness.Is it possible that you really don't recognise certain aspects of the culture you live inside of, because you've maybe not lived outside of it?
So you don't get the option to ignore guitars?I know people that use guns as tools, and have a love for those tools. I also know people that use guitars as tools, and have a love for those tools. Comparing Australian and US guitarists I really see no difference in attitude.
You need to define shooters, because there is a vast difference between militia types, guys with a few hunting rifles locked away, a guy who got one after his house was broken into, and a guy training for the Olympics.Comparing Australian and US shooters I do see a difference. It's like the US shooters feel that they have some higher purpose or something, rather than just having what they need to get the job done. I see fear, and attitudes that extend from that fear. I don't know if that comes across as offensive, but it's what I've arrived at through observation.
International online community and my own backyard are vastly different. I don't want people pushing agendas for or against guns here. I think we're fine just the way we are. In fact, I really wouldn't mind if we had a whole lot more guns. It being a non-issue is what I prize.So, are you saying that as a member of an international community you don't have that third option either? Do you read it and have to ask yourself if you wish to be a shooter or not, or do you ignore it?
Turns out that the exact words that I was left with after my first stay in America were "The biggest surprise was that there was no surprise". So no, no real shock factor at all. I think if you take a sensible view here you'll admit that on guns in general the US people are going to tend to have more fervent opinions, that surface more regularly.It's possible. But odds are equal that you noticed it due to cultural shock, while the average American ignored it, something which you suggest they might not have the option to do. Heck, not recognizing certain aspects means ignoring it to the point of obliviousness.
Perhaps you missed the point. Out of the four groups of people (AU/guns, AU/guitars, US/guns, US/guitars), group three stands alone, having what I termed the "higher purpose" mentality.So you don't get the option to ignore guitars?
You need to define shooters, because there is a vast difference between militia types, guys with a few hunting rifles locked away, a guy who got one after his house was broken into, and a guy training for the Olympics.
And describe the fear and attitudes. Fear their guns will be taken away? That's a reaction to others. Fear that they need to defend themselves? I don't know anyone who bought a gun for self defense without something happening to them or close to them. I know there exists the guys who think a criminal is just waiting to attack, but they are as normal as my wife thinking a psychic serial killer is waiting alongside the road for our car to breakdown.
I'm certain this will have effect to a degree. I realize this post wasn't directed towards me, but just to note: It still doesn't change my personal experience that I didn't have any exposure to guns, threat of one, or politics associated with it. Not until I joined the party by choice, maybe about ten years ago, by choosing to go shooting with friends. Seen guns on TV, read about them in papers, but as far as my impression go, absolutely irrelevant topic to everyone I knew.
Every gun owner in the US wants it to be a non-issue too.International online community and my own backyard are vastly different. I don't want people pushing agendas for or against guns here. I think we're fine just the way we are. In fact, I really wouldn't mind if we had a whole lot more guns. It being a non-issue is what I prize.
Then call it cultural difference. A shirt with gun stuff on it is the same to your brain as seeing a child with a physical deformity. You don't want to notice, but you do. You make the conscious effort to not look once you notice. But live with that child everyday and you stop noticing and live life as normal.Turns out that the exact words that I was left with after my first stay in America were "The biggest surprise was that there was no surprise". So no, no real shock factor at all. I think if you take a sensible view here you'll admit that on guns in general the US people are going to tend to have more fervent opinions, that surface more regularly.
All I am addressing is your claim that people in the US don't have the ability to ignore guns. I just got home from work about an hour ago. I work for the government. This is the first time guns crossed my mind today.Perhaps you missed the point. Out of the four groups of people (AU/guns, AU/guitars, US/guns, US/guitars), group three stands alone, having what I termed the "higher purpose" mentality.
Then you need to define the "shooter" attitude. I defend gun rights, but don't own a gun. Does that make me a "shooter?" I don't know because you are not using a common term in its common usage.I don't think I do, because it's all about attitude, and all or none of those could fall on one side of the fence or the other in that sense.
For gun owners reaction means losing their right. When someone seeks to remove what they have should they just stand aside, or is reaction sometimes good..I don't like reactionary, which is why I saw nothing good in our gun buy back. It's also why both pro and anti gun people in the US should probably just shut the hell up. Reaction breeds reaction.
So a group of people out of a large population wishes to defend their homes and don't trust police to succeed, sometimes with very good reason, and you attribute it to the entire country? You saw some guys with gun shirts. Good for you. Travel 1,000 miles and tell me if you see the same thing. Because I don't think "extensively visiting" a place makes you an expert and understanding of the full-time population.More along that line. It's an understandable choice, but one that that not everyone makes, and there's no escaping that individual psychology contributes to mass psychology.
Of the countless stories about their visit, or immigration to this country, I have never seen this topic come up. Not one time. Of course, it's not like I was taking a survey either. *shrug*Most people coming here don't see what he's claiming, none of them that I know.
From my personal experience, absolutely. Once I got into the hobby, I found out that so many people around me owned guns! Not just for home, or self defense, but guns passed down their family, collectibles, farmers, hunters, etc. Young, old, educated, uneducated, all these people around me actually owned guns & I was certainly pretty shocked with the discovery.And I've met people before that were surprised to know I owned a gun(s) as much as I was of them.
And like yourself, lot of non-gun owners I know.Every gun owner in the US wants it to be a non-issue too.