Gun Control Poll

[psyche101]

Before I get to the rest let me just say that my intent was to be one post and to address each point individually because I didn't want you to get confused or anything. And you shouldn't talk about long winded posts.

I do not take sentances pull them apart and spread them out, I am verbose with descriptions for clarity, which again is not the same thing is it.

[F3SS]

We good man or what?

[psyche101]

You know man you're right. You can have this. I remember about a year ago when we first met in a similar thread and you said that I was a voice of reason on the topics of guns in the USA. When I say things like that I mean them so I figured early on that you'd value my opinion maybe just a little bit. Instead, you've dismissed and insulted from the start. So yea, we're not going to do this anymore. I honestly skimmed your last post and I'm sure you got me real good. Good luck on your quest.

And I still mean everything I said, you did help me with the aspect I was struggling with, now the discussion has evolved, but you simply have not kept up and keep reading the same things out of my posts.

I value all serious and genuine input. And I feel many posters here reflect that. You have come down to the thinking that I want to remove your guns and taken offence, that's not it. If you can get your mind out of that rut, I am sure you would see the entire subject being discussed in a differnt light.

This place is not about "getting people" real good or otherwise, it is a discussion forum, people seem to forget that, there is no "win" here for any individual, we all benefit from an open and honest exchange of genuine information. If you are here to get people or win, then you are doing this wrong.

Heck, we do not even see the entire gun thing in the same light, what you percieve as punishment I percieve as a community action that all are on board with. What you seem to be offended by mostly is the fact that there is good debate that shows that a gunless society works, and you just do not want to know and it bucks against everything you believe in. When Aquatus1 called the 2nd sacred it put it in the correct light for discussion, and the pro gun responses have been noticably more voltile even since that admission. When you get all uppity like this, it incates strongly to me and I am sure others, that you know very well that the reasons you have for owning guns are not actually valid, and you seem both embarrased and angry about that. I mean if you had a good solid reason that would make perfect sense to anyone on earth, and a 6 year old, you would just state it wouldn't you? But that one reason does not exist, the 2nd seems to mean differnt things to different people but none of them seems to be something you can proudly stand up and offer as sound reasoning. It's just "how you do things". Many of us are quite organised and find that sort of world rather strange and difficult to fathom. Particularly when you say, well if you don't get it, you don't get it. This place exists to help people "get it". Not for self validation, which is what your if you don't get it, you don't get it line says to me.

I am sure my quest will be fruitful, not only have posters here been very helpful and rather astute, but we have exchanged many details about our countries, which I have to say I have found more than fascinating. Despite you saying I keep saying the same thing, I have learned oodles about the US and had my mind rather blown at some of the revelations and aspects of law and politics in the US. It is a crying shame that you decided to revert back with the Gun people in a sensless bickering war that does little more than impede the flow of decent information. I have seen that you are capable of so much more. And I expect that indeed you are better than this.

[psyche101]

We good man or what?

Read my next post and you tell me, I am if you are.

*Holds hand out*

[psyche101]

So very tough on those convicted and scared into hiding for the rest. Not too bad. I would not say that their crime has been Ended. Because 90% of the members are still out there. And they're going to eventually fall back on what they know. Sure, they won't wear a jacket and will drive a truck instead, but they will be out there doing the same activities. And likely will have smuggled guns. If there is a market for guns, someone will smuggle them.

I really do hope that it is as you say and Bam! this criminal empire is ended, but I think it usually is not so simple as taking away bikes and jackets and leaders.

Most of them have turned their patches in got jobs and have offered official resignations to the clubs and opted for a family lifestyle.

I do not think they will get back to their old ways because the new laws prevent them from doing things how they know to do them, and the ringleaders are in prison for a very long time, when they get out, all other lives will be well established. We already have truck fleets and the like, there is no hole for them to fill.

A year later, it's doing better than I expected I have to say. As the clubs have been raided and goods confiscated, I don't see the clubs coming back either, as it would breach the law now anyway. They dismantled the organisations and the US Hells Angels cut ties with Australian chapters. They took more than Jackets, they took everything and pulled it all apart.

Edited August 26, 2014 by psyche101

[psyche101]

The point still remains that you inherited your freedoms from the English, who did have to fight, and fight mightily for them. You've had it pretty easy as far as fighting for rights, but the same can't be said about most of the rest of the world.

But you guys did that like 400 years ago didn't you? Quite some time has passed, mostly old laws are revised not revered?

[psyche101]

That would be great if it will just remain the biker gangs. It won't. After. So many complaints against the boy scouts they will be included. Boy play pranks on each other all of the time. So the complainants will becoming in. Maybe because they are to loud.

You are wrong, it has been a year and nothing like that has happened at all. Not even close. Of course it will remains just biker gangs, that was the entire point of the new laws. You are not only wrong, but proven so by way of example.

How do you equate "too loud" with protection rackets, drug running and organised crime? Good God Daniel, you really should think before you post.

Your silly argument was tried in court, and laughed out already.

Edited August 26, 2014 by psyche101

[Thorvir]

You know man you're right. You can have this. I remember about a year ago when we first met in a similar thread and you said that I was a voice of reason on the topics of guns in the USA. When I say things like that I mean them so I figured early on that you'd value my opinion maybe just a little bit. Instead, you've dismissed and insulted from the start. So yea, we're not going to do this anymore. I honestly skimmed your last post and I'm sure you got me real good. Good luck on your quest.

His quest is not to come to answers; like you've said, he's been given answers and doesn't like them, so he dismisses them. He's also claimed he doesn't care about guns in the US, yet from the vast number of posts in this thread, that's certainly a lie. So I guess his only quest is to just grab attention in the form of some sort of internet cred. He can't actually argue the subject, so what's left for him? That's why I gave up on him quite a while ago. You certainly had a bit more patience with his trolling that I.

Edited August 26, 2014 by Thorvir Hrothgaard

[F3SS]

Well Thor, this isn't my first bout around here but sometimes you've just got to move on. I still don't know what he's looking for either but I'm alright with leaving others to help him.

[+DieChecker]

But you guys did that like 400 years ago didn't you? Quite some time has passed, mostly old laws are revised not revered?

American Revolution was 1776, 240 years ago. Not really very long, yet we've grown so quickly.

The heyday of our "Wild West" was only 150 years ago. The men from the Western US who fought in WW1 were mostly second generation settlers. Almost all their grandparents had lived back East. It wasn't till the 1890s that the West started to settle down, and cities became relatively peaceful.

When my parents moved to southern Oregon in 1975 (I think, might have been early 1976), there were still hitching posts in all the small towns and in front of many of the buildings in the nearby city. And people still rode their horses into town. It was still Frontier-ish here in the 1970s. Almost everyone I knew growing up owned guns, and many men carried them around everyday. Yet I never saw a man shoot at another man. I never saw anyone raise a gun in anger. Despite there being literally thousands of people carrying guns all around each other. It wasn't till it was the fashion to embrace toxic sub cultures and cherish and pamper them, that gun violence really took off. It was not due to more guns, but due to lack of respect for human life and lack of respect for your neighbor.

[+DieChecker]

unless cops have warrant, they are not comming in, plain and simple. not even gonna open a door. cuz as soon as you crack it open, he'll put his foot in there, and you wont be able to close it , without "assaulting" him, than they have a reason to brake down your door, and arrest you

I've heard of several incidences of a fake cop pulling people over and soliciting sex, or money. The police now suggest that if you feel suspicious, when pulled over seemingly for a traffic infraction, to call 911 and be sure that the officer is legit.

I'd suggest the same if an officer comes to your door. DO NOT LET THEM IN. Unless they have a warrant. Talk to them through the door. Even if they are just "asking questions", they are often also looking for reasons to conduct a Search of your property. And if you have tiny bags for crafting, or rock collecting, or stamp collecting... God Help you. That is Drug Paraphernalia, and you are going to jail. Probably you'd get off with no charges, but that is not the point. They will bring two or three cars to your home and take you away in 'cuffs, with three officers guiding you like you struggled or something. And Heaven help you if it gets into the News!!

It is better to just not let them in. Call 911 if you want to make sure they are legit.

[+DieChecker]

Most of them have turned their patches in got jobs and have offered official resignations to the clubs and opted for a family lifestyle.

I do not think they will get back to their old ways because the new laws prevent them from doing things how they know to do them, and the ringleaders are in prison for a very long time, when they get out, all other lives will be well established. We already have truck fleets and the like, there is no hole for them to fill.

A year later, it's doing better than I expected I have to say. As the clubs have been raided and goods confiscated, I don't see the clubs coming back either, as it would breach the law now anyway. They dismantled the organisations and the US Hells Angels cut ties with Australian chapters. They took more than Jackets, they took everything and pulled it all apart.

Wow. That is cool if true. I can't imagine American criminals going legit so very quickly. They usually take decades of revolving door treatment into and out of prisons to convince that crime is a mistake. Usually when they are into their 50s they decide to try going a regular life. Gang Members are even worse. They are told they Can't Leave the lifestyle. And if they do, they often end up dead.

[spartan max2]

When the Police there are telling people to buy guns it seem pretty basic common sense. I mean twice as many guns on the street means twice the risk of being foiled in a crime and being shot right? So caution will be exercised until the current panic wears of, And after it does, it strikes me that there will be a surplus of guns to be recycled, wont they end up as cheap itmes that will go straight to petty criminals hands?

Law enforcement does need to be improved in places like Chicago for sure. But even with better cops I see no point in restricting law abiding citizens firearms? It still helps keep you safe.

And I'm alittel skeptical of your view on Australia you make it sound as if it's some utopia where crime never happenes

Edit: this isn't I'm relation to the quote just to you r comments in general

Edited August 26, 2014 by spartan max2

[psyche101]

This is a band aid that has worked for 200 years. The cost is a few more people are killed each year then otherwise might have been. And we love it. We embrace it. The police tell us to do it.

I see that your police tell you to do it, but you seem to have little faith that your police force is adequate enough to do their job and feel you need to do it for them. I struggle to fathom why you embrace this? And I am not sure it has worked to your advantage for the last 200 years, it has become a system, which I am not sure is a good thing as you seem more than happy to waive your right to security in favour of doing the job yourself? You pay taxes for a safe environment, do you not feel shortchanged?

A few more dead is acceptable because it's what you know? I think you are bigger than that?

With regards to the "punishment" angle too, how is it punishment, F3SS dsaid the same thing, you are being punished because of a lazy few - which is not really the case, many accidents factor - but I have just come back from meetings and job sites and was thinking, gosh it would be handy if the highway limit was like 300k/ph. It's not though, it is 110. But it would suit me down to the ground to be 300. Why can't I have a 300 kph speed limit? Is that me being punished because other drivers are not capable of handling those speeds?

The buck? Hummm.... The buck stops with each individual, rather then going up to the top. Each person is to be responsible for their own weapon, and though there are laws forcing standards of safety and usage and ownership, each person has to be responsible to follow their own areas gun laws and safety restrictions. How can we hold a Mayor, or a Police Chief responsible for the bad choices of a tiny handful of his citizens? You can't. How could a Governor, or a President be responsible? They can't. They can simply try to enforce the existing laws and pass laws that would help more. But they can't be responsible. Only the individual can be responsible for the individual. At least that is how I live my life and what I expect from others.

But home security, surely your politicians realise they are supposed to manage budgets to provide the very best for their citizens. An individual canot be blamed for a lacking Police Force, it sounds like a budgetary problem, which is what we have politicians for.

Why wouldnt a President or Govenor be hled responsible for the safety of his people? Is that not their job description?

And probably is why I have problems with those who demand the government baby them all day every day.

That is their role though, to keep a community well oiled. Make sure the area is safe, clean and public friendly, ensure business gets a fair shake, keep employment levels high and take the initiative to promote revenus, be that tourism and annual fair or whatever. What do you feel your local politicians role is there?

I do not see it as "babying" either, it's their job. If I went to work and told someone else to do my job for me, I would not last there very long.

[psyche101]

His quest is not to come to answers; like you've said, he's been given answers and doesn't like them, so he dismisses them.

I have been given conflicting answers. They provide individal perspectives, but no overall answers and do not support each other, If you can wrap your jailed little mind around that you will see why I am still aksing questions.

He's also claimed he doesn't care about guns in the US, yet from the vast number of posts in this thread, that's certainly a lie.

No ti is not, and shows you have both not read the thread, not followed what I am saying. This was just cleared up with F3SS in fact. Do you struggle to read, or do you only read pro gun posts?

So I guess his only quest is to just grab attention in the form of some sort of internet cred.

That is a childish and stupid thing to say. What cred with whom and why? A bunch on anaymous people who get very uncomfortable when asked to be honest?

He can't actually argue the subject, so what's left for him?

I have been asking questions, not insisting on some other way. I have noted some other models seem to have major and positive advanaes like ending Gun Massacre that people like Dichecker are big enough to admit would be a good thing. That's not what you are doing or describing.

That's why I gave up on him quite a while ago. You certainly had a bit more patience with his trolling that I.

You gave up because you are inadequate in this regard, Just be honest man. You have neither the knowledge or experience others have displayed, you have decided that any negative gun discussion is a direct threat to you, who you say is responsible and needs to be told nothing. If you had the ability to see outside of your box you would have noticed some very fruitful discussion happening right under your nose.

[psyche101]

American Revolution was 1776, 240 years ago. Not really very long, yet we've grown so quickly.

Ok, still older than this country since being settled that is. Sorry, I thought you were referring to the Glorious Revolution mentioned earlier, my mistake entirely.

No, we have not fought hard for rights, they have just been in palace and refined by Parliment.

The heyday of our "Wild West" was only 150 years ago. The men from the Western US who fought in WW1 were mostly second generation settlers. Almost all their grandparents had lived back East. It wasn't till the 1890s that the West started to settle down, and cities became relatively peaceful.

Not long ago, but still, 150 years is enough generations to make the change, we have fought two world wars in the menatime and advanced the Industrial Revolution to include the space age. We have had gun control less than 20 years and it is just a way of life now. America would be a very differnt place to what it was 150 years ago surely. Why keep certain laws unchanged but change the rest?

When my parents moved to southern Oregon in 1975 (I think, might have been early 1976), there were still hitching posts in all the small towns and in front of many of the buildings in the nearby city. And people still rode their horses into town. It was still Frontier-ish here in the 1970s. Almost everyone I knew growing up owned guns, and many men carried them around everyday. Yet I never saw a man shoot at another man. I never saw anyone raise a gun in anger. Despite there being literally thousands of people carrying guns all around each other. It wasn't till it was the fashion to embrace toxic sub cultures and cherish and pamper them, that gun violence really took off. It was not due to more guns, but due to lack of respect for human life and lack of respect for your neighbor.

Very cool It reminds me a bit of the outback here. I didn't ride a horse to school, but I did to visit freinds or get to a field to work. In fact my house is in a new estate, relatively new anyway, and behind my house is a track that leads to a horse paddock complete with hitching posts, I kid you not.

Yes, well the second part with the lack of respect is all round I guess, I miss the days when you could leave out milk money overnight for the milkman. Today there is little respect from youth upwards, whearas "in the day" we had the fear of God put into us for day dot, that seems to global, what happened there? It seemed to happen so suddenly? One generation has changed dramatically. But seeing the world change so rapidly, how do you suppose that enforced old values as opposed to embracing new ones? I keep banging on about massacres I know, but it is a noble achievement that you yourself said would be a goal worth striving for but you do not seem to be supported in that by other Americans, if the rest of the world is changing, why does the view on guns remain the same? It's the thing I keep coming back to I guess but is really does look from an outside view like there is an influence to keep that status quo, and I cannot help but keep falling back on my Gun Industry CT. It still seems to be the very best reason to keep gun culture alive and vivid? I mean this sort of conversation never created this sort of backlash when Australia spoke about giving up guns, but with the US people, you do seem to regard that suggestion as a direct threat, when surely you realise that it is anything but?

[psyche101]

Wow. That is cool if true. I can't imagine American criminals going legit so very quickly. They usually take decades of revolving door treatment into and out of prisons to convince that crime is a mistake. Usually when they are into their 50s they decide to try going a regular life. Gang Members are even worse. They are told they Can't Leave the lifestyle. And if they do, they often end up dead.

Like I said, I have to admit I was surprised as well, it seemed a huge feat that most felt could not be done, This was tried one before down South, but failed. They learned from the experience and used it to their advantage this time.

Former Black Uhlans Gold Coast president Liborio Di Vita faced Southport Magistrates Court on Thursday charged with steroids possession.

He was arrested in a series of police raids, targeting the Black Uhlans, in which police seized a loaded shotgun and drugs.

Di Vita, 35, was already facing charges of bashing a woman pensioner and a Gold Coast lifeguard in separate incidents.

His lawyer, Campbell MacCallum, told the court Di Vita had quit the gang 'because of the pressure from the government crackdown'.

Mr MacCallum said Di Vita and his partner wanted to start a family and he no longer wanted the bikie "lifestyle".

Di Vita had resigned from the Black Uhlans on October 3 and handed in his colours a day ahead of the gang's annual national ride.

LINK

Most of us are just pleased that it seems to have worked.

[psyche101]

Law enforcement does need to be improved in places like Chicago for sure. But even with better cops I see no point in restricting law abiding citizens firearms? It still helps keep you safe.

I can only work with what I know, and here removing guns took them away from petty crime. When the bans come in, guns are suddenly worth a great deal of money on the black market, putting them in the haands of organised crime, not petty criminals, which largely does not affect the general public. They shoot each other, and do not waste resources on stealing $50.00 from a pensioner. Home invasion for instance would become weaponless, and without the weapons, much bravado goes out the window as well reducing the crime rate overall.

And I'm alittel skeptical of your view on Australia you make it sound as if it's some utopia where crime never happenes

You know I am glad someone finally said that, I was getting skeptical of myself.

It does seem like a Utopia by comparison doesn't it? That's a large part of my disbelief, how is it we are so different, yet still in so many ways the same. I have a similar view of the states to be honest. How can such a cool place seem so violent? It seems more like what I expect from Africa. All I can say is I can back any claim I have posted, I can walk the streets at night with a camera for an example, you can chcek the headlines yourself, the Bikies are indeed gone and we have no massacres. Our Police do arrive in time most of the time and offer a secure environment that deters crime. We still have petty crime, I have been broken and entered whilst at the pub once, it was really annoying, but I never got so mad as to consider taking a life for it. And bad parts, I mentioned the suburn of Redfern to DC, but I think every place has something like that. Sure we have crime, but we do not have armed home invaders, we dont use guns and the streets are safe. If there is any aspect I can clarify I would be more than happy to do so. And we feel that one does not need a weapon in the home to defend oneself, if you visit here, I would be happy to buy you a beer and show you around even. But the biggest win is no more gun massacres. I feel that is a wonderful aspect that I would have thought inspired all others, yet alas, I was wrong about that it seems.

Interesting thought, if you were to visit here say, and stay at my place, would you feel nervous being in a house that has no weapons in it?

Edit: this isn't I'm relation to the quote just to you r comments in general

No offence taken at all dear collegue, I very much appreciate your input and manner. It has been a pleasure to discuss the subject with you.

Edited August 26, 2014 by psyche101

[psyche101]

Well Thor, this isn't my first bout around here but sometimes you've just got to move on. I still don't know what he's looking for either but I'm alright with leaving others to help him.

And I thank you for that, I have throughly enjoyed some of these discussions and I am sure you would be surprised at just how much this thread has taught me. I realise my views are as hard to fathom as gun culture is for me to fathom, as such sometimes it takes a bit to allow a brain to flex enough to properly understand these concepts that seem so very foreign to me. I appreciate discussing this with people who wish to also discuss the subject, I do not expect anyone who feels uncomfortable with my views to reply to any of my posts.

Edited August 26, 2014 by psyche101

[psyche101]

I know some people collect them like others collect art. As long as they follow the law, I don't see a problem.

You know that gun show I mentioned? I know it is shock value, but a lot of people are accomodating in that aspect. A recent episode showed a "responsible" gun owner walking into a shop to buy his 7 year old girl (might have been 6, but on the side of caution) her first handgun. Which seems insane to me. He was told he could not becuse you cannot buy a weapon for anyone under 12. No doubt he went to the next gun shop and left her in the car this time. Then another bouight his daughter a pearl handled pistol for her 21st. Which seems very strange to me, but then I don't understand guns, she was over the moon and kept going on about how she thought she would never own a gun that was so pretty. These instances seem to indicate more than the 2nd or rights, that seems very much a personal connection beyond any patriotic duty. And what happened to her old gun? How is an old model that is not popluar not going to end up in the hands of a criminal? Who else would buy them and for what?

Again, I realise it is a show that relies on shock value, but like I say, many ordinary people seem more than able to accomodate. It seems to indicate the relationship is well beyond basic rights.

[+Hammerclaw]

Check out this link, thoroughly, Psyche, and give me your opinion on the more controversial parts from your neck of the woods.http://www.worldpublicunion.org/2013-04-05-NEWS-australian-gun-ban-resulted-in-higher-crime-rates.html

[psyche101]

Did you notice no Aussie sites came up?

Out of 6 links, the last five referred to the first, this one, it's bad information out there that the pro gun people want to be true, it simply is not.

Like this, from what came up as the second link to me:

I mean really, look at those claims, The veracity of this speaks for itself, it's rubbish.

Snopes is always good too for verification, they did not specifically note that particlar claim, but refrenced claims in general saying that as:

Other claims offered here, such as the statement that "While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months" and "There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly" are even more difficult to evaluate, because they don't offer any figures or standards of measurement at all. Do they deal with absolute numbers, or percentages? Do they reflect all incidents of crime, or only those committed with firearms? How much of an increase constitutes a "dramatic" increase? According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the proportion of armed robberies involving firearms has actually declined over the last several years:

LINK

or the ABC - our BBC, not the American Broadcasting Commission, I have been caught on that before:

A sharply declining trend in gun use in homicides and robberies began in 1996, the year of the Port Arthur gun massacre and the imposition of tight gun control, which followed a year in which 44 per cent of all homicides were by gun, according to the National Homicide Monitoring Program (NHMP). In the 2008 fiscal year, Australia had 260 homicides, or 1.2 homicides per 100,000 population.

In the United States, the story is different. In 2008, according to a Federal Bureau of Investigation report, there were 16,272 homicides, of which 10,886 (or 67 per cent) were committed with guns. In 2006, firearms were used in 67.9 percent of the nation’s murders, in 42.2 percent of the robbery offenses, and in 21.9 percent of the aggravated assaults, according to the FBI report. In 2005, 75 percent of homicides by firearms in the United States were committed using handguns, according to the FBI. This compared to 4 percent with rifles, 5 percent with shotguns, and the rest with unspecified types of firearms.

LINK

And this study by the Harvard Injury Control Research Centre.

II. Evidence the Buyback Saved Lives

For Australia, the NFA seems to have been incredibly successful in terms of lives saved. While 13 gun

massacres (the killing of 4 or more people at one time) occurred in Australia in the 18 years before the

NFA, resulting in more than one hundred deaths, in the 14 following years (and up to the present),

there were no gun massacres.2

The NFA also seems to have reduced firearm homicide outside of mass shootings, as well as firearm

suicide. In the seven years before the NFA (1989-1995), the average annual firearm suicide death rate

per 100,000 was 2.6 (with a yearly range of 2.2 to 2.9); in the seven years after the buyback was fully

implemented (1998-2004), the average annual firearm suicide rate was 1.1 (yearly range 0.8 to 1.4). In

the seven years before the NFA, the average annual firearm homicide rate per 100,000 was .43 (range

.27 to .60) while for the seven years post NFA, the average annual firearm homicide rate was .25

(range .16 to .33).3

Additional evidence strongly suggests that the buyback causally reduced firearm deaths. First, the

drop in firearm deaths was largest among the type of firearms most affected by the buyback. Second,

firearm deaths in states with higher buyback rates per capita fell proportionately more than in states

with lower buyback rates.4

LINK

Official sources and studies relfect what I am seeing and describing here. My kids have never seen a gun, I have not seen on since I was about 15 when I lived in the outback. What I can mostly relate is personal experience, nobody in my street has ever been shot with a gun, I don't know of anyone in my suburb ever being shot with a gun. It has happened in a neighbouring suburb about three years ago, and the householder took the gun of the perp and shot him with it. The perp ran away and ended up dying from blood loss, which made the poor householder feel so terrible he needed counseling. He had the total support of the community and Police though. We have bad areas as mentioned, a few bad suburbs you don't venture into or you will likely be mugged. But I was genuine when I said I could walk my street at night with a camera and narrate a bit of Australia. I feel completely safe walking the street at any time of day or night completely unarmed, and have done so in a rather inebriated state more than once but made it home safe each and every time.

That's why I am speaking to the people I suppose, statistics can be made to say anything, 77% of people know that But what people actually live with everyday paints what I find to be a more realistic picture. It's the main reason I travel when I can, I rather enjoy imersing myself in other cultures and getting to know them.

Edited August 26, 2014 by psyche101

[+DieChecker]

I see that your police tell you to do it, but you seem to have little faith that your police force is adequate enough to do their job and feel you need to do it for them. I struggle to fathom why you embrace this? And I am not sure it has worked to your advantage for the last 200 years, it has become a system, which I am not sure is a good thing as you seem more than happy to waive your right to security in favour of doing the job yourself? You pay taxes for a safe environment, do you not feel shortchanged?

I pay very little to the city. I pay very little to the county. Mostly out of a property tax, that is paid once a year out of an account I never see that is connected to my mortgage. So those taxes don't bother me. And the police are a small part of the city government, so again I feel that they are about as useful as we pay them to be. Which is not much. I pay State and Federal taxes also, but those mostly go to entitlement and social programs, and very little to security/police/enforcement.

I'd be willing to pay a lot more if the police could be demonstrated to be worth it. Like with politics... The best talkers, best salesmen, best moneymen, best managers, best thinkers... all go into business, the corporate world, because they can make a lot of money there. They don't go into politics, which is very fickle and may send you into bankruptcy, and publicly give you a black eye (bad name) if you fail. Those who would make the best police, stratagists, managers, planners... will never go into law enforcement. So we end up with military rejects, guys with big egos, and bullies filling out the ranks.

A few more dead is acceptable because it's what you know? I think you are bigger than that?

People die from hundreds of things. I probably could affect a lot of those also, but I just am not motivated to. Like the drowning thing we talked about earlier. There are lots of things that could be done to prevent unnecessary drownings, but unless someone sues the community pool to put up signs, no signs will be posted.

If people came together as communities then I think they could come together as bigger units and then states and as a nation, but we actually are individuals, and treasure our individuality more then our unity. Unless some death related subject touches on our own life, we tend to ignore it. If you go online and look at any political/social/safety campaign in the US, you will see that the person in charge and many of those involved all had the subject of that campaign happen to them or their family. Very few people go out and start a homeless shelter just because. They open a homeless shelter because their uncle, brother, son was homeless and died of exposure, or some such.

This individuality leads directly into our gun culture. We would rather be able to take care of a intruder our own selves then even call across the street to the police station. Oh, we'll still call the police, but we'll have our gun in hand and be aiming down the hall when we do so.

With regards to the "punishment" angle too, how is it punishment, F3SS dsaid the same thing, you are being punished because of a lazy few - which is not really the case, many accidents factor - but I have just come back from meetings and job sites and was thinking, gosh it would be handy if the highway limit was like 300k/ph. It's not though, it is 110. But it would suit me down to the ground to be 300. Why can't I have a 300 kph speed limit? Is that me being punished because other drivers are not capable of handling those speeds?

It is not about speed. It is about control. Taking guns away would be more like forcing everyone to use a Drive-Itself car. No one gets to drive. Yet a lot of people love to drive. And those older cars would all have to be scrapped. But a lot of people love their specific build of car and the way it handles and looks. The people who love driving would be being "punished" by being forced to use the safer self-driving cars. Does that analogy make sense? The people who have guns and use them correctly and responsibly would have those guns taken away, and that would be viewed as unfair punishment, even though it brings safety to a larger degree to those same people.

But home security, surely your politicians realise they are supposed to manage budgets to provide the very best for their citizens. An individual canot be blamed for a lacking Police Force, it sounds like a budgetary problem, which is what we have politicians for.

Why wouldnt a President or Govenor be hled responsible for the safety of his people? Is that not their job description?

It is true that a Governor and the President are the heads of the Executive branches of the State and Federal governments. And that they are in charge of law enforcement in their State/Nation. But effectively what happens is that Politicians get into office and play politics.

Oregon has a former doctor as its Governor right now, and he's not a bad guy, for a Democrat. And he's not really a Party man either. So right now he gets beat up from the Left and from the Right, because he tries to reach out to both sides (Oregon is like 53% Democrat and 47% Republican). And thus he is basically ineffectual in much that he tries to get done.

To an American to hold a Governor responsible, we'd have to believe that he had some kind of influence over whatever it was. And since we generally believe politicians to be useless, self serving, but necessary, we don't expect much from them, and they are not held responsible. Heck, just look at the various Federal Level scandals the US has going on. The Benghazi Scandal illustrates how this works. Our guy asks for increased security over there in Libya. The request goes all the way to the top. Then when the Ambassador is killed, everyone looks around and says it is no bodies fault. Hillary Clinton very likely was briefed on the safety concerns of the Libyan Ambassador (As Secretary of State at the time) and she did nothing, and now it looks like she will be the Democrat front runner in 2016. A large percentage apparently think that she had no responsibility in that case.

That is their role though, to keep a community well oiled. Make sure the area is safe, clean and public friendly, ensure business gets a fair shake, keep employment levels high and take the initiative to promote revenus, be that tourism and annual fair or whatever. What do you feel your local politicians role is there?

I do not see it as "babying" either, it's their job. If I went to work and told someone else to do my job for me, I would not last there very long.

The various Mayors, Governors and County Commissioners usually all perform their jobs as they are expected. It is just that in the US, perhaps what is expected of them is different then what you would expect. They enforce the law, but if there isn't a law, then they can't enforce it. Safety doesn't come into it, excepting as to if there is a law involved or not.

People who go out on their own and express opinions on such things as Safety, outside of existing law, are often labeled by one side or the other as being overly Hard, or overly Soft on whatever is in debate. Which then directly goes out to influence the voters, which then could lead to the elected official getting bad numbers in the media. So, it is better to just stick with what already exists, and only move forward when polling shows that an Overwhelming support exists for the subject.

[+DieChecker]

Ok, still older than this country since being settled that is. Sorry, I thought you were referring to the Glorious Revolution mentioned earlier, my mistake entirely.

No, we have not fought hard for rights, they have just been in palace and refined by Parliment.

Not long ago, but still, 150 years is enough generations to make the change, we have fought two world wars in the menatime and advanced the Industrial Revolution to include the space age. We have had gun control less than 20 years and it is just a way of life now. America would be a very differnt place to what it was 150 years ago surely. Why keep certain laws unchanged but change the rest?

All our laws change basically by not what is good, but by public opinion. And I mean public opinion in the form of voting by our Representatives in Congress due to fear of not being re-elected. And as such things change very slowly.

Very cool It reminds me a bit of the outback here. I didn't ride a horse to school, but I did to visit freinds or get to a field to work. In fact my house is in a new estate, relatively new anyway, and behind my house is a track that leads to a horse paddock complete with hitching posts, I kid you not.

Yes, well the second part with the lack of respect is all round I guess, I miss the days when you could leave out milk money overnight for the milkman. Today there is little respect from youth upwards, whearas "in the day" we had the fear of God put into us for day dot, that seems to global, what happened there? It seemed to happen so suddenly? One generation has changed dramatically. But seeing the world change so rapidly, how do you suppose that enforced old values as opposed to embracing new ones? I keep banging on about massacres I know, but it is a noble achievement that you yourself said would be a goal worth striving for but you do not seem to be supported in that by other Americans, if the rest of the world is changing, why does the view on guns remain the same? It's the thing I keep coming back to I guess but is really does look from an outside view like there is an influence to keep that status quo, and I cannot help but keep falling back on my Gun Industry CT. It still seems to be the very best reason to keep gun culture alive and vivid? I mean this sort of conversation never created this sort of backlash when Australia spoke about giving up guns, but with the US people, you do seem to regard that suggestion as a direct threat, when surely you realise that it is anything but?

Not sure. But I think it may be due to the Media. Perhaps due to the extreme negativity that the Media puts out and calls news. How can a person believe the State will protect them, and they can give up their gun, when all you see on TV is that a girl got raped last night, and there was a shooting and we're at war with XYZ, and there are riots in ABC, and we have 100,000 illegals coming over the border selling drugs and beating people up...... All that negativity very likely breeds Fear, and I know that if I lived in fear, I'd not want to give up my Known from of protection in the form of my gun.

[+DieChecker]

You know that gun show I mentioned? I know it is shock value, but a lot of people are accomodating in that aspect. A recent episode showed a "responsible" gun owner walking into a shop to buy his 7 year old girl (might have been 6, but on the side of caution) her first handgun. Which seems insane to me. He was told he could not becuse you cannot buy a weapon for anyone under 12. No doubt he went to the next gun shop and left her in the car this time. Then another bouight his daughter a pearl handled pistol for her 21st. Which seems very strange to me, but then I don't understand guns, she was over the moon and kept going on about how she thought she would never own a gun that was so pretty. These instances seem to indicate more than the 2nd or rights, that seems very much a personal connection beyond any patriotic duty. And what happened to her old gun? How is an old model that is not popluar not going to end up in the hands of a criminal? Who else would buy them and for what?

Again, I realise it is a show that relies on shock value, but like I say, many ordinary people seem more than able to accomodate. It seems to indicate the relationship is well beyond basic rights.

To tell the truth, I'm not sure what happens to old guns. Sometimes people trade them in for new guns. The ones the police/government collect are usually destroyed, I believe (Sometimes auctioned?). Some, like old cell phones probably end up in boxes in the attic/closet/basement.

I was given a small rifle when I was like 10. A .22 rifle single shot with lever action. I was shown how to properly use it and take care of it. And it was locked up 99.9% of the time. Unless we were target shooting, it was locked up.