Gun Control and your stance

[Ibelsd]

Indeed we took the guns, they had been using them to wreak havoc on their neighbors and on us. Seems a reasonable thing to do. And it's worked pretty nicely ever since. Taking guns away when people misuse them seems pretty rational to me. It was not some prelude to terrible oppression or exploitation.

I guess that wasn't quite the story per Belthazor. You have a subservient public and they have been pretty aggressive towards other nations historically.

Lots of Americans don't own any guns and would like to live peacefully. Is being American tantamount to enjoying violence and crime? I'd be happy to see America as a less violent place. Better I think, much better in fact. Should we trust the government? To a degree. If you don't you should be an anarchist. The government is made up 100% of other Americans and it's chosen 100% by Americans. If we don't trust it at all it means we don't trust ourselves at all.

This is a false set of choices. Gun ownership has no correlation with a desire to live peacefully. Being American means owning a certain amount of responsibility for one's own freedom and happiness. And that includes the right to own a firearm. Whether it be to defend one's home, to hunt, to collect, or for fear of the government, it is a fundamental right protected by our Constitution.

And sure, our government is made up of Americans. And we don't trust them because we know that with enough power, most of us wouldn't be trustworthy and history defends this world view. Nazi Germany was made up of Democratically elected Germans. Venezuela's government consists of elected Venezuelans. The very existence of our Constitution is an expression of our mistrust of the men who we elect. It is why we have set the confines of government and why we have a bill of rights. The founders (some of them) didn't trust themselves. And I get it Sig. You have an almost childlike faith in government. And I don't mean that perjoratively. We have had similar discussion and you almost always defend those who are in govt and stand up for them. That's fine. It just isn't everyone's view. Hence, I am glad we have a right to own guns.

Carry that attitude forward and you end up saying that we should never learn or change, that perhaps we are perfect and incapable of improvement. Its rubbish I think.

If other people do something better than you, you should learn from them. Being violent jerks is not our inherent strength. I'd say our real strength is our embrace of change and progress over dogma and tradition.

Sure, IF other people do something better. I am not about to concede that the Japanese are a more peaceful people than we are because of their stance on private gun ownership. They have launched multiple wars of outright imperialism within the last century. It took a really big bomb (arguably two of them) to get them to express a more pacifistic global policy. Whose system is working better and who is more peaceful? Or do only the last couple of decades count?

[Belthazor]

I am not about to concede that the Japanese are a more peaceful people than we are because of their stance on private gun ownership.

I missed the significance of this point the first time I read it and it needs to be repeated, apparently often......

[Sigfried]

I guess that wasn't quite the story per Belthazor. You have a subservient public and they have been pretty aggressive towards other nations historically.

Not especially compared with any other culture. Imperial Japan was more an anomaly than a constant theme. They have had historical wars with China and Korea. But what nation with a 1000+ year history doesn't have such events?

The fact is, Japan has the kind of low crime society that remains desired but elusive in America. And one result of that is they don't see much purpose for owning guns at home much less carrying them in public.

This is a false set of choices. Gun ownership has no correlation with a desire to live peacefully.

I disagree. Anyone who wishes to live a life of violence should probably get themselves a gun. It is a highly effective weapon. If you have no desire to engage in violence, then there are far fewer reasons to own a gun. What you should say is there is not a necessary cause between the two. But... there is a correlation. The people who die most from violence are gang members. Many gang members own firearms. This alone creates a strong correlation in the overall statistics.

This does not mean any given gun owner is violent. But, violence and guns (or any weapon) go hand in hand, that is what they were designed for after all.

Whether it be to defend one's home, to hunt, to collect, or for fear of the government, it is a fundamental right protected by our Constitution.

Indeed, and that attitude is part and parcel of why America cannot shake its high level of violence compared to other countries with a similar level of development and wealth. The idea that we need to be ready for violence makes us ready for violence.

And sure, our government is made up of Americans. And we don't trust them because we know that with enough power, most of us wouldn't be trustworthy and history defends this world view.

Yet the people that support gun ownership tend to be the same people that support the massive US military spending and dominance. And they tend to be the people that support militarised police and strict violent punishment for breaking social rules. If the belief is truly that power is inherently dangerous, why do they so often support the most violent apparatus of political power? I think this talk of corruption and the danger of power is just lip service. It doesn't comport with actual behavior.

What does is the belief that violence is the best tool to settle moral disagreement and so all agents must be ready and able to engage in violence at all times. If you truly distrust political power, don't give politicians political power or more importantly, the martial means to enforce that power. Why are these so-called small government people so rarely in favor of disarming the government? I find it especially foolish because they will never have enough martial power to actually oppose the government if it did become oppressive.

It is why we have set the confines of government and why we have a bill of rights.

Indeed, the rule of law. That people follow the law is what we trust. It is just a piece of paper ultimately. It is only the trust that people will obey what is written there that gives it any power at all. It is what we call rule of law. The government's job is to enforce and build upon it. If you don't trust them to some extent to follow the law then there is no law. Wisely, we structure power in balance so that it is difficult for any one person or any small group to control all the levers of power. But... with sufficient conspiracy, there is still nothing but paper between you and tyranny, and any personal firearm won't amount to jack squat when the police or military comes for you.

So it is faith in the law and faith in people charged to uphold it that is the foundation for society.

And I get it Sig. You have an almost childlike faith in government. And I don't mean that pejoratively. We have had similar discussion and you almost always defend those who are in govt and stand up for them. That's fine. It just isn't everyone's view.

You really don't get it. I don't have any special faith in Government. I see the government as just people who have power. There are all kinds of people with all kinds of power. I trust them all about the same. I have to have some trust or it would be most rational to kill them all or myself. That's no way to live. Trusting is a good way to live. It cannot be unlimited because people are not universally good. But you need to at least start from a position of trust and then move towards one of distrust when your trust is broken. Many people seem to think the Government is some alien entity, not like themselves. But the truth is it is just more of themselves. The same human strengths and failings. I only defend the government as being human and a natural extension of social organization. Some governments are mostly good, and some are mostly evil, and all of them are human.

Hence, I am glad we have a right to own guns.

And I don't really care if we do or not. But I think that many Americans who own guns do so for foolish reasons. Unfortunately, that makes them more dangerous fools.

Sure, IF other people do something better. I am not about to concede that the Japanese are a more peaceful people than we are because of their stance on private gun ownership.

Good, because THAT ISN'T MY ARGUMENT. How many times do I have to say this before it penetrates peoples brains? I will resort to all caps until people stop with this strawman.

My argument is.....
JAPANESE CULTURE IS MORE PEACEFUL AND TRUSTING AND THEREFORE THEY DON'T LIKE GUNS AS MUCH AS WE DO. IF WE HAD MORE TRUST WE WOULD HAVE FEWER GUNS AND LESS VIOLENCE.

They have launched multiple wars of outright imperialism within the last century.

So did Germany, Italy, China, Russia, and England. And in the past nearly all of Europe. And America had its own wars of expansion and conquest as well if farther back. But it doesn't matter because we are not talking about being pacifists, we are talking about social trust within a society. We are talking about using guns to murder one another, not to engage in war. We are discussing civilian gun ownership, civic violence, crime, and personal safety.

---------- Post added at 11:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:15 PM ----------

Most Americans that own guns DO live peacefully!
Since there is roughly one gun per person in America, if life here were the way you describe, murders by guns would be exponentially higher!

They are exponentially higher than in other countries where crime is very low. America's murder rate is 5.35 per 100K people. Japan's is 0.28 per 100K people. That's a hell of a lot lower, exponential in fact. Are guns to blame? No. American attitudes and culture are to blame. And that same culture loves guns.

Now if you could show disarming Americans would necessarily lead to a more peaceful/respectful society you would have a great point!

OK, you get the Caps treatment too. THAT IS NOT MY ARGUMENT. I NEVER ARGUED TAKING AWAY GUNS WOULD MAKE US PEACEFUL. I SAID IF WE WERE PEACEFUL WE WOULD NOT WANT SO MANY GUNS.

IOW, guns in and of themselves DO NOT cause violence, period!

Yes, I did say that, so WHY DO YOU KEEP ARGUING AS IF I SAID SOMETHING DIFFERENT?

[Belthazor]

Not especially compared with any other culture. Imperial Japan was more an anomaly than a constant theme. They have had historical wars with China and Korea.

GREAT (disappointing) misdirection (you know, trying to deflect a point rather than not being able to answer it) but Ibelsd's comment was to point out you are totally incorrect about how/when the Japanese restricted gun ownership. It was not because the US after WWII, as you said:
" Indeed we took the guns, they had been using them to wreak havoc on their neighbors and on us. Seems a reasonable thing to do. And it's worked pretty nicely ever since."

The fact is, Japan has the kind of low crime society that remains desired but elusive in America.

True, now if you could just tie that in with owning a gun makes a society more/less likely to commit a crime, you would have something.

I disagree. Anyone who wishes to live a life of violence should probably get themselves a gun. It is a highly effective weapon. If you have no desire to engage in violence, then there are far fewer reasons to own a gun.

Gun ownership does not correlate to violent behavior, you need to support this or STOP saying it because it is an unsupported claim!

This does not mean any given gun owner is violent. But, violence and guns (or any weapon) go hand in hand, that is what they were designed for after all.

You keep saying this, but have yet to support it at all!!
Please support that all guns/gun ownership was/were designed for violence against humans.

Yet the people that support gun ownership tend to be the same people that support the massive US military spending and dominance. And they tend to be the people that support militarised police and strict violent punishment for breaking social rules.

Support this if you can, with MORE than an emotional response. Your entire post is one HUGE EMOTIONAL response!

They are exponentially higher than in other countries where crime is very low. America's murder rate is 5.35 per 100K people. Japan's is 0.28 per 100K people. That's a hell of a lot lower, exponential in fact. Are guns to blame? No. American attitudes and culture are to blame. And that same culture loves guns.

You will note that the US is actually in the middle of the murder rate worldwide and we have MORE GUNS THAN AYNONE!!!!!! :O (a little levity there, please don't jump on my subtle attempt at humor):
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/...y-country.html

and once again, most murder/violence does NOT INVOLVE A GUN!
(since you like caps when a point is thought to be ignored)

Also, if you care to take just a few cities out of the equation, the US murder rate drops like a rock, though you won't want ot discuss that since those cities are bastions of liberalism....
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/...y-country.html

OK, you get the Caps treatment too. THAT IS NOT MY ARGUMENT. I NEVER ARGUED TAKING AWAY GUNS WOULD MAKE US PEACEFUL. I SAID IF WE WERE PEACEFUL WE WOULD NOT WANT SO MANY GUNS.

Well this is an Op about "taking away guns"/restricting gun ownership, so if you "NEVER" argued about that you are spamming the thread aren't you?

But to your OVERSTATED APPEAL TO EMOTION INSTEAD OF SUPPORTING YOUR ARGUMENT!!!....
Well, to have an argument you need support of some kind or it is just your emotional opinion isn't it?....

So (per you);
1. Taking guns away/limiting ownership would not necessarily make a more peaceful society
2. Guns are not a cause of violence

And (per me)
1. Most violence does NOT INVOLVE A GUN! Can you understand this? I gave you recent stat's that show this is true.
2. If limiting gun ownership does not necessarily lower violence then what is the motive to take ownership away?
3. You have not in any way supported that guns were made and owned PRIMARILY for violence against other humans!
4. There is virtually one gun per person in the US, if the primary reason to own one was for violence against humans, guns would vastly outweigh other tools of violence. MOST violence does not involve a GUN!

Yes, I did say that, so WHY DO YOU KEEP ARGUING AS IF I SAID SOMETHING DIFFERENT?

Because this is an Op about limiting gun ownership and your emotional outburst show you think that a peaceful society would not/could not own guns is naïve since you have already acknowledged there are many, many reasons one might own a gun that don't involve violence against another human.


So.....

maybe put your caps lock away for at least a bit,...take a walk (no coffee for god's sake!!!), think about what you are trying to argue, make your point and THEN:

support it with more than emotion!.....

Can you do that?

[Sigfried]

Before I start, read your own post and see how many times you make personal rhetorical attacks on me. I bet if I'd said them to you, you would find them offensive or evidence of my emotional state. So read it, imagine I'd said it to you, and think on it.

GREAT (disappointing) misdirection (you know, trying to deflect a point rather than not being able to answer it) but Ibelsd's comment was to point out you are totally incorrect about how/when the Japanese restricted gun ownership. It was not because the US after WWII, as you said:
" Indeed we took the guns, they had been using them to wreak havoc on their neighbors and on us. Seems a reasonable thing to do. And it's worked pretty nicely ever since."

1. We outlawed Japanese ownership guns and swords when we took over Japan, this is an established fact. (yes they have had restrictions on firearms in the past, but the current laws were put in place by the US)
2. We also outlawed them from using force for international disputes and maintaining a military capable of aggressive action, it is in their constitution at our insistence.
3. None of it matters to my argument in this thread. You two just bring it up because you want to say Japan is also violent. But war is not the topic of discussion here so just drop it.

True, now if you could just tie that in with owning a gun makes a society more/less likely to commit a crime, you would have something.

THAT IS NOT MY ARGUMENT

Gun ownership does not correlate to violent behavior, you need to support this or STOP saying it because it is an unsupported claim!

73% of US murders in 2016 were with guns. So being if you are a murderer you are much more likely to own a gun than not. (indeed we presume some who didn't use one may still have one but everyone who used one certainly did at the time of the murder)

The assertion is not that putting a gun in your hand makes you a killer, it is that if you are a killer, you will be most likely to want a gun in your hand. I think this point is so obvious that anyone can understand it. If you want to kill people, you want a good weapon to do it with. The best personal weapon is generally a gun. Killers like guns.

You keep saying this, but have yet to support it at all!!

I have no evidence that Guns and Violence are connected? What is a gun? It is a tool designed for killing things, usually people or animals. Killing things is violence. Guns and violence are intrinsically linked by the very purpose of a gun. It is a tool for violence.

This does not mean everyone who owns a gun uses it for violence or intends violence. But that is what a gun is, a weapon. and how do we define a weapon?

From Websters
Weapon: " something (such as a club, knife, or gun) used to injure, defeat, or destroy"
Violence: "the use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy"

Support this if you can, with MORE than an emotional response. Your entire post is one HUGE EMOTIONAL response!

I had no significant emotion other than frustration at the straw man that both of you keep putting forward and which I have to refute in nearly every post.

There is pretty poor data available on the views of the military by gun owners but there are some well-known facts we can consider.
1. The GOP is the political party most associated with gun rights, and the DEM party most associated with restricting gun rights
2. Presumably, most gun owners are in favor of the right to own their firearms.
3. The GOP is the party most in favor of expanded military spending and the DEM party most associated with restricting military budgets
4. The GOP is most associated with support for law enforcement and the DEMS most associated with reform of law enforcement

So we can say that at least the political allegiance of most gun rights advocates is the same as most of the strong military/police advocates.
Anecdotally I find that in argument gun rights activists are often strong supporters of the military and the police. (a little less with the police than the military but they tend to coincide)
If you dispute the facts of analysis, by all means, do so.

You will note that the US is actually in the middle of the murder rate worldwide and we have MORE GUNS THAN AYNONE!!!!!! :O (a little levity there, please don't jump on my subtle attempt at humor):
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/...y-country.html

Comparing impoverished Latin American and African nations to America and Japan is not a reasonable comparison for crime rates.

and once again, most murder/violence does NOT INVOLVE A GUN!

Most murders and homicides in America do according to FBI statistics.
Data from FBI: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s...ables/table-12

Also, if you care to take just a few cities out of the equation, the US murder rate drops like a rock, though you won't want ot discuss that since those cities are bastions of liberalism....

You quoted the murder rates by country again here so I don't know what data you are pointing to.
There are some very high murder rate cities, they are where there is strong gang activity, I discussed this earlier in case you forgot and linked an article about it.
The fact is, most of those murders were done by people with guns, they like guns. Guns are popular with people who want to do violence like gang members. People who like violence tend to end up dead more often than people who don't in civil society.
This only reinforces my argument that violent attitudes lead to higher rates of gun ownership.

Well this is an Op about "taking away guns"/restricting gun ownership, so if you "NEVER" argued about that you are spamming the thread aren't you?

We already discussed this. Talking about why we like guns is a perfectly reasonable topic. The thread title is "Gun control and your stance." I am explaining my stance. Seems pretty on topic to me. Don't want to discuss my stance? Don't respond to me.

But to your OVERSTATED APPEAL TO EMOTION INSTEAD OF SUPPORTING YOUR ARGUMENT!!!....

Where did I appeal to your emotion? I don't recall ever trying to stir up your feelings to change your mind.

You mistake making general observations with an emotional appeal. General observations are often made without citing some statistic. Citing statistics is not in and of itself a requirement for rational debate.

So (per you);
1. Taking guns away/limiting ownership would not necessarily make a more peaceful society
2. Guns are not a cause of violence

Sure, true... you should add...

1. A love of guns is reflective of social distrust and a penchant for revering violence.

And (per me)
1. Most violence does NOT INVOLVE A GUN! Can you understand this? I gave you recent stat's that show this is true.

If you are talking about killing people in America, you are wrong. If you are talking about including a punch in the face, then you are right, but it is irrelevant to the safety most folks feel or don't. Most people in America actually don't own a gun, but among murderers, the rate is pretty high.

2. If limiting gun ownership does not necessarily lower violence then what is the motive to take ownership away?

This would be me speculating on others since I don't advocate for taking away ownership.
They feel safer in a society where people agree not to have guns or other weapons of violence.

3. You have not in any way supported that guns were made and owned PRIMARILY for violence against other humans!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_firearm
This Wikipedia article gives examples of the worlds first guns. Shockingly, they are all weapons of war, you know for violence against other humans.
You yourself said that making a gun unable to kill people would take away its value to you, even if you were just a collector.
Most of the reasons people have for owning a gun involve violence against a person or an animal.
Guns are weapons, weapons do violence by definition.

4. There is virtually one gun per person in the US, if the primary reason to own one was for violence against humans, guns would vastly outweigh other tools of violence. MOST violence does not involve a GUN!

Yet they are not owned by every person. Indeed around half the guns in the US (owned by citizens) are owned by around 3% of the population. Nearly all those guns are owned for violence against people or animals.

Tell me why you own a gun, list each reason. I bet most of them are directly or indirectly a case where you would use it for violence.

Because this is an Op about limiting gun ownership and your emotional outburst show you think that a peaceful society would not/could not own guns is naïve since you have already acknowledged there are many, many reasons one might own a gun that doesn't involve violence against another human.

There is no emotional outburst. I am using CAPS when you fail at reading comprehension, not because I am angry. It is designed to make you pay attention when you are failing to pay attention. I'll continue to do it each time someone says that I have failed to prove that taking away guns will reduce violence.

[Belthazor]

Before I start, read your own post and see how many times you make personal rhetorical attacks on me. I bet if I'd said them to you, you would find them offensive or evidence of my emotional state. So read it, imagine I'd said it to you, and think on it.

My sincere apologies if I came off that way, it certainly was/is not my intention. AS ODN sunsets, I have no desire to be remembered as a troll in my last posts here.

I am going to PM ODN staff for an unbiased (or as close as we are going to get) opinion.
I will let you know their response if you like?

I won't respond to your post until I hear back from ODN staff.

hope your day goes well,
Belthazor

[Sigfried]

My sincere apologies if I came off that way, it certainly was/is not my intention. AS ODN sunsets, I have no desire to be remembered as a troll in my last posts here.

I'm not personally offended nor do I think you stepped over any boundaries on ODN, I just think you have turned from the topic to discuss me and my style of argument. No one on the staff will chide you for what you wrote.

I was talking to my wife about this thread. I just find it strange that I present my argument, which is unusual but not hard to grasp, and nearly all the responses are about something else. I get that my argument is not a direct refutation to your OP, but that doesn't mean you can't address it on its own merits instead of trying to steer it to be a rebuttal of your view.

[Ibelsd]

Not especially compared with any other culture. Imperial Japan was more an anomaly than a constant theme. They have had historical wars with China and Korea. But what nation with a 1000+ year history doesn't have such events?

The fact is, Japan has the kind of low crime society that remains desired but elusive in America. And one result of that is they don't see much purpose for owning guns at home much less carrying them in public.

So, per you. They have a low crime rate because they don't have a lot of guns and they don't have a lot of guns because they have a low crime rate. I don't know if the average Japanese citizen does not own a gun because he does not feel threatened by crime or because gun ownership in Japan has simply never been part of the culture. As for crime itself, Japanese has always had low crime rates. Again, living on an island with a homogeneous population probably explains many of the cultural differences. It should also be noted that Japan's justice system is very different than ours. They have no issue with compelling confessions. A suspect may be held for up to 27 days with minimal contact with a lawyer. And all I'm saying here is that there is an upside and a downside to Japanese culture as it relates to gun ownership. There is cultural aspects in Japan that differ with America's and that makes gun ownership a very different prospect.

My point is that the very things you admire about Japanese culture, such as their take on gun ownership, is part of a broader tapestry. If we didn't allow guns in the U.S. then we could expect a very different history (and future). Would we have been able to rise up and defeat the 20th century fascists? Would we have had the resolve to see the end of the U.S.S.R.? I can tell you one thing for sure. Japan and their no-gun culture certainly didn't help in these causes. Certainly not the former and, perhaps, minimally on the latter. Would a U.S. without guns and our brand of cowboy individualism achieved half the things we have done? And is there a downside? Sure. We have a high murder rate. We accept a higher level of violence in our entertainment. We have a sort of arrogance that sometimes exceeds our ability. No one is perfect. Nothing is perfect. There is no utopia. I'd love less violent crime here in America. However, some things are not worth the price of peace. Capitulating on our basic freedoms, rights, and responsibilities to allow us to protect ourselves isn't liberating.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. " - Franklin

Just hollow words by some old, dead, white guy? Yeah, sure. Maybe. But, I think more than you're willing to admit it suggests that every choice is one of trade-offs. What are you willing to give up?

[Belthazor]

I'm not personally offended nor do I think you stepped over any boundaries on ODN, I just think you have turned from the topic to discuss me and my style of argument. No one on the staff will chide you for what you wrote.

I have not heard back from ODN staff as yet, but considering your points here I thought I would respond to them at least, though, if you were not offended and you don't believe I have really said anything wrong I'm curious why it was such a big deal in post #205?

I was talking to my wife about this thread. I just find it strange that I present my argument, which is unusual but not hard to grasp, and nearly all the responses are about something else. I get that my argument is not a direct refutation to your OP, but that doesn't mean you can't address it on its own merits instead of trying to steer it to be a rebuttal of your view.

I like this part of your response!

Would it surprise you that I feel exactly the same way?
1. I thought I had addressed your argument more than adequately enough to refute it (with respect to the Op).
2. You (seem to) blow off the rest of my points because they don't directly address your argument.

[Sigfried]

I have not heard back from ODN staff as yet, but considering your points here I thought I would respond to them at least, though, if you were not offended and you don't believe I have really said anything wrong I'm curious why it was such a big deal in post #205?

It's not a big deal, but I did think it was worth mentioning. I like to keep the discussion focused on the arguments and I thought you were veering into just critiquing me instead.

I like this part of your response!

Would it surprise you that I feel exactly the same way?

Not necessarily.

1. I thought I had addressed your argument more than adequately enough to refute it (with respect to the Op).

I don't think so, but that's what argument is like. I wonder if you could paraphrase my argument successfully or not. I feel like you never really understood it.

2. You (seem to) blow off the rest of my points because they don't directly address your argument.

I think it is normal to blow off an argument that doesn't address what it is a rebuttal to. If I say the cake is delicious and you say cake makes you fat, it's not really a rebuttal of the claim. I just say, ya, it can make you fat, but my point is that it is delicious.

My point is that guns are popular in America partly due to social distrust and a penchance for violence. That if we had greater trust and greater abhorrence of personal violence, we would naturally move away from a gun culture. I think the anti-gun movement represents these values and it is why they oppose guns.

I reject the narrative that guns cause violence or that restricting them removes violence. I also reject the narrative that owning a gun makes society safer and more secure. They are both fantasies for the most part.

---------- Post added at 07:04 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:49 AM ----------

So, per you. They have a low crime rate because they don't have a lot of guns and they don't have a lot of guns because they have a low crime rate.

Man, you read, but how can you read me say something so many times and still not get it right? Here come the Caps again...

I DO NOT CLAIM THIS: "They have a low crime rate because they don't have a lot of guns" THIS IS NOT MY ARGUMENT - I DON'T THINK THIS IS TRUE

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS? REPEAT AFTER ME: Sig is not arguing that removing guns removes violent crime! Sig is not advocating for restricting gun rights.

Did you say it, do you understand it yet?

I don't know if the average Japanese citizen does not own a gun because he does not feel threatened by crime or because gun ownership in Japan has simply never been part of the culture.

I've talked to a number of Japanese people about it and I can tell you that there is indeed a strong sense that crime is very rare here and you don't need a gun to protect yourself, you just run away and call the police if you are in danger which is super rare.

As for crime itself, Japanese has always had low crime rates. Again, living on an island with a homogeneous population probably explains many of the cultural differences.

There are other countries with low crime rates that are not on Islands and some have rather diverse cultures. There are also homogenous populations with high crime rates and there are island nations with high crime rates. Homogenous populations do help build social trust, that much is true. I don't think being an island really helps any.

It should also be noted that Japan's justice system is very different than ours. They have no issue with compelling confessions. A suspect may be held for up to 27 days with minimal contact with a lawyer. And all I'm saying here is that there is an upside and a downside to Japanese culture as it relates to gun ownership. There is cultural aspects in Japan that differ with America's and that makes gun ownership a very different prospect.

How do you see those laws as impacting gun culture? I don't see why they are connected.

My point is that the very things you admire about Japanese culture, such as their take on gun ownership, is part of a broader tapestry.

Of course. I would not say otherwise.

If we didn't allow guns in the U.S. then we could expect a very different history (and future).

Since we don't have a time machine, I don't care about arguing that we should remove guns from America's history. We cannot affect history. I am only interested in the present and future state of America when it comes to government policy and cultural expression.

Would we have been able to rise up and defeat the 20th century fascists?

I don't think the Army in WWII was using civilian firearms.

Would we have had the resolve to see the end of the U.S.S.R.?

We didn't end the USSR, they did. We encouraged them, but I'm pretty sure US civilian gun ownership had nothing to do with that.

I can tell you one thing for sure. Japan and their no-gun culture certainly didn't help in these causes. Certainly not the former and, perhaps, minimally on the latter. Would a U.S. without guns and our brand of cowboy individualism achieved half the things we have done? And is there a downside? Sure. We have a high murder rate. We accept a higher level of violence in our entertainment. We have a sort of arrogance that sometimes exceeds our ability. No one is perfect. Nothing is perfect. There is no utopia. I'd love less violent crime here in America. However, some things are not worth the price of peace. Capitulating on our basic freedoms, rights, and responsibilities to allow us to protect ourselves isn't liberating.

How is having less violent crime capitulating our freedoms rights and responsibilities? Crime is a fundamental violation of peoples rights. Not committing crimes is a key civic responsibility.

But, I think more than you're willing to admit it suggests that every choice is one of trade-offs. What are you willing to give up?

Crime and violence, I'm happy to give them up. I can't give up guns, I don't own one, never have. I give up money, and I'm mostly happy to do that. I take some extra effort to be responsible and considerate. So, I guess I give up some lazyness and selfishness. What do you think I need to give up to live in a more peaceful society?

[Ibelsd]

Man, you read, but how can you read me say something so many times and still not get it right? Here come the Caps again...

I DO NOT CLAIM THIS: "They have a low crime rate because they don't have a lot of guns" THIS IS NOT MY ARGUMENT - I DON'T THINK THIS IS TRUE

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS? REPEAT AFTER ME: Sig is not arguing that removing guns removes violent crime! Sig is not advocating for restricting gun rights.

Did you say it, do you understand it yet?

Don't be an a-hole. It is certainly easier to yell at someone for not understanding than to make yourself easier to understand. If your argument isn't that less guns equals less crime for the Japanese, then I am not quite sure what your argument is. If you are not for restricting gun rights, then we agree??? We come on here once a day or every few days and try to pick up threads from days before and if the translations get lost or muddled, let's agree to be civil and work on the conversation.

I've talked to a number of Japanese people about it and I can tell you that there is indeed a strong sense that crime is very rare here and you don't need a gun to protect yourself, you just run away and call the police if you are in danger which is super rare.



There are other countries with low crime rates that are not on Islands and some have rather diverse cultures. There are also homogenous populations with high crime rates and there are island nations with high crime rates. Homogenous populations do help build social trust, that much is true. I don't think being an island really helps any.



How do you see those laws as impacting gun culture? I don't see why they are connected.



Of course. I would not say otherwise.



Since we don't have a time machine, I don't care about arguing that we should remove guns from America's history. We cannot affect history. I am only interested in the present and future state of America when it comes to government policy and cultural expression.



I don't think the Army in WWII was using civilian firearms.



We didn't end the USSR, they did. We encouraged them, but I'm pretty sure US civilian gun ownership had nothing to do with that.



How is having less violent crime capitulating our freedoms rights and responsibilities? Crime is a fundamental violation of peoples rights. Not committing crimes is a key civic responsibility.



Crime and violence, I'm happy to give them up. I can't give up guns, I don't own one, never have. I give up money, and I'm mostly happy to do that. I take some extra effort to be responsible and considerate. So, I guess I give up some lazyness and selfishness. What do you think I need to give up to live in a more peaceful society?

My point isn't that gun laws would have changed the outcome of WWII or other historical events. My point is that the same culture which has created the U.S. and our history which includes things like stopping the fascists of the 20th century is the same culture which makes guns culturally important to us today. I think you are simply wishing our culture from a crime perspective was more like Japan's. What I am claiming is that if our culture was more like theirs, would we have done the incredible things we have done? The good comes with the bad.

[Belthazor]

Man, you read, but how can you read me say something so many times and still not get it right? Here come the Caps again...

I DO NOT CLAIM THIS: "They have a low crime rate because they don't have a lot of guns" THIS IS NOT MY ARGUMENT - I DON'T THINK THIS IS TRUE

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS? REPEAT AFTER ME: Sig is not arguing that removing guns removes violent crime! Sig is not advocating for restricting gun rights.

Did you say it, do you understand it yet?

@ Sig, I know you said this to Ibelsd, but just to make sure I understand, for the record, Sig says:

"take away American peoples guns and America would be a safe place like Japan"

How did I do


Sorry, that odd Belthazor sense of humor showing yet again....

I did hear back from Squatch so I will be responding to you shortly, I just don't have time tonight but couldn't resist poking you. I like humor in argumentation, keeps it light

---------- Post added at 07:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:06 PM ----------

Don't be an a-hole. It is certainly easier to yell at someone for not understanding than to make yourself easier to understand. If your argument isn't that less guns equals less crime for the Japanese, then I am not quite sure what your argument is. If you are not for restricting gun rights, then we agree??? We come on here once a day or every few days and try to pick up threads from days before and if the translations get lost or muddled, let's agree to be civil and work on the conversation.

You are, I suppose a bit clearer and more to the point than I on this topic, and my girlfriend says I am "BRUTALLY HONEST!!!". I have spoken to this attitude in the past though not quite as forcefully. I think we all suffer (to one degree or another depending on subject matter)/and can learn from this comment of yours.

[Ibelsd]

You are, I suppose a bit clearer and more to the point than I on this topic, and my girlfriend says I am "BRUTALLY HONEST!!!". I have spoken to this attitude in the past though not quite as forcefully. I think we all suffer (to one degree or another depending on subject matter)/and can learn from this comment of yours.

It is all of us. I am certainly not holier than anyone else on here. We have all gotten frustrated and lashed out. I'm working to be better.

[Belthazor]

It is all of us. I am certainly not holier than anyone else on here. We have all gotten frustrated and lashed out. I'm working to be better.

I wasn't attacking your response, I thought it was reasonable in context and a great point overall

---------- Post added at 05:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:21 PM ----------

It's not a big deal, but I did think it was worth mentioning. I like to keep the discussion focused on the arguments and I thought you were veering into just critiquing me instead.

Agreed, many threads go where they shouldn't and though I am guilty of it too, I don't agree in this case which is why I wanted to PM staff before responding to you. You asked me to think seriously about it and I did.
I will quote you the response if you like, but basically ODN staff didn't see, as you say "my focus on you instead of the topic at hand".

So, that resolved I won't mention it again.

---------- Post added at 05:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:36 PM ----------

My point is that guns are popular in America partly due to social distrust and a penchance for violence. That if we had greater trust and greater abhorrence of personal violence, we would naturally move away from a gun culture. I think the anti-gun movement represents these values and it is why they oppose guns.

Ok, I will go for "partly", though it is impossible to know how large a % of gun owners feel this way nor their overall affect on the level of violence.
Again though, since we have already agreed of many reasons to own a gun that don't include an intent to do violence against humans, please support that all societies that have a "greater trust and greater abhorrence of violence" (than America) would "move away" from personal gun ownership.

I reject the narrative that guns cause violence or that restricting them removes violence. I also reject the narrative that owning a gun makes society safer and more secure. They are both fantasies for the most part

AGREED!
Cool beans baby, we are on a roll here, but I'm running out of time tonight...

I DO NOT CLAIM THIS: "They have a low crime rate because they don't have a lot of guns" THIS IS NOT MY ARGUMENT - I DON'T THINK THIS IS TRUE

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS? REPEAT AFTER ME: Sig is not arguing that removing guns removes violent crime! Sig is not advocating for restricting gun rights.

Outstanding, agreed again!

[Sigfried]

Don't be an a-hole. It is certainly easier to yell at someone for not understanding than to make yourself easier to understand.

Bro, I've had to repeat this about 9 times in this thread so far. I've said it plainly to you at least 3 times. I'll keep doing it in caps as long as you guys keep using the same straw man. My argument is not hard to understand, but you are so used to arguing against that other position you don't take time to read and actually think about my posts. The bottom line is.

If you don't want me to "Yell" stop making that same mistake over and over again.

If your argument isn't that less guns equals less crime for the Japanese, then I am not quite sure what your argument is.

Honestly man, I've repeated it over and over in my posts, here it is again for you.

My point is that guns are popular in America partly due to social distrust and a penchant for violence. That if we had greater trust and greater abhorrence of personal violence, we would naturally move away from a gun culture. I think the anti-gun movement represents these values and it is why they oppose guns.

If you are not for restricting gun rights, then we agree??? We come on here once a day or every few days and try to pick up threads from days before and if the translations get lost or muddled, let's agree to be civil and work on the conversation.

I am not for restricting gun rights. Not once in any post I made did I advocate for it or say I agreed with it. I've said more than once I'm not calling for it. Please, all I'm asking is that you read and think about my posts with more than a moment's thought. If you are tired and don't want to think, please don't argue with me. My #1 grip with ODN isn't that people aren't smart here, but they are super lazy in their arguments a lot of the time.

My point isn't that gun laws would have changed the outcome of WWII or other historical events. My point is that the same culture which has created the U.S. and our history which includes things like stopping the fascists of the 20th century is the same culture which makes guns culturally important to us today. I think you are simply wishing our culture from a crime perspective was more like Japan's. What I am claiming is that if our culture was more like theirs, would we have done the incredible things we have done? The good comes with the bad.

It's just wild conjecture on your part. You really don't know what would happen if our culture was different or history was different. It could be worse, it could be better. Unless you can make a compelling argument as to how and why it would be different in a specific way, then you are just blowing smoke rings in the wind here. I'm talking about how life could be better in the future, you are talking about using a time machine to change the past. Why should I care about such conjectures?

---------- Post added at 06:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:05 PM ----------

How did I do

Lovely. I feel like perhaps people are starting to actually listen and understand. Humor is all good with me.

---------- Post added at 06:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:09 PM ----------

Ok, I will go for "partly", though it is impossible to know how large a % of gun owners feel this way nor their overall affect on the level of violence.

Indeed, we can't know everything. But I can ask gun owners what they think, so I do this often. The primary reasons I get are as follows.

#1. To protect my family.
--This involves using the gun as a weapon to kill or intimidate others with the threat to kill them. It also represents a feeling that their family is in real danger, a product of living in a society where there is a real danger, and that danger comes from your fellow citizens who are willing to use violence to gain something they want. And, it represents distrust of others, thinking there are those who will use violence to get what they want.

#2. To protect my liberty against the government
--This also involves using the gun as a weapon to kill or intimidate others with the threat to kill them. It represents a distrust of the people elected into office and the distrust of the people that elected those people and a distrust of the people tasked to carry out government orders.

#3. To go hunting
--This one is not about social mistrust, it is still about violence, but its violence I don't much care about. I do know hunters, but I've never known anyone to use this argument as the reason they need to have their gun rights protected while arguing with me.

#4. Target shooting and recreation
--While this does not involve violence, such recreation developed from the need to practice using a weapon. And most such recreation is a simulation of shooting people or animals etc... I've got nothing against role-play and fantasy. But, you don't need real guns to do this unless you want to prepare for using real guns in the kinds of situations they are designed for, aka killing people and animals.

Again though, since we have already agreed of many reasons to own a gun that don't include an intent to do violence against humans.

I did not agree with that. There are some, mostly hunting and recreation that don't. But these are not the passionate arguments I generally get from gun advocates. They mostly talk about protecting their family of securing liberty against the government. Both of those activities involve violence against humans. These are not what people actually use their guns for. Most guns just sit around in someones home and aren't used for anything but making them feel safer, but the reason they make people feel safe is their capacity to kill others easily.

Please support that all societies that have a "greater trust and greater abhorrence of violence" (than America) would "move away" from personal gun ownership.

Here are the top 5 developed and populous countries with a low murder rates. (rating is privately owned guns per 100 citizens)
Singapore - (.3) Toughest gun laws on earth pretty much
Bahrain (12.8) Strict registration laws, tracking laws, and licensing laws, not a protected right.
Norway (28.8) Licencing and registration for all guns, you need a permit stating the intended use, many restrictions on type of weapon, firepower, ammunition capacity, guns must be locked up, inspections of gun storage are allowed by the police
Hong Kong (3.6) Among the strictest laws in the world for guns. Licensed dealers and owners only. Registration and tracking. Harsh penalties etc...
Switzerland (27.6) They love guns, they own guns in large numbers, but like Norway, it is strictly regulated with many limits on the type of gun, full registration and licensing laws, etc...

US (120.5) - We protect the right to have a gun in our constitution and fight vigerously against most limitations, registrations, licensing and so on. We have one of the highest murder rates in the developed world.

All the safest countries have strict gun laws. Some, without gun culture, mostly prohibit them. But, those with positive gun cultures do strongly regulate and limit them and focus on ownership for sporting purposes as the reason to own a firearm.

So I can't "prove" beyond all down that safe societies limit guns always, but I can say the safest societies we have all consistently have strong limits and requirements on gun ownership, while the most dangerous one doesn't.

These patterns break down in nations where you have less development. South America is a shithole for domestic violence. Africa is a mixed bag depending on what is going on politically in the country.
Brittain can show you a country that despite wanting to be more peaceful has had some real challenges achieving that. These kinds of cases show us that it's not gun regulation that is controlling crime. But, if you find a peaceful nation, you will find they have decided to put strong restrictions on weapons designed to kill in pretty well every case.

[Belthazor]

I did not agree with that. There are some, mostly hunting and recreation that don't.

Well the difference between "many reasons" and "some" reasons isn't significant for this thread.
I do agree with you though that "Most guns just sit around in someones home and aren't used for anything...". I would add most owners never want the opportunity to fire the gun at another human, so it isn't really like you are portraying guns, as primarily for violence against humans. That patently is not their basic/primary function

If you are including reasons like:
sentimental value (as in "that gun belonged to my Grandpa, we used to shoot targets together sometimes") and collectors in "recreation" fine.

---------- Post added at 04:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:36 PM ----------

I did not agree with that.

We did agree though that banning a particular weapon (the AR in the Op comes to mind....) isn't going to change the level of violence in America, Yes?

I recall a Dean Odell show where he had asked his young son:
"if I gave you the money could you go get me some cigarettes or alcohol?"
Son: "probably not"
Dean "how about marijuana or meth?"
Son "I'll be back in an hour, how much do you want?"

---------- Post added at 04:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:51 PM ----------

So I can't "prove" beyond all down that safe societies limit guns always, but I can say the safest societies we have

I can appreciate 6 current societies correlate to your idea, but as you and IBELSD agreed, gun ownership in these societies is part of an overall "tapestry", it is pretty hard to tease out just gun ownership as being a major force in the level of violence in those societies.

Especially since you do not agree "banning guns means lower violence".

Another interesting take on how stat's are "gathered":
http://memepoliceman.com/what-is-the...thout-chicago/

"The most useful metric in examining murders is intentional homicides per 100,000 people, as this corrects for population and includes different methods of murder (gun, knife, poison, etc.). The UN Office on Drugs and Crime publishes the definitive world list, most recently with their 2013 report. Since this formal report, many countries have been updated with more recent data from 2015,"

Using this method (as apposed to the ones Dem's and Rep's like to use) the result is:

"The US rate is 4.9, putting it way down the list at #94 (out of 219)."

Japan came in @ #118.

Add to this, guns are usually not the "Weapon of choice" for the majority of murders, domestic violence nor other forms violence.
(I know you have not promoted that they were, just sayin...)

[Sigfried]

I do agree with you though that "Most guns just sit around in someones home and aren't used for anything...". I would add most owners never want the opportunity to fire the gun at another human, so it isn't really like you are portraying guns, as primarily for violence against humans. That patently is not their basic/primary function.

If you have a gun for home defense against humans, then you have it to do violence against humans. That is pretty straight forward. It is not that you want to kill people, but you have the gun so that if you need to, you can. That still means you own it for the purpose of violence. There is no escaping that fact.

We did agree though that banning a particular weapon (the AR in the Op comes to mind....) isn't going to change the level of violence in America, Yes?

Not in a significant way, yes we agree on that.

I can appreciate 6 current societies correlate to your idea, but as you and IBELSD agreed, gun ownership in these societies is part of an overall "tapestry", it is pretty hard to tease out just gun ownership as being a major force in the level of violence in those societies.

Don't make me bust out the caps again. I'm not saying guns cause violence. They are not a major force for violence in these societies. I'm saying that violent societies really like guns, so a love of guns partly stems from a love of violence and if you reject violence you are more likely to reject guns. How many strict pacifists own guns? Not many. How many violent thugs own guns, lots.

Another interesting take on how stat's are "gathered":
http://memepoliceman.com/what-is-the...thout-chicago/

Dude, this says nothing about how stats are gathered, it is busting a ******** meme that says that those cities are responsible for most of the murders in the US. The article thoroughly debunks the meme on all its claims, that we are as high as it claims, and that those cities are primarily why we have a high murder rate. It doesn't do anything to dispute my claim or support anything you are arguing.

"The most useful metric in examining murders is intentional homicides per 100,000 people, as this corrects for population and includes different methods of murder (gun, knife, poison, etc.). The UN Office on Drugs and Crime publishes the definitive world list, most recently with their 2013 report. Since this formal report, many countries have been updated with more recent data from 2015,"

"The US rate is 4.9, putting it way down the list at #94 (out of 219)."
Japan came in @ #118.

Which is lower in homocide rate, but also, the article didn't do these statistics for Japan. If you go to the page they cite as their data source
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._homicide_rate
Then sort by homicide rate from largest to smallest...

America is #90 and Japan is #219, the second from the last country on the list that has any score. The others are tiny countries that basically have no murders in a given year. I don't see how this rebuts anything.

Add to this, guns are usually not the "Weapon of choice" for the majority of murders, domestic violence nor other forms violence.
(I know you have not promoted that they were, just sayin...)

In the US they are, and I did argue this in post #205. I posted FBI statistics that show that they are the most used weapon in murders. I'll post it again since apparently, you didn't bother to read it the first time.
Data from FBI: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s...ables/table-12

It's true that if you talk about assaults, it's not, but an assault can be me slapping someone at a bar. Of course, fistfights and the like will outnumber people trying to kill one another. It's not a meaningful comparison.

[Belthazor]

Dude, this says nothing about how stats are gathered, it is busting a ******** meme that says that those cities are responsible for most of the murders in the US. The article thoroughly debunks the meme on all its claims, that we are as high as it claims, and that those cities are primarily why we have a high murder rate.....

No kidding!
??
Now who is not listening?.....

---------- Post added at 09:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:45 PM ----------

Don't make me bust out the caps again.

Ok, I'll try to keep your panties from getting all waded up. Since you seem to prefer talking about your point/argument as apposed to the Op or other points so far, let's just discuss your point/argument exclusively for a moment.

---------- Post added at 10:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:53 PM ----------

My point is that guns are popular in America partly due to social distrust and a penchant for violence. That if we had greater trust and greater abhorrence of personal violence, we would naturally move away from a gun culture.

Fine, let's say I agree with your whole argument.
Now what do we do with this new found well of knowledge? How do we utilize it?
IOW, what is the logical conclusion if you are correct?

[Sigfried]

Ok, I'll try to keep your panties from getting all waded up.

I appreciate that Chinese silk is very expensive you know.

Fine, let's say I agree with your whole argument.
Now what do we do with this new found well of knowledge? How do we utilize it?
IOW, what is the logical conclusion if you are correct?

The logical conclusion is that if we want to address violence in America we need to look for ways to build social trust and create social rejection of violence.

I actually think this is already happening to some small extent. Things have changed a lot since I was a kid. But, America still has a long way to go. There are lots of things individuals can do.

1. Support political movements based on social trust and cooperation.
2. Try to grow in understanding of others and adopt social attitudes where we make accommodations for the well being of others.
3. Take very careful consideration of our use of weapons.
4. Try to draw strong lines between fantasy violence and real violence.
5. Create a replacement for toxic aggressive attitudes with more responsible masculine virtues.
6. Cont8nue to de-escalate the drug war
7. Find ways to give kids who join gangs something better to do with their lives
8. Be more mindful of mental health
9. Try to reduce the amount of stress in our daily lives
10. Learn how to develop more cooperative and less selfish interpersonal relationships.

Plenty more. Cultural change takes decades.

[Ibelsd]

It's just wild conjecture on your part. You really don't know what would happen if our culture was different or history was different. It could be worse, it could be better. Unless you can make a compelling argument as to how and why it would be different in a specific way, then you are just blowing smoke rings in the wind here. I'm talking about how life could be better in the future, you are talking about using a time machine to change the past. Why should I care about such conjectures?

This seems to be our real disagreement in this thread. I agree things could be worse and they could be better. We can't go back in time and retry world history under a different set of values. All I can do is state that factually America played a predominant role in the end of 20th century fascism. Now, if you are arguing that our culture played no part in our role historically, I think it is your argument to make, not mine. What I can say also factually say is that the same Japanese culture which you are wishing we'd more like directly participated in 20th century imperialism and fascism. They were on the fascist side. Now, I'm not trying to argue that I know how we'd be different and I am not trying to prognosticate. However, I think it is naïve to believe culture plays no role in how societies navigate through history. It seems obvious that if American culture was different then historical outcomes would be different as well.

In terms of whether changing our culture would make us better in the future, how do you know? If it is enough to alter the past in undefinable ways, then the future certainly isn't any less susceptible. You act like we don't learn lessons from the past. Like the past isn't intertwined with our future. Looking at cultures like Japan, would we become more susceptible to a dictatorship? Would we be more willing to accept fascism? Would we be more willing to make compromises on our other rights? I don't know the answer and neither do you.