Side story on the recent gun spree

[J Wolfsberger]

John W. posted:

Yes in historical terms the USA has taken its own course, influenced by the waves of European migration and deciding on self-determination. I am not a sociologist, but you can make a valid argument the USA has ended up with just a stratified social structure, not with kings and queens, as Western Europe.

It is that the argument and viewpoint on weapons possession as being a means of popular, public 'self defense' against elite government is from "across the water" difficult to accept. There are limits to 'self defense' and having weapons, those limits appear strange and do not fulfil defence rather increase the chances of harm. If the American public are willing to have that, then incidents like Newtown will happen.

(Emphasis added.)

Of course, because different cultures and societies find different ways to accomplish certain goals. Which is why your statement "What I do find perplexing about American attitudes is that some additional weapons control is clearly needed, ..." doesn't carry the same connotation as it would coming from a U.S. citizen. You aren't an American, and viewing the situation from a different country, with limited information on the foreign country, and a perspective shaped by your own culture and society, you assume that the answer is obvious - more gun control. It isn't the obvious answer to most Americans.

The same statement made by an American politician (or activist) is an attempt to rhetorically seize the moral high ground in order to foreclose any debate.

To many Americans, the proposals for gun control are nothing more than an attempt to capitalize on national grief in order to implement some first steps on the road to an outright ban. And we have all the "progressive" nations previously cited as examples of how that process works, as well as examples from our own states and municipalities.

To give just one example of why none of us believes that would work, ask yourself how we can prevent gun smuggling if we can't prevent drug smuggling, especially considering the considerable overlap in the customer base. When we talk about "only criminals will have guns," we are stating the eminently foreseeable consequence of the gun ban - and instead of hearing a reasoned, fact based response, we get snickers and sarcasm.

On top of which, no one on the gun control side has ever addressed the real elephant in the room: the perpetrators, and victims, of the overwhelming majority of gun violence come from minority communities. If you look at gun violence by race, and just at "white" gun violence, the numbers are actually better than almost all of Europe. But this aspect is not only completely ignored, any effort to bring it into the discussion is almost immediately branded and racist and shut down. (Someone needs to explain why I'm a racist for wanting Americans of African decent to be able to purchase the means to defend themselves, but that's definitely off topic.)

Bottom line, I have yet to hear or read any honest, open case for increased regulation on firearms.

[carl]

The felons, the losers, the hungry Irish, the African captives of war, a handful greedy guys intent on robbing natives early on, a couple of his/her majesty's servants from UK/France/Spain and a few fugitives make up the bulk of the immigrating ancestors of the modern U.S. population.


Almost nobody emigrated from Europe because of dissent with social structures which a young European of today would recognise.

All those felons and losers did pretty good over the years don't you think? A lot better than their betters who stayed behind, since those felons and losers had to save their betters from themselves 3, count 'em 3 times in the 20th Century. (Normally I hate bringing that up but sometimes it needs to be done.)

In any event, I think you are incorrect in your assertion. Many of the Jews came over here because they disliked pogroms, which could be considered a facet of the social structure. Many Germans came here because they didn't want to do compulsory military service, another facet of the social structure. And I believe most of the rest could be viewed as coming here to improve the economic positions of themselves and especially their children. They did that, quite spectacularly. You could view them as losers I guess, they probably viewed themselves as being held back in Europe (by the socio/economic structure perhaps) so they went someplace where they wouldn't be held back. Their judgment was pretty good I think, for felons and losers I mean.

[Fuchs]

All those felons and losers did pretty good over the years don't you think? A lot better than their betters who stayed behind, since those felons and losers had to save their betters from themselves 3, count 'em 3 times in the 20th Century. (Normally I hate bringing that up but sometimes it needs to be done.)

Seriously, hadn't you messed up the first one thee outcome would have been quite bearable and there would have been no 2nd time, much less a third.


BTW, I also have some cans ready to serve, only need to open them.

"The only thing approaching a unifying theme for this cataclysm we call “WW II” is the United States, THE major allied participant in the Pacific (think logistics all you commonwealth coalition guys that are thinking “what about us” as you read this) and the United States becomes the principal partner in the Western alliance which is handling, admittedly only 20-30% of the European War duties against the background of the massive Soviet-German war. I have written this before but will write it again, we say at CGSC that Overlord was simply a deception operation to support BAGRATION and the destruction of Army Group Center!

En Avant!

Dr. John T. Kuehn
CDR USN (ret)
Associate Professor of Military History
Adjunct Professor, Norwich University
CGSC Ft Leavenworth"

The Jews fit what I meant with the "fugitives" although I should have written "refugees".


I was taking aim at the U.S.-borne idea that Europeans left Europe and went to the U.S. to build a better country, without socialism and regulations and stuff. That's a modern myth.
Most left Europe in search of opportunities to get rich easily (by exploiting others, say natives) or because of economic distress (such as starving Irishmen). Rather few were religious or political refugees, and even while some were; Prussia was also a destination for such refugees (see the Huguenots).
Europeans also went to Africa and Latin America and Australia and Siberia in a quest for additional natural resources. This was simply a function of European societies being able to raise more children than being able to feed and clothe them as adults.

I've seen enough Americans use this myth (of Americans being supposedly the ones who left Europe in disagreement in order to build a superior nation) in a context of jingoism. I'm tired of this nonsense. Americans (from the U.S.) excuse too many stupid policies and society defects with a supposed exceptionalism and how their model is supposedly superior, damn the evidence.
Any policy that needs support by such a line of argument has a bad odour.

[carl]

Seriously, hadn't you messed up the first one thee outcome would have been quite bearable and there would have been no 2nd time, much less a third.

Ah. The good old "It your fault. What did you expect us to do?" argument, very popular amongst hoods. And I believe it was also popular amongst Euro pols in days gone by.

I was taking aim at the U.S.-borne idea that Europeans left Europe and went to the U.S. to build a better country, without socialism and regulations and stuff. That's a modern myth.

Most left because they didn't like life in Europe, kings, aristocrats, starvation, near starvation etc. They left and built a better country.

Most left Europe in search of opportunities to get rich easily (by exploiting others, say natives) or because of economic distress (such as starving Irishmen). Rather few were religious or political refugees, and even while some were; Prussia was also a destination for such refugees (see the Huguenots).

If by "to get rich easily" you mean being able to get ahead at all, something they evidently judged they couldn't do in Europe, you're right.

This was simply a function of European societies being able to raise more children than being able to feed and clothe them as adults.

That is a breezy way of saying those children would be locked in grinding poverty and starvation or near starvation throughout their lives. Good reason to leave I'd say.

I've seen enough Americans use this myth (of Americans being supposedly the ones who left Europe in disagreement in order to build a superior nation) in a context of jingoism. I'm tired of this nonsense. Americans (from the U.S.) excuse too many stupid policies and society defects with a supposed exceptionalism and how their model is supposedly superior, damn the evidence.
Any policy that needs support by such a line of argument has a bad odour.

Speaking for myself, I don't really care if Euros sniff and put their noses in the air when discussing things we Americans do. Our ancestors left Europe because they didn't like it there. They came here and made something better. Why should we care if the Euros they didn't like then don't like what we do now?

[Firn]

I think we get a little off the track here, even for a side story on the recent gun spree.

Still I offer a nice, pseudo-latin song about a little journey of a fellow countryman, sponsored by a royal house.

Quite a big part of the reason why so many Euros are now on the western side of the pond...

[slapout9]

Bloody shame they didn't actually check the history before they posted that. Or actually checked with historians as opposed to legal scholars.

Yes, I had some questions on accuracy myself and since you are one of our resident historians perhaps you could give your historical analysis on the subject?

[slapout9]

And for some additional insight when I was ambushed in my own front yard in 1999 the FULL ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN was in place and it did not do one damn thing to stop the attack. The attacker did what they will do in the future and that is just carry several guns because any criminal knows that the fastest reload and highest capacity magazine is another gun or several guns in my case. Absolutely fascinating how criminals and deranged people know this but policy makers with college degrees just cannot grasp the facts of violent situations so they just make stuff up in order to punish law a biding citizens and protect the criminals ability to conduct mayhem on an unarmed and uneducated public.

[Stan]

In the last 35 years of living abroad I have seen more examples of extreme patriotism (jingoism) abroad than I ever experienced in the military or United States.

It seems too easy for a European to adapt to American ideals for whatever the reasons and it is just as easy for someone like me to adapt to relatively simple gun-related lifestyle changes here in Europe.

The argument that European standardized gun laws are far more stringent than that of the USA is nonsense. I took the safety tests and met with all the local ordinances and still own and possess all the weapons I have owned since the early 70s. It took no longer to do so than it would have in Maryland. Not one time did someone ask me if I was on the verge of blowing a fuse, or was I crazy?

One can obtain a fully automatic AK in Europe faster than one can purchase a pathetic semi-auto AK in the States. It is pure Bravo Sierra to think that all these so-called EURO regs have made the world a safer place. If we are to spout stats to support our point of view, I recommend a few days with our units on this end of the globe.

BTW, it's also against the law to possess and employ explosives in most of the free world and most of the laws prohibiting that have really had an impact on that issue here in Europe !

[Steve Blair]

Yes, I had some questions on accuracy myself and since you are one of our resident historians perhaps you could give your historical analysis on the subject?

Many towns passed "no-carry" ordinances at various times, but simply passing such a regulation didn't mean that it would be enforced. Most of the Kansas cattle towns had these ordinances, but they were often only enforced during the off season as a way to raise revenue. There was also a reasonable amount of what might be called "wedding shooting" in some parts of the world that might get recorded as simple disturbing the peace as opposed to assault or something that a legal eagle would notice.

Seeing laws on the books isn't the same thing as seeing them enforced. It also ignores the social conditions that existed in many of those frontier towns. In the earlier days of the mining communities, banishment was a powerful threat that could be used to control or moderate violent behavior, and there was also the penchant of the local populace to string up those who got too carried away (granted this didn't happen all that often, but when it did word traveled fairly fast as the myth took on a life and weight of its own). Cattle towns in Kansas tended to be dominated by leftover passions from the Civil War (since most of the cattle ranchers were Texans), which led to sporadic outbreaks of violence (mainly during the late summer months when the herds were moving toward trailheads). In a number of cases, shootouts in Western towns can often be traced back to a local feud of some kind or another (think gang-bangers shooting it out for a prime street corner and you're close, but on a lower scale).

Checking your guns with a bartender or such had mixed results, obviously, and often the "do not carry" language didn't apply to men with reputations or quick tempers (most lawmen at this time were amateurs at best and weren't likely to press the point). Celebrities always get a pass, so some things haven't changed that much.

As for some of the other Bravo Sierra in the thread...let's just say that your perspective on many things tends to shift when any sort of emergency response time is measured in many minutes or over an hour. Also, I seem to recall reading about a spike in home invasions in Australia after they pushed through some of their more strict regulations.

As an aside, good to see you, Stan! Hope all's well.

[jmm99]

from Fuchs
The felons, the losers, the hungry Irish, the African captives of war, a handful greedy guys intent on robbing natives early on, a couple of his/her majesty's servants from UK/France/Spain and a few fugitives make up the bulk of the immigrating ancestors of the modern U.S. population.

Keep chucking your 50 mph fastballs at me, boyo.

Regards

Mike - the descendent of some felons convicted of treason and attainted with corruption of blood.

[carl]

And for some additional insight when I was ambushed in my own front yard in 1999 the FULL ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN was in place and it did not do one damn thing to stop the attack. The attacker did what they will do in the future and that is just carry several guns because any criminal knows that the fastest reload and highest capacity magazine is another gun or several guns in my case. Absolutely fascinating how criminals and deranged people know this but policy makers with college degrees just cannot grasp the facts of violent situations so they just make stuff up in order to punish law a biding citizens and protect the criminals ability to conduct mayhem on an unarmed and uneducated public.

Not only multiple weapons but multiple attackers. Home invasion crews in Chicago I read were crews, multiple attackers. And any home invader will have the element of surprise on their side. So a home owner unfortunate enough to be confronted by a home invasion is quite likely to face multiple attackers and have very little time to react. But then we are told that that a 10 round mag in that Glock will be just as good as that 17 round mag.

Those policy makers know perfectly well the facts of violent situations. But this is why I figure they act the way they do. In the very back of their well educated minds, where the thoughts they dare not express out loud dwell, they know that criminals can never be a political threat to them. Hoods are hoods and no matter how well armed they are, being hoods they will never be able to organize themselves well enough to pose a threat to their power.

Law abiding citizens on the other hand, can and do organize themselves such that they pose a threat to the political power of the elite policy makers. So if you are an elite policy maker interested in hanging on to power, naturally enough you don't really care that hoods are armed because they pose no real threat. But you are very interested that people who can pose a political threat be unarmed.

[jmm99]

Well, the Brits were to the east of British America, weren't they ?

Seriously, I ran into this article, How the British Gun Control Program Precipitated the American Revolution (by David B. Kopel, 6 Charleston Law Review 283, 2012) (50 pp.), and thought it was material to this thread:

Abstract:

This Article chronologically reviews the British gun control which precipitated the American Revolution: the 1774 import ban on firearms and gun powder; the 1774-75 confiscations of firearms and gun powder, from individuals and from local governments; and the use of violence to effectuate the confiscations. It was these events which changed a situation of rising political tension into a shooting war. Each of these British abuses provides insights into the scope of the modern Second Amendment.

From the events of 1774-75, we can discern that import restrictions or bans on firearms or ammunition are constitutionally suspect — at least if their purpose is to disarm the public, rather than for the normal purposes of import controls (e.g., raising tax revenue, or protecting domestic industry). We can discern that broad attempts to disarm the people of a town, or to render them defenseless, are anathema to the Second Amendment; such disarmament is what the British tried to impose, and what the Americans fought a war to ensure could never again happen in America. Similarly, gun licensing laws which have the purpose or effect of only allowing a minority of the people to keep and bear arms would be unconstitutional. Finally, we see that government violence, which should always be carefully constrained and controlled, should be especially discouraged when it is used to take firearms away from peaceable citizens. Use of the military for law enforcement is particularly odious to the principles upon which the American Revolution was based.

I thinking about that era, I found it an interesting question (for which, I've no ready answer) as to why the American Revolution had no traction in the rest of British America (e.g., Canada and the West Indies).

Regards

Mike

[Fuchs]

It's ridiculous how much many Americans read into guns. This goes way beyond rational needs, for all superficially rational arguments face an avalanche of contradicting evidence.

I considered guns as a fringe's weird hobby, and those who read very much in mere individual firearms as part of the ~5% crazy men every country has. I have to concede now; this group is either vastly bigger than 5% or extraordinarily loud.


If only these people could hear themselves with foreign ears, to hear the ridiculousness.


I suppose it's to be filed under "anecdotal evidence for the hypothesis that the U.S. is leaving Western civilisation".
Go on at this pace and the Europe will be less culturally in synch with the U.S. than with the Japanese and South Koreans long before 2030.

[jmm99]

I actually use you as something of a barometer for the eastern segment of "Western Civilization" - ah, the joys of being a "ridiculous" and "crazy" westerner.

That there is a gulf between Europe and the US should be no surprise to anyone. Thus, this might be an interesting idea for further exploration:

Go on at this pace and the Europe will be less culturally in synch with the U.S. than with the Japanese and South Koreans long before 2030.

if you intended to say that the US-Europe gap is likely to widen, and the US-Asian gap is likely to narrow by 2030 (your sentence as written is ambiguous).

Maybe I'll post something about the US-Europe gap in some other thread - and re: more limited subject matter in which I've some competence.

Since I have no fear of either a "Yellow" or a "Brown Peril", I am losing no sleep over closer ties to Latin America (an obvious given), and to Asia from India to Japan (a probable outcome).

Regards

Mike

[carl]

A fringe member, a weirdo and sounding ridiculous to them furriners. A three fer. It's a good day.

Oh yeah, and crazy too. An even better day.

[slapout9]

is what you get as this poor girl found out in Chicago. As the investigation continues LE believes she was shot with a REVOLVER not an assault weapon nor any kind of weapon with the so called high capacity magazines just a plain old six shooter in the control of a thug. THUGS kill people not gins and THUGS will always find a weapon. We need THUG control not gun control!


http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...n-chicago?lite

[Fuchs]

THUGS kill people not gins and THUGS will always find a weapon. We need THUG control not gun control!

You don't feel ashamed to simply parrot NRA talking points verbatim?

Don't you have higher standards, such as intending to contribute your own thoughts or even better, a selection of your best thoughts?

[slapout9]

You don't feel ashamed to simply parrot NRA talking points verbatim?

Don't you have higher standards, such as intending to contribute your own thoughts or even better, a selection of your best thoughts?

No I don't feel ashamed,I feel very proud to be an American where we understand the value of self defense as a right and as a personal responsibility instead of waiting for the Pseudo Euro-Trash government to save us. As to the NRA if those are the NRA talking points verbatim then they stole them from me because I have been saying that for a long, long time, but God bless them for saying it ,if they actually did and I freely give them my permission to continue using them. And yes the NRA is right about violent video games to!!!

[slapout9]

This is how I was taught to become self reliant as part of learning to become a good citizen back in the days when Real Americans accepted the responsibility for the difficult situations that everyone would face as part of life itself. Instead of falling for some left over pseudo commie euro trash philosophy.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQ6Ew...=results_video

[Fuchs]

(1) Self-defence is no responsibility, but a legitimate choice.
Inventing responsibilities which are none merely muddles the language and discourse.

(2) The video games bogeyman is but another example of the U.S. lagging behind Europe in society development by a decade or more. We've had this discussion long ago and for a long time. Fact is the video games haters have not been able to produce meaningful empirical analysis to back up their claims after complaining about video games for more than a decade. It's a classic bogeyman racket and by now most interested Europeans are aware of it.
(It's totally not surprisingly that the NRA picked it up as decoy to channel the outrage away from their pet guns.)

The 'violent video games are evil' racket is about as nonsensical and obsolete as the 'bio fuels' racket the Democrats are falling for.