attitude to guns

Use this board for general non-cycling-related chat, or to introduce yourself to the forum.
reohn2
Posts: 45158
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: attitude to guns

Post by reohn2 »

TC
Hoarders of toys can be described as collectors with a view to appreciating value of their collection,Hornby,Dinky and Corgi models are now worth a fortune if still in their box and not played with.Maybe in your uncle's case he was a shrewd collector,though maybe not,maybe he had a "problem" who knows.
Some "collectors" are a psychologist's dream case :? :wink:
I knew a chap who had almost thirty bikes stacked in his double garage,I only every say him ride three possibly four of them,the rest he tinkered with or were left covered in dust.I thought it criminal,he seemed to take delight owning them all,go figure,I couldn't :?

OTOH the gun hoards seem to be a paranoid person's wet dream of power come true,the display possibly being a warning to stay clear or else.
Whatever,it seems a very worrying state of affairs in a land of questionable balance and extremism......


EDIT:- I read a couple of years ago of a US Bible belt,Bible thumping chuch leader who'd saved all his toe and fingernail clippings throughout his life! :roll: :? :| or should that be :lol: :lol: :lol:
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
Psamathe
Posts: 17650
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: attitude to guns

Post by Psamathe »

I find it so disappointing that the country maybe the richest country in the world seems unable to recognise its own "issues".Despite being able to afford so many solutions (e.g. better education) instead is seems to pursue widespread madness. And it seems endemic to many areas of life there, not just guns but e.g. "the big lie", e.g. health. It has the money but seems unable or unmotivated to even recognise the problems - so disappointing and one must feel sorry for those impacted.

I can't begin to understand why such stupidity seems so widespread and so deeply engrained.

Ian
Ben@Forest
Posts: 3647
Joined: 28 Jan 2013, 5:58pm

Re: attitude to guns

Post by Ben@Forest »

Psamathe wrote: 13 Jun 2022, 9:41pm I find it so disappointing that the country maybe the richest country in the world seems unable to recognise its own "issues".Despite being able to afford so many solutions (e.g. better education) instead is seems to pursue widespread madness. And it seems endemic to many areas of life there, not just guns but e.g. "the big lie", e.g. health. It has the money but seems unable or unmotivated to even recognise the problems - so disappointing and one must feel sorry for those impacted.

I can't begin to understand why such stupidity seems so widespread and so deeply engrained.
Many Americans do recognise the issue, after the Ulvade shooting at least one article quoted research saying 52% of Americans think there needs to be some forms of gun control.

And every country has its blind spots - why won't Germany implement a mandatory speed limit on its Autobahns? They know excessive speed is by far the most frequent cause of fatal accidents but both Germans and lobbyists won't wear it. And the auto lobby campaigns hard against the lowering of speed limits anywhere, not just on motorways. Are the Germans stupid?
pwa
Posts: 17370
Joined: 2 Oct 2011, 8:55pm

Re: attitude to guns

Post by pwa »

Ben@Forest wrote: 14 Jun 2022, 7:31am
Psamathe wrote: 13 Jun 2022, 9:41pm I find it so disappointing that the country maybe the richest country in the world seems unable to recognise its own "issues".Despite being able to afford so many solutions (e.g. better education) instead is seems to pursue widespread madness. And it seems endemic to many areas of life there, not just guns but e.g. "the big lie", e.g. health. It has the money but seems unable or unmotivated to even recognise the problems - so disappointing and one must feel sorry for those impacted.

I can't begin to understand why such stupidity seems so widespread and so deeply engrained.
Many Americans do recognise the issue, after the Ulvade shooting at least one article quoted research saying 52% of Americans think there needs to be some forms of gun control.

And every country has its blind spots - why won't Germany implement a mandatory speed limit on its Autobahns? They know excessive speed is by far the most frequent cause of fatal accidents but both Germans and lobbyists won't wear it. And the auto lobby campaigns hard against the lowering of speed limits anywhere, not just on motorways. Are the Germans stupid?
The US has painted itself into a corner with their Constitution being seen as almost holy and infallible, so if it says you can have a gun, you can have a gun. It doesn't occur to them that their Constitution has a flaw.
Ben@Forest
Posts: 3647
Joined: 28 Jan 2013, 5:58pm

Re: attitude to guns

Post by Ben@Forest »

pwa wrote: 14 Jun 2022, 7:39am The US has painted itself into a corner with their Constitution being seen as almost holy and infallible, so if it says you can have a gun, you can have a gun. It doesn't occur to them that their Constitution has a flaw.
The right to bear arms is the Second Amendment to the Constitution. It can be amended. The Eighteenth Amendment brought in Prohibition (of alcohol) in 1919. It was repealed in its entirety in 1933.
Stradageek
Posts: 1657
Joined: 17 Jan 2011, 1:07pm

Re: attitude to guns

Post by Stradageek »

I think the mistake is to regard America as a democracy, in common with the UK it is actually ruled by the rich and (therefore) powerful.

The gun lobby is VERY rich and influential (supporting most Republican Senators) and as an ex gun manufacturer CEO recently stated "mass shootings are great for business - it encourages even more people to buy guns".

Having just read (some of) Robin Aitken's book 'Can we trust the BBC' made me ponder a major flaw with democracy. Aitken argues that the BBC is baised because it does not always tout the majority view.

Surely a key role of government is to do what is right rather than what is popular?

The problem is that convincing a population that something is 'right' is a long term project, not achievable in a 4 or 5 year term of office with a minority, self interested government. Once again look at what Finland has achieved with 100 years of PR and coalition governments, Finns now see that progressive, high taxation, benefits the whole of society making it regularly the 'happiest' place to live.
Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 20700
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: attitude to guns

Post by Vorpal »

Psamathe wrote: 13 Jun 2022, 9:41pm I find it so disappointing that the country maybe the richest country in the world seems unable to recognise its own "issues".Despite being able to afford so many solutions (e.g. better education) instead is seems to pursue widespread madness. And it seems endemic to many areas of life there, not just guns but e.g. "the big lie", e.g. health. It has the money but seems unable or unmotivated to even recognise the problems - so disappointing and one must feel sorry for those impacted.

I can't begin to understand why such stupidity seems so widespread and so deeply engrained.

Ian
Many US Americans recognise the problems and would like to do something about them. I assure you that for the most part, the problem is not stupidity, but the political system. The US is a flawed democracy. Increasing restrictions on voting rights, gerrymandering, and corporate money in politics make it difficult for any significant reform to occur. Lots of surveys show us that a majority of US Americans favour some sort of universal health care coverage, gun control reform, etc.

The other part of it is disinformation. Children are indoctrinated in schools from a very young age about how the USA is the greatest country, about how it is based upon freedom, etc., etc. They teach capitalism & free market economics in school. They teach kids that the government does not have any responsibility for health care. Many of the things that Europeans consider as basic human rights are taught as individual responsibility in the USA, and this informs public attitudes about many things. Then, the capitalist system ensures that relatively few people have the money or holiday time to travel elsewhere, and those that do, are mostly well enough off that they have no desire to change the system that made them well off.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: attitude to guns

Post by thirdcrank »

As I posted higher up
thirdcrank wrote: 3 Jun 2022, 10:45am I'm amazed that anybody living on the mainland of GB would even bother with the broad argument that the way to deal with gun crime is more guns. IMO, the big difference between here and the US is that Americans - or an influential number of Americans - are socialised into believing that argument and we Brits can only pity them over this.

IMO the more strongly the authorities bear down on firearms the better.
User avatar
Cugel
Posts: 5430
Joined: 13 Nov 2017, 11:14am

Re: attitude to guns

Post by Cugel »

Vorpal wrote: 14 Jun 2022, 8:33am
Psamathe wrote: 13 Jun 2022, 9:41pm (snip)
I can't begin to understand why such stupidity seems so widespread and so deeply engrained.

Ian
Many US Americans recognise the problems and would like to do something about them. I assure you that for the most part, the problem is not stupidity, but the political system. The US is a flawed democracy. (snip)

The other part of it is disinformation. Children are indoctrinated in schools from a very young age about how the USA is the greatest country, (snip)
This does beg the question: if the wider population want to change policies and associated laws in what is just a "flawed" democracy why doesn't it happen? You supply some answers - power imbalances/lobbying; disinformation/indoctrination. A wider answer might be that the political system is not a democracy at all and never has been in any meaningful way. As you mention, gerrymandering and other mechanisms leveraging the prejudices & fears of the indoctrinated are the norm - and although the Republicans are bringing such mechanisms to new heights (or is it lows) of mendacity, the Democrats are not exactly free of these things, if one looks at the history of their machinations over the decades.

At some stage of any analysis of US politics, it seems appropriate to ask if there is, in fact, any elements of democracy or whether the political system is not so much "flawed" but something entirely different - a particular form of totalitarianism. As with other forms of totalitarianism, there is a "glamour" of democratic presentation applied but that's all it is - an obscuring pretty cover on what's really going on and, in the case of the US and the UK, always has done. Large power groups determine all policies and events, with the wider population having (sometimes) bit parts of a kind perhaps best described as "pawns".

Some will argue that it must still be a democracy because there's a chance that a particular voting event will make a difference by selecting one sort of candidate rather than another. Biden won, not Trump, for example. But has this really improved the lot of vast numbers of Americans? Would it do so even if Biden had a workable majority that allowed significant changes to policies and legislation? Despite the wishful thinking and hopes expressed by various partisan media channels, the behaviour of the US looks like the same old same-old really. Large & powerful lobby groups rule .... or is that too sceptical a view?

*************
It doesn't seem very different here in Britain. We keep on with the same old system that often allows a minority of voters to dictate the governing party, which parties tend to represent a tiny number of powerful people rather than any national interest (i.e. the fundamental interests of all citizens, to survive and prosper). The system is largely maintained via media organs that employ disinformation and indoctrination, about which we do nothing to bring them to account.

The UK Parliamentary system looks different in form from the US system but, at bottom, neither are representative of the wider or fundamental interests of any sort of informed majority, except perhaps by accident when some larger events stimulate the conscience (such as it is) of politicians, suddenly presented by horrific events - often the result of their own previous skulduggeries and bad acts. Post WWII governments, for example. But they soon revert to type.

Cugel
“Practical men who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence are usually the slaves of some defunct economist”.
John Maynard Keynes
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: attitude to guns

Post by thirdcrank »

I see the US Supreme Court has reaffirmed a literal reading of the US Constitution with regard to the right to bear arms.

Apart for the firearms implications, this seems to illustrate the effects of chances of fate (there must be a better expression.)

What I mean is that if a presidential term coincides with the deaths of several members of the SC, by replacing them with relatively young people, they can influence the court's decisions for decades. It's hard to believe that the Founding Fathers intended this.
Psamathe
Posts: 17650
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: attitude to guns

Post by Psamathe »

thirdcrank wrote: 24 Jun 2022, 9:48am I see the US Supreme Court has reaffirmed a literal reading of the US Constitution with regard to the right to bear arms.

Apart for the firearms implications, this seems to illustrate the effects of chances of fate (there must be a better expression.)

What I mean is that if a presidential term coincides with the deaths of several members of the SC, by replacing them with relatively young people, they can influence the court's decisions for decades. It's hard to believe that the Founding Fathers intended this.
Or just "pack" the Supreme Court. Congress sets the number of justices sitting in the supreme Court not the Constitution.

Ian
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: attitude to guns

Post by thirdcrank »

I didn't know that. I see the current law says
The Supreme Court of the United States shall consist of a Chief Justice of the United States and eight associate justices, any six of whom shall constitute a quorum.
https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-28-j ... t%20%C2%BB

I see that the relevant main legislation is the Judiciary Act 1789 - hardly recent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_Act_of_1789

That implies to me that while it might theoretically be possible to legislate to alter the size of the court, it's unlike our House of Lords whose size is pretty much decided by the current PM (I do know that our Supreme Court is now independent of the HoL)
Psamathe
Posts: 17650
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: attitude to guns

Post by Psamathe »

thirdcrank wrote: 24 Jun 2022, 11:15am I didn't know that. I see the current law says
The Supreme Court of the United States shall consist of a Chief Justice of the United States and eight associate justices, any six of whom shall constitute a quorum.
https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-28-j ... t%20%C2%BB

I see that the relevant main legislation is the Judiciary Act 1789 - hardly recent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_Act_of_1789

That implies to me that while it might theoretically be possible to legislate to alter the size of the court, it's unlike our House of Lords whose size is pretty much decided by the current PM (I do know that our Supreme Court is now independent of the HoL)
The court size has changed through time. at times as few as 6 at times as many as 10, currently up to 9. Most recent change in 1869. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_C ... _the_court

However, my own (uninformed) personal opinion is that the court seems to be enacting it's Republican bias (gun laws, abortion and likely more) maybe makes an attempt at packing more likely (not just one judgement against the wishes of the President)? That said the last packing attempt failed (by Roosevelt and failing due to his own Democrat Party).

Ian
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: attitude to guns

Post by thirdcrank »

So much of my probably outdated knowledge of US politics comes from memories of Letter from America. I see it's now some eighteen years since Alistair Cooke left the programme just before his death.

A big thing I remember from his stuff about FDR was that the Congress legislated to restrict presidents to two terms after his four-term presidency.

If it's 150 years since the last change in the constitution of the US Supreme Court, I wouldn't see that as evidence of an imminent upheaval
AlanD
Posts: 1733
Joined: 27 Mar 2008, 1:29pm
Location: South Oxfordshire

Re: attitude to guns

Post by AlanD »

Every time I hear of yet another shooting massacre, it makes me feel so saddened for this situation in the US of A.
There are three snippets that I saw that I would like to share:
Some Republican (don’t know who) said “Jesus couldn’t save himself because he didn’t have enough guns”
Someone posted a question on Quora. He was coming to the UK on a work assignment and wanted to know if he could bring his AK47 for his personal protection.
I think it’s ironic that US statesmen can vote to withdraw a woman’s right to abortion; yet they cannot rescind the right to bear arms.
The sad truth is that they are so in love with their guns and their rights, that I don’t think they can ever get rid of them. But then, what do you expect from a nation that was formed in conflict, with people escaping persecution and suffering; it’s too deeply ingrained in their national psyche.
Post Reply