Hard News: Awful in more than one way
256 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 7 8 9 10 11 Newer→ Last
-
there's 300 million -odd people in america, it's pretty hard to make gross generalisations about all of them
I agree entirely and I didn't think that I did. There's a segment of the blogosphere that does act exactly as Che says and that's whats the whole thread is about.
-
merc,
You're welcome, sometimes Godwin's have a place.
-
John Podhoretz provides some sanity about Virginia Tech from the Right Wing American punditocracy
-
hamishm you obviously support the terrorists and HATE freedom.
good quote from American Dad last night: "if I don't buy all this crap then the terrorists have won" -
No Mr. Walker, I support terroirism
and while not actually hating them, consider Freedom to be a less than adequate furniture store -
hehe, nice one. terroirism. those danmed french sophists. terrists, tourists, they're all the same!
Ikea about freedom. -
The thought of being a sitting duck and not being able to protect my family struck me pretty deep down, I really do think that it is a fundamental right, and in fact a duty to defend, and be able to defend yourself and your family against an aggressor. If you can’t or won’t do that, what the hell is the point of you? I know my wife would tell me to go to hell in an instant if I told her I wouldn’t or couldn’t defend her and our son against an intruder or attacker.
That worries me. It really does. I don't know you James, nor can I judge your life and feelings. You were there for the consequences of Katrina. I wasn't. And I do not live in the States. I choose not to. Just as you, for whatever reason, chose to. But I do not agree with you. I can think of numerous reasons why not, most of which other posters have already covered. But there is one thing about your statement that scared the crap out of me. You have a son. What the hell could you be thinking having a gun in your house? Are you skilled enough, that if someone breaks into your house, you could reach for that gun quickly enough, and in such a manner for the weapon to be effective in defending your family? What if the person in your house didn't have a gun, and you shot them? Are you prepared to live with the consequences of that? What if they had a gun and shot your child and wife? And what are you really protecting? I have to say, if someone breaks in my house, and I'm there, and I hear them coming, I would be out of there with my family, not sticking around for a gunfight. Jesus, if my husband were to buy a gun to protect me, I would be very, very angry. I have defended myself in some very scary situations in my life. I find running away and yelling swearwords very loudly works quite well. Thinking, I believe they call it. Mind you, that was against people who wanted to rape me, not use a gun against me. On second thoughts, maybe the running away would still have been a good idea. I don't know the answers, James, but I can pretty safely say that I am very glad not to be living where you are. To live in fear is not to live at all.
-
"The only thing we have to fear..... is fear itself"
-
Jackie,
A couple of quick points.
I don't live in fear, at all. I try to be prepared for situations that hopefully will never happen, but might. That is all.I lived here on NOLA, which has quite a bit of crime, without a gun quite happily for years. I am a reasonably strong guy and I could put up a fight and I could certainly jump out a window and run like hell to get away from a bad situation, and that was always my plan.
My change of mind came about from watching all the post Katrina chaos and looting and the breakdown of law and order and I realized that now I am married and have a son I can't just jump out a window or run, or if I try to fight someone and get stabbed or shot, then what happens to my wife and son?
If someone breaks into my house, I might be able to grab my wife and child and be able to get out, but I really doubt it and I don't intend to take the chance.
As far as my wife's views on the matter, she is from Venezuela, where it is pretty normal to have a gun in the house for exactly the same reason I bought one for, so she is fine with it. She grew up with her father having a gun in the house. In fact she wants me to get a smaller shot gun that she could use if she needed to. If she didn't want a gun in the house, post Katrina I would feel quite conflicted.
I took a gun safety course and went to a gun range to get used to the gun and I am comfortable that I could use it safely and effectively if I had to. I bought cartridges with finer pellets that won’t go through a wall so no one on the other side of a wall could get hurt if I ever used it.
I keep the gun tucked away where only I can get to it (quickly) for now, and I have looked into gun mount that is lockable but is very quick to release so when my son gets older so he can’t do anything with it.
A few years ago a good friend of mine, a good Mississippi boy, got a call from his wife (then girlfriend) who was freaked out one night because some people were acting really suspiciously in front of the house and she thought they might try to break in. Gene told her to go to the closet and get his shotgun, to go by the window above the front door and to "pump" the pump action, which makes that mean noise that always seems to carry a long way. Everyone knows, especially dodgy characters, what that noise means and the guys immediately ran like dogs which had been shot in the behind. End of problem.
That is why I bought a pump action shotgun and that is all I hope to ever have to use it for.
The gun thing over here is very different from what we have in NZ, and to most Kiwis, it looks just insane, and that is what I thought when I came here. Some of the "gun thing" has terrible consequences like VT, but some of it, like the example above are good, but never make it into the stats. There is no doubt at all that there is a real deterrent value in the knowledge that many houses have guns in them.
There are different ideas and different views about guns, but no perfect solution to this question. It sure as hell isn't perfect over here in the US and from talking with my family in NZ and reading about some of the awful violent crime committed in NZ, it sure as hell isn't perfect in NZ either.
-
Regarding WWII, the Americans only joined in when they were attacked. So it's not like they had a long-standing commitment to 'protecting freedom'.
They were keen to remain neutral, even as traditional allies of theirs like Britain were attacked.
I would also disagree about Torch being an important battle.
That said, the Americans did very well once they got involved, and agreeing to focus on the greater danger to the world, Nazi Germany, when it wasn't as much of a threat to America as Japan, was generous.
-
Just watched the O'Reilly sbow, Geraldo was on again. The point Geraldo raised was that the 2nd Ammendment's rights should apply to citizens only. So note to all you immigrants - get citizenship before you attempt to buy guns.
-
Oh, and when did Sky start broadcasting Fox News? Or was this last year's issue?
-
Ikea about freedom
Always with the Swedes!
As Conrad "Fingers" Black called them "Those smug socialists"
-
James,
Reading your response to Jackie, I can't help but feeling that you've made her point rather well. Much of your post, to me at least, indicates a culture of fear, barricaded behind your pump action shotgun.There is no doubt at all that there is a real deterrent value in the knowledge that many houses have guns in them.
There is also the idea, since, contrary to your earlier post, home invasions do happen in the US, that since the reasonable assumption has to be that you may well be armed, it makes more sense for the intruder to shoot you and rob you, rather than just rob you.
I take your earlier point, about regional and urban variation in homicide stats. You are correct... New Orleans, the biggest city in one of two most heavily armed states in the US (with Mississippi) has a much higher homicide rate than the US average...by a factor of ten, which puts it about 45 times higher than the NZ average I think. You're spot on...those guns work wonders.
-
When it comes to owning a gun for protection, it's a bit like utilitarianism.
If somebody owns a gun, they feel safer.
But if everybody has a gun, then overall we are less safe.So everybody acting in their own self-interest does not make us all better off.
-
It all seems rather too similar to the Nuclear Arms Race.
They've got a gun so I'll get me a gun. Now he's got a bigger gun that's easier to use, so I'll get me one too. Oh and another one for the missus just in case. And then as soon as juniors old enough to load, point and shoot we'll hook him up too, and his sis. Cos' god knows everybody else their age will be in line as well. And gran in the rest home ought to arm herself to the teeth because she sure as hell isn't strong enough to fight anybody off.
Better to blow somebodies brains out or get mine blown out than getting beaten up and robbed.
-
If people have faith in the safety of their society or police then I suspect gun ownership would be less of a big deal. The fervour of the gun lobby in the US has increased as the perception of danger has increased, but then oddly not decreased as crime rates fell.
Anyway, I sympathise with a farmer that lives far away from police or neihbours being armed. They know there is little chance anyone could help them if they needed it quickly. Not that we have a problem with farmers being attacked here though.
-
thanks for the answer, James - I do understand where you're coming from, I really do. I still, however, think it's about fear, and that's no way to live a life.
-
Jackie,
Pleased to provide some more background for you. I can quite see how it looks like living in fear, and in some cases in the US it is. If I lived in the 'hood with drug activity all around me, it would be about fear. America does have real problems in its society, no doubt about that.While some Americans are real gun enthusiasts, for me and many, many Americans, gun ownership is just a matter of being prepared for an event that you hope never happens. And my main concern is not so much a break in, but for another situation like post Katrina NOLA where law and order breaks down, and for some reason I couldn't evacuate. The Second Amendment is very important in those situations.
Simon,
As I have written repeatedly, most of the gun crime in NOLA in drug or gang related, it doesn't affect or threaten me. Also, no amount of gun control is going to keep guns out of the hands of those kinds of people.As for whether I live in fear or not, I think I am best placed to judge that, and I can tell you that I sleep very well and hardly ever think about being a victim of crime (except during discussions like these). One of the reasons I sleep well, is that I know I am prepared to deal with a bad situation, if one arose.
Tell me Simon, do you lock the door at night and make sure your windows are closed? If so you are obviously living in fear!! I don't know what Bali is like, but if you lived in NZ, Auckland especially, you would be mad if you didn't lock your doors and windows.
Does nasty gun crime only occur in the US? Maybe not.
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=041907DA leftie European's take on Anti Americanism, which is way beyond anything reasonable or justifiable these days. Most of those of us who live here, know that.
linkApologies to those who aren't interest in WWII, you have a couple of WWII nuts on the blog.
Simon,
Go back and read what I wrote. I did not say that the Yanks defeated Nazi Germany. I did say that if America hadn't existed or didn't get involved in WWII, Imperial Japan, which brought us such delights as the rape of Nanking would have had the Pacific as its very own lake, and either of Hitler's Third Reich with its Holocaust or Stalin's Soviet Union with its Gulags would have prevailed in Europe and Central Asia, and could have had any other real estate in the world it wanted, which in Stalin's case was everywhere.
Do you disagree with this analysis? If so, on what basis?Consider those facts and then take a moment to reflect on what the world would have been like over the last 60 years if it weren't for the Yanks. It is a pretty dreadful thought. It is also true that the Yanks kept the Soviets at bay for over 50 years after WWII.
All I am saying is that we should all keep these facts in mind when we think of America today. I am not suggesting that we should kowtow to or not criticize the Yanks at all, far from it; we should hold America to a higher standard. We shouldn't gloss over the mistakes America has made, but let's acknowledge reality and the tremendous good America has done in the world and of which we are all beneficiaries. If we could all do that, we would all be in a much more reasonable and balanced place.
-
James,
Tell me Simon, do you lock the door at night and make sure your windows are closed? If so you are obviously living in fear!! I don't know what Bali is like, but if you lived in NZ, Auckland especially, you would be mad if you didn't lock your doors and windows.
Honestly...in Bali no..my door is open every night. We have little crime and I've got two dogs. It's very safe. And in Auckland,whilst my door was locked, I didn't ever feel the need to put a pistol or a pump action shotgun in my house because the person who might break in would likely want to take my life. The only burglar I've ever confronted ran down the road when I yelled at him...no shoot out or threat of one, and for that I'm grateful. I don't want myself or my family to ever be in the position where one is likely, unlike you. You may not, as you say,live in fear, but you certainly live with that reality, otherwise you would not have purchased your gun.
Of course gun crime exists elsewhere, but in much of the world its the exception, or at least not as prevalent. In the USA 5000 children under 15 die from gunshot wounds every year...that total is more than every other nation in the developed world..combined. I'm glad you feel safe in your home, with your shotgun and I'm also just as happy that I don't need one. There is a difference even if you can't see it.
WW2...I think the point still eludes you James. Nobody is denying the US role in defeating either Japan or Germany..although you seem to be in denial to the fact that the Western Allies could not have defeated the Axis without the Soviets. Overlord was a diversion...it's role was to keep units tied up so the Soviets could come in from the East. It worked. But, I think we've been here before, no?
What does offend people is the idea, touted over and over again that "we saved your butts". Quite frankly non American troops died in much higher numbers than Americans, per capita (and sometimes in real terms), they threw more of their economies into the war effort (and unlike the US did not turn a profit) than Americans.I guess I just find the Hollywoodism of WW2 extremely annoying.
The US did not either single handedly "keep the Soviets at bay". NATO is and was an alliance. During the 1950s and 1960s US Military expenditure and troop levels generally accounted for about 40% of NATO, and whilst it's Commander was an American, it's Secretary has never been. The European allies also paid much of the cost of hosting US forces. And that was only fair since they'd benefited enormously from The Marshall Plan, although that was clearly as much strategic as it was generous and the enconomic benefit to the US was immense too.
It's fairly easy to argue that the US was as much of a provocateur in the Cold War as the Soviets, and certainly rebuffed many attempts to wind back the war, from the 50s onwards. And the past sixty years have seen more bad things than good in US foreign policy. But that is beside the point of this discussion.
but let's acknowledge reality and the tremendous good America has done in the world and of which we are all beneficiaries.
Who has tried to deny that? Certainly not me, I'm not sure what it has to do with this thread? I think you are confusing two issues......
-
simon:
What does offend people is the idea, touted over and over again that "we saved your butts".
i could not agree more. what has been pointed out to you a number of times james is that the usa did not enter the war to "save the world". it entered the war entirely out of self-interest.
the usa is happy to receive positive press about its role in any international fora, but is quick to point out the misnomer that it "won world war 2" whenever it is criticised. which is, quite frankly, a lie.
i.e. "why are are the french opposing us invading iraq! ungrateful bastards! we saved their slings in ww2".
so yes. i am happy to state that the pacific theatre was won by the americans. but a bald acceptance of that statement overlooks pivotal battles like the kokoda trail, the first major loss by the japanese on land. a campaign fought with american supplies, but by australian infantry.
by themselves neither of those two things would have won that crucial campaign in ww2. in effect, australia saved it's own arse, with a little help from an ally.
james:
let's acknowledge reality and the tremendous good America has done in the world and of which we are all beneficiaries.
no one in this thread is denying the positive role the usa can and does play in world affairs on occasion. but none of us are willing to be acquiescent in the face of gun-toting tennessee hicks telling us to "shut the fuck up" because of american self-interest in 1941.
which is how this ww2 conversation started.
-
When it comes to owning a gun for protection, it's a bit like utilitarianism.
If somebody owns a gun, they feel safer.
But if everybody has a gun, then overall we are less safe.
So everybody acting in their own self-interest does not make us all better off.Even though I'm not fond of utilitiarianism as an ethical theory, alas, that's not utilitarianism. It's more like egoism - everyone should act in their own best interests. Utilitarianism works on the idea of achieving the greatest good (whatever that might be) for the greatest number.
But a very nice point, whatever the label we stick on it.
-
I wonder if these folks are allowed guns......
-
They don't need guns, with minds as sophisticated as theirs (or so I assume, why else can they find the link with Islam when no one else can?) they can probably make a person explode just by looking at them
-
WH,
If somebody owns a gun, they feel safer.
But if everybody has a gun, then overall we are less safe.You're sort of describing whats known as the fallacy of composition and the problem of game theory known as the prisoner's dilemma.
One way of describing this is to say that once some people have guns, it arguably becomes rational to get a gun for yourself - even though everyone would be better off if noone had guns.
In other words, both James and his opponents are right in their own way. The more idealistic types are right to say that everyone would be better off if there were no guns. James says that once criminals have guns, he considers it to be in his interest to have one to defend himself and his family.
the usa did not enter the war to "save the world". it entered the war entirely out of self-interest.
You might call being attacked by Japan "self interest", but I don't think that really captures it fairly. Unfortunately, there's always some idiot around to make the unpleasant necessary:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/greatspeeches/kennedy/0,,2060095,00.html
We dare not tempt them with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.