US Gun Violence

[LCGraphix]

12 minutes ago, Detroit Blues said:

 

The thing that makes passing Gun Control legislation harder is that there are good reasons to own a gun. The United States is a large country with a lot of wilderness. In my state alone, hunting and fishing is an 11 Billion Dollar industry. In rural areas, hunting is as common a pastime as football. Most people own a gun, and participate in the "sport." The day deer hunting season opens is literally a holiday in rural communities. Many small towns rely on the tourism from people coming from the city/suburbs up to hunt. It supports restaurants, bars, gas stations, supply shops, etc. There's an entire economy based around it. If hunting goes away, so do those cities.

 

The vast nature of the country also poses law enforcement challenges. In some parts of the country, the size of the area that needs to be policed, and the relative low population density makes response times long enough that people feel it necessary to have the means to protect themselves (from both criminals and Bears/Wolves/Cougars/etc.) If you have a problem out in these parts of the country, you may be 15-30 minutes away from a police officer arriving, and the nearest hospital may be more than an hour drive away. 

 

These are very real reasons why many people in rural areas, that heavily vote Republican, are so attached to their guns. It makes it all the harder to convince them that they need to give up their freedom to help people hundreds of miles away. Most of these people live in communities that are not plagued by gun violence, and they may not interact with people from communities that are effected by gun violence. To them, it's a problem for city folk / aka liberals. 

 

If you've watched the Wire or We Own The City, you'd probably understand that in more urban environments, people do not trust the police to protect them. In fact, the Police often time are seen as just another gang that is likely to abuse you. So many people in these neighborhoods feel like they need to carry a firearm to protect themselves, their businesses, their family, etc. I understand that this mentality makes this problem worse, but i understand their line of thinking. They're not wrong to feel that way, considering that pandora's box was opened decades ago, and everyone else around them has a gun. How would you feel being the only person who isn't carrying?

 

In order to make changes to the gun laws in America, you have to convince these people to willingly give up their freedom and their personal feeling of safety and security, to rely on the government to protect them. The same government that has countless times failed them. 

I can get onboard for Hunting reasons, specialist rifles for such sport and special licenses for them. we have the same over here in some rural areas & alot of farmers also have these and as i said would also need to be kept in house in a gun safe. and when transported in proper gun cases, not just casually on the back seat.

 

I get that the government and police in some areas arnt trusted but there surely needs to be some form of education on all sides because these incidents are almost on a weekly/monthly basis.

 

I dont agree that a gun gives you Freedom, however, Crime is going to happen no matter what and about the only thing i do agree with is if someone was to break into your property, you should be able to defend yourself, family and property by all means nessasary, but that equally doesnt mean you have to have heavy artillery, and simple handgun is more than efficient and should not be able to leave the property.

 

 

[Greg2607]

it s a bit ridiculous (sorry, absolutely mental) that you have to be 21 to drink in America, but you can buy a gun at 18....

 

Explain the logic in that to me. 

[Foxdiamond]

48 minutes ago, Detroit Blues said:

 

The thing that makes passing Gun Control legislation harder is that there are good reasons to own a gun. The United States is a large country with a lot of wilderness. In my state alone, hunting and fishing is an 11 Billion Dollar industry. In rural areas, hunting is as common a pastime as football. Most people own a gun, and participate in the "sport." The day deer hunting season opens is literally a holiday in rural communities. Many small towns rely on the tourism from people coming from the city/suburbs up to hunt. It supports restaurants, bars, gas stations, supply shops, etc. There's an entire economy based around it. If hunting goes away, so do those cities.

 

The vast nature of the country also poses law enforcement challenges. In some parts of the country, the size of the area that needs to be policed, and the relative low population density makes response times long enough that people feel it necessary to have the means to protect themselves (from both criminals and Bears/Wolves/Cougars/etc.) If you have a problem out in these parts of the country, you may be 15-30 minutes away from a police officer arriving, and the nearest hospital may be more than an hour drive away. 

 

These are very real reasons why many people in rural areas, that heavily vote Republican, are so attached to their guns. It makes it all the harder to convince them that they need to give up their freedom to help people hundreds of miles away. Most of these people live in communities that are not plagued by gun violence, and they may not interact with people from communities that are effected by gun violence. To them, it's a problem for city folk / aka liberals. 

 

If you've watched the Wire or We Own The City, you'd probably understand that in more urban environments, people do not trust the police to protect them. In fact, the Police often time are seen as just another gang that is likely to abuse you. So many people in these neighborhoods feel like they need to carry a firearm to protect themselves, their businesses, their family, etc. I understand that this mentality makes this problem worse, but i understand their line of thinking. They're not wrong to feel that way, considering that pandora's box was opened decades ago, and everyone else around them has a gun. How would you feel being the only person who isn't carrying?

 

In order to make changes to the gun laws in America, you have to convince these people to willingly give up their freedom and their personal feeling of safety and security, to rely on the government to protect them. The same government that has countless times failed them. 

I can see your reasoning. I don't know much about firearms but I imagine hunting rifles are quite powerful. Is there any need for the more military type weapons  that seem to be available in urban as well as rural areas. I recall a film back in the 80s based on a true story. The FBI outgunned by 2 robbers in a shootout. 

[Fox1norfolk]

15 minutes ago, Greg2607 said:

it s a bit ridiculous (sorry, absolutely mental) that you have to be 21 to drink in America, but you can buy a gun at 18....

 

Explain the logic in that to me. 

Plus from my own experience working there you cannot drink alcohol in a public place, you hide it in a brown paper bag.  Bonkers 

[Detroit Blues]

1 minute ago, Foxdiamond said:

I can see your reasoning. I don't know much about firearms but I imagine hunting rifles are quite powerful. Is there any need for the more military type weapons  that seem to be available in urban as well as rural areas. I recall a film back in the 80s based on a true story. The FBI outgunned by 2 robbers in a shootout. 

 

Yeah that's when the militarization of police spiraled out of control. Two guys with body armor and assault rifles robbed a bank, and the police struggled to deal with them because they only had revolvers.

 

They used that one incident to outfit the nation's cops with kevlar body armor, assault rifles, etc. Many police departments are literally outfitted by the military (with the stuff that's no longer being used). Now the police often look more like an occupying army than your local law enforcement. 

[Daggers]

 

[BKLFox]

It's utter bonkers that a law passed in 1791 just can't seem to be amended & move with the times but if Adam wakes up tomorrow & wants to be called Eve & someone called her, him, they would probably lose their job, any social standing & most likely end up with a crimal record

[marbles]

8 hours ago, HighPeakFox said:

Using that logic, you'd never believe anything said by anyone. 

 

Perhaps you should do your own due diligence on L. Fletcher Prouty, as I did, rather than dismiss it because of one man who foreworded the re-issue 38 years later. 

 

You could also find him on YouTube, and you'd soon realise the importance of what he has/had to say. 

To be fair, not everyone spreads conspiracy theories - so your first statement make absolutely no sense.

 

Now, I never said what the author wrote was false.  It just throws up a red flag (for me) when a known conspiracy theorist points at a book and says “yeah, read this!”

Edited 26 May 2022 by marbles

[HighPeakFox]

5 minutes ago, marbles said:

To be fair, not everyone spreads conspiracy theories - so your first statement make absolutely no sense.

 

Now, I never said what the author wrote was false.  It just throws up a red flag (for me) when a known conspiracy theorist points at a book and says “yeah, read this!”

I'm not getting into it further. 

[marbles]

8 hours ago, Timmys Super Foxes said:

Stop the gun shows, If your that hell bent on needing a Gun only pistols can be bought at specialist places absaloutly no need for the semi automatic rifles etc @marblescan prob give a better understanding of what artillery can be bought at these shows etc but from what ive seen on TV and in the Media, its enough to start a small war.

If its legal, you can buy it at a gun show.

If its illegal, you can make contacts at a gun show to buy it later on.

 

Two scary facts

1. Its easier to buy a gun at a gun show because you can buy directly form an individual instead of a dealer.  Therefore bypassing background checks.

2. Heard this a few years ago and I imagine its still true - somewhere in North Texas (Dallas/Ft Worth area), there is a gun show every weekend of the year. 

[marbles]

4 hours ago, Greg2607 said:

it s a bit ridiculous (sorry, absolutely mental) that you have to be 21 to drink in America, but you can buy a gun at 18....

 

Explain the logic in that to me. 

Cant explain the logic - but the gun part is because you can serve in the military at 18

[SpacedX]

8 hours ago, HighPeakFox said:

Using that logic, you'd never believe anything said by anyone. 

 

Perhaps you should do your own due diligence on L. Fletcher Prouty, as I did, rather than dismiss it because of one man who foreworded the re-issue 38 years later. 

 

You could also find him on YouTube, and you'd soon realise the importance of what he has/had to say. 

I agree, that he has a degree of insight to offer, but then, you can't help being wary when Oliver Stone bases one of his fanciful characters on him as a key figure underpinning yet another of his rewritings of history. 

 

The increased marginalisation of his writing suggested to many - including himself - that he was putting the cat among the pigeons and ruffling the wrong feathers in the process (so to speak) and I think that it's a shame that he was forced to find an outlet though such extremism as the far-right and at one point scientology to maintain a voice - (not that he subscribed to any of their beliefs mind). But such imprudence did however afford licence to his critics to dismiss his writings and the subsequent hatchet jobs and character assassinations effectively rendered him obsolete and meant he was written off. Ironically, Jesse Ventura is the perfect endorsement to market his literature to precisely this audience/market that has come to be associated with the perpetration, dissemination and belief in conspiracy theory. 

 

I have personally found, that when you do indeed do your own due diligence on Prouty's claims, inaccuracies, contradictions, supposition and unverifiable conjecture- in particular the Vietnam War, the Gary Powers incident and the JFK assassination. The latter could conceivably have been a coup d’état but in the absence of substantiation, then many of Prouty's clams amount to precisely that...conspiracy theories, but not in the agenda driven, cynical, manipulative and exploitative sense that we associate with their perpetrators today. The difference being, that Prouty was genuinely seeking the truth and clearly believed what he was saying - albeit embellished at times. 

 

Perhaps I need to look at some of his writings again

[SpacedX]

5 hours ago, Greg2607 said:

it s a bit ridiculous (sorry, absolutely mental) that you have to be 21 to drink in America, but you can buy a gun at 18....

 

Explain the logic in that to me. 

I once bought some beers from a Walmart in Arizona and by law was required to have them concealed in a paper bag as I left the store. If I had so desired, I could have departed brandishing a Winchester rifle under my arm - in clear view, purchased from aisle 16. 

[HighPeakFox]

14 minutes ago, Line-X said:

I agree, that he has a degree of insight to offer, but then, you can't help being wary when Oliver Stone bases one of his fanciful characters on him as a key figure underpinning yet another of his rewritings of history. 

 

The increased marginalisation of his writing suggested to many - including himself - that he was putting the cat among the pigeons and ruffling the wrong feathers in the process (so to speak) and I think that it's a shame that he was forced to find an outlet though such extremism as the far-right and at one point scientology to maintain a voice - (not that he subscribed to any of their beliefs mind). But such imprudence did however afford licence to his critics to dismiss his writings and the subsequent hatchet jobs and character assassinations effectively rendered him obsolete and meant he was written off. Ironically, Jesse Ventura is the perfect endorsement to market his literature to precisely this audience/market that has come to be associated with the perpetration, dissemination and belief in conspiracy theory. 

 

I have personally found, that when you do indeed do your own due diligence on Prouty's claims, inaccuracies, contradictions, supposition and unverifiable conjecture- in particular the Vietnam War, the Gary Powers incident and the JFK assassination. The latter could conceivably have been a coup d’état but in the absence of substantiation, then many of Prouty's clams amount to precisely that...conspiracy theories, but not in the agenda driven, cynical, manipulative and exploitative sense that we associate with their perpetrators today. The difference being, that Prouty was genuinely seeking the truth and clearly believed what he was saying - albeit embellished at times. 

 

Perhaps I need to look at some of his writings again

I think he is very careful to provide accurate background, based on what he knows and saw, and also on document in the public sphere. Whatever one thinks of Ventura and Stone, it doesn't make a jot of difference to the veracity or sincerity of the man. He never comes across as bitter, angry, or sensational.

Edited 26 May 2022 by HighPeakFox

[SpacedX]

4 minutes ago, HighPeakFox said:

I think he is very careful to provide accurate background, based on what he knows and saw, and also on document in the public sphere. Whatever one thinks of Ventura and Stone, it doesn't make a jot of difference to the veracity or sincerity of the man. He never comes across as bitter, angry, or sensational.

He certainly doesn't - unlike the Alex Jones's of today that sell ignorance, fear, cultivate prejudice and profit out of creating outrage. Like I said, I don't at any stage doubt his integrity or his sincerity but the veracity and legitimacy of some of his claims I found to be questionable. He was known to have been ill-informed and on several occasions had failed to conduct his own due diligence on his sources leading to several retractions. 

[HighPeakFox]

13 minutes ago, Line-X said:

He certainly doesn't - unlike the Alex Jones's of today that sell ignorance, fear, cultivate prejudice and profit out of creating outrage. Like I said, I don't at any stage doubt his integrity or his sincerity but the veracity and legitimacy of some of his claims I found to be questionable. He was known to have been ill-informed and on several occasions had failed to conduct his own due diligence on his sources leading to several retractions. 

Integrity and sincerity go an awful long way with me - plus those wanting to discredit him will have had a very specific reason for doing so, ironically enough those in the business he came from, which he will have been all too ready for I would imagine.

[SpacedX]

2 minutes ago, HighPeakFox said:

Integrity and sincerity go an awful long way with me - plus those wanting to discredit him will have had a very specific reason for doing so, ironically enough those in the business he came from, which he will have been all too ready for I would imagine.

Agree. Although some of his claims simply don't add up and discredit themselves. 

[HighPeakFox]

7 minutes ago, Line-X said:

Agree. Although some of his claims simply don't add up and discredit themselves. 

I think that very much depends how much one chooses to believe what we already 'know'.

 

I sound like a conspiracy buff, I realise. I'm not one - but what we are asked to think and believe is often more contrived than we care to know.

[surrifox]

It’s maybe time the US ( well conservatives) stopped treating the US Constitution as if it was personally delivered to the founding fathers by Jesus Christ himself . 

The constitution should be a living document fit for the purpose of delivering what the majority of the electorate require . The Supreme Court  makes reference to the constitution in every major decision and goes into incredible mind bending to justify some perverse findings in the face of public opposition

 

The (2nd) amendment as I understand it talks about a citizens right to bear arms but goes on to refer to “ within a well regulated militia” 

this was written at a time when there was no standing army and citizens were required to take responsibility for defending their fledgling republic . Even then they took time out to mention well regulated . They didn’t want a jackass with a weapon  taking someone’s eye out with a stray musket ball 

 

 

[marbles]

5 minutes ago, surrifox said:

It’s maybe time the US ( well conservatives) stopped treating the US Constitution as if it was personally delivered to the founding fathers by Jesus Christ himself . 

The constitution should be a living document fit for the purpose of delivering what the majority of the electorate require . The Supreme Court  makes reference to the constitution in every major decision and goes into incredible mind bending to justify some perverse findings in the face of public opposition

 

The (2nd) amendment as I understand it talks about a citizens right to bear arms but goes on to refer to “ within a well regulated militia” 

this was written at a time when there was no standing army and citizens were required to take responsibility for defending their fledgling republic . Even then they took time out to mention well regulated . They didn’t want a jackass with a weapon  taking someone’s eye out with a stray musket ball 

 

 

The Constitution is the most important document we have.

The problem is not the fact that it’s the foundation of our country - it’s that certain people/groups interpret it in a way that only benefits them.

 

[HighPeakFox]

1 minute ago, marbles said:

The problem is not the fact that it’s the foundation of our country - it’s that certain people/groups interpret it in a way that only benefits them.

A bit like the bible, in fact.

[marbles]

1 minute ago, HighPeakFox said:

A bit like the bible, in fact.

So very true!

[surrifox]

18 minutes ago, marbles said:

The Constitution is the most important document we have.

The problem is not the fact that it’s the foundation of our country - it’s that certain people/groups interpret it in a way that only benefits them.

 

Yes I get that and that’s the point I was trying to make . There have been amendments to the constitution over years which you would expect but the disingenuous interpretations emanating from a politicised Supreme Court serve no-one well in the long run 

[yorkie1999]

2 hours ago, marbles said:

If its legal, you can buy it at a gun show.

If its illegal, you can make contacts at a gun show to buy it later on.

 

Two scary facts

1. Its easier to buy a gun at a gun show because you can buy directly form an individual instead of a dealer.  Therefore bypassing background checks.

2. Heard this a few years ago and I imagine its still true - somewhere in North Texas (Dallas/Ft Worth area), there is a gun show every weekend of the year. 

I worked at a place called fond du lac and they had an outdoor gun market every weekend where you could buy literally anything , m60 machine guns, ar15 rifles, even those Rambo type guns and if you needed the bullets and stuff, they were sold on the next stall. The yanks are just nutjobs.

 The problem is it’s impossible to police or control, there’s 315 million guns that are owned by civilians, they ain’t never going to get people to hand that lot in

[marbles]

8 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

I worked at a place called fond du lac and they had an outdoor gun market every weekend where you could buy literally anything , m60 machine guns, ar15 rifles, even those Rambo type guns and if you needed the bullets and stuff, they were sold on the next stall. The yanks are just nutjobs.

 The problem is it’s impossible to police or control, there’s 315 million guns that are owned by civilians, they ain’t never going to get people to hand that lot in

And that’s just legally owned guns!