my enthralling epiphanies

Yes, like politicians are worried of weapons owned by citizens. Americans are so naive.
First of all, a dictatorship does not arise without people's consent. This mean if one day US is a dictatorship that would happen with the support of the large majority of the same citizens who own weapons and they can use those weapons to silence the minority of opponents. It is not like the Jews living in Germany in 1940 would have been safer owning a gun, you know...
Then, even in case of a government that isn't supported by people, all it takes is to declare the martial law and anybody who is found with a weapon is executed. At this point the naive americans imagine soccer moms and fat guys organizing a "revolution" against the government and the armed forces trying to control them. Laughable, it never happens.

Actually weapons in the hands of common people are good only to rise the level of street violence by an huge factor. Oh, I forgot the basic rule, it is good when people is scared by you...

You are wrong.
Iran has got the government the large majority of Iranians want. Following your american naivity, they even made a "revolution" to get the current government, so it can't be wrong.

Yes, there are some people in Iran who don't like the situation, probably they are mostly young people with high scholarity and living in big cities.
All it takes is to bring some local "rednecks" from the country, armed with the said above "weapons" to keep the dissidents at bay killing some, hitting other with a stick, you know.

In US it is the same. It is a little too easy to say that lots of things happen without your consent when less than half citizens do vote. I would say many don't care and many do actually support the government, until some simple buttons are pressed. It is like Homer Simpson singing "U-S-A" "U-S-A" whatever happens.

Besides, it is not about theories, it is what happened in Europe 50 years ago end what happens everywhere in the world right now.
Hitler and Mussolini could build their dictatorship by convincing most people that it was the best thing it could happen to bring the Nation to a better future. Nobody forced the Germans to do what they did, they did it because they really believed it was right. In Italy the same with the difference that Italians aren't good in doing anything together so even italian fascism was a comedy.

I said about american being naive. They imagine the bad guys arriving to their ranch and then they shoot at them as brave freedom fighers. It does not work that way, you silly.
The police comes to your work place, goes to your kids school, takes your relatives and come knocking to your door in the night. Then, again, you can't really believe family guys and housewives are really able to put a fight against an organized armed force.

I've got a book somewhere with stats about the crime rate and the guns but I don't know where I put it. Anyway this whole thing about guns is not rational, it is like religion, a faith, metaphysics.

"I am for anything that helps to get rid of people."
- Dogbert

After being in the army and seeing the ONLY thing weapons are made for, that is to tear people apart, I think anybody who say he/she wants to carry a weapon should be sent to a psychologist. Or jail. Or both.

I have extended conversations with my first born on this... he is determined to buy a gun and get his license! I am so against guns, the thought that we might have a gun at home it makes me sick .... Guns are for the trained, one might get shooting lessons but -0% will get ever lessons of psychology to handle special people not able to think right... to me killing an unstable person is a double crime. Weapons should be given only to people who can recognize such individuals...

I said it above, I don't mean to be offensive but your son probably needs to see a psychologist, not a gun.
I understand when you live in a society where everybody goes around with a gun then it becomes a status symbol.
And so we move from psychology to sociology.
Probably there is something to say about a society where carrying a gun is a status symbol.

Sorry I don't see any rational reason for owning a gun.
I see many irrational (and confused) reasons instead.
But not being a professional in the field (psychology and sociology) I can't properly discuss such sensible topics.
They are sensible because you end in discussing people's beliefs.

I did not mean to be offensive.

On a side note, the above list is full of confused ideas. For example historically what made a "citizen" was not owning weapons but wealth. Democracy was about the government of the "middle class" of indipendent small land owners and businessmen, opposed to the goverment of "nobles" who were basically big land owners leading a clan or tribe.

In today word you are a "citizen" only if you are registered then officially recognized by the "State", with all the consequence about the State counting hair on you. If owning a gun was enough to make a citizen then any immigrant could easily fix a lot of issues. Those strange people in US who oppose the "Federal Government" actually are putting themselves out of "society" and then opposing to being a "citizen" because it is a status that comes from "above".

I could go on for ages.

Originally posted by LorenzoCelsi:

I don't mean to be offensive but your son probably needs to see a psychologist, not a gun.

it is not only my child Lorenzo.Many young kids grow up with the idea that the sky is the limit . I raised him to believe that, but not that it will be OK the moment he reaches 21 to own a gun...and since he is a child that started college at 13 his way of thinking is very advanced, I only do not agree with his choices on gun control

I hate to say it I kinda agree with LorenzoCelsi only to add the fact are we not all naive if we are to believe Governments pull the stings in this puppet show.
Hitler was empowered to keep the masses from an up rising at first I learn and only got his ass wupped when he would not do as he was told any more, he had killed millions in that four years before anyone stepped in.

In NM I found it funny hmm that you can carry a gun so long as its on display and if you bought a new truck you could have it fitted with a gun rack and to answer Lorenzo, if someone wanted to shoot me and I had a gun guess what I'd be doing before I hit the ground!

I also would like to point out again have a look at the blog on my page talk about naive people we (some) live in a blanketed world were we all think we are getting the truth only deep down we know its lies and BS.

Myself I find we don't want the real truth unless its backed up by an education to degree standards, well they are the ones who named all lies diplomatic diplomacy I found out

Give me the honest truth every time or Ill stand up and shout liars

As for the American constitution your for fathers must be spinning in their graves to see what it has become

The kind of stuff like "if someone wanted to shoot me and I had a gun guess what I'd be doing before I hit the ground!" ring some little alarms in my mind.
First, real life is not like Hollywood movies and here we should open a separate discussion about movies and TV shows.
In real life wounds are horrorific, you hit the ground crying and pissing yourself.
Then, why somebody should want to shoot at you? I am 44 years old and out of the Army and some policemen I never met somebody carrying a gun. Besides if somebody wants to kill me all he has to do is to hit my head with a stick or a frying pan. So what, should I go around holding a stick just in case?

Let aside Hitler, speak of Mussolini so I don't offend any German out there. At the beginning the fascists were veterans from WWI forming some sort of militia and they used to terrorizing opponents with violence. I repeat, if you are a dissident and a bunch of fanatics kick your door at night, owning a gun does not help. On the contrary, instead of a beating you would probably end killed with your whole family. The level of violence rises. If I come to your house and I expect you to shoot at me I don't ask question, I just put the whole house on fire.
Then, since Fascism took apparent security and order in the society, along with better organization and social progress, most Italians were happy with it. Consider that Fascism was born as derivative of socialism. Only few intellectuals opposed and then they made no difference.

Just listened to Bob Marley's "Iron Lion Zion". I didn't realise before the song was against guns.

Thanks for this great entry!

A lot of people outside the US are watching the discussion in your country. And I guess after Michael Moore went on tour in Europe with inner-American affairs, it's allowed to make a comparison.

As for Germany, one can truely say we have violence a bit like in Iran, government-tolerated street gangs beating up liberal kids in school and outside. It's kind of the same prosecution climate - because of gun control. The manipulative "Bowling for Columbine" was a nightmere in Europe, because it sold limiting civil rights. I agree people mostly handle guns responsibly.

Only what you don't know you fear, and sometimes it's your own freedom without beeing aware of it.

Gun deaths per 100,000 population

                        Homicide  Suicide  Other (inc Accident)
USA (2001)              3.98      5.92     0.36
Italy (1997)            0.81      1.1      0.07
Switzerland (1998)      0.50      5.8      0.10
Canada (2002)           0.4       2.0      0.04
Finland (2003)          0.35      4.45     0.10
Australia (2001)        0.24      1.34     0.10
France (2001)           0.21      3.4      0.49
England/Wales (2002)    0.15      0.2      0.03
Scotland (2002)         0.06      0.2      0.02
Japan (2002)            0.02      0.04     0

Data taken from Cukier and Sidel (2006) The Global Gun Epidemic. Praeger Security International. Westport.

It looks like the only places with more homicides by gun than US are Guatemala, Colombia and such.

"Bowling for Columbine" established the reduction of violence to "guns". Problem with that would be: You can only measure violence if you relate it to the cause and circumstances, esp. if the person affected earns it. So you'd have to add alcohol & drug-deaths, suicides and people ending drugged-up in psychiatry to your calculation, plus weight that depending on the amount of educated people who get hurt, not the usual trashy drug crime stuff. Then you'd be surprised to see other countries well on their way, too, not only the US.
And what does dead mean? There are many people around who are already dead but living on, today's Zombies. I believe you should relate violence to how many families get destroyed; because what makes it ugly is when love is harmed for no reason.

One can also doubt the statistics integrity on guns: The US from an outside perspective seem to be a nation where e.g. law enforcement and local politics in some regions trigger aggression and racism so few troubled people with their behavior indeed help manipulate the statistics' appearance.

I'd also add that gun violence is chosen as a favorite object by some media, but the more silent versions like beaten up or getting stabbed are by far more common forms of severe body harm where interiour ministries are often not eager to add that to the high-priority statistics, as their main concern is guns, often for political reasons (e.g. calming down the situation by public relations work), in quite some countries.

So what you get is unreliable statistics reduced to numbers, where the impulse of the data on society is dependent on the field chosen.

Sorry but I don't understand a line of what you have written.

Guns aren't about "families destroyed" or people "living on like zombies", they are about digging huge holes in human flesh.

The above list suggests some reasons why carrying a tool for tearing apart other people is a good thing. My opinion is all the reasons about "politics", like you are a "free citizen" only when you can carry a gun, are nonsense. About this I can't help but considering the other topic about US spending like the rest of the world together in the military then being worried about the public health care. Like I said, this is something for psychologists and sociologists.

The statistics above instead show how the guns are used for homicides in US much more than basically every other "developed" country. You can see there are more than 4 times more people killed by guns in US than in Italy on average, despite we have 4 different kind of mafia controlling the whole south Italy. So guns as self defense are again nonsense because people carrying guns actually increases dramatically the chances to get shot.

And, on a side note, there are videos on youtube of american young kids taught by their parents to disassemble and shoot assault rifles. I bet they don't vote. They believe in education and democracy based on firepower.

I have only 1 person for you :

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi

Gandhi's peace army

Text from wikipedia

Nonviolence

Although Mahatama Gandhi was not the originator of the principle of non-violence, he was the first to apply it in the political field on a huge scale.[44] The concept of nonviolence (ahimsa) and nonresistance has a long history in Indian religious thought and has had many revivals in Hindu, Buddhist, Jain, Jewish and Christian contexts. Gandhi explains his philosophy and way of life in his autobiography The Story of My Experiments with Truth. He was quoted as saying:

"When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love has always won. There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall — think of it, always."

"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy?"

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."

"There are many causes that I am prepared to die for but no causes that I am prepared to kill for."

In applying these principles, Gandhi did not balk from taking them to their most logical extremes in envisioning a world where even government, police and armies were nonviolent. The quotations below are from the book "For Pacifists."[45]

The science of war leads one to dictatorship, pure and simple. The science of non-violence alone can lead one to pure democracy...Power based on love is thousand times more effective and permanent than power derived from fear of punishment....It is a blasphemy to say non-violence can be practiced only by individuals and never by nations which are composed of individuals...The nearest approach to purest anarchy would be a democracy based on non-violence...A society organized and run on the basis of complete non-violence would be the purest anarchy

I have conceded that even in a non-violent state a police force may be necessary...Police ranks will be composed of believers in non-violence. The people will instinctively render them every help and through mutual cooperation they will easily deal with the ever decreasing disturbances...Violent quarrels between labor and capital and strikes will be few and far between in a non-violent state because the influence of the non-violent majority will be great as to respect the principle elements in society. Similarly, there will be no room for communal disturbances....

A non-violent army acts unlike armed men, as well in times of peace as in times of disturbances. Theirs will be the duty of bringing warring communities together, carrying peace propaganda, engaging in activities that would bring and keep them in touch with every single person in their parish or division. Such an army should be ready to cope with any emergency, and in order to still the frenzy of mobs should risk their lives in numbers sufficient for that purpose. ...Satyagraha (truth-force) brigades can be organized in every village and every block of buildings in the cities. [If the non-violent society is attacked from without] there are two ways open to non-violence. To yield possession, but non-cooperate with the aggressor...prefer death to submission. The second way would be non-violent resistance by the people who have been trained in the non-violent way...The unexpected spectacle of endless rows upon rows of men and women simply dying rather than surrender to the will of an aggressor must ultimately melt him and his soldiery...A nation or group which has made non-violence its final policy cannot be subjected to slavery even by the atom bomb.... The level of non-violence in that nation, if that even happily comes to pass, will naturally have risen so high as to command universal respect.

In accordance with these views, in 1940, when invasion of the British Isles by Nazi Germany looked imminent, Gandhi offered the following advice to the British people (Non-Violence in Peace and War):[46]

"I would like you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions...If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes, you will vacate them. If they do not give you free passage out, you will allow yourselves, man, woman, and child, to be slaughtered, but you will refuse to owe allegiance to them."

In a post-war interview in 1946, he offered a view at an even further extreme:

"Hitler," Gandhi said, "killed five million Jews. It is the greatest crime of our time. But the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher’s knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs… It would have aroused the world and the people of Germany… As it is they succumbed anyway in their millions."[47]

However, Gandhi was aware that this level of nonviolence required incredible faith and courage, which he realized not everyone possessed. He therefore advised that everyone need not keep to nonviolence, especially if it were used as a cover for cowardice:

"Gandhi guarded against attracting to his satyagraha movement those who feared to take up arms or felt themselves incapable of resistance. 'I do believe,' he wrote, 'that where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence.'"[48]

"At every meeting I repeated the warning that unless they felt that in non-violence they had come into possession of a force infinitely superior to the one they had and in the use of which they were adept, they should have nothing to do with non-violence and resume the arms they possessed before. It must never be said of the Khudai Khidmatgars that once so brave, they had become or been made cowards under Badshah Khan's influence. Their bravery consisted not in being good marksmen but in defying death and being ever ready to bare their breasts to the bullets."[49]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohandas_Karamchand_Gandhi

-Iran's Green revolution for peace..Happening now!

Lorenzo, you didn't relate to my comment at all, and I don't appreciate your style (e.g. quoting things out of context), so my answer will be limited.

What exactly is 10 deaths in 100.000 compared to the by far bigger alcohol- and drug-related? Just a number easy to sell in a climate where people sit like dead in front of their TVs watching crime shows which have no grip on reality.

Reason for most violence-related deaths is a climate where people murder each other using tolerated forms of violence, because they never had to reflect what this can cause, so it's excusable to themselves with the next dumb saying and mainstream belief they blabber about. Actually, these are the people who need treatment.

Nice Avatar js27
been some time since i saw a new Good Avatar

*Could not reply do to you by Pm*

your welcome will visit your blog soon.

At least you have the vague perception of being insane

When you learn a martial art or you are in the army etc, you are taught the concept of "escalation of force". It means your reaction must be proportionate to the menace. If somebody is yelling at you in the parking you don't draw an assault rifle. Again I could go on for ever but...

Seriously, I do believe this blog post should be discussed by people with much better understanding of human behavior than me. I can only recognize the obvious logical flaws.

Originally posted by LorenzoCelsi:

At least you have the vague perception of being insane

Its been said before dude by me mates and once for not playing the game the educated few know of the others who know are to scared to say we all live a lie and Corporates run Governments and guns are the least of the worlds problems and if you shout at me Id better of deserved it or you could end up with a smack in the mouth.

The problems I see are mostly made by the educated few thinking they know better than someone who would turn down all the money in the world because they'd recognized the obvious logical flaws of the lies they were asked to tell and then live but me you and the ships cat live that lie like it or not.

Its good that there's people like yourself in this world to make us daftys see our own short comings the sad part is you don't see your own because you cant maybe, me on the other hand I can only who I am and never anyone else no mater what!

BTW my Sargent brother in the army explained that consent you speak of "escalation of force" when he has to deal with the shite going on in Iraq, so have you had to use any thing like that or are you just all educated talk and sorry to dumb down the blog like an Amoeba

Well, lets say I don't feel comfortable around people who has big power and little control of it. You know, chopping heads and such.

I expect police officers to be trained in order to manage violence and the correct escalation of force, so they don't shoot at me when I am stopped for a broken light.

In the same time I expect most common people to be unable to manage violence and control stressful situations so it is an obvious nonsense to arm everybody like the police. To not mention the fact that common people in some places could even carry military grade weapons, with the laughable excuse that assault rifles are used for hunting.

About crime, there are statistics.
But even the common sense tells you that when a robber expect the shop owner to draw a gun and shoot, then he will shoot first and will come to the shop with a plan, after having calculated the chances of surprise and firepower. So a robbery of few money that somewhere else would have been done with a screwdriver and no harm to anybody would turn in a massacre of shotguns or assault rifles on full auto.

About the military, there is another dfficult discussion about the concept of "crime of war". It is difficult because usually history is written by the winner.

I have owned guns and I may own guns in the future. I was in the US army and have worked Public and Private security. So I have been trained in the use of firearms... and I am a fair shot. Whatever....

I do feel that a government that wants to disarm it's own people is a govt. on the way out.

First of all, it is not about "opinions" but about numbers.
I've posted above some stats that show how you have 0.20 (over 100K people) probability to get killed by a gun if you live in France and 3.98 if you live in US. That is about 20 times higher.
I repeat, you have 20 times higher probability of being killed by a gun if you live in US instead of France.
Yes, I bet the high crime rate in US happens in the metropolitan areas where fewer people own a gun while little towns of rednecks do have a very low crime rate despite everybody owning guns.
Still the above numbers say something because that is the same in France as well. But french "rednecks" do not go deer hunting with AKs.

"opinions" are those "religion-like" sentences about "freedom" and "citizenship". The "constitution", the "revolution" and so on. I tried to give some suggestions about the logical flaws in those sentences but since it is metaphysics the whole discussion turns around in vain.

I would only add that the same people you see while driving and you think they are too stupid for having a driving license could carry a gun. While I was squad leader in the army I was always checking those 20yo bored kids while on duty, after seeing some smoking weeds while manning an howitzer firing on targets 20 Kms away. And I never experienced extremely stressful conditions with those kids like real combat.

I'm not going there. Over 50,000 people a year in the US are killed in traffic accidents. As a truck driver for over 30 years I saw plenty of carnage and was in some myself. They are not going to take cars away.

If I lived in France or England, I wouldn't need a fire arm. Those are civilized countries. There are vast areas of the USA, that are NOT civilized, or even populated. It is going to be a long time before that changes, if ever.

At my house the subject is a running sore. Want to see my uncle blow his gaskets? Mention guns in anyway and watch what happens: He actually turns red in the face! I have learned to just not ever bring it up.

LorenzoCelsi # 20. October 2009, 12:20
Well, lets say I don't feel comfortable around people who has big power and little control of it. You know, chopping heads and such.

I expect police officers to be trained in order to manage violence and the correct escalation of force, so they don't shoot at me when I am stopped for a broken light.

I'm not that daft I can't under stand but there's nothing to make you more bitter than cops kicking the crap out of you then getting out of it by playing the mistaken identity card!

I'm for movie shootem ups I don't really like war movies or its history as history is written by the winner like you said.

I don't want a gun and I'd hate to have to use one like my brother and the stats you put up are sad but don't your lot have guns. I've seen programs from Italy where they are shooting at the migrating flocks of birds each year for fun WTF I'd like that to change if were putting things to rights dude.

We got loads of people killing each other with there guns some under Government contracts in oil! that's just the world today but to shoot at flocks of helpless birds that's got to be as, if not dumber than any red necks taking them self out of the geanpool and yes I feel bad for the innocents.

I once worked with a girl from the US she was raised with no TV only the good book till she rebelled and left but her farther had tree guns on him at anyone time she told me and she was a life member of the NRA and had been from birth and I'm insane dude sometimes I think I'm the only one who's not insane

Originally posted by starree:

Great in theory but in reality? I don't think anyone focused on power will respect it. I do see what Ghandi means by that though, that is interesting

This is exactly how Gandhi achieved India's independence. It is reality. Violent people don't understand how this works and this is why it works against them.

This is exactly how Gandhi achieved India's independence and what did he do before that

Hi again Starree did Gandhi not fail in recruting more solders before all that no wonder he was racked with guilt he said, 50.000 dead for the cause its a good job he could only get less than a 100 to help what he was trying to free India from in the first place if I can say but I believe he was a good man and it came to be the way best to remember him

Gandhi had the luck of living in the right time. He did not die nailed on a cross.

Yeah, sometimes you just have to agree to disagree and not bring it up anymore. Works for me.

Are you saying Ghandi Was on Crack!

What....?

just breathing some humor in these comment's

Oh. I thought you were serious!

No way!

I am just having a bad day. My politcal skills are just not up to snuff.

Hi Starree and all ;-) Lorenzo, did he not get shot 3 times in the chest and die ? that's 3 holes a piece dude!

At least the other bloke JC was up and about again and ready to work himself like any good anarchist should, untill his dad took him home to live back up in the sky,,,and all this stuff about him coming back? I reckon the last thing he'd want to see is a bloody cross.

Bit like a rifle pendant to remind us of the so called grassy knoll head shot, hey rumour has it there were three shots heard that day to.