Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[zabu of nΩd]

Hmmm maybe I find it difficult to get into the American mentality here... Here in the UK, vast majority of firearms are banned (its only really Farmers who have licensed ones) and I never give a second thought about being shot or threatened with a gun; knives are probably slightly more of a problem, but I feel safe - and I live in a VERY dodgy part of London, and often walk late at night, sometimes alone. Still I do not feel the need to have the ability to kill on my person.

What is it about America that everyone is sooooo paranoid that they will be robbed/raped/attacked by someone, and that the only way to protect themselves is a gun? Is it really that dangerous?

Or is it some kind of long standing "divine right" embedded in the population due to a line in the constitution?

I'm not stirring shit, or having a go - I really just want to try and understand the mindset behind an entire country wanting to be armed to the hilt.

It's certainly not the case that "everyone" (or even the majority of people) in the U.S. is paranoid about self-defense. The vast majority of us get along just fine without keeping guns on us. Even though I'm not a gun owner though, I like the idea of being able to buy one if I ever decide that break-ins could be a problem wherever I'm living.

I haven't been following this debate so far (and don't really want to), but to me the freedom to own a gun (under certain circumstances) is well worth an increased risk of getting shot. I think people deserve an adequate means of self-defense if they feel it's necessary, and the availability of guns also gives people the opportunity to resist an oppressive government if their country ever falls to one (though having a strong militia culture like Switzerland does is far more important than merely having super-liberal gun laws).

I think the main determinant of sound gun policy is the quality of the "red tape" involved in getting a gun. Waiting periods and criminal/psychological background checks are all important. I'd also support a requirement that someone must go through an extensive training course or have served in the armed forces before being allowed to own one. Banning them outright is unnecessary though, and a disservice to people's autonomy.

 

[Krigloch the Furious]

 

[Eligos]

That was probably the most ignorant response possible. Congratulations. Your level of emasculated comments in any thread that has to do with things outside of music leads me to believe you have been heavily consuming soy your entire life, or are actually a woman.

Typical conservative standpoint. "You don't think the same way I do so you must be a faggot/woman/jew/my pals/other group hated and feared by conservatives"

 

[skeptik]

Waiting periods and criminal/psychological background checks are all important.

This is one of the big things Dakryn is having a hissy fit about btw.

 

[Dak]

Typical conservative standpoint. "You don't think the same way I do so you must be a faggot/woman/jew/my pals/other group hated and feared by conservatives"

I don't hate women. I dislike males who act like women, and his comment that I was replying too was a typical response from someone who is completely ignorant of current news, history, and socialogy/psychology.

I am not a conservative in the republican sense at all, which is what most people think of. I am mostly a Jeffersonian Libertarian.

People from London don't understand because you guys are already in a living hell and just don't know it yet. Cameras are all over the place, the police are teaching children to spy for them, and you can't even protect yourself from a serious threat if you needed too. If I was British I would have left England a long time ago for somewhere less Orwellian. At the rate America is going I will have to leave here in a few years.

 

[cookiecutter]

People from London don't understand because you guys are already in a living hell and just don't know it yet.

I laughed out loud at this. If only the Londoners would stop feeling so safe and content and realize the dystopia they are force endure in agony.

Also I like your novel theory that banning guns caused the repression and genocides in China and the Soviet Union. I might be offended if it wasn't so incredibly ridiculous.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

This is one of the big things Dakryn is having a hissy fit about btw.

Ah, yeah. Those damn psychologists always make you take the tinfoil hat off before they question you.

 

[Savern]

@Vihris-Gari - Yeah I know its not "everyone" by any means, sorry to generalise.

People from London don't understand because you guys are already in a living hell and just don't know it yet. Cameras are all over the place, the police are teaching children to spy for them, and you can't even protect yourself from a serious threat if you needed too. If I was British I would have left England a long time ago for somewhere less Orwellian. At the rate America is going I will have to leave here in a few years.

Ok, come over and stay in London and see the terror and oppression we all live in. Its horrible, honestly. I can't believe I'm living in a country where I feel safe at night, its a complete disregard of my human rights...

I strongly suspect that the main reason you think you need guns, is purely because your constitution allows you to.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Honestly the level of government intrusion going on in the U.K. is pretty scary. Aside from the strict gun control you've got widespread video surveillance and occasional political exilings. But perhaps the worst of all are those Anti-Social Behaviour Orders, which very nearly give you free reign to turn your neighbors in to the cops for annoying or offending you.

 

[Savern]

Honestly the level of government intrusion going on in the U.K. is pretty scary. Aside from the strict gun control you've got widespread video surveillance and occasional political exilings. But perhaps the worst of all are those Anti-Social Behaviour Orders, which very nearly give you free reign to turn your neighbors in to the cops for annoying or offending you.

Well since I ACTUALLY live here, I'd like to think I know whats going on. Yeah, we've got a lot of CCTV - but so do the large majority of modern countries. By political exilings I assume you mean people like Abu Hamza? If not then I'm not sure...

ASBO's are complete crap. They're a failed government initiative, stemming from when Labour were trying to be "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime". Thugs and chavs wear them as honour badges, not penalties. In the rare cases I've seen and read about when old women/men are given ASBO's its been completely justified due to sustained abuse or assault.

Also Asbo's are a civil order - not criminal. You only get a criminal record if you break them. And you have to go through a court to get one, so its not like you can just tell on your neighbour.

As to other government policies - I'm completely against ID cards, waste of money and I'm not happy with so much information being stored in one place. But then so are the majority of the country.

 

[Cythraul]

I strongly suspect that the main reason you think you need guns, is purely because your constitution allows you to.

This is rather uncharitable of you. First of all, you're ascribing a form of reasoning to him which would be extremely weird to ascribe to anybody, which would be something along the lines of 'Some document says I'm allowed to have x. Therefore, I need to have x.' A more charitable line of reasoning to ascribe would be something like 'Some document says I'm allowed to have x. Therefore, I'm allowed to have x.' But even that would be weird to ascribe to somebody. I don't think many people think that just because some document says something is permitted, it is therefore permitted. I doubt that Dakryn feels he absolutely needs to own a firearm. He probably just thinks it's a good idea and wants to have a leg up on possible violators of his person and property. And anyway, he probably thinks the bill of rights outlines rights that ought to be recognized regardless of whether or not they happen to be described in some official document.

 

[Savern]

Yeah, I regret writing that - was just annoyed at what Dakryn said about living in the UK

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Well since I ACTUALLY live here, I'd like to think I know whats going on. Yeah, we've got a lot of CCTV - but so do the large majority of modern countries.

Got any evidence for that? As far as the U.S. goes, the worst I've seen is Maryland, where they have cameras at many major traffic intersections. I haven't seen or heard of CCTV surveillance of public places on the level of, say, London.

By political exilings I assume you mean people like Abu Hamza? If not then I'm not sure...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_individuals_banned_from_entering_the_United_Kingdom

Most of these people, it appears, weren't banned for actually committing a crime, but either for bigoted political/social views or for a past history of crime. They're probably all assholes, but there's an unsettling arbitrariness to the government's decision to ban them. Are they even basing these decisions on any laws? If not, what's to stop them from eventually banning people in cases like this, where an honest public official is exposing government corruption?

ASBO's are complete crap. They're a failed government initiative, stemming from when Labour were trying to be "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime". Thugs and chavs wear them as honour badges, not penalties. In the rare cases I've seen and read about when old women/men are given ASBO's its been completely justified due to sustained abuse or assault.

Also Asbo's are a civil order - not criminal. You only get a criminal record if you break them. And you have to go through a court to get one, so its not like you can just tell on your neighbour.

I understand that they're probably not that common, but you have to admit, it's an incredibly dangerous piece of legislature to have in the system (i.e. something that people with a lot of influence over the courts could use to conveniently put away people they don't like). And I haven't read any indication that it's going away anytime soon.

As to other government policies - I'm completely against ID cards, waste of money and I'm not happy with so much information being stored in one place. But then so are the majority of the country.

Good to hear. With an incident like this in recent memory, I'd hope that U.K. citizens are a little wary of whether the government could be trusted with all that data.

 

[Savern]

Got any evidence for that? As far as the U.S. goes, the worst I've seen is Maryland, where they have cameras at many major traffic intersections. I haven't seen or heard of CCTV surveillance of public places on the level of, say, London.

Fair enough, just found this http://news.scotsman.com/uk/Britain39s-multibillionpound--CCTV-.4055450.jp
Although personally I think many people are over paranoid of CCTV.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_individuals_banned_from_entering_the_United_Kingdom

Most of these people, it appears, weren't banned for actually committing a crime, but either for bigoted political/social views or for a past history of crime. They're probably all assholes, but there's an unsettling arbitrariness to the government's decision to ban them. Are they even basing these decisions on any laws? If not, what's to stop them from eventually banning people in cases like this, where an honest public official is exposing government corruption?

Well I don't know how it is in America, but in the UK our politicians have a tendency to fear the people. The recent scandal on MP expenses (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/peter_riddell/article6531075.ece)shows just how quickly they backpedal when put under public pressure. All the examples listed are either criminals or people inciting racial or other hatred - reasons I think are fair enough to ban them from entering the country. If the government attempted to use that legislation on someone who was blowing the whistle on them, the press and public would be on them like a shot - massive damage to MP's and political trust, so its unlikely to happen.

I understand that they're probably not that common, but you have to admit, it's an incredibly dangerous piece of legislature to have in the system (i.e. something that people with a lot of influence over the courts could use to conveniently put away people they don't like). And I haven't read any indication that it's going away anytime soon.

If the conservatives come into power next year then its likely that they will scrap them. As for "putting someone away" - I think you're overestimating what ASBOS can do. They can only put a civil order on someone from entering a certain part of a town or city (A shop for instance) or stop them from swearing etc. If someone with real "power" over the courts wanted to get rid of someone, I'm sure there are far more effective ways.

Good to hear. With an incident like this in recent memory, I'd hope that U.K. citizens are a little wary of whether the government could be trusted with all that data.

Heh yeah, the number of times some senior civil servant has left stuff on a train, or a laptop has been stolen is rediculous. I really hope most of this stuff is heavily encrypted - if not it should be.

 

[Dak]

I laughed out loud at this. If only the Londoners would stop feeling so safe and content and realize the dystopia they are force endure in agony.

Also I like your novel theory that banning guns caused the repression and genocides in China and the Soviet Union. I might be offended if it wasn't so incredibly ridiculous.

#1: Just because you feel safe and content doesn't mean you are. I do NOT feel safe walking around under constant government surveillance. Government is the #1 killer in world history (through military), and is not to be trusted. The Founding Fathers knew that. Being under the "eye" all the time is a dystopia.

#2. Are you really that stupid? Banning guns didn't "cause" the repression, it opened the door for it. Your inability to recognize patterns in history/of private and corporate behavior is pretty common though.

As far as me "throwing a hissy" about psych evals, I aced all my psych classes in college, and am pretty confident when I say no two psychologists completely agree. So how can you have a consistant process? As I said before, it is totally manipulatable.

Apparently, the concept that some people out there do bad things, even in/involved with (gasp) the government, is beyond the comprehension of Dodens or Cookie. I am basing this off the fact whenever I say anything negative regarding governmental dealings they are the two ones quickest to jump to it's defense.

 

[BlackMetalWhiteGuy]

My house is full of guns and although I wouldn't miss then if they all disappeared at this very moment, I would certainly wish I still had them if my house was under seige by some genocidal maniacs.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Government is the #1 killer in world history (through military), and is not to be trusted. The Founding Fathers knew that. Being under the "eye" all the time is a dystopia.

:zombie:

 

[The Ozzman]

Dakryn has a point though (about the government's being the worst offenders of murdering people at least)

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

That is absolutely fucking preposterous and I invite you to defend said claim. As an immediate rebuttal, the government is an entity, not an individual or group of individuals with a hive mind so comparing "the government" to all murderers is positively fucking daft to begin with, and it just gets easier to rebut from there. For one thing, regarding the military as an extension of government is all well and fine but the military is the one doing the actual killing (actually the soldiers are), not the government. That's a totally stupid red herring and a retarded point and just fucking fail dear god.

 

[King Richard]

So uh, you think the military just goes off and starts shooting people for the hell of it? The President bears the title Commander In Chief for a reason bro, and last I checked, he is the most powerful man in the government.