NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm not entirely sure that it is driven by emotion. If everyone who loved guns did so because they're afraid of not having them, then that might work. But not everyone who loves guns does so for this reason.



Well, that's my fault for addressing a different point. Owning guns is indeed a mindset--I was responding to what I thought was your point, that the actual forces that drove the attacker to engage in such an action were derived from a emotion. My apologies for the confusion :)

What I find ridiculous is the assertion that somehow, "gun culture" caused this nutjob at Virginia Tech to do what he did, or that somehow, the guns made him do it.

As far as can be discerned from his encounters with the mental health community goes, he was a violent paranoid.

A lot of news organizations (and a lot of you) seem to be asking the question, "Why?" and some of you are coming up with "gun culture".

The vast, vast majority of gun owners never, ever use their gun to kill anyone. In fact, the numbers have been dropping (to about half of what the numbers were in 1993).

This nutjob killed people because he was fucking crazy. He was still walking around because a Supreme Court decision in the early 1980s says that you can't lock up someone indefinitely in a mental facility unless you can prove that they still constitute a danger to themselves and others - and the moment they don't appear dangerous, you MUST let them go.

Which is what they did.

In the old days, a guy like this would spend the rest of his life in a padded room doped up on Thorazine on that first encounter with the mental health facility. Not anymore. Civil rights, you know - the system MUST let him go.

As to the question, "Why?"

There isn't any "Why?" to understand.

I'm sure it all made sense to *him*, but even if we were to have his logic in front of us for the symbolism we would still all be asking "WTF??"

It's about the same as seeing a picture of Michael Jackson smearing lipstick on a chimp with an erection while the chimp holds a picture of the Queen of England and asking what in the hell is going on.

Some things defy explanation.

...or at least that's what my academic exposure to post-modernist literature and art taught me.

I liken it to this:

Imagine asking a person what 2 + 2 equals, and hearing them answer you, in absolute seriousness, "Potato." That's about what it is like trying to probe the mind of one of these lunatic malevolent narcissists.

And yet other contries have restricted the ownership of firearms and haven't become oppressive totalitarian dictatorships where as Saddam Hussain armed his population with AK47s and that was most definatly a dictatorship.

Private ownership of firearms doesn't guarantee safety from an oppressive government anymore that banning them guarantees that you will have one.

Really? Which citizens did he arm? I'll bet it wasn't the majority Shia...

So it was the American Persecution Complex?

No, it was an individual's persecution complex that drove this forward. Look at some of the clips from the tape he sent to NBC, he shows elements of a persecution complex, elements of a messiah complex and intrinsic in that he shows issues with grandiosity. He believed the world was out to get him.

This kid had problems, problems that should have been dealt with.

This instance has nothing to do with American culture.

No, it was an individual's persecution complex that drove this forward. Look at some of the clips from the tape he sent to NBC, he shows elements of a persecution complex, elements of a messiah complex and intrinsic in that he shows issues with grandiosity. He believed the world was out to get him.

This kid had problems, problems that should have been dealt with.

This instance has nothing to do with American culture.

Pantless apparently believes that Americans are all paranoid schizophrenics.

Dude... that's really not nice.

I mean, I can accept humorous posts and a copycat thread with said poll, but just because of Jolt's hiccup...

I always add a poll to threads that I steal. It's my bag baby.

Nervun,

As an outsider, i.e. not a US citizen, I can see what you mean by the US cultural glorification of gun violence.

To me, this is a different thing than gun culture, though I do think they are related. Gun culture, if I understand it correctly from the people here who claim to be part of it, is not inherently violent. It is merely a culture that revolves around an appreciation of a particular piece of technology, and the activities surrounding such technology.

Then there are other groups within US society that also use guns for violent or criminal purposes. The only thing these two groups have in common is the guns.

But none of this is what you are directly talking about, though your subject matter does relate to these two groups. If i understand you correctly, you are discussing how gun violence is often portrayed as the only or best solution in US media. Action movies, video games, cop shows, the current and ongoing military conflict(s), and even broadway musicals. But it does not only appear in your media.

There is also this meme that you cannot disrespect the soldier or veteran. Don't get me wrong, I think this is a good thing, but it also has some elements of that same glorification. Not to mention the immense resources the US invests in weapons and defense.

I think it is very ingrained in the US psyche, and I do not see a way of removing this glorification without radically changing US identity. However, if it is done, I do not see it affecting US gun culture too much.

Well, that's my fault for addressing a different point. Owning guns is indeed a mindset--I was responding to what I thought was your point, that the actual forces that drove the attacker to engage in such an action were derived from a emotion. My apologies for the confusion :)Ah, I see. ;) No, I wasn't talking about the individual at Virginia Tech, I was talking about the glorification of guns in our society.

Nervun,

As an outsider, i.e. not a US citizen, I can see what you mean by the US cultural glorification of gun violence.

To me, this is a different thing than gun culture, though I do think they are related. Gun culture, if I understand it correctly from the people here who claim to be part of it, is not inherently violent. It is merely a culture that revolves around an appreciation of a particular piece of technology, and the activities surrounding such technology.

Then there are other groups within US society that also use guns for violent or criminal purposes. The only thing these two groups have in common is the guns.

But none of this is what you are directly talking about, though your subject matter does relate to these two groups. If i understand you correctly, you are discussing how gun violence is often portrayed as the only or best solution in US media. Action movies, video games, cop shows, the current and ongoing military conflict(s), and even broadway musicals. But it does not only appear in your media.

There is also this meme that you cannot disrespect the soldier or veteran. Don't get me wrong, I think this is a good thing, but it also has some elements of that same glorification. Not to mention the immense resources the US invests in weapons and defense.

I think it is very ingrained in the US psyche, and I do not see a way of removing this glorification without radically changing US identity. However, if it is done, I do not see it affecting US gun culture too much.
but, isn't the glorification of violence in general the problem and not so much the specific glorification of gun violence?

but, isn't the glorification of violence in general the problem and not so much the specific glorification of gun violence?

Ask yourself this:

We went through the Civil Rights era.

We went through progressive changes in the treatment of African-Americans and women (Title IX, for instance, changed sports to include women).

I can turn on MTV, and see:

an apparent vile parody of African-Americans, glamorizing gun violence, to include treatment of women as objects, glamorization of drug use, and language that no rational person would use to refer to another

Unfortunately, it's not Amos and Andy - a vile parody written by whites to demean blacks. It's written and performed by African-Americans.

It's a sad thing to note that almost half of firearm murder victims in the US are African-Americans - 94% of whom are murdered by other African-Americans.

Yes, you could say in that case that a culture of violence is to blame.

But it has nothing to do with the Virginia Tech shooter.

Ask yourself this:

We went through the Civil Rights era.

We went through progressive changes in the treatment of African-Americans and women (Title IX, for instance, changed sports to include women).

I can turn on MTV, and see:

an apparent vile parody of African-Americans, glamorizing gun violence, to include treatment of women as objects, glamorization of drug use, and language that no rational person would use to refer to another

Unfortunately, it's not Amos and Andy - a vile parody written by whites to demean blacks. It's written and performed by African-Americans.

It's a sad thing to note that almost half of firearm murder victims in the US are African-Americans - 94% of whom are murdered by other African-Americans.

Yes, you could say in that case that a culture of violence is to blame.

But it has nothing to do with the Virginia Tech shooter.

I know, I am just trying to figure out this "gun culture" everyone keeps talking about. I def. see a culture of violence (and not just in the US) but I guess I am blinded to the "gun culture" :confused:

Yes, you could say in that case that a culture of violence is to blame.

But it has nothing to do with the Virginia Tech shooter.
Come on now.

An historical and cultural outlook on life which promotes guns; indeed, one in which ownership of firearms is seen as important a right as trial-by-jury and free speech, one in which violent opposition to perceived tyranny and oppression is actively encouraged by your Constitution, one in which firearms are easily and relatively cheaply available, must have some effect on those who use firearms.

No matter your views on gun control, ignoring the effect of the gun culture and glorification of gun violence is simply obtuse.

Come on now.

An historical and cultural outlook on life which promotes guns; indeed, one in which ownership of firearms is seen as important a right as trial-by-jury and free speech, one in which violent opposition to perceived tyranny and oppression is encouraged, one in which firearms are easily and relatively cheaply availablemust have some effect on those who use firearms.

No matter your views on gun control, ignoring the effect of the gun culture and glorification of gun violence is simply obtuse.

What I find obtuse is your strawman generalization of "gun culture" as glorifying violence.

There is plenty of "gun culture" in the US that doesn't glorify violence.

but, isn't the glorification of violence in general the problem and not so much the specific glorification of gun violence?

Yes and no, I think. On the one hand, you can not have glorification of gun violence without glorifying violence itself, right? But on the other hand, the US has a problem with school shootings, not school stabbings or bludgeonings. So I think the gun, as a symbol of revenge or equalisation, has been glorified.

EDIT: I should say that using guns as a solution to your problems has been glorified, rather than the guns themselves.

"They'll take my gun from my cold dead hands." "The most important right is the 2nd amendment." "The 2nd amendment is what gurantees the others." "I should be able to have whatever I want, even a machine gun." "Have Gun, Will Travel." "All you need for freedom is your gun." "Annie Grab Your Gun." "Top Gun." "NYPD Blues." And on and on and on.

At last, some examples. Rather narrow, and you've again missed the much larger body of the rest of the culture, but at least you've shown minor support for your assertion. Which, by the way, just because something has the word "gun" in it doesn't mean it has anything to do with guns. For example, Top Gun is about a group of students at an elite Air Force flying school, not guns, nor do police shows really have anything to do with guns except that police carry them and occasionally solve crimes where they were used.

As I've been attempting to explain to you, the "gun from my cold dead hands/2nd amendment uber alles" crowd is only PART of the population, and hence only part of the culture, here in the US. There is a nearly equal body of people who are just as scared of the gun as you are and want them eliminated. If this were not so, then everyone WOULD be toting around assault rifles and carrying concealed weapons and such, which is obviously not the case. As I stated originally, the true "gun culture" is one of debate and uncertainty, like most issues in the US. You can't take one half of a debate and try to paint the entire picture with it. Your painting winds up drab, lacking color and realism.

It's like saying, "Well, we Americans do have a problem with binge drinking and alcoholism in society, but we don't have a culture that exemplifies alcohol" in front of a typical beer comercial.

It's not, because you're the only one here insisting that there's some sort of problem with guns in the US. There are numerous others here at home, especially in light of the recent tragedy, who espouse your line of thinking, and thank goodness they are only one half of the issue. I'm glad they're there, and I'm glad at least a few of them present valid, reasoned arguments for that side. The same way I'm glad that the pro-gun lobby exists and at least a few of them present valid, reasoned arguments for that side.

No, I have not.

Yeah, you really have. But it's OK, I guess, because that's not really what you wanted to talk about.

but I am addressing the point of view beyond violence because that's what we always fail to do.

If we addressed and resolved the human tendencies toward self-importance, control and violence, this entire thread would become a non-issue. I know you think you're doing good, but if you somehow succeed in your crusade, all you'll do is cut one head off the hydra.

I speak of the gun culture of the US because we have made it part and parcel of our culture and it isn't a GOOD part.

But the guns have been invented. They exist. We could attempt to ignore trees, also, but they are still here. And we can't control everyone's choice to ignore them or not to ignore them. So we may as well talk about them. And some people will like them, and others won't. And we need both sets of people to ensure everyone's best interests.

HOWEVER, what you seem to be missing the point of is that the US culture as a whole has venerated the gun.

And you seem to be missing the point that the culture as a whole has not. Again, simply because we argue about them doesn't mean that our culture revolves around them. We argue about a lot of things.

Look at the culture, NOT just the crime stats, not just the acident stats, but media, language, beliefs, everything. See just how much a part of it guns are THEN you can see my point.

I am, and I don't. I think you're missing my point for exactly the same reasons.

That is, I think, what is causing a lot of problems.

I think a lot of the problem is that I'm here, in America, talking about the problem with Americans. In my office, in my home, at the deli counter. Not reading what Japanese people think about the problem in a Japanese newspaper half a world away. I'm not knocking your position, but as I've been saying all along, you seem to have a serious misconception of the realities of US culture and how the aggregate feels about guns.

We cannot debate gun control.

Yes we can. And we do. That is the US gun culture.

Why is it that when kids get bullied they think of getting a gun and confronting their attackers?

Possibly for the same reason they think of getting a sword and confronting them? Or of just beating them up? Again, I direct you to the basic human predilection towards violence, of which guns are merely a tool.

Why is it that after each shooting we have arm everyone or disarm everyone arguments?

Because it brings the issue freshly to the hearts and minds of the people and evokes emotional responses. Or are you claiming that the tree that fell over in the last storm and crushed your garage wouldn't be your topic of conversation right after it happened?

We've had people wander into this thread telling us just how much they love their guns and you want to tell me that there isn't a gun culture?

No, I'd say that there's just gun nuts who are robotic and pedantic in their support of the pro-gun side of the issue. Just like there are disarmament freaks who mindlessly and pedantically support the anti-gun side of the issue. Put them together, and you have a culture.

I think they do.

Then please explain what they mean to you, because I haven't seen you use that expression correctly once in 13 pages.

I've been trying to explain the problem for 13 pages now and yet many people keep missing the target. Yet, funnily enough, people outside the US don't seem to have the issue.

People outside the US like...the Persians? How about the Russians? Africans? Southeast Asians?

To clarify: I have explained how guns are venerated within our culture. Look at pages 11 and 12.

Very nice. I understand your position and I disagree with it, and I don't think that most of what you've said compromises anything more than your own wild conjecture based on a few thin facts that you've misinterpreted. I didn't ask you to explain that. I asked you to explain how what I said somehow made you think that it supported your point. Which you have again failed to do.

Pantless apparently believes that Americans are all paranoid schizophrenics.

And Remote can define neither paranoid schizophrenic nor persecution complex because he obviously knows what neither means.

What I find obtuse is your strawman generalization of "gun culture" as glorifying violence.

There is plenty of "gun culture" in the US that doesn't glorify violence.

gun culture and glorification of gun violence
See my 'and' there? Separating the two concepts?

Talk about strawman.....

Care to address my argument, rather than pick on non-existent fallacies?

And Remote can define neither paranoid schizophrenic nor persecution complex because he obviously knows what neither means.

The VT shooter exhibits all the classic symptoms of the paranoid schizophrenic.

Obviously, 80 million American shooters with 300 million active firearms don't exhibit these symptoms, or we would all be dead right now.

I'll wait for you to explain how our firearm murder rate went down about 54 percent since 1993.

What I find obtuse is your strawman generalization of "gun culture" as glorifying violence.
Anyone who tried to take my gun would end up with a smoking hole in their forehead.

That is all I will say on the matter.

Concession accepted.

I'll wait for you to explain how our firearm murder rate went down about 54 percent since 1993.
With or without starting a totally off-topic rant by pro-gun ownership people such as yourself?

Yes and no, I think. On the one hand, you can not have glorification of gun violence without glorifying violence itself, right? But on the other hand, the US has a problem with school shootings, not school stabbings or bludgeonings. So I think the gun, as a symbol of revenge or equalisation, has been glorified.

EDIT: I should say that using guns as a solution to your problems has been glorified, rather than the guns themselves.

actually growing up we had a lot more of the "gang up and jump that person after school" than shootings, girls are beaten up by their boyfriends more often than school shootings happen, girls get violently raped more often than school shootings........I see a problem with all violence, I see violence being billed as "the answer to your problems" more often than I see gun specific glorification.

Concession accepted.


How is your strawman doing? Obviously not well.

actually growing up we had a lot more of the "gang up and jump that person after school" than shootings, girls are beaten up by their boyfriends more often than school shootings happen, girls get violently raped more often than school shootings........I see a problem with all violence, I see violence being billed as "the answer to your problems" more often than I see gun specific glorification.

And you are entirely correct that violence being billed as "the answer to your problems" is the problem. I am merely suggesting that when this problem manifests itself as gun violence, one of the causes may be the glorification of gun violence in the US media. I do not believe that legal gun owners or people liking guns is part of the problem.

How is your strawman doing? Obviously not well.
Know any other fallacies you can shout at people? Ad hominem, perhaps?

And you are entirely correct that violence being billed as "the answer to your problems" is the problem. I am merely suggesting that when this problem manifests itself as gun violence, one of the causes may be the glorification of gun violence in the US media. I do not believe that legal gun owners or people liking guns is part of the problem.

Americans have a lot of oddly conflicting media signals.

We want more Puritanical laws concerning sex, but we like porn movies.

We want African-Americans treated equally, but African-Americans make music videos that would be a vile parody if they had been produced by whites.

We want women treated equally, unless we go to Hooters.

And for some reason, violence is the answer to all problems in movies, even though we hate it when that happens in real life.

91% of violent crime is done without a firearm - so violence certainly is a problem. We regularly beat, rape, and rob each other - far more often than we kill each other.

And you are entirely correct that violence being billed as "the answer to your problems" is the problem. I am merely suggesting that when this problem manifests itself as gun violence, one of the causes may be the glorification of gun violence in the US media. I do not believe that legal gun owners or people liking guns is part of the problem.

I think violent people are the problem. I don't think it has anything to do with guns, or knives, or baseball bats.

I think violent people are the problem. I don't think it has anything to do with guns, or knives, or baseball bats.
I've gotta go with G-o-g on this one, Smunk. I think gun violence is given a particular kind of attention compared to other forms of violence, and I do think this is reflected in how people behave when it comes to guns and gun violence as opposed to other kind of violence.

I absolutely agree with you that violent people are the real problem, when you get down to the core of it. But I also think that guns and gun violence are glorified in ways that other forms of violence are not, and I think this impacts HOW violent people choose to vent their violent tendencies.

I've gotta go with G-o-g on this one, Smunk. I think gun violence is given a particular kind of attention compared to other forms of violence, and I do think this is reflected in how people behave when it comes to guns and gun violence as opposed to other kind of violence.

I absolutely agree with you that violent people are the real problem, when you get down to the core of it. But I also think that guns and gun violence are glorified in ways that other forms of violence are not, and I think this impacts HOW violent people choose to vent their violent tendencies.

I believe its glorification in movies is due to the "equalizer" effect. In movies, a common downtrodden person can achieve victory in a movie simply by using a firearm.

Everyone sitting in the audience is a Walter Mitty, and feels powerless in modern society. Seeing an individual achieve some sort of power and the ability to resolve problems is a fantasy they live out in the movie.

The problem some people have is separating fantasy from reality. In the unlikely event that I end up using my firearm to solve a problem (say, being robbed), that use is just as likely to get me in a lot of trouble (even if I don't end up shooting anyone).

The common refrain on this is "better to be judged by 12 than carried by six" - i.e., you substitute one set of problems for another in such a case.

In the movies, people who use firearms to solve problems are rarely, if ever, subject to any problems. Even the police in movies aren't subject to post-shooting investigations - which real police are.

But, if you're so stupid you can't tell fantasy for reality, no amount of explaining the difference will help.

I read elsewhere your response to someone that I am too lazy to re-find... about our "gun culture" where you referenced bumper sticker type slogans and "Annie get your gun" the first of which being usually exaggerated, and the second a musical about a time when everyone needed guns.

If having plays, stickers, and t-shirts about something makes a "culture" and means everyone is "obsessed" and "worships" something.........I hate to say what kind of "cultures" I see in other countries......

I just think your whole "gun culture" thing is a crock. Like I said earlier, I can understand trying to pull back on the very real problem with violence in the world, and the very real problem within certain people groups with the "thug culture", but this "gun culture" I just don't buy outside of people who are excessively violent to begin with or who just want to break the law. You can't separate violence from violent people, or crimes from criminals, but you can separate guns from your "gun culture".......which tells me it's not that great of an idea of what's wrong.
Do you say that you don't see that there may be such a thing as gun culture, for good or bad, in the US? The history of the US is influenced by the constitutional right to bear arms, the NRA is one of the most influential groups when it comes to politics, there are a lot of shooting ranges and people are encouraged to learn about responsible gun use, hunting is still being done, a great many movies features guns and gun use, there are lots of songs about people using guns, etc etc.

These are just some things that make up the gun culture in the US. But there is one. And it's quite visible, in my opinion.
Of course, Cho's obsession was not with guns, from what we can tell, rather he was obsessed with a paranoid idea of persecution. It's not the "US Gun Culture" that caused this event, rather it was some mentally ill individuals delusions of grandeur and persecution.
But as far as I can see, the gun culture that is present in the US contributed to the possibility of such a mass killing, among other things by providing easy access to guns for the guy. In the media pack he sent to NBC, you see hm pose with firearms in 11 of 43 pictures, and in one pic he shows off his ammunition.

No, it did not cause the event, not by itself... But again, as I see it was an important factor for t
but, isn't the glorification of violence in general the problem and not so much the specific glorification of gun violence?
Both are problematic.
There is plenty of "gun culture" in the US that doesn't glorify violence.
Yes.

I believe its glorification in movies is due to the "equalizer" effect. In movies, a common downtrodden person can achieve victory in a movie simply by using a firearm.

Everyone sitting in the audience is a Walter Mitty, and feels powerless in modern society. Seeing an individual achieve some sort of power and the ability to resolve problems is a fantasy they live out in the movie.A perfect example of gun culture here.

But as far as I can see, the gun culture that is present in the US contributed to the possibility of such a mass killing, among other things by providing easy access to guns for the guy. In the media pack he sent to NBC, you see hm pose with firearms in 11 of 43 pictures, and in one pic he shows off his ammunition.

I think that someone screwed up along the line, such as the judge who ordered him to outpatient therapy rather than committal to a mental facility. Had he been committed he would have been barred from buying firearms.

Also, I don't think it's really the gun culture that contributed to his having those firearms. I doubt any member of the NRA would have wanted that kid to have the right to buy a gun after seeing a video like the one he made.

A perfect example of gun culture here.

Did you bother to read the rest of it?

The love of guns (which, I admit is not the best of terms) is what is leading to the behavores.

Mmm. So controlling the way people feel, is the key to addressing behavior?

Perhaps it is. But, short of a massive brainwashing campaign I don't think it's very practical. If I want to "love" guns (which to you seems to mean "not have a burning hatred for" guns) mind control is really the only option you have for changing that. Because your arguments are not that persuasive.

There is no established correlation between someone's "love" for guns and their propensity to commit violent criminal acts.

I think you missed my point, I want to remove this notion in the US that somehow guns are glorious and that having one will solve all of your problems, present or future.

That's a pure strawman. I don't know anyone who thinks they are "glorious" or that they solve all problems.

Your argument seems constructed around a stereotype.

I think that someone screwed up along the line, such as the judge who ordered him to outpatient therapy rather than committal to a mental facility. Had he been committed he would have been barred from buying firearms.

Also, I don't think it's really the gun culture that contributed to his having those firearms. I doubt any member of the NRA would have wanted that kid to have the right to buy a gun after seeing a video like the one he made.

I don't think they would either... But would he have gone on a random-killing rampage if it had not been for the negative aspects of the US gun culture? I don't know, but I believe he wouldn't have.

Did you bother to read the rest of it?Yes.

The fact that the fantasy exists at all is most of the problem.

Yes.

The fact that the fantasy exists at all is most of the problem.

So, when are you instituting the thought police? Or when are you removing the First Amendment?

So, when are you instituting the thought police? Or when are you removing the First Amendment?Uh, you can change mindsets without removing rights.

...speaking of strawmen.

Uh, you can change mindsets without removing rights.

...speaking of strawmen.

Walter Mitty is central to US culture...

Of course, Cho's obsession was not with guns, from what we can tell, rather he was obsessed with a paranoid idea of persecution. It's not the "US Gun Culture" that caused this event, rather it was some mentally ill individuals delusions of grandeur and persecution.
Let me rephrase that a bit because I realize now that's not what I was getting at. It wasn't Cho's obession with guns that drove him to act the way he did, but look at his choice of weapon(s)? Think about the phrase "Going postal" for a second, add in "Road rage". Nowadays of course we use them pretty much as a joke, but think about the orginal actions that coined the terms. Cho was mentally disturbed and (according to this morning's news) bullied. But he reached for a gun. The guys at the post offices who went postal reached for their guns. The gun is viewed as their answer, their first answer it seems.

And then we have the responce to this, from the talking heads to this board, the responces, or the great majority thereof, center around guns and either making more of them or melting them all down to tie clips.

Perhaps Gun Culture is the wrong choice of words, gun centered culture may come closer because I am not attacking just the violence or gun owners, but the culture of the US itself.

but......I need you to explain this to me further. :(
Sorry, even I need to sleep sometimes... :p

Well... that and my wife has it stuck in her head that a proper Japanese wife does not retire to bed before her husband and given that she's in her 2nd trimester I'm really trying to get it through to her that she needs to start taking it a bit easier.

What did you need expanded?

Nervun,

As an outsider, i.e. not a US citizen, I can see what you mean by the US cultural glorification of gun violence.

To me, this is a different thing than gun culture, though I do think they are related. Gun culture, if I understand it correctly from the people here who claim to be part of it, is not inherently violent. It is merely a culture that revolves around an appreciation of a particular piece of technology, and the activities surrounding such technology.

Then there are other groups within US society that also use guns for violent or criminal purposes. The only thing these two groups have in common is the guns.

But none of this is what you are directly talking about, though your subject matter does relate to these two groups. If i understand you correctly, you are discussing how gun violence is often portrayed as the only or best solution in US media. Action movies, video games, cop shows, the current and ongoing military conflict(s), and even broadway musicals. But it does not only appear in your media.

There is also this meme that you cannot disrespect the soldier or veteran. Don't get me wrong, I think this is a good thing, but it also has some elements of that same glorification. Not to mention the immense resources the US invests in weapons and defense.

I think it is very ingrained in the US psyche, and I do not see a way of removing this glorification without radically changing US identity. However, if it is done, I do not see it affecting US gun culture too much.
YES! That's it exactly!

The "nut-hut"? Wow. That's...extraordinarily offensive.
I never claimed to be "politically correct" and become sickened by those who are. If mental institution suits you better then use that term, but he wasn`t right in the head either way. Frankly, i`m tired of myself and my interest being the whipping post for everyone. It was a tragedy what happened, but thousands of people are killed every year by Illicit drugs, which by the way there is a total prohibition on, and i fail to see the huge outcry on that subject either in this forum or in the media at large. It seems that a lot of people get self-rightious on the subject of guns, especially the so-called elite of society-entertainers, media persons and politicians. It`s fine for them to spout off about the evils of firearms and how nobody should own them. Their idea of nobody is "you and i", the common man. these elitist live behind walls and have ARMED bodyguards to protect them from the rabble and feel "we" are not worthy of any protection. I applaud Tennessee, today their state government is working on lifting the prohibiton on concealed carry holders from carrying weapons on government supported property. Have any of you who are screaming "BAN,BAN,BAN" stopped to think about two things? 1) What the HELL were the campus officials and security doing for 2 hours while this piece of shit stops his rampage and mails his manifesto to NBC, then resumes the carnage? It seems to my like they buried their heads in the sand. 2) What if someone, a ordinary citizen,was allowed to carry a firearm were present? I think the results would have been different. Now before you jump on me for advocating concealed carry, i want to state that i am for OPEN carry. Anyone who meets the qualifications set by the same background check you need to purchase a firearm should be allowed to carry it on their person, in plain sight. I`d rather have someone alot of you would portray as a cowboy or rambo-type right there packing heat and able to respond immediately to the threat than sitting around, unarmed and helpless, waiting (hoping) that big-brother (the police) show up in time to save my ass. That`s my 2 cents now rip on me.:upyours:

but, isn't the glorification of violence in general the problem and not so much the specific glorification of gun violence?
One problem at a time...

But, see the point I think you guys keep missing out on is that I speak not only of gun violence, but the glorification of guns in and of themselves. It encompases gun violence as well as other issues.

Before you all begin screaming for my head, i`ll define my qualifications for firearms ownership. Most of you who already own one know what the federal form looks like, those requirements are sufficient. Those who have not seen the form and do not own a firearm, go to a local gun store and ask to see one-come on, use your head for more than a hat rack. It`s been a while since my last purchase but i can still remember the jist of what it says. A yes answer to any question,other than citizenship, on the federal form may result in disqualification of purchase and perjury on the form is a federal felony punishable by $10,000 fine and/or 10 years in prison.These are in no particular order- 1)Are you a U.S. Citizen? IF NOT, THE GOVERNMENT WANTS TO KNOW WHY AND IT IS TO BE MORE DIFFICULT FOR YOU TO PURCHASE 2)Have you ever been convicted of a felony? 3) Are there any conditions that would prevent you from lawfully purchasing a firearm? 4) Are you addicted to narcotics and /or any other illicit drug? 5)Have you ever been admitted for or volutarilly gone in for mental evaluation? 6)Have you ever renounced your citizenship to the U.S. or belong to a group whose goal is the overthrow of the U.S. government? 7) Have you served in the military? THIS IS THE ONLY QUESTION ON THE FORM A "YES" ANSWER FOR IS ACCEPTIBLE WITHOUT QUESTION! 7a)Have you been dishonorably discharged from the military? Anyone who can meet these qualifications should have the right to carry a firearm on them for protection. Before you get into the whole marksmanship requirements for ownership know this. I am a competetive shooter/recreational gun owner, I know how to shoot and properly handle a firearm. Police are trained in marksmanship and how to properly handle a firearm. I have compeated against Police officers in matches, I am a average shooter at best. Some of these highly-trained public servants scare me and not because they are deadly accurate, it`s quite the opposite. Now my apoligies go out to the members of law enforcement who feel i may have slandered them, not all of you fall in that catagory but you know what members of your brotherhood do.

In the current gun control thread, the normal gun nuts are baying their standard of “If only everyone was armed, this wouldn’t have happened” as if adding more fire to a raging inferno is a good idea. Now we can debate that point till the cows come home (and probably will), but again, it speaks volumes about the gun culture in the US.




hold up a minute. I hope that wasn't directed at me. I was only kidding...

We need to get rid of the gun culture that is prevalent in the US. No, Virginia Tech didn’t set me off; it was the very first statement from the White House in regards to the tragedy at VT that did it. Among the first statements made was this gem:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/04/20070416-1.html

Think about this for a second, a great tragedy has happened, 32 (+1) lives were lost and yet... yet the first thing out of the White House is a reassurance to the members of the NRA that the government won’t be coming after their guns. And I am not singling out just President Bush in this; today (My time at least), Senator Reid echoed the same: http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2007/04/18/ap/politics/d8oin2go1.txt


funny, in the link you provided, the quote was in response to a Question about gun control. not the first thing out of the WH.

and notice that the topic of questions turned from one/two questions about Virgina then it turned to Russia and Atty Gen, then that question about gun laws. so it's the reporters fault for not showing enough concern about VT and bringing up Gun Law/Rights.

Press Briefing by Dana Perino
White House Conference Center Briefing Room

Video (Windows)
Press Briefings
Audio



12:58 P.M. EDT

MS. PERINO: Good afternoon. I have several announcements and then we'll go to questions.

The President was made aware of the Virginia Tech shootings. He was horrified and his immediate reaction was one of deep concern for the families of the victims, the victims, themselves, the students, the professors and all the people of Virginia who have dealt with this shocking incident. And his thoughts and prayers are with them; we are monitoring the situation. And while state and local authorities are in the lead right now -- I think that will remain the case, but federal assets are available should they be needed, if Virginia were to request them.

On Iraq, this is the 70th day since the President requested emergency funding for our troops. President Bush spoke with Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki via secure video this morning. That lasted about 50 minutes. The two leaders discussed ongoing efforts among Iraqi leaders to come to agreement on important matters of reconciliation and that determination of Iraqi legislators to continue their important work in the face of the al Qaeda-claimed bombing at the Iraqi parliament last week.

The President and Prime Minister also discussed the importance of garnering more regional support for political and security efforts in Iraq, and the opportunity that the upcoming regional conference in Sharm el-Sheikh presents, on May 3rd and 4th.

In Russia, we are deeply disturbed by the heavy-handed manner in which this weekend's demonstrations in Moscow and St. Petersburg were broken up by the authorities, and by an emerging pattern of use of excessive force by the authorities in reaction to similar events. We also find it intolerable that journalists were detained -- an unacceptable practice that hinders freedom of the press. We underscore that allowing peaceful expressions of protest is an essential element of democracy and a universally recognized human right.

In Nigeria, the United States takes seriously reports of voting irregularities and election-related violence during this past weekend's state and local elections. We would urge that officials address any problems in order to ensure that Saturday's presidential election, that those polls are free and fair and conducted in an atmosphere free of violence. These elections set the stage for an important milestone, as they will lead to the first civilian-to-civilian transfer of power in Nigeria's history at the end of May.

And the last announcement is that the President and Mrs. Bush extend warm wishes to Pope Benedict XVI on his 80th birthday. Pope Benedict is a great moral leader who offers a powerful message of love, faith and reason. Today we celebrate his life and we express our appreciation for his commitment to the cause of human dignity around the world.

Terry.

Q Any talk that President might go to Virginia to comfort the families?

MS. PERINO: I spoke to the President at 12:35 p.m., I was the first to alert him to the tragedy and I think that it's a little bit premature to talk about any other travel arrangements, or anything else. But if that changes, we'll let you know.

Q Might he speak on the topic?

MS. PERINO: If it changes, I'll let you know for sure. He had just been informed, as I said, about 25 minutes ago.

Q Has he communicated these concerns to President Putin, about the demonstrations?

MS. PERINO: I don't believe that they've spoken, no.

Q Will he do so, or might he do that?

MS. PERINO: Well, I know that the --

Q Or bring in the Russian Ambassador to talk about it, or anything like that?

MS. PERINO: I haven't heard of any such plans. Obviously, we've had a consistent position that we think that these types of disruptions at peaceful protests are unacceptable. And we welcome the call by some Russian officials for a thorough investigation of the activities. And we also call for the Russian government to reiterate its commitment and attention to respect fully the international standards of involving freedom of speech and the press and the assembly -- freedom to assemble. And I would refer you to the State Department to find out if any of the ambassadors have been in touch.

Jessica.

Q The Attorney General released a copy of the remarks he'll be making before Congress tomorrow. Has the President read these remarks, and is he satisfied that they're detailed enough about the pattern of decision making?

MS. PERINO: I don't know if the President has read the remarks, but he does believe that the Justice Department and the Attorney General, at his direction, have been fully responsive to Congress and that there will be a hearing tomorrow, and then the AG can continue to answer questions from the members.

Q So were they submitted to the White House, or reviewed by the White House before they were released?

MS. PERINO: I don't believe so. At least I did not see them, and that was one thing I said I would check on from the gaggle, and I didn't have an opportunity.

Just to let you know, the committee asked for the remarks -- or the testimony, 48 hours in advance, and I don't know if it was the Attorney General who first released them. But they asked for the remarks, and the Attorney General also had an op-ed in yesterday's paper, and I think that he's working very hard to make sure people have answers to the questions that they have.

Q Did the President read the op-ed?

MS. PERINO: I don't know.

April.

Q Dana, going back to Virginia Tech, what more does this White House think needs to be done as it relates to gun issues? The President says current laws need to be strengthened, anything beyond that -- you had a conference on school violence with guns -- what more needs to be done?

MS. PERINO: I would point you back to the fact that President, along with Secretary Spellings, hosted last October -- October 10, 2006 -- a conference on school gun violence after the Amish school shooting and the other shootings that had happened, because the tragedies are the ones that just collectively break America's heart and are ones that we deeply feel, because all of us can imagine what it would be like to have been at your own school, your own college, and to have something happen. And those of us who are parents, or brothers or sisters of people at the schools have to take that into consideration.

As far as policy, the President believes that there is a right for people to bear arms, but that all laws must be followed. And certainly bringing a gun into a school dormitory and shooting -- I don't want to say numbers because I know that they're still trying to figure out many people were wounded and possibly killed, but obviously that would be against the law and something that someone should be held accountable for.

Q Columbine, Amish school shooting, now this, and a whole host of other gun issues brought into schools -- that's not including guns on the streets and in many urban areas and rural areas. Does there need to be some more restrictions? Does there need to be gun control in this country?

MS. PERINO: The President -- as I said, April, if there are changes to the President's policy we will let you know. But we've had a consistent policy of ensuring that the Justice Department is enforcing all of the gun laws that we have on the books and making sure that they're prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Q Lastly, in Texas, if I'm correct, he passed legislation, no age restriction on possession of weapons, if I'm correct. Should there be some kind of federal age limit, as far as the President is concerned, raising the age for gun possession in this country?

MS. PERINO: Unfortunately, I'm going to have to go back and look at what the record was in Texas. Maybe Ken Herman could tell us. We'll go to Ken next.

Q Dana, what is the outcome the President hopes to see at Wednesday's meeting on Iraq at the White House?

MS. PERINO: The President hopes to find out if the Democrats are going to be able to come together, resolve their differences, and stop being so unreasonable and come to him and say how they are going to pass a clean bill that can get to his desk that will fund the troops.

As you continue to hear from them, they are not consistent in their position, they refuse to take arbitrary timetables off of the table, and other restrictions against our generals. And the President has said that he hopes that they can come down here and talk about how they're going to get a clean bill to his desk, because they've also said that they're not going to let the troops go without funding. So there has to be a reasonable discussion on Wednesday, and the President hopes that that will be the beginning of that, on Wednesday afternoon.

Q Does he expect them to give up on timetables?

MS. PERINO: I'm going to let them have a conversation on Wednesday, and I'll update you from there.

Q I guess a logical follow up to that question is, what is the President perhaps willing to compromise if the timetables have to be taken off the table?

MS. PERINO: The President was very clear today in his remarks of what he is for and what he will accept. What he will not accept is an arbitrary timetable for withdrawal, a date for withdrawal that tells our enemies exactly when we're going to leave. He is not going to accept armchair quarterbacking from Capitol Hill on the generals who are in Baghdad and around Iraq trying to prosecute this war. And he is really disappointed that they had to include pork barrel spending in order to get this bill across the goal line.

So it is the President who has a very principled stand, one that is consistent. And the Democrats don't have any agreement on their side. So, hopefully, they can come to agreement on their side. And if they come on Wednesday and they don't, we'll have to see where we go from there.

Q Doesn't he have to give something, maybe? I realize you're not going to negotiate here, but --

MS. PERINO: No, I'm not going to negotiate from the podium. The President invited them to the meeting on Wednesday and he's looking forward to it, and we'll update you after that.

Peter.

Q Dana, a lot of the stories about the Gonzales appearance tomorrow framed it as "his job is on the line." Is it?

MS. PERINO: Look, I think there's a lot of hype about the hearing. This issue has been ongoing for I think over a couple of months now. The Justice Department has been fully responsive to the committee, and that's going to culminate tomorrow in a hearing. But I think that one day's hearing does not necessarily mean -- I've heard it described as "make or break," and I would submit to you that the Attorney General, as you've reported, has been as forthcoming as he possibly can be, has laid it all out on the table for them and tomorrow he looks forward to answering their questions.

Q Is this a job security issue?

MS. PERINO: No, I don't think so. The Attorney General has the full confidence of the President, and the President wanted the Justice Department to be fully responsive and they have been. The President also said he needed to go to Capitol Hill and continue to talk to those members. He's had many conversations with members of Congress by phone, while they were on their two-week recess, and tomorrow he'll have a chance to talk to them in person.

Q Well, does he, and he alone, have to dig himself out of this controversy?

MS. PERINO: Look, the Attorney General has taken full responsibility for it, and I think that the Attorney General looks forward to answering those questions tomorrow.

Q Dana, General Sheehan, one of the names that's come up as a potential war czar, says the administration does not have an "agreed-upon strategic view" for Iraq. Do you buy that?

MS. PERINO: Well, first of all, I would take issue with the idea that he was a potential war czar. As Steve Hadley has said and as we have said, that no list of candidates has been narrowed down and no names have been sent to the President for consideration.

What we are working on right now is implementation of a long, deliberative process of a policy that was created and announced by the President on January 10, 2007, and is being implemented right now by General David Petraeus. We are quite unified. And we are starting to see some small signs of success, despite the very real challenges and the violence that the enemy continues to perpetrate.

Suzanne.

Q Can you give us an update on the emails from the RNC side and the White House side? Last week we talked about the organization, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a figure of 5 million missing emails. You had mentioned in the gaggle you thought -- you would check with the Office of Administration and perhaps that wasn't correct.

MS. PERINO: Look, the left-wing group, CREW, came up with a number of 5 million. We don't know where they came up with that number. We've told you what we know, which is that we are aware that there could have been some emails that were not automatically archived because of a technical issue. And we have talked with the Office of Administration about that, and we're looking into those details. But given the complex nature of this issue, it might take us a little while to identify those. We do, however, know that most -- all of those emails should be available on backup tapes. And so we'll continue to look at it. This is separate from the RNC accounts, and as soon as we have more information, we'll provide it.

Q Are you confident they're on backup tapes, or you're still in that phase of investigating?

MS. PERINO: There should be, and we just want to make sure that there are all of them. And, remember, there's a huge amount of email that comes in and out of the White House. And it's quite a feat for the IT folks to be able to keep up with software upgrades and storage and the amount of -- just the amount of traffic that's coming in and out on emails. On any given year, I think I've read upwards of 50 million emails are sent and received, not to mention forwarded or copied or blind copied, or all of those different features that you can use with email. So it's a massive number.

Q And what was the agreement between the White House Counsel and members of Congress regarding an independent investigator, computer IT?

MS. PERINO: Sure, that was regarding a separate issue, which is on the small number of people that have access to RNC-hosted email accounts, based on the job description that they have in order for them to avoid violating the Hatch Act. And the agreement that we came to was -- was suggested by Senator Leahy and Senator Specter, I believe, in which they said, why don't we work together to see if there's an outside consultant, forensics consultant that can help us identify if there are any potentially lost emails. Fred Fielding and the rest of the White House thought that was a reasonable idea. And so Fred Fielding and the Senator spoke on Friday, and their staffs are going to meet today to talk about how to move that process forward.

Q Is there any sense of a timetable, when you might have some more details?

MS. PERINO: No.

Q Weeks or days?

MS. PERINO: I don't know. I'm not going to put a date on it.

Q Dana, can I come back to the Gonzales testimony again? One of the things Senator Schumer said is that there's a lot of "I don't knows," and "don't remembers" in it. You've heard the testimony. Do you think that the Attorney General has been specific enough in how he has answered some of the questions about the --

MS. PERINO: I think that the Attorney General has been perfectly honest. And I do have to -- I think all of us have to remember that this was an issue that took place over now almost two-and-a-half years. And so if there are certain things that somebody can't specifically remember, I wouldn't consider that necessarily to be without -- outside the realm of possibility, and I think the Attorney General has been very honest and he looks forward to that hearing tomorrow.

Q Does the President plan to speak to the Attorney General or offer him any guidance?

MS. PERINO: They spoke this morning.

Q And can you give us any sense of --

MS. PERINO: I don't have a readout of it, but they -- obviously they speak regularly, and this morning, when they spoke, they talked about his testimony.

Go ahead, Jim.

Q I was just wondering, because there was a while where they weren't speaking so regularly.

MS. PERINO: That's not the case. The Attorney General has been here for regular meetings with the President.

Q Wait a minute, we asked several times if they talked, and I know that a week had gone by or, say, eight days --

MS. PERINO: They don't speak every day, but I can assure you that I have seen him coming in and out of the Oval Office for the regular meetings that he has, especially for FBI --

Q And have they discussed this incident?

MS. PERINO: They have many other things to discuss, as well, but again, this morning when they spoke, they did talk about tomorrow's testimony.

Q And you have no readout for us at all about what was said?

MS. PERINO: No, I wasn't there. But I can tell you that they spoke, and obviously, as I've told you, the President has full confidence in the Attorney General, and there's a hearing tomorrow, and once we get that behind us, we'll see how we can get about the business of the people.

Q I was listening to Vice President Cheney yesterday on "Face the Nation," and he seemed --

MS. PERINO: Nice self-promotion. (Laughter.)

Q -- and it seemed to me that he was less than resolute in his backing of the Attorney General.

MS. PERINO: I think that is an over-interpretation. The Vice President said the Attorney General has the full confidence of the President, and he said that the Attorney General is going to have to go up to Capitol Hill tomorrow and speak with the senators and answer their questions. And that's exactly what I'm saying here today.

It's not -- this was an issue that the Attorney General managed out of his department; he's taken full responsibility for it. And so I think the Vice President was accurate in his statements yesterday.

Q Has the White House received a letter from some conservatives asking for Gonzales's resignation? Has the President seen that?

MS. PERINO: Not that I'm aware of.

Go ahead, Les.

Q Thank you, Dana. Two questions: Yesterday The New York Times quoted Houston Baker, an English professor at Duke who has now relocated to Vanderbilt, as condemning what he called "rapacious white athletes given license to rape, maraud, deploy hate speech, and feel proud of themselves --

MS. PERINO: What's your question, Les?

Q -- scummy bunch of white males living like farm animals." The question: Does the President believe that this man and 87 other Duke faculty who also maligned these three lacrosse players found not guilty should now apologize, or not?

MS. PERINO: As much as you have tried to drag me into this story, I'm going to continue to resist it, Les. What's your next question?

Q Okay. You, Dana, we're quoted --

MS. PERINO: Uh-oh.

Q -- in yesterday's New York Times, with your 61-word announcement, beginning with, "The President has full confidence in Paul Wolfowitz." But the large Times headline above your quote was "the mounting storm on Wolfowitz," which The Washington Post headlined as "furor." And my question: Do you or the President believe that Mr. Wolfowitz has been libeled by these newspapers publishing details of his personal life?

Q Let me just reiterate for you that the President does have full confidence in Paul Wolfowitz. He has done a very good job at the World Bank, where they are working to lift people up out of poverty around the world. He's focused on Africa and other areas around the world that need the World Bank's attention. And the President continues to have confidence in him.

Q You don't think that he has been libeled, then?

MS. PERINO: I'm not going to comment on that.

Q Does the President think he used good judgment in this incident, however?

MS. PERINO: Look, what he knows is that Paul Wolfowitz has apologized, and the board at the World Bank is undergoing a review and I think I'll have to leave it there.

Victoria.

Q Does the President not remember having a phone conversation with Senator Domenici about U.S. attorney Iglesias? Or is he clear that one did not take place?

MS. PERINO: I've never asked him that question. I do know that his vague recollection was that he had heard complaints. And then I'll refer you to his statement -- or his answer to a question that he got in Mexico, in which he was asked that question, and he said that he recalls being at a meeting on the Hill in which this issue was brought up -- a meeting of senators on the Hill in which it was brought up. But I've never heard anything about a phone call.

Q So he's never actually answered the question.

MS. PERINO: He answered the question. And I don't know anything about a phone call; I've never heard that -- except for questions from you all.

Q You mean the phone call --

MS. PERINO: I don't know that the President ever received a phone call. I don't have any record of that, or any recollection of it, and I've been dealing with this issue for many weeks.

Q When he was at the meeting on the Hill where it was brought up, it was Senator Domenici --

MS. PERINO: I don't think people remember, necessarily, who it was. And, remember, complaints about voter fraud cases were coming in from various different places.

Q Right. Just to be clear about this, then, Senator Domenici and the President, has there ever been a direct conversation between the two?

MS. PERINO: I don't know. I don't believe so, necessarily, about this particular issue, but remember, when -- the President sees members of Congress all of the time, and as I think I said last week, whenever a senator has the President's ear, whether the issue -- whether the topic of the meeting is the Iraq war supplemental, if they have a chance to talk about other issues, they will. And so I'm not going to rule it out, but I just can't say that Senator Domenici and the President ever had a one-on-one conversation about it.

Sarah.

Q Thank you. Dana, is the President running out of patience on North Korea, which appears to be stalling again? What does he plan to do if North Korea refuses to end its nuclear program?

MS. PERINO: The goal here is denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. As Chris Hill said yesterday, that the host of the six-party talks, the Chinese, have asked the Americans to have some patience. And so we think that that would be the prudent thing to do, and we believe that everyone will and should live up to its obligations from the February 13th agreement.

Q Follow up on Terry's question about the letter from conservatives. And whether you know any specifics on this letter or not, I'm just wondering, in general --

MS. PERINO: I've not seen one.

Q In general, though, when the President receives a letter like this from, in this case, conservatives who include longtime supporters of the President, expressing concern and criticism and calling for Gonzales to step down, does a letter like that get the President's attention more than other letters, given the fact that they are long-time supporters?

MS. PERINO: A lot of things come across the President's desk. Usually in a case like that, if the letter didn't make it directly to him to look at, then one of the senior staff members would have brought it to his attention, sure.

Q The phone call -- did he speak with Gonzales by phone or face-to-face?

MS. PERINO: By phone, by phone this morning.

Q Okay. Thank you.

END 1:19 P.M. EDT

[snipped due to irrelevance]Thoughts?
Gun Control will aways be debated.

funny, in the link you provided, the quote was in response to a Question about gun control. not the first thing out of the WH.

and notice that the topic of questions turned from one/two questions about Virgina then it turned to Russia and Atty Gen, then that question about gun laws. so it's the reporters fault for not showing enough concern about VT and bringing up Gun Law/Rights.
*sighs* Note the "amoung" part of my statement.

Gun Control will aways be debated.
And note that this thread is (supposed to be at least) NOT ABOUT GUN CONTROL!

By jove, I've got it! Make robot guns that run around America trying to molest everyone for a week or so. Everyone will be so traumatised, they'll never look at a gun again!

One problem at a time...

But, see the point I think you guys keep missing out on is that I speak not only of gun violence, but the glorification of guns in and of themselves. It encompases gun violence as well as other issues.

... considering we (as a culture) don't fire guns into the air by way of celebration, and considering that those who are serious Gun owners show as much care, if not more, for their guns than people show for their cars...

as for the Glorification of Guns... I blame that on our history. America was shaped by the Gun. we carved out the states using guns. our historical Icon, the Cowboy, has at least one six-shooter strapped on. Guns are ingrained into our national culture and unfortunately, it's here to stay.

Now, if America was founded before gunpowder, would we have the same love of the gun? probably not.

*sighs* Note the "amoung" part of my statement.
We need to get rid of the gun culture that is prevalent in the US. No, Virginia Tech didn’t set me off; it was the very first statement from the White House in regards to the tragedy at VT that did it. Among the first statements made was this gem:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/04/20070416-1.html

Think about this for a second, a great tragedy has happened, 32 (+1) lives were lost and yet... yet the first thing out of the White House is a reassurance to the members of the NRA that the government won’t be coming after their guns. And I am not singling out just President Bush in this; today (My time at least), Senator Reid echoed the same: http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2007/04/18/ap/politics/d8oin2go1.txt...
still reading... but if you did append an "among" you should correct your OP. ;)

And note that this thread is (supposed to be at least) NOT ABOUT GUN CONTROL!
and I'm not arguing Gun Control, just making the point that no matter what the situation, it will be argued and want to add that only creeps and insensitive idiots will use such a tragedy to push their point across so soon after said tragedy.

Seeing as, under the constitution, nobody is afforded protection by police that protection must be provided for by the people.

Seeing as, under the constitution, nobody is afforded protection by police that protection must be provided for by the people.

Yaay! Vilgilantes! Mob Justice! W00t! :rolleyes:

Walter Mitty is central to US culture...I was thinking more of the concept of the gun being the great equilizer for the downtrodden to wreak their revenge on.

Have any of you who are screaming "BAN,BAN,BAN" Who are you referring to?

Yaay! Vilgilantes! Mob Justice! W00t! :rolleyes:

If you want to be at the mercy of anybody who walks up to you be my guest. I personally never go anywhere unarmed. The police are there to investigate crimes, not prevent them. I'd rather not have my body investigated at a crime scene.

If you want to be at the mercy of anybody who walks up to you be my guest. I personally never go anywhere unarmed. The police are there to investigate crimes, not prevent them. I'd rather not have my body investigated at a crime scene.

Snake Plissken? I thought you were dead!

If you want to be at the mercy of anybody who walks up to you be my guest. I personally never go anywhere unarmed. The police are there to investigate crimes, not prevent them. I'd rather not have my body investigated at a crime scene.
Go go Gadget Escalation

Sorry, even I need to sleep sometimes... :p

Well... that and my wife has it stuck in her head that a proper Japanese wife does not retire to bed before her husband and given that she's in her 2nd trimester I'm really trying to get it through to her that she needs to start taking it a bit easier.
you have to go to bed early for her sake, it's okay, I have to do it for my husband too, he won't go to bed until I do, just "go to bed" and then set your alarm (the one that doesn't wake her up) for the middle of the night and get up then and finish your work and sneak back into bed before morning (works for me LOL)

What did you need expanded?
I think you covered it later with someone else.

Let me rephrase that a bit because I realize now that's not what I was getting at. It wasn't Cho's obession with guns that drove him to act the way he did, but look at his choice of weapon(s)? Think about the phrase "Going postal" for a second, add in "Road rage". Nowadays of course we use them pretty much as a joke, but think about the orginal actions that coined the terms. Cho was mentally disturbed and (according to this morning's news) bullied. But he reached for a gun. The guys at the post offices who went postal reached for their guns. The gun is viewed as their answer, their first answer it seems.

Man, you really like that coincidence, don't you? I really, really wish that Cho had killed those 32 people with a sword so we could blame the importation of the Japanese sword culture via the Power Rangers instead of some other imagined idolatry.

And then we have the responce to this, from the talking heads to this board, the responces, or the great majority thereof, center around guns and either making more of them or melting them all down to tie clips.

The first response from any talking head was Jack Thompson screaming about violent video games again. The treatment of the issue on msnbc.com, the station that actually received the package from the killer, centered on demonizing violent movies. Neither of them talked about the guns at all, except that the manner in which they appeared to be wielded mimicked the way characters in video games/movies did it. They also talked about how he was dressed and how he was reclusive and once committed to a mental hospital. Guess you missed all of that.

Go go Gadget Escalation

Don Adams rocks.

The second someone tries to take my property that I paid for and I own legally, is the second I blow some commie brains out.

From my cold dead fingers.

And second post. Woo!

*Ahem*

I honestly don't know what you mean by 'Gun Culture.' The gun is hardly the most prevalent weapon in the US, and nowhere near the prefered instrument for comitting crime. Certainly the most widely profiled, but not the most common.

However, a gun IS the most effective deterrent to crime. I would ask you to look at the near-total gun ban in the UK- Gun Crime is down, certainly.

In return you have skyrocketing rates of Rape, Murder, Mugging, etc.

Look at the assaults being comitted in the slums of Paris: If the police there answered concrete chunks and sections of rebar with bullets there'd be a lot fewer casualties amongst the constabulary, as well as less crime.

And if you're trying to look for coincidences in the VT shootings, that madman had "Ax Ismail" tatooed on his arm, a clear allusion to the bastardized Islamic story of Abraham. Obviously all students who are Islamic are going to go on shooting rampages!


I'll try to find the time to reply at length later this week.

And second post. Woo!

*Ahem*

I honestly don't know what you mean by 'Gun Culture.' The gun is hardly the most prevalent weapon in the US, and nowhere near the prefered instrument for comitting crime. Certainly the most widely profiled, but not the most common.

However, a gun IS the most effective deterrent to crime. I would ask you to look at the near-total gun ban in the UK- Gun Crime is down, certainly.

In return you have skyrocketing rates of Rape, Murder, Mugging, etc.

Look at the assaults being comitted in the slums of Paris: If the police there answered concrete chunks and sections of rebar with bullets there'd be a lot fewer casualties amongst the constabulary, as well as less crime.

And if you're trying to look for coincidences in the VT shootings, that madman had "Ax Ismail" tatooed on his arm, a clear allusion to the bastardized Islamic story of Abraham. Obviously all students who are Islamic are going to go on shooting rampages!


I'll try to find the time to reply at length later this week.

He might have had "ax ismail" on his arm, but he also had "A Ishmael" on the envelope he sent NBC.

He wasnt a muslim, and it is completely clear that his motivation was not 'jihad,' so it is likely that he was using ishmael in its christian, western sense, as the name of the outsider.

So far what has been published points very much to him having delusions of being an outsider.

Call me ishmael, &c.

Therefore you couldn't be further from the mark... the problem is english majors.

Therefore you couldn't be further from the mark... the problem is english majors.

Shhh...don't tell The Nazz...:)

Yaay! Vilgilantes! Mob Justice! W00t! :rolleyes:

Since when does self defense fall under vigilantism or mob justice?

I mean, really.

I think the right to bear arms needs to be extended to include that any citizen has the right to bear thermonuclear arms, in order to protect his friends and family from criminals and tyrannical Government. For self-defense, of course.

He might have had "ax ismail" on his arm, but he also had "A Ishmael" on the envelope he sent NBC.

He wasnt a muslim, and it is completely clear that his motivation was not 'jihad,' so it is likely that he was using ishmael in its christian, western sense, as the name of the outsider.

So far what has been published points very much to him having delusions of being an outsider.

Call me ishmael, &c.

Therefore you couldn't be further from the mark... the problem is english majors.

:eek:

Gadzooks! You're right! How could we not have seen this before? I mean, the entire job of an English Teacher is to make everything they like suck horrendously. Obviously they're all self-hating pseudo-Islamic madmen! We must stop them. Oh God, think of the Children!

I do so love failed leaps of logic. :D

I think the right to bear arms needs to be extended to include that any citizen has the right to bear thermonuclear arms, in order to protect his friends and family from criminals and tyrannical Government. For self-defense, of course.

I believe that a Nuclear Fusion Device would be quite counterproductive in a self-defense situation.

Mmm, slippery slope. Well, that can go both ways, can't it?

I think no one has a right to self defense, to protect his friends or family. Even kitchen knives should be outlawed, and if a woman is confronted on a dark street by a rapist, she should try passive resistance!

Perhaps strong words and a hefty gaze will deter the would-be rapist?

I think the right to bear arms needs to be extended to include that any citizen has the right to bear thermonuclear arms, in order to protect his friends and family from criminals and tyrannical Government. For self-defense, of course.

Mmm, slippery slope. Well, that can go both ways, can't it?

I think no one has a right to self defense, to protect his friends or family. Even kitchen knives should be outlawed, and if a woman is confronted on a dark street by a rapist, she should try passive resistance!

...discussing how gun violence is often portrayed as the only or best solution in US media. Action movies, video games, cop shows, the current and ongoing military conflict(s), and even broadway musicals. But it does not only appear in your media.

Action movies are not the only type of movies we watch, nor even the most prevalent. Many of our video games, especially the most violent ones, come from other countries, specifically Japan. Guns are almost never portrayed as a solution to anything in cop shows; police investigation and fantastic detective work save the day in those. Broadway musicals? OK, I'll bite. Name one, and Guys and Dolls doesn't count.

Would those of you who are not consumers of US culture please stop acting like you know what the hell you're talking about? I know the popular world image of the US citizen is that of the gun-toting cowboy, and there may be some reason for this stereotype, but that's all it is: a stereotype. We don't care about guns more than we care about anything else. Well, most of us don't. All you're doing is demonstrating a profound ignorance of our (Americas) ways and closing the door to understanding and the ultimate resolution of all of our (humanitys) problems.

Mmm, slippery slope. Well, that can go both ways, can't it?

I think no one has a right to self defense, to protect his friends or family. Even kitchen knives should be outlawed, and if a woman is confronted on a dark street by a rapist, she should try passive resistance!

... I remember reading one story where a woman avoided being raped by acting psycho... I mean "baying at the moon," "eating grass" crazy.

and don't forget keys... those can be used as weapons... and High Heels, purses, belts, scarves, jewerly.... heck, just outlaw clothing...

btw, not arguing against you GT... just adding on.

Speaking as someone who actually did use a key to defend himself... They're a pain, and not very good. They don't have a proper grip or cutting edge, and you're more likely to hurt your hand going for a slash attack. A good, swift kick to the balls works a lot better.

Not that a suckerpunch to the nose doesn't work either.

But still, all of the 'weapons' you're referring to are ad hoc. A firearm (At least in most places in the US. Rural South doesn't count.) requires a license and training. In the words of my cousin, "Every would-be rapist is afraid of some .45 caliber castration."

All politics aside, new laws won't do shit. This nut bought his gun illegally, and usually even resident aliens aren't allowed to buy firearms (but it is a state-by-state law). Laws won't do jack, and getting rid of the gun culture won't do jack. Enforcement of the current laws is the only thing that would have stopped this. And when I say current laws I mean: purchase of armament, mandatory detention and psych evaluation when convicted of stalking girls, not allowed to posses a weapon on campus, and sale of armament to a mentally ill person.


Ap wire
http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/rss/mail/ts/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/rss/topstories/*http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070420/ap_on_re_us/virginia_tech_shooting_weapons


A firearm (At least in most places in the US. Rural South doesn't count.) requires a license and training.
Also, as a native Southerner and a gun owner, I do have to tell you that at the gun store you have to prove competence with weapons for them to sell you a gun. I know of three people who have been declined gun sales just because they didn't seem confident enough holding the gun for the owners to feel good selling it to them. As for when I bought my M1903, the place I bought it from (in Alabama) actually required a proof of firearms activity from my local gun range.

I think the right to bear arms needs to be extended to include that any citizen has the right to bear thermonuclear arms, in order to protect his friends and family from criminals and tyrannical Government. For self-defense, of course.

Ah. But then you'd be considered a member of the "Axis of Evil" club.

All things considered, that's actually not that bad of a choice right now...

All of this has led to a culture where having a firearm is a symbol of empowerment.

You've got it. It isn't the gun, it's the empowerment. Let's pretend for a second that gunpowder was never invented, and the tool that helped European settlers conquer North America was the bow and arrow, and that was the greatest symbol of empowerment that existed. The bow and arrow would merely be the idol on the altar of empowerment, not the deity. And in that case, as now, it would not be the only idol on that altar. It's not a culture obsessed with guns, but with empowerment. That's why freedom and privacy are such big deals: it's about choice and the ability to control it. Tools are just tools. No one worships the cross and not Jesus, but rather they worship him via the cross.

Guns are powerful tools for individual empowerment. So are education, ingenuity and automobiles. All of these and more are important elements of a culture obsessed with empowerment. To single out any one of them and say that is the focus of the culture is to miss the forest for the trees.

I don't think they would either... But would he have gone on a random-killing rampage if it had not been for the negative aspects of the US gun culture? I don't know, but I believe he wouldn't have.

It's possible he wouldn't have, but it's also quite possible he would. This young man was determined to hurt people for their perceived transgressions against him. He probably wouldn't have done something so dramatic, but it's quite possible he would have acted on his anger in other ways, such as the old fashioned "serial killer with a knife" routine.

*Snip*
In reading your responses I am strongly reminded of the Black Knight of Monty Python fame.

In reading your responses I am strongly reminded of the Black Knight of Monty Python fame.

Y'know, it's funny, but every time you attempt to belittle my serious responses instead of actually addressing my arguments, you wind up describing precisely what I'm thinking about you. Hopefully the readership here has seen that you've failed to come up with anything better than "I am right, the US is obsessed with guns and if they don't admit it then they're in denial la la la la la" and at least some will let go of the nonsensical notion of a "gun-centric culture" in the US, will see things for what they truly are, and be able to offer constructive insights in the future for the resolution of issues.

The unfortunate end of the business is, I think that you did raise an important issue. It does seem true that many foreigners believe that the US has a fixation on guns. I'd like to change that image, because I think it's one of the things that makes people afraid of us and causes our interactions to be more negative than they have to be. It's just too bad you don't really want to talk about the issue, but rather want to beat a confession out of us.

Action movies are not the only type of movies we watch, nor even the most prevalent. Many of our video games, especially the most violent ones, come from other countries, specifically Japan. Guns are almost never portrayed as a solution to anything in cop shows; police investigation and fantastic detective work save the day in those. Broadway musicals? OK, I'll bite. Name one, and Guys and Dolls doesn't count.


Actually, I was thinking of Annie, Get Your Gun.

I am basing my argument on what I see when I watch US media. Can you think of another country that makes so many action films? I can only think of asian countries with their wealth of martial arts films, but they also have a cultural glorification of violence in those movies. Usually, it is the local martial art style, which in the US case, is guns. I believe the US movie genre that grew out of this martial art was called the western. Or the cop flick. Dirty Harry provides a good example of US media portraying the rugged individual with a gun as the only souce of law in an otherwise wild frontier.

And those video games from other countries are made for export to the US, because the US has a demand for such games. It is not the only country that creates the demand, but I wonder if the US percentage of the demand is disproportionately high for its population?

And what about those reality shows where you watch cops go around and arrest people? Do they show the ones where the guy goes peacefully, or do they show the one where the cops have to draw their guns? Do they even have shows like that anywhere else in the world? I have to admit, I think watching an Indian version of such a show would be oddly awesome...

As an Alabamian, where the USA's gun culture is at one of its peaks and as a father of of four weapons, my respected neighbor to the North (Canada) is full of it.

I can honestly say that in the ten years I have owned a gun, never have I ever been put in a situation I felt I would have to use them. yet I play every violent video game out there, watch westerns and war movies at least twice a week, and shoot my guns whenever i get the chance.


Then why, if the USA's gun culture is so pervasive and so demonic that its people can only kill, has Ted Kennedy's car killed more people than all of my guns combined.

Could it be? Oh no! A responsible gun owner--one who keeps his weapons locked away with trigger locks on at all times and the ammunition stored in a separate place! OH NO! A gun owner who keeps the only 2 keys to the gun locks either on his person in in a locked metal drawer!

Could it be that most murderers do not take personal responsibility for their actions?

Surely not, they're senseless victims of a senseless society's senseless culture of senseless private weapon ownership...Senseless I say! Let's ban guns! Then we can go out for smoothies and feel safe because the corrupt policeman who swore to protect and defend us no longer has an evil, dirty gun corrupting our streets. Surely nobody uses a knife these days with the advent of guns--so killing people with a knife is a dead art, so we'll be safe unprotected.


In all honesty, there are more accidental gun deaths in America than intentional. However, combined gun deaths are still less than cars, tobacco, and other cancers. Should we ban those while we're at it? What about the fact (check the DOJ statistics yourself because I'm too lazy to post it) that knives are used more frequently in non-domestic homicides (meaning you exclude the abused wife killing Bubba). Maybe because knives are cheaper than guns (dollars instead of hundreds of dollars), quieter, safer to carry around when regarding the law, and they are easily disposed of.

Here is the mathematical reasoning part. Let's say that "We must abolish the US Gun culture" is the preface in a proof, then "You have to abolish guns with it" is the given. Then the next part is "ban all forms of filth and evil", followed by "we must ban free speech, free press, sex, anything that could be used as a weapon (such as nails, quarters, cans of food, glass, hard plastic, paperclips, electrical cords, electricity itself, wood, stone, sharpened metals, dull but otherwise heavy metals, radiation, naturally occurring poisons, malnutrition, needles, pens, paper, CDs, fingernail clippers,a can opener, batteries, linen, soap, alcohol, pliers, hammers, chainsaws, vehicles, horses, cats and dogs, burlap sacks with animals in it, half-chopped down trees, AIDS, medicine, books, and a few other items).

You get the point? Guns aren't to blame for shit. Human nature is the beast we're looking at controlling. Personal responsibility is what we need, not more laws like the ones that were already in place to prevent this from happening anyways. Our culture's fine thank you very much.

Has anyone here ever hunted deer with an automatic weapon? Few pleasures in life compare...!

Has anyone here ever hunted deer with an automatic weapon? Few pleasures in life compare...!

Agreed....especially spotlighting an entire herd from a huey and tagging about twenty with the M60.....

As an Alabamian, where the USA's gun culture is at one of its peaks and as a father of of four weapons, my respected neighbor to the North (Canada) is full of it.

I can honestly say that in the ten years I have owned a gun, never have I ever been put in a situation I felt I would have to use them. yet I play every violent video game out there, watch westerns and war movies at least twice a week, and shoot my guns whenever i get the chance.


Then why, if the USA's gun culture is so pervasive and so demonic that its people can only kill, has Ted Kennedy's car killed more people than all of my guns combined.

Could it be? Oh no! A responsible gun owner--one who keeps his weapons locked away with trigger locks on at all times and the ammunition stored in a separate place! OH NO! A gun owner who keeps the only 2 keys to the gun locks either on his person in in a locked metal drawer!

Could it be that most murderers do not take personal responsibility for their actions?

Surely not, they're senseless victims of a senseless society's senseless culture of senseless private weapon ownership...Senseless I say! Let's ban guns! Then we can go out for smoothies and feel safe because the corrupt policeman who swore to protect and defend us no longer has an evil, dirty gun corrupting our streets. Surely nobody uses a knife these days with the advent of guns--so killing people with a knife is a dead art, so we'll be safe unprotected.


In all honesty, there are more accidental gun deaths in America than intentional. However, combined gun deaths are still less than cars, tobacco, and other cancers. Should we ban those while we're at it? What about the fact (check the DOJ statistics yourself because I'm too lazy to post it) that knives are used more frequently in non-domestic homicides (meaning you exclude the abused wife killing Bubba). Maybe because knives are cheaper than guns (dollars instead of hundreds of dollars), quieter, safer to carry around when regarding the law, and they are easily disposed of.

Here is the mathematical reasoning part. Let's say that "We must abolish the US Gun culture" is the preface in a proof, then "You have to abolish guns with it" is the given. Then the next part is "ban all forms of filth and evil", followed by "we must ban free speech, free press, sex, anything that could be used as a weapon (such as nails, quarters, cans of food, glass, hard plastic, paperclips, electrical cords, electricity itself, wood, stone, sharpened metals, dull but otherwise heavy metals, radiation, naturally occurring poisons, malnutrition, needles, pens, paper, CDs, fingernail clippers,a can opener, batteries, linen, soap, alcohol, pliers, hammers, chainsaws, vehicles, horses, cats and dogs, burlap sacks with animals in it, half-chopped down trees, AIDS, medicine, books, and a few other items).

You get the point? Guns aren't to blame for shit. Human nature is the beast we're looking at controlling. Personal responsibility is what we need, not more laws like the ones that were already in place to prevent this from happening anyways. Our culture's fine thank you very much.


Couldn't have said it better myself CM

Has anyone here ever hunted deer with an automatic weapon? Few pleasures in life compare...!


Thats more then likely a tad to much overkill

I believe that a Nuclear Fusion Device would be quite counterproductive in a self-defense situation.

I'll have to agree

Yeah lets ban guns because we saw how well that worked with booze and drugs.

Ever notice how the only places that are shot up are places that "Ban" guns from their grounds? Why is it that shooting ranges or NRA meetings are never fired at? It always those "Gun Free Zones" were Federal Law prohibits anyone carrying a firearm within 50 yards of. Must just be a coincidence :p

I don't think people understand what sort of world we live in. First of all, let's make something clear. The Supreme Court has already decided that the police do not have any mandate to protect the people.
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/06/27/221753.php

Second, the founding fathers were clearly afraid of using the military to enforce local laws and public law and order. This is what fascist/communist/totalitarian dictatorships use.

Then upon whom does it fall to protect themselves? Clearly, it's the people. It's called responsibility--for your self, for your life, for your liberty, for your country, if people choose to live in a free republic. This becomes abundantly clear when you consider the possibility that a government based on liberty and freedom (as defined by the Bill of Rights) becomes jeopardized. If you doubt this is a possibility, then all you have to do is look at 9/11 and what has happened since then. Acts such as the Patriot Act, real ID act, military act, etc has by-passed amendments that protect right to gather and dissent peacefully, the right to free speech (a veteran was put on a terror watchlist because he made a speech against the president), right to not incriminate yourself, right against cruel and unusual punishment, right to trial by jury, etc.
And now, with the recent shootings, people are calling for the banning of guns. It's becoming so ridiculous how people are being misled and misguided....

I was thinking more of the concept of the gun being the great equilizer for the downtrodden to wreak their revenge on.

Who are you referring to?I am refering to those with the warped idea of elminating the American Gun Culture.

Has anyone here ever hunted deer with an automatic weapon? Few pleasures in life compare...!

Y'know, a guy in Alaska recently fashioned his own 5 caliber hunting rifle. No,l that's not a typo and I didn't forget a period. 5 as in 5 inches across. As in the secondary armament of WWII Battleship sized bullets.

He brags that he can set up on one mountain and knock a moose off another.

Actually, I was thinking of Annie, Get Your Gun.

That's about Annie Oakley, and while I know a lot of foreigners will have a hard time wrapping their heads around this, Annie has not endured as an icon simply because she was good with a gun, but because she proved she was equal to men in a time when that was unheard of. She was a pioneer of women's liberation because, like the song "Anything You Can Do," she proved that it was hard work and talent, not a penis, that made a person what they were. And she's not the only female to do such a thing: Amelia Earhart, Sacajawea, Sojourner Truth...all of them revered in American culture and none of these last had anything at all to do with guns.

Can you think of another country that makes so many action films?

No. But can you think of another country that makes so many films, period? We make a lot of action films, a lot of "chick flicks," a lot of documentaries, a lot of children's movies. I don't think you'll find that there is somehow a disproportionate percentage of all movies created here that are action films.

And what about those reality shows where you watch cops go around and arrest people? Do they show the ones where the guy goes peacefully,

Yeah, sometimes. And sometimes the cops have guns drawn. And sometimes they have to get out the pepper spray. The shows are about how "badass" and inescapable cops are as agents of the law. Again, the guns are merely accessories.

If you go to google.com and enter a search for "gun" then you're going to get a whole bunch of articles about guns. If you search for "culture" you'll get a few articles about guns and a few articles about a whole lot of other things as well. It just depends on what you're looking for.

No. But can you think of another country that makes so many films, period?

India.

Unless I'm very much mistaken Bollywood dwarfs Hollywood in terms of output.

EDIT: okay, not quite dwarfs, but India produces about a third as many again as the US does.

India.

Unless I'm very much mistaken Bollywood dwarfs Hollywood in terms of output.

Edit: Okay, only a third again as Hollywood, but that's still a lot.

However, the quality of those movies is another thing altogether. As you may or may not know, a single family has controlled the Indian film industry for decades, and every film must be made the exact same way for "cultural" and "moral" reasons.

That's why every damn movie to come out of Bollywood is a happy, singing musicfest..

You've got it. It isn't the gun, it's the empowerment. Let's pretend for a second that gunpowder was never invented, and the tool that helped European settlers conquer North America was the bow and arrow, and that was the greatest symbol of empowerment that existed. The bow and arrow would merely be the idol on the altar of empowerment, not the deity. And in that case, as now, it would not be the only idol on that altar. It's not a culture obsessed with guns, but with empowerment. That's why freedom and privacy are such big deals: it's about choice and the ability to control it. Tools are just tools. No one worships the cross and not Jesus, but rather they worship him via the cross.

Guns are powerful tools for individual empowerment. So are education, ingenuity and automobiles. All of these and more are important elements of a culture obsessed with empowerment. To single out any one of them and say that is the focus of the culture is to miss the forest for the trees.

I don't know about anyone else, but I think you hit the nail right on the head here.

I see nothing wrong with guns. The right to have them is something I rather like about US. Trying to restrict them or get rid of them as fall out for the shooting makes about as much sense as rounding up Muslims because of 9/11. Extremists shouldn't dictate policy.

Y'know, it's funny, but every time you attempt to belittle my serious responses instead of actually addressing my arguments, you wind up describing precisely what I'm thinking about you. Hopefully the readership here has seen that you've failed to come up with anything better than "I am right, the US is obsessed with guns and if they don't admit it then they're in denial la la la la la" and at least some will let go of the nonsensical notion of a "gun-centric culture" in the US, will see things for what they truly are, and be able to offer constructive insights in the future for the resolution of issues.

The unfortunate end of the business is, I think that you did raise an important issue. It does seem true that many foreigners believe that the US has a fixation on guns. I'd like to change that image, because I think it's one of the things that makes people afraid of us and causes our interactions to be more negative than they have to be. It's just too bad you don't really want to talk about the issue, but rather want to beat a confession out of us.
You had points? Where? Your entire rebuttals have been "No it isn't. Not it's not. You don't know what you're talking about because you aren't living here."

And, one more time bub, I am an American. I've been residing abroad for 2 and a half years and, given I do make it home for the holidays, I doubt things have changed. So drop the "You're just using a stereotype" bit.

It's like arguing with a man whose house is on fire but who refuses to see it saying that there's other disasters that knock down houses as well.

You've got it. It isn't the gun, it's the empowerment. Let's pretend for a second that gunpowder was never invented, and the tool that helped European settlers conquer North America was the bow and arrow, and that was the greatest symbol of empowerment that existed. The bow and arrow would merely be the idol on the altar of empowerment, not the deity. And in that case, as now, it would not be the only idol on that altar. It's not a culture obsessed with guns, but with empowerment. That's why freedom and privacy are such big deals: it's about choice and the ability to control it. Tools are just tools. No one worships the cross and not Jesus, but rather they worship him via the cross.

Guns are powerful tools for individual empowerment. So are education, ingenuity and automobiles. All of these and more are important elements of a culture obsessed with empowerment. To single out any one of them and say that is the focus of the culture is to miss the forest for the trees.If we accept your premise to be true, why is it that American culture is obsessed with empowerment?
Nonetheless, if this is the case, then mindsets can be changed so that guns aren't viewed as empowering.

Let's say that "We must abolish the US Gun culture" is the preface in a proof, then "You have to abolish guns with it" is the given.

I am refering to those with the warped idea of elminating the American Gun Culture.False. It isn't necessary to eliminate guns in order to eliminate the gun culture, in the same way that it wasn't necessary to eliminate cigarettes to get people to change their minds about them.

Agreed....especially spotlighting an entire herd from a huey and tagging about twenty with the M60.....Sounds unncessarily sadistic.

If we accept your premise to be true, why is it that American culture is obsessed with empowerment?

Probably because our country was founded on premises of popular empowerment to prevent over-empowered government from abusing the people. We split from England over issues of empowerment: taxation without representation and such. One of the biggest arguments between the founding fathers of this nation was over who should have more power, the federal government or the states. And they also felt it necessary, in the document that described the structure and scope of the government, to provide for individual empowerment of the citizens as well. I think the specific reasons why all of this is important probably belong in another thread.

Nonetheless, if this is the case, then mindsets can be changed so that guns aren't viewed as empowering.

I suppose anything's possible, but you're talking about a tool that can allow the weak to survive, even over a selfish and oppressive strong. In a life and death situation, it can give an option to those who wouldn't ordinarily have one. Those things will never change. Can we provide other forms of empowerment, such that those options seem so much more attractive that no one ever feels they need to pick up a gun to feel empowered? I'd like to think so, but it seems like a long, long way from here.

A gun is a tool and you don't give it to a person who doesn't know how to use it, or are not mentally capable of understanding the consequences of what they are doing.

Sounds unncessarily sadistic.

It is...but who's going to stop you? A buddy of mine did that at Ft. Campbell where there is no such thing as deer hunting and they become a real problem...so his Company Commander decided to have a little B-B-Q...

Probably because our country was founded on premises of popular empowerment to prevent over-empowered government from abusing the people. We split from England over issues of empowerment: taxation without representation and such. One of the biggest arguments between the founding fathers of this nation was over who should have more power, the federal government or the states. And they also felt it necessary, in the document that described the structure and scope of the government, to provide for individual empowerment of the citizens as well. I think the specific reasons why all of this is important probably belong in another thread.Certainly, but it seems that those forms of empowerment would be good enough, unless they no longer existed.

I suppose anything's possible, but you're talking about a tool that can allow the weak to survive, even over a selfish and oppressive strong. In a life and death situation, it can give an option to those who wouldn't ordinarily have one. Those things will never change. Can we provide other forms of empowerment, such that those options seem so much more attractive that no one ever feels they need to pick up a gun to feel empowered? I'd like to think so, but it seems like a long, long way from here.I don't think it's necessary to make sure that nobody ever picks up a gun, but it just seems to me that there are other methods of empowerment that could be applied in most of the cases that a gun is used.

It is...but who's going to stop you? A buddy of mine did that at Ft. Campbell where there is no such thing as deer hunting and they become a real problem...so his Company Commander decided to have a little B-B-Q...Well, at least they ate them.

Do you guys honestly think that the elimination of "gun culture" will in any way stop criminals from getting hold of weapons? I mean. Good thing there isn't a black market. That would royally suck.


E pluribus unum.

Do you guys honestly think that the elimination of "gun culture" will in any way stop criminals from getting hold of weapons? I mean. Good thing there isn't a black market. That would royally suck.


E pluribus unum.Yes, since their motivation to do so would be decreased.

Yes, since their motivation to do so would be decreased.

ANd why oh why would it be decreased?

Yeah lets ban guns because we saw how well that worked with booze and drugs.

Ever notice how the only places that are shot up are places that "Ban" guns from their grounds? Why is it that shooting ranges or NRA meetings are never fired at? It always those "Gun Free Zones" were Federal Law prohibits anyone carrying a firearm within 50 yards of. Must just be a coincidence :p


Alot of people fire their weapons on shooting ranges what are you talking about!

ANd why oh why would it be decreased?Because the gun would no longer be viewed as a major source of empowerment; people would try other things to empower themselves.