On 3 April 2015 at 04:13, Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com> wrote:
> Sorry, I assumed you were arguing my point that "there is no way to stop > people from obtaining them". There are societies where people have a less > desire to own guns, but I don't think there is any simple answer as to why. > Yes. But to turn the question on its head, most people in most countries don't have a desire to own guns unless they have a good reason to need one. It only seems to be the US in which there is this actual desire, hence my phrase "gun fetish" (which I'm sure isn't original). > > >> Are guns banned in, say, New Zealand? No. Yet there are less per head, >> and less injuries and deaths caused by them, probably because Kiwis own >> guns only for the reasons one might expect - hunting, for example - rather >> than whatever reason it is Americans do (it looks from the outside like a >> sort of national fetish, a theory that the glamourisation of violence in >> many American TV shows and movies would seem to support). >> > > This is another tough question. My guess is that puritanical values and a > repressive stance on sexuality have something to do with it, and we also > see high levels of violence in other societies that are (even more, of > course) sexually repressive. But my guess is as good as yours. > Fair enough. So, anyway, any comments that address the actual situation? > > Yes, serious social science. Really trying to figure out why so many kids > in America want to start a rampage at their schools. Being willing to > accept the real answers to this question instead of avoiding the parts of > the answer that might be less palatable. > Yes. Obviously there is some feedback going on here. Not restricting gun sales much enables those people who want to do these things to do so, rather than just fantasising. There are undoubtedly such people in all societies - my point is that enabling them to easily buy Uzis is probably a bad idea if you want to avoid these rampages. > >>> Home 3D-printed guns are at the prototype level at the moment. Both the >>> designs and 3D printing technology will keep improving and becoming >>> cheaper. People are already experimenting with 3D printing ammunition. >>> >> >> The technology to make atomic bombs in your basement exists. So, should >> that be made illegal? What do you think? >> > > Like all other things, one day technology will have advanced so much that > making them illegal is irrelevant. Hopefully by then we figure out how to > be nice to each other -- or we finally discover the solution to the Fermi > Paradox. > My point was more that to the best of my knowledge no one appears to have done this, even though it would be a way to make a suicide bomb that *really* did a lot of damage. And certainly a load of material has gone missing over the years... I suspect the answer to the Fermi paradox has a few parts...maybe some factors would include... - an advanced civilisation is more likely to accidentally destroy its planet's ecosphere - or to have a global war, or create a disease, or do other things that wipes it out or at least reduces it to medieval times again - even if the above doesn't happen, interstellar contact is very, very difficult. The distances and times involved are mind-boggling, and the evidence so far is that a nice stable solar system like ours is fairly rare. I don't think any of the 100s we're found so far are similar in terms of goldilocks orbits and other helpful factors like galactic disc avoidance, a massive shield planet, a large shield and otherwise helpful Moon, etc etc etc. I'm sure they're out there, but the chances of us detecting them is minute... ...unless it's possible for a civilisation to go up the Kardashev scale and start manipulating star clusters, galaxies etc. But not much sign of that going on so far. > > >> >>> The trouble with trying to solve problems by restricting access to >>> technology (in this case firearms) is that, as technology progresses, the >>> laws have to become increasingly repressive to keep up. Preventing people >>> from owning guns will soon devolve into a multi-prong approach where you >>> have to restrict access to information on the Internet (if that is even >>> possible), regulate the sale and ownership of 3D printers, worry about the >>> availability of the common components that go into gunpowder, etc. For any >>> difficulty you pose, there will be eventually a technological solution, and >>> the only possible response from the regulatory mindset is to forbid more >>> things, until we need permission to do almost anything. >>> >> >> Now that we've got the straw men out of the way, I find my question still >> stands. So, why *does *the USA have so many firearms per head compared >> to anywhere else in the world, even a few was zones? And why does it have >> the highest rate of firearm related deaths and injuries per head in the >> first world, and close to the highest in the world (outside war zones) ? >> > > Ok, but this is a slightly difference perspective to assuming that the > other countries are actively doing something that works in preventing > firearm violence. It could be simply because of easy access to firearms but > there is a lot of empirical data that casts doubt on this hypothesis -- at > least on the hypothesis that this is the unique or main factor. > No, I think most countries have commonsense (ish) laws about firearms, so you expect say a farmer to have a few guns but not the guy next door in town. ISTM that the US is doing it wrong rather than anyone else doing it right. > > I would look into protestant puritanism and its many ramifications in what > society values, what it's like to grow up with puritanism (especially if > you don't fit the mold) and so on. If this turns out to be right, I would > also be very weary of directly attacking organised religion. This usually > results in another, even more nasty organized religion (e.g Stalinism). > > >> >> Once you've answered that, then we can argue about whether there's any >> reason to fix the situation, and if so how to go about it. But so far, the >> cart is before the horse. >> >>> >>> The real problem we have to solve is this: how to attain a society where >>> we can trust each other? >>> >> >> Stop glamourising violence, perhaps? As an exercise you could try >> watching some NZ films (say) that involve violence, e.g. "Black Sheep". >> > > "Critics Consensus: With an outrageous premise played completely > straight, Black Sheep is a violent, grotesque, and very funny movie that > takes B-movie lunacy to a delirious extreme." > > I will definitely watch it. :) > Recommended. > > >> Now try watching some US film that involves violence (too numerous to >> mention). See which one makes it look horrible and painful and nasty, and >> which makes it look kind of cool and sexy. Just a symptom, of course, not a >> cause. >> > > I agree that this might be an important clue. It might also just be a > symptom of America's talent for making money. The reality is that (mostly > younger men) all over the world love these movies. To quote the German band > Rammstein: "We're all living in America, America is wunderbar". And I can't > resist another quote from the same song: "We're all living in America, > Coca-Cola, sometimes war". > > Yes, it seems to be a society which embraces the teenage male view rather than just having that as one facet. > >> >>> Repressive regulation goes in the opposite direction and it misses the >>> point. Brazil is on the lower end of the scale in your map, yet is has much >>> more gun violence per capita than the US, which shows us that lowering the >>> number of guns per capita is not guaranteed to solve anything. >>> >> >> You think that Europe has repressive regulations as far as guns are >> concerned? >> > > As with many other things, Europe is very heterogeneous in terms of gun > laws. The EU is slightly less heterogeneous because it imposes minimum > regulations to join the free trade zone. Some countries go above and beyond > them (like Poland) while others resent them (like the Czech Republic). > > I think overall the regulations are too repressive, especially as the > police starts to look like a para-military organization. Go to any main > train station in Paris and you will walk by small groups of gendarmes and > even soldiers carrying machine guns. > Here I agree. I don't like the police to be armed, as they aren't generally in NZ (I'm not sure about the UK - hope not). If this gets worse the US may have the last laugh - assuming they do anything about the repressive regime rather than sticking up for it, that is. > > >> Can you find any Europeans who agree with you (apart from the odd >> psycho-killer?) >> > > It's not easy, and I understand why. Europe had a very bloody history > until quite recently. I think there is still a lot of trauma surrounding > that. Also, being interested in guns is seen as very low status around > these parts, and Europeans really really care about status. Unless it's > firearms for hunting and you have a nice property and family name. Then > it's fine. > > Yeah, I think that's a far more normal attitude over most cultures and times except for ones that need to be at war. The US *does* seem to need to be at war, however - on drugs or terrorism if nothing else is available. "War is peace". -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
