Sad States of America

[hosemonkey]

Not to mention that if you OWN guns you take the risk that they will either be used deliberately against you (and guns, IIRC, ARE much more likely to end up being used against the owner than any attacker ) or that you will be accidentally killed or injured by them. Obviously that’s a risk you take too.

You are parroting standard anti-gun propaganda. Given the fact that Australians have already bent the knee to Government and anti-gun hysteria, the argument is moot, just as it was on another thread. You do your thing and we will do ours. Be careful though, about applying your opinions and standards to us, We are NOT sad States of America, We are Proud States of America. Remember that when Buna and Gona and Port Moresby are mentioned. Because that is when the United States of America saved your bacon when the Japs were going to eat your lunch and American soldiers, who learned to shoot using guns that you would have us meekly surrender, turned the tide and saved Australia. Snide comments from those who should be allies do not become you Australians.

 

[Sheeniac]

Not to mention that if you OWN guns you take the risk that they will either be used deliberately against you (and guns, IIRC, ARE much more likely to end up being used against the owner than any attacker ) or that you will be accidentally killed or injured by them. Obviously that’s a risk you take too.

I’ll take that risk, and would NOT suggest you bet against me - my own gun won’t be used against me.

I am not concerned about protecting myself from the govt, but am concerned about protecting myself and others from violent crime. I don’t walk around in fear, but consider a firearm a tool for prevention of personal harm. Similar to a fire extinguisher - I hope never to need one, but if I need it, I want it there. As a woman, it’s an equalizer.

As far as the study to which you refer, it has been repudiated, and even the author of it admits its flaws.

 

[hosemonkey]

I’ll take that risk, and would NOT suggest you bet against me - my own gun won’t be used against me.

I am not concerned about protecting myself from the govt, but am concerned about protecting myself and others from violent crime. I don’t walk around in fear, but consider a firearm a tool for prevention of personal harm. Similar to a fire extinguisher - I hope never to need one, but if I need it, I want it there. As a woman, it’s an equalizer.

As far as the study to which you refer, it has been repudiated, and even the author of it admits its flaws.

Right on!

 

[Sheeniac]

Right on!

What’s irksome to me is that the OP wasn’t content with posting on an on-going thread, but wanted to make a thread on an already much-discussed topic. Why? To see one’s opinion at the very top?

I also found the title of the thread bordering on insulting.

 

[LilyM]

You are parroting standard anti-gun propaganda. Given the fact that Australians have already bent the knee to Government and anti-gun hysteria, the argument is moot, just as it was on another thread. You do your thing and we will do ours. Be careful though, about applying your opinions and standards to us, We are NOT sad States of America, We are Proud States of America. Remember that when Buna and Gona and Port Moresby are mentioned. Because that is when the United States of America saved your bacon when the Japs were going to eat your lunch and American soldiers, who learned to shoot using guns that you would have us meekly surrender, turned the tide and saved Australia. Snide comments from those who should be allies do not become you Australians.

I am fully your ally - in matters military. I wholeheartedly support American military forces and law enforcement agencies, as I do the Australian police forces and military, who I have not the slightest reason to be ashamed of.

I don’t believe that it helps anyone for a huge percentage of ordinary citizens to be running around armed to the teeth.

 

[Chancellare]

This topic has been flogged to death on another thread. Australians seem to be remarkably ignorant of our history and the events of history that make us what we are. Our nation was born of oppression and abuse by the British Crown. Armed patriots secured our independence after years of bloody war. The Brits tried it again in 1812 and were again trounced by armed patriots. These wars were fought by armed citizens and by citizen-soldiers, armed by the God-given rights in the Constitution. The War between the States was tragic, but certain principles had to be confirmed in order for this nation to progress and for the Union to be preserved. The rights of States had to be established within the context of Federal government. Slavery was an issue, but the rights of the individual States was what the war was all about. American “violence” is blamed on the “frontier mentality.” In fact, there was less crime and violence in the 19th century and in the earlier 20th century, than we have now. Loss of personal respect and absence of morality is what leads to violence, not guns. If Australians chose to meekly give up their right to self-defense and to place themselves at the mercy of whatever brand of Government that holds power, that it certainly their look-out. I would rather retain the option of personal arms to deter tyranny, if that be the direction some future government may take. A right once given up, may never be claimed again. If giving up your rights works for you Aussies, then good on you. It doesn’t work for us.

Japan has a bloodier past when it comes to warfare and fighting. For many centuries they were ruled by warlords, Shoguns and Samurai classes, which culminated during the years preceding WWII. During their Samurai era, life can be snuffed out with a flick of a blade. There were more Japanese who died in fighting than all the Americans who died during WWII.

Yet they as a nation decided to turn their backs on wars and guns. So much so that it is unconstitutional for civilians to bear arms. Whatever mandate the government has to bear arms is solely for self defense.

Yet I don’t hear any Japanese say “You don’t understand our history- we were born with blades and guns in our hands!”.

 

[hosemonkey]

I am fully your ally - in matters military. I wholeheartedly support American military forces and law enforcement agencies, as I do the Australian police forces and military, who I have not the slightest reason to be ashamed of.

I don’t believe that it helps anyone for a huge percentage of ordinary citizens to be running around armed to the teeth.

On behalf of all American gun-owners, I accept your humble apology and again say, If you Australians want to surrender your right to self-defense, good for you!
We’ll keep our guns, against the rainy day. FYI, I don’t carry my gun in my teeth, I have a really comfortable paddle holster that conceals easily.

 

[hosemonkey]

Japan has a bloodier past when it comes to warfare and fighting. For many centuries they were ruled by warlords, Shoguns and Samurai classes, which culminated during the years preceding WWII. During their Samurai era, life can be snuffed out with a flick of a blade. There were more Japanese who died in fighting than all the Americans who died during WWII.

Yet they as a nation decided to turn their backs on wars and guns. So much so that it is unconstitutional for civilians to bear arms. Whatever mandate the government has to bear arms is solely for self defense.

Yet I don’t hear any Japanese say “You don’t understand our history- we were born with blades and guns in our hands!”.

This process was not quite so benign. The giving up of swords and guns and an anti-war Constitution was not initiated by the Japanese. It was forced upon them by a bitter defeat at the hands of the Allies. Had the Japanese been offered a conditional surrender, do you think that they would have given up their military and a proud tradition of warlike behavior? Of course not. The Japanese Empire was prepared to fight to the last man, woman and child to preserve the Emperor’s perogative. They surrendered only at the command of the Emperor. The present Japanese Constitution was written by American occupiers to pull Japan’s teeth for good. Even now, the Japanese Government is very seriously considering revising Japan’s Constitution to remove the anti-war shackles from it.

 

[Chancellare]

This process was not quite so benign. The giving up of swords and guns and an anti-war Constitution was not initiated by the Japanese. It was forced upon them by a bitter defeat at the hands of the Allies. Had the Japanese been offered a conditional surrender, do you think that they would have given up their military and a proud tradition of warlike behavior? Of course not. The Japanese Empire was prepared to fight to the last man, woman and child to preserve the Emperor’s perogative. They surrendered only at the command of the Emperor. The present Japanese Constitution was written by American occupiers to pull Japan’s teeth for good. Even now, the Japanese Government is very seriously considering revising Japan’s Constitution to remove the anti-war shackles from it.

That was not the point.
The point is:
Japan went through more violence than America (regardless who wrote their constitution or whether they intended to die to the last man). Yet I don’t hear any Japanese use its violent past to justify owning more guns “for protection from the invaders”.

 

[hosemonkey]

That was not the point.
The point is:
Japan went through more violence than America (regardless who wrote their constitution or whether they intended to die to the last man). Yet I don’t hear any Japanese use its violent past to justify owning more guns “for protection from the invaders”.

The Japanese have been thoroughly brainwashed about firearms. They have faith that their Government will protect them. Their Government has yet to be put to the test. Americans do not possess the same group or hive mentality that Japanese have developed over centuries of living cheek-by-jowl on a tiny, crowded group of islands. Groupthink is the norm among Japanese. I lived in Japan for some years and to think differently from the group is frowned upon. So, GUNS BAD! All respond,OK! Racist? No, simple statement of fact.

You, as an American, have the choice to own a personal firearm or not. That is your right as an American. Australians do not have the same right. Don’t want to own a gun? Fine. Your perogative, but do not sneer at those to choose to excercise their constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

What’s irksome to me is that the OP wasn’t content with posting on an on-going thread…

The other thread was getting too long and I thought people were bailing out of it. And I chose to bail out of it when people started to tell us that Jesus wants us to be armed.

… but wanted to make a thread on an already much-discussed topic. Why? To see one’s opinion at the very top?

Well… yes… that’s exactly why. I was trying to break away from people turning to Jesus to justify their guns. Yet I wanted to discuss more to understand why Americans feel comfortable with guns.

I also found the title of the thread bordering on insulting.

I think somebody else did too. I have to apologise for that.

But I do think it is sad that people fell they need to be armed. I can’t apologise for that. It’s just not an image of a Christian. (Could you imagine everybody at World Youth Day carrying guns? )

 

[hosemonkey]

The other thread was getting too long and I thought people were bailing out of it. And I chose to bail out of it when people started to tell us that Jesus wants us to be armed.
Well… yes… that’s exactly why. I was trying to break away from people turning to Jesus to justify their guns. Yet I wanted to discuss more to understand why Americans feel comfortable with guns.

I think somebody else did too. I have to apologise for that.

But I do think it is sad that people fell they need to be armed. I can’t apologise for that. It’s just not an image of a Christian. (Could you imagine everybody at World Youth Day carrying guns? )

If you wanted to find out why Americans feel comfortable with guns, then you should simply have asked the question. Instead of listening and gaining some knowledge and insight, too many people(mostly Australians) then jumped in with value judgements and snide asides about the juvenile Americans and their need for guns. As I have said before, Australia is YOUR country, run it as you please. America is OUR country and we’ll run it as we please and by the God-given rights guaranteed by the Constitution. 'Nuff said.

 

[Chancellare]

The Japanese have been thoroughly brainwashed about firearms. They have faith that their Government will protect them. Their Government has yet to be put to the test. Americans do not possess the same group or hive mentality that Japanese have developed over centuries of living cheek-by-jowl on a tiny, crowded group of islands. Groupthink is the norm among Japanese. I lived in Japan for some years and to think differently from the group is frowned upon. So, GUNS BAD! All respond,OK! Racist? No, simple statement of fact.

You, as an American, have the choice to own a personal firearm or not. That is your right as an American. Australians do not have the same right. Don’t want to own a gun? Fine. Your perogative, but do not sneer at those to choose to excercise their constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

I go to Japan quite often and personally work with them everyday. I also studied Japanese culture for professional reasons. To say that the Japanese were brainwashed to think GUNS BAD is an insult to them and is not based on facts. At worst, they learned their lessons well enough to abhor violence, which I think is not a bad thing.

 

[hosemonkey]

I go to Japan quite often and personally work with them everyday. I also studied Japanese culture for professional reasons. To say that the Japanese were brainwashed to think GUNS BAD is an insult to them and is not based on facts. At worst, they learned their lessons well enough to abhor violence, which I think is not a bad thing.

Then let us agree to disagree. Japanese in general have a knee-jerk reaction to firearms brought about by years of negative propaganda. I too, abhor violence but I am prepared to meet it if it comes.

 

[Sheeniac]

I was trying to break away from people turning to Jesus to justify their guns. Yet I wanted to discuss more to understand why Americans feel comfortable with guns.
(SNIP)
But I do think it is sad that people fell they need to be armed. I can’t apologise for that. It’s just not an image of a Christian. (Could you imagine everybody at World Youth Day carrying guns? )

I believe that self-dense is a God-given, inalienable human right. Firearms a merely the best method to ensure that right is respected. Do I need to turn to the Bible for anything to back me up? Only when arguing against someone using Bible verses to show that God would damn me to hell for a firearm.

Is that sad? Well, yes, in a perfect world it would be. In a fallen world, it isn’t, IMO. It’s reality. Blame Adam, Eve and Satan for it.

It not being an image of a Christian is your opinion and ought to be labeled as such. I have NO problems reconciling a believing Christian with someone being armed. None whatsoever. I find it difficult (ompossible?) to understand your opinion. Why is it so hard for you? It seems that you are saying Christians shouldn’t own guns, and one who does is not a good Christian. Why is that? What perceptions do you have of gun-owners that causes you to think that way?

With regard to the World Youth Day, I don’t have a problem with anyone carrying a gun, esp not “the good guys”.

 

[Sheeniac]

Chancellare, hosemonkey -

Perhaps a thread on Japan would be good, so that we can focus on the “Sad” state of America…

Pac tecum,

(Ms.) Sheeniac

 

[melensdad]

Not to mention that if you OWN guns you take the risk that they will either be used deliberately against you (and guns, IIRC, ARE much more likely to end up being used against the owner than any attacker ) or that you will be accidentally killed or injured by them. Obviously that’s a risk you take too.

Well Lily, I hate to break it to you, but the odds of your own gun being used against you are far lower than you using a gun to defend yourself. Further, if you look at the real statistics, the houses where gun violence occur are heavily skewed to homes where

• there is active criminal activity engaged in by the occupants of the house
• there are illegal drug users in the house
• there are spouse beaters in the house
• there is a known history of alcoholic behavior in the house
  On the other hand, “normal” people who do not engage in those activities stand a statistically zero risk of gun accidents/violence from their own weapons and actually stand a better chance in an encounter against any violence.

 

[hosemonkey]

Well Lily, I hate to break it to you, but the odds of your own gun being used against you are far lower than you using a gun to defend yourself. Further, if you look at the real statistics, the houses where gun violence occur are heavily skewed to homes where

• there is active criminal activity engaged in by the occupants of the house
• there are illegal drug users in the house
• there are spouse beaters in the house
• there is a known history of alcoholic behavior in the house
  On the other hand, “normal” people who do not engage in those activities stand a statistically zero risk of gun accidents/violence from their own weapons and actually stand a better chance in an encounter against any violence.

Amen![SIGN][/SIGN]

 

[Ilroy]

Being an Australian, I am for gun control. (Generally speaking, most Australians are.) And I always feel perfectly safe. (In fact, the thought of a gun scares me. I even get a little nervous when I see a police officer with a gun in his holster.)

Being an American, I too am completely in favor of gun control. I always hit what I’m aiming at…now that’s control…

 

[LilyM]

Well Lily, I hate to break it to you, but the odds of your own gun being used against you are far lower than you using a gun to defend yourself. Further, if you look at the real statistics, the houses where gun violence occur are heavily skewed to homes where

• there is active criminal activity engaged in by the occupants of the house
• there are illegal drug users in the house
• there are spouse beaters in the house
• there is a known history of alcoholic behavior in the house
  On the other hand, “normal” people who do not engage in those activities stand a statistically zero risk of gun accidents/violence from their own weapons and actually stand a better chance in an encounter against any violence.

Does ‘normal’ mean statistically in the majority though? :ehh: I’d say a high percentage, if not a majority, of households will have one or more of those higher-risk factors present.

And I’d like to take a gander at whatever evidence or studies you have to back up the point that guns are most often used in self-defence rather than offence.

It occurs to me very simply that no guns in the house means less likely that guns are used EITHER in self defence or against you. Win-win.