Cruentus
Grandmaster
Angelusmortis,
Although your opinions are well thought out, I think that you might be neglecting a few major parts of the picture.
#1. It's not the american obsession with guns that is the problem; it is our obsaession with violence. And this stems from some very deep rooted societal problems that we imbedded in our structure. Start a new thread, and I'd be glad to discuss it in more detail. But essentially I believe the theory pioneered by Col. David Grossman; and that theory is that we have been breeding aggressive sociopaths in the U.S. for quite sometime. We have done this through many factors, some of them listed as follows: Desensatization to and glorification of violence through media and entertainment outlets, Desparity among the poor to upper middle class created through wage slavery and a profit and property centered society, and fear-based minority (as in wealthy minority) control over the majority. Essentially our capitalistic structure works off of fear based incentives and desparity and wage entrapment. Add this to a continued desensitization to violence through media and entertainment, war-mongering and fear mongering by our power structure, etc., and you have a recipe for a very violent society.
I need to do a little more research on this part of it, but it would seem that on the surface, this recipe is concocted again and again by prosperious societies that have great imballances in wealth where a few people control the masses. Example: the Roman empire and the middle ages were pretty violent times too.
The point is, the problem isn't owning or carrying weapons or not. The problem is the culture of violence that we have created. If we want to be a less violent society, we need to undo this by making structural changes. Whether packing heat is legal or not has little to do with this.
2. Part of the problem that we have is too much control of the masses by a wealthy minority. Taking away every citizens right to protect themselves only propigates this problem, rather then contributing to the solution.
3. Although we are social beings and need each other to survive and prosper, we are also thinking, individual beings. A balance exists, and must exist, between the two. That said, we can strive for a peaceful society as a means for self-defense. However, the first line of defense starts with the individual. No government or society can fully protect the individual, nor is it societies responsability to provide that first line of defense. So, wherever you live, it is YOUR responsability to defend yourself and your family first and foremost, not your neighbors, or the police, or society as a whole. To adequetly defend oneself, one needs to be able to safely equalize and deter a threat. And, at the moment, the only thing that can safely equalize and deter a gun wielding assailent is another gun. So, by taking away the individuals right to carry ANY tool for self-defense that acts to equalize a threat, you are essentially infringing on the individuals rights and responsibilities of self-defense.
4. In our violent culture, taking away the individuals ability of self-defense will only propigate more violence by societies preditors. This has been proven time and time again; there is a great amount of historical precidence for this.
5. It is also important to our structure that we have the ability to overthrow the people in power. This is something that no one wants to talk about, because the people in power essentially don't want to be overthrown. Conservative think tanks and PR machines in this country have done a wonderful job convincing us americans to be apathetic and unthinking, and not to try to rock the boat or make changes in our country, especially if they would effect the profits and power structures. We as people need the ability to overthrow the powers that be; hopefully we can do this through our wonderful system laid out for us. Electing new people to office is an example of a peaceful overthrowing of the power structure. However, there is always that lingering possibility that our powers that be STOP allowing themselves to be led by the people, and start trying to impose a violent rule on the people. We need the rights to have firearms if this were to occur.
6. Inherent in our structure is the rights for people to own, or not to own, property. Society should not revolve around property ownership and assets american society seems to today, but having the right is necessary for a free society. If our rights to owning property are infringed, then we no longer live in a free society. Banning weapons infringes on these property rights.
7. Last thing that no one thinks about: Firearms are a part of American culture in the same way that traditional Japanese swords are a part of Japanese culture. Most people would agree that it would be stupid and oppressive if the Japanese government took away all swords, or if the Philippine Government took away all balisongs, or if a government outlawed the study of a martial art. In the same sense, Americans, for better or for worse, invented the pistol and the many types of guns, and it is a part of our history and cultural identity. To outright "ban" them or take them away would be oppressive.
Conclusion: SO...whether it is Australia and swords, or firearms in the U.S., weapons restrictions and bans are simply not the answer. They infringe on peoples rights, and they propigate current problems and create new ones instead of solving them. If the deeper societal problems of violence are fixed, people won't feel the need to own and carry weapons, violence will occur less, and the problem that a weapons ban aims to fix will be solved.
Paul
Although your opinions are well thought out, I think that you might be neglecting a few major parts of the picture.
#1. It's not the american obsession with guns that is the problem; it is our obsaession with violence. And this stems from some very deep rooted societal problems that we imbedded in our structure. Start a new thread, and I'd be glad to discuss it in more detail. But essentially I believe the theory pioneered by Col. David Grossman; and that theory is that we have been breeding aggressive sociopaths in the U.S. for quite sometime. We have done this through many factors, some of them listed as follows: Desensatization to and glorification of violence through media and entertainment outlets, Desparity among the poor to upper middle class created through wage slavery and a profit and property centered society, and fear-based minority (as in wealthy minority) control over the majority. Essentially our capitalistic structure works off of fear based incentives and desparity and wage entrapment. Add this to a continued desensitization to violence through media and entertainment, war-mongering and fear mongering by our power structure, etc., and you have a recipe for a very violent society.
I need to do a little more research on this part of it, but it would seem that on the surface, this recipe is concocted again and again by prosperious societies that have great imballances in wealth where a few people control the masses. Example: the Roman empire and the middle ages were pretty violent times too.
The point is, the problem isn't owning or carrying weapons or not. The problem is the culture of violence that we have created. If we want to be a less violent society, we need to undo this by making structural changes. Whether packing heat is legal or not has little to do with this.
2. Part of the problem that we have is too much control of the masses by a wealthy minority. Taking away every citizens right to protect themselves only propigates this problem, rather then contributing to the solution.
3. Although we are social beings and need each other to survive and prosper, we are also thinking, individual beings. A balance exists, and must exist, between the two. That said, we can strive for a peaceful society as a means for self-defense. However, the first line of defense starts with the individual. No government or society can fully protect the individual, nor is it societies responsability to provide that first line of defense. So, wherever you live, it is YOUR responsability to defend yourself and your family first and foremost, not your neighbors, or the police, or society as a whole. To adequetly defend oneself, one needs to be able to safely equalize and deter a threat. And, at the moment, the only thing that can safely equalize and deter a gun wielding assailent is another gun. So, by taking away the individuals right to carry ANY tool for self-defense that acts to equalize a threat, you are essentially infringing on the individuals rights and responsibilities of self-defense.
4. In our violent culture, taking away the individuals ability of self-defense will only propigate more violence by societies preditors. This has been proven time and time again; there is a great amount of historical precidence for this.
5. It is also important to our structure that we have the ability to overthrow the people in power. This is something that no one wants to talk about, because the people in power essentially don't want to be overthrown. Conservative think tanks and PR machines in this country have done a wonderful job convincing us americans to be apathetic and unthinking, and not to try to rock the boat or make changes in our country, especially if they would effect the profits and power structures. We as people need the ability to overthrow the powers that be; hopefully we can do this through our wonderful system laid out for us. Electing new people to office is an example of a peaceful overthrowing of the power structure. However, there is always that lingering possibility that our powers that be STOP allowing themselves to be led by the people, and start trying to impose a violent rule on the people. We need the rights to have firearms if this were to occur.
6. Inherent in our structure is the rights for people to own, or not to own, property. Society should not revolve around property ownership and assets american society seems to today, but having the right is necessary for a free society. If our rights to owning property are infringed, then we no longer live in a free society. Banning weapons infringes on these property rights.
7. Last thing that no one thinks about: Firearms are a part of American culture in the same way that traditional Japanese swords are a part of Japanese culture. Most people would agree that it would be stupid and oppressive if the Japanese government took away all swords, or if the Philippine Government took away all balisongs, or if a government outlawed the study of a martial art. In the same sense, Americans, for better or for worse, invented the pistol and the many types of guns, and it is a part of our history and cultural identity. To outright "ban" them or take them away would be oppressive.
Conclusion: SO...whether it is Australia and swords, or firearms in the U.S., weapons restrictions and bans are simply not the answer. They infringe on peoples rights, and they propigate current problems and create new ones instead of solving them. If the deeper societal problems of violence are fixed, people won't feel the need to own and carry weapons, violence will occur less, and the problem that a weapons ban aims to fix will be solved.
Paul
