I have started a new topic in The Alley of Dangerous Angles.It is called Breaking Stereotyping. No politics. I will be interested to see what responses I get.

Well the join the USA thread has now degenerated into a gun thread but not before he managed to aggravate BarmyArmy a long time and esteemed member of the Board. I don't think 8 has been on. If she has then she is just ignoring him. His citing of half truths has even his original supporters backing off.

My little non-controversial thread did get a few answers. Those responding seem to think that stereotyping can be broke or modfied if you have an open mind. Unfortunately there are many people out there without open minds.

Mark will be moving in, maybe even tomorrow.

Canada sent us a gift in the form of snow and cold weather so we could celebrate the arrival of spring with a snow ball fight. The snow didn't last though.

Mark has moved in. So far so good. This will be his second night here.

Hi Nakia;

Looks like you are in for some more snow. I have been running around in shorts for weeks now, maybe you and Mark should come to the Gulf Coast, for a wile.

Mr. K

Thanks, Mr. K, that is tempting but I don't know if Mark would want to leave his mother for more than a few days. She is in a nursing home nearby and he visits frequently, takes her food and does other things for her. He also starts a job in April for a landscaper.

The last time I checked the forecast was for rain/snow. Hopefully things will improve soon.

Hi Nakia;

It was cool for the weekend from the the low 60s to low 80s (F), but today, I got up and it was a little chilly for shorts, down in the high 40s (F). I may have to turn on the Heater.

Mr. K

According to my Weather Channel Houston currently has a temp of 57 F and we have 34 F. It is still predicticting a combo of rain/snow but other reports say we may have five inches.

ION: For those who know him Ragusa turned up in one of AD's threads. Muhahahah. I think AD has forsaken us though and may miss Ragusa's post. For those who don't know Ragusa he is one of the old timers on SP, a German who started out hating 'Americans' but has mellowed to a more gentle 'drop dead Yankees' tone and I think even accepts an occasional SP USA member as a human being.

Yeah, Ragusa. I remember him often counter balancing the right wing nuts.

During my debate with AD I actually found myself wishing Ragusa would show up. He did but late to the party. AD seems to have given up on his attempt to convince everyone that the USA is superior. I know know more about gun laws in various states than I ever desired to know. Gadzooks, I know more about guns then I needed to know. I am now a walking storehouse of information that is totally useless to me.

I just want to stress the "useless" part.

What I find somehow misguided is that some people are being so adamant about the 2nd Amendment without taking into account that although at the time it was a pretty good idea in order to defend a new country that was still fending for itself the idea has lost much of its relevance. These people just blindingly assume that the same principle can still be applied more than two hundred years later... In two centuries warfare has changed dramatically and military power is no longer dependent on the number of men with muskets that can be gathered on short notice.

The problem is that to change the amendment was was also reinforced by the fourteenth amendment would take a 2/3 rd vote of the states which will not happen certainly not in my life time. What people who cite the Supreme Court fail to point out is that Supreme Court has only as far as I can tell stated that people have a right to commonly held weapons such as lone rifles used for hunting and hand guns used for defense in the home.. In the Tri-state area, New York and New Jersey have fairly stiff gun laws. Connecticut's gun laws are not as strict but assault weapons are banned. I doubt I could get a permit to purchase a hand gun in New Jersey as you have to show a legitimate need for one. No one is threatening me, I do not live in a high crime area. The states also have may issue laws which means the issuing of a carry permit is at the discretion of the official issuing it. A back ground is run then the request is sent to some court to be either rejected or denied so a bit of time is involved. Despite the number of vendors around if the law is properly followed buying a legal gun is not that simple.

But even strict gun laws in states like New York or New Jearsey doesn't avail to much because you can just buy your weapons in another state, can't you? So it's pretty much just to limit gun buying as best as they can.

But that's another thing I never understood. Why the hell are people so attached to their firearms? And automatic weapons? Really? Banning automatic weapons is a cause for panic and protest? And it's not just the US, mind you. Gun laws gets a lot of heat here too.

Canada is like the US in many respects, including different mindsets from one province to the other. Québec is obviously a distinct province, but Ontario and British Columbia are also much different than Manitoba or Alberta. In US state comparisons, Québec is kind of like New York, Ontario is like Massachussetts and BC is like California. Alberta is Texas, Manitoba is Arkansas and Saskatchewan is Nevada. So there's a big cleavage between the east and the west of Canada. In the late 80's, the government began a gun registration law that died in the womb. After a shooting in a school (l'École polytechnique de Montréal in 1989) that left 14 women dead, a gun registry act was enabled through out Canada "aimed at the licensing of all gun owners and registration of all firearms. The bill also classified replica firearms as prohibited devices" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Firearms_Registry). It got a lot of initial opposition from the west of Canada. The registry went through anyways.

Huge cost overruns (something to the effect of 689 million instead of the initial 119 million. The end cost might even have been something around 1 billion.) made the project a thing of shame for the Conservative party and it's (many) supporters in the west as well as in rural parts of Canada. When the Conservative party took power as a majority government, one of their first acts of business was not only eliminating the obligation to register, but also destroying all data from the registry (while the implementation costs were ridiculously high, the costs of destroying the data was higher than actually maintaining the registry, so it was a purely ideological thing). Québec's public safety minister even tried to convince them to keep the registry and at the very least give them the data from Québec gun owners (since, you know, Québec taxpayers payed for the damn thing too), but to no avail. So Québec's government went to a judge and finally got a court order to prevent the province's data's destruction.

Anyone from New York or New Jersey who goes to another state to purchase a gun has every intention of being a law breaker if they bring that gun back to NY or NJ. The moment they enter the state that gun is an illegal weapon. No law will prevent someone from getting an illegal weapon if he or she really wants one. The laws do make it more difficult, time consuming and possibly more expensive. If the law saves one life it helps. If the law makes people aware of what responsible gun ownership means I am in favor of it. If the law means that a gun such as was used at Sandy Hook is not readily available to someone who snaps I am in favor of it. Those children had a right to grow up, their parents had a right to see their children grow up.

I think all that fascination for guns is unhealthy especially when it comes to confused kids getting hold of firearms... As a result you end up with pasty faced wimps with a bad haircut who can't help ranting about the 2nd Amendment on Internet forums.

If the average American citizen needs guns so badly then it means that the police are not doing their job and that there is no rule of law which is rather embarrassing for a country that keeps being referred to as "the greatest country in the world".

There is nothing responsible about kids getting hold of such weapons.

There is more to it, Cara, there really is a gun Culture. Adults who should know better insisting that the 2nd amendment gives them the right o buy assault weapons. The NRA putting out propaganda reinforces this mentality. I watched a few videos on YouTube. Middle aged men doing the video and the fascination is the gun itself. It is not a tool to them I guess some sort of extension of their own sense of masculinity. There are a few women but they are rare.

Vermont for instance has no actual gun laws. Including automatic weapons. As a rough estimate we are averaging out one of these killings each year. There is more to it than gun possession but the fact that the guns are so readily at hand makes it possible for these kids to act out their fantasies. How many children must die before we finally do something? Must we turn our schools into forts with armed guards? What will our children learn if they have to pass armed guards when the enter and leave school?

It is in my opinion the cave man mentality given sophisticated weapons.

Hi Carabas & Nakia;

One of the topics of discussion when the Writers of the US Constitution, and one of the reasons the 2nd Amendment was added, was; The Founders of the US, did not trust any Government. This is shown in the way the Constitution sets up the Government, and in a lot of writings from the people involved. They wanted to make sure that the People would have a way of "Last Resort" to control, or remove a corrupt Government. Guns in the hands of a large number of the People, would help any Revolutionary have a strong hand in a Revolution, and deter some small group, or individual from taking over the control of the People.

We do see this use of guns in the US from time to time, but it has never been more than a hand full of people, except for the War of Northern Aggression, (this is what the Victors call the Civil War). Don't misunderstand me, I don't support any form of Slavery, or suppression of anybody, but the US Government of the 1st half of the '19th Century, mishandled the way to free the Slaves, there where many opportunities, and better ways to do this, but even by 1860, a war was not the only way. The UK, managed to do it without a War, or destroying the Economy of the Plantation Owners. The British example was well known long before the Civil War. And the French way to end Slavery in Haiti, was good motivation for ending Slavery, and an example of how not to do it.

The Countries that Suppress their People the most, usually have very strong, and brutally enforced Gun Control. This is just the kind of places that the People need guns the most, and this is why the Framers of the US Constitution made Gun Ownership a Protected Right. We Americans don't trust our Government, and nether should you.

Gun Control is not so much about getting guns out of the hands of Criminals, or the mentally unstable, but in controlling the Political Opposition to the Left. If our Elected Political Leadership, could find it in there harts to sit down and actually work out a way to allow most people that want guns to have them, and find a way to remove possession of guns from people that would be a danger to the population, that could work. But as most of you know, that's not going to happen with the Politicians we have now.

Gun Control is one of the Issues that the Left use to distract the People from the real issues, like the lack of Fiscal control of how the Government spends money, or how to promote the Economy, here in the US and in the World as a whole, or a workable way to cut back the use of Fossil Fuels. If someone doesn't have a good argument for their views, they will try to change the subject, and not allow their view to be talked about, and the News Media just goes along with this.

By the Way; There is a big Black Market for guns all over the World, and the price of guns are many times higher where there is stronger Gun Control. In places like the UK, they have had strong Gun Control for a long time, and the rate of Gun Violence is very low, but it is still there. Not that long ago, there was a Revolution in Ireland against British control, and I know there where strong Gun Control Laws (same for Explosives) in effect, but there where a lot of people killed anyway. In Switzerland, just about all adults have guns as part of National Defense training, and their Violent crime rate is very low, lower than the UK.

OK, I am not saying that there is not a Gun Problem in the US, It is very bad, but making a lot of unenforceable Laws against Gun Ownership is not the answer. We need an actual and honest discussion on how to control Guns and the people that would use them for Criminal activities. Not by restricting guns, so much as, making the Criminal use more of a problem for Criminals, and people that sale guns to criminals.

Because of all the recent talk of making Gun Ownership more difficult, or even making it illegal, the sales rate of all kinds of guns has gone up, way up. More Guns, makes for more of a problem, and it also makes it harder to have an honest discussion about guns.

Remember: All we have to work with is Human Nature, and we Humans are built for Violence. This is the same Nature we have had for much longer than there has been Humans, long before Cavemen. Just look at the Games we Love to play; Oblivion, FO3, FONV, Skyrim, Planet Side 2, and Football, just to name the games I have played. Now don't start thinking about making all Games free of Violence, we Humans are a Violent bunch, and playing a Violent Game is a way to release the Violent tendencies without actually killing anyone. Just think: if Hitler had been born in a time when Computer Games where around, maybe he could have become a good Game Developer, Modder, or at least a Gamer. The kind of Gamer you would like to play PS2 with, and be in the same Squad, I bet he would play as a Max for Vanu.

Mr. K

PS: I played Football, the most Violent Team Sport today. American Football, where we hit as hard as we can, and run as fast as we can when we hit each other, wile trying to confuse the other side. Fun! But Very Violent.

I forgot one Thing:

If you want to understand what the fascination is with guns, go out to any local Gun Range, and talk to the people that love guns, just for what guns are. And if you have never learned how to shoot guns, just rent of barrow a gun, and and try a high powered rifle. Buy a box of ammo, and have a good time, then maybe you will understand a little better what the problem is. Guns are a kind of Power, and as Lord Acton said: "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." Power of the Gun is a small kind of Power, but it will corrupt a Caveman just about every time.

Mr. K

Mr. K, I am a woman and woman do not seem to have the same fascination with guns. A few maybe but it is rare. It does seem to be gender related. I was taught to shoot as a child, had my own rifle but although I enjoyed the challenge of trying to hit a target the gun itself didn't fascinate me. I was more interested in solving puzzles, reading British mystery stories and some USA ones, Mark Twain, science fiction. knights in shinning armour and mythology. Oh, I was a big western fan. Read lots of history too. I wanted to be a knight in shining armour. I did love taking things apart and trying to put them back together. That was fun.

No, I don't think it is possible for me to understand the male fascination with weapons that can cause such destruction. I find it rather scary and not at all reassuring.

Mr. K wrote:

PS: I played Football, the most Violent Team Sport today. American Football, where we hit as hard as we can, and run as fast as we can when we hit each other, wile trying to confuse the other side. Fun! But Very Violent.

Rugby players might beg to differ on that first statement.

I've done some shooting with a BB gun when I was a kid and it was fun but as an adult I have absolutely no interest in ever using a real gun.

I don't know if that's a phallic thing or not since I've once met a (French) girl who confessed that she would be turned on after shooting a gun (for sports). It may be weird but I'm not judging.

Regarding Switzerland, don't forget that ammunition is restricted. The number of guns doesn't mean much by itself. You can have many guns and still have severe restrictions on their use.

Americans clearly have a gun culture and I can say that it's definitely something that I don't envy. IMO the 2nd Amendment is just a convenient excuse to indulge that gun fetish, it's not like the American people are going to use guns to defend themselves against the government in this day and age (please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong).

Regarding games, there is one major reason why the original Fallout is the best game I've ever played and that's because it can be completed without killing anyone. Fallout 1 is a game filled with gore and violence but whether your character indulges in violence or not is entirely up to you.

Ever watch some hockey fans? Now that is violence. In American football you wear armour. Plus how many women play football? Watch yes but play? Touch football maybe.

Sports are regulated, there are rules, I don't see them the same at all. Sports are physically healthy, and do help to get rid of aggressive feelings with out a bunch of people being killed. Some may get seriously hurt but that can happen just slipping on the bathroom floor. Living is dangerous do we have to go out of our way to make it even more dangerous?

I do think the fascination with guns is at least artially sexual and I am sure there are woman who are turned on by it. Human beings do have a fascination with death and tradgedy. What is exciting about watching a man or woman on a tight rope? The fact that the person just might fall. Driving a race car might be fun and exciting but watching the race there is always the secret anticipation that there will be a crash. The mentality of the woman knitting as she watches people being guillotined resides deep within most of us.

Mr. K, I confused as to the point you're trying to make. As I read it, it looks like you advocate against gun control because only criminals with guns are the problem, but then you say that man is inherently violent, so will he not use powerful weapons for violence? And you also say "power corrupts" and that gun is a form of power. So we shouldn't restrict guns because... they corrupt us? I'm not sure I understand...

"The Founders of the US, did not trust any Government. (...) They wanted to make sure that the People would have a way of "Last Resort" to control, or remove a corrupt Government."
It's pretty clear that the founders distrusted governments. But why would the ONLY way of eliminating a form of government be violent? Gandhi didn't need a gun. In fact, many revolutions in modern age were achieved in a non violent way. The consitution was written more than 300 years ago. Things have changed. Context have changed. I"m not foolish enough to believe the government wants my uttermost hapiness and wellbeing. But believe the government is out to get you is both foolish and illustrates the "let's fight the government instead of actually participating and trying to change things", react instead of being proactive.

"Gun Control is not so much about getting guns out of the hands of Criminals, or the mentally unstable, but in controlling the Political Opposition to the Left."
I don't agree with that for a minute. For the same reason I don't agree with republicans saying "the mass media is biased and don't report the "real" news". This is not a political thing in the left-right sense of the thing. Yes, some democrats are using gun control and tragedies for political leverage. But that is not a leftwing thing. That is a political game thing. The republican do the same for other agendas. Not recognizing this screams bias to me. There is no news conspiracy. Yes, some news outlets, especially private owned ones, will make choices on what exposure give to some stories. That is why you read, watch and consult *different* sources. In the end, you will get the complete picture. In fact, if talking about dishonest media, the majority of them seem to be republican-friendly. Just recently, there is allegation that the Daily Caller, the paper founded by Tucker Carlson, paid Dominican prostitutes to have them say NJ dem senator Robert Menendez paid them for sex. If true, that is a new low for journalism.

But back to gun control : Yes, gun control is about gun control. Meaning: control the flow of guns will ultimately control the number of gun crimes. This is not meant to eliminate gun crimes entirely. That is not possible and believing that is, again, foolish. Just as you can't entirely eliminate drunk driving, regardless of the severity and amount of laws. Some people just won't care and will do it. But restricting the use and/or the availability of guns will reduce their use in the general populace. If buying a gun is costly and /or difficult to find, there will be less guns sold. If the guns are cheap and easy to find, there will be more guns sold. More guns in circulation means more guns in the hands of unstable people or criminals. Logic of it is not hard to understand.

"We need an actual and honest discussion on how to control Guns and the people that would use them for Criminal activities. Not by restricting guns, so much as, making the Criminal use more of a problem for Criminals, and people that sale guns to criminals."
Ok, so let's say we try to punish the criminals. Who is a criminal? Someone who makes a crime? And who are the people who sells guns to criminals? People who sell guns to people who comitted a crime? Doesn't that seem a lot like not selling guns to people who have a criminal record, kind of like the gun law specifies? But then you only get people that have *already* committed a crime. Kids that have no record or people that, one day, go off the deep end have readily access to any firearms they desire?

"More Guns, makes for more of a problem, and it also makes it harder to have an honest discussion about guns."
Ooooook. Then why don't you agree with gun laws. Less guns will be in circulation and thus will make it easier to have the said discussion. And you can't blame gun legislation for these gun sales. Blame people that don't understand the issue.

Matter a fact, can someone PLEASE explain to me why you would have an automatic or semi automatic weapon, except to kill massive amounts of humans? Some people feel handguns can protect them in a home invasion scenario. I get it. Hunting rifles are good for deer hunting and the like. I get it. But semis and automatic weapons? C'mon! Saying it's for anything but human killing is foolish at best. If it *is* just for the thrill firing the weapon, why not go to a licensed gun range that carries in a safe and secured maner the said weapon? Why must the only alternative be ownership?

Nakia the Rogue wrote:

Ever watch some hockey fans? Now that is violence. In American football you wear armour. Plus how many women play football? Watch yes but play? Touch football maybe.

I agree that hockey is a lot more violent than football. Football players don't fight on the field and there is genuine concern for concussions in football. But to say a Football is violent, I don't agree. Just because there is a physical element to a sport, it doesn't mean it's violent.

Most criminals do not use assault weapons or automatic weapons such as machine guns. The majority of crimes using guns at least here on the East Coast use handguns.

As for the Constitution I think our Founding Fathers did a great job of writing it. They knew it wasn't perfect and built in a way to change it that gave the states the control of whether it could and would be changed. Before the states would ratify the original document the Bill of Rights had to be passed by Congress and presented to the states to be ratified.

At that time guns were rather primitive and in fact as much a danger to the shooter as to what was being shot at. Rifles had not been invented. The modern weapons was at best a fantasy in Leonardo DaVinci's mind. England was a threat and a well regulated civilian militia was important.

Times have changed. We now live in the age of weapons of mass destruction. I doubt that a foreign power will use ground troops to invade us. In fact if 9/11 proves anything it shows that our vulnerability is from the air. Almost 3000 people died in the attacks. There is no way that those planes could have been stopped from flying into the world trade center short of anti aircraft guns or fighter planes. Maybe the flight 93 could have been stopped if someone had had a handgun.

Howdy Everybody;

My Point Exactly!

Guns and Gun Control is a way over Hyped issue, there is no way for the 2 sides to come together and actually agree on some effective way to actually control guns.

The Pro-Guns people are sticking to their guns, so to speak, and so are the Gun-Control people. Both sides have backed themselves into corners, and have no way to walk together, and shake hands.

You see, I can say some things, and I will get a response, and you will think it is easy to just write some laws and the whole thing will be solved. Not so, this is a real problem that has good workable solutions, but it has become the Political Topic of the Day, and it won't be solved any time soon.

The Left is using this as a Distraction from their constant over spending of our money. Our Money, not the Governments Money, they don't have any, they spent it all, many years ago.

There is a real need to work out how to keep some guns under very strict control, and how to stop criminals from using guns in crime. The scary use of unstable people, is a whole different topic, and the way to work this out is the job of Politicians in concert with Mental Experts.

You see there is a way to work this Gun Problem, but the Politicians can't seem to see the way to do it, without using this hot topic as a bludgeon to hit the other side with.

By the way; The US Constitution is only 226 years old, and it has been in effect for 224 years. The Bill of Rights was added as a protection of the People from the Government, and it was added before it was sent to the States for Ratification.

Politics is all about negotiating some way to do the Business of the People, but Politicians have a strong tendency to not negotiate, but to do anything to get and maintain control of Power. Any Politicians that are willing to negotiate, usually don't get what they think is best, and Politicians that will do anything to gain and control Power will win over a negotiator any day of the week.

Now maybe you can see why I hate Politics and Politicians, they just don't do the Job We the People have Elected them to do. That, my Friends, is our biggest problem.

About Football, I was thinking about adding Rugby, but my post was too long already. The most Violent Sport is Boxing, and the most Violent Sport that has unwilling participants is Hunting. And there you go, gun laws to stop the slaughter of the innocent animals.

Mr. K