Guns and Crime- lessons from another place?

Ashmo said:
I personally don't think it is a good idea to give weapons to individuals, especially not weapons that can easily kill lots of people at a great distance or with minimal personal effort or are easily concealed, yet readily accessible.
Click to expand...

Y'know, having a gun or not doesn't really matter. The city I live in, Brugge, has some 150 000 inhabitants - and about 60 000 guns circulating, according to official figures. There's probably a lot more of them, as not everyone registers their gun. From my personal experience, almost everybody here in Brugge owns some kind of firearm...
Yet the last murder by gunshot here was in 1962, according to my father (who should know, he's a cop).

To dust off an old cliché: guns don't kill people, people kill people. It's all a matter of principles, I guess: a human life is rated pretty highly here, while it is -overly obvious- rated a lot less highly in countries like Brazil or the USA.
But y'know, this has always been the case. Let them shoot eachother up for all I care - they're not going to change anyway.
 
Did you actually read what I wrote or just scan the text for something you could reply to with a simple arbitrary example for gun ownership not resulting in vast amounts of deaths by gun shots?

And just as an aside: I've never played Metal Gear Solid and I have no fucking clue what that reference was supposed to be about.
I do however feel offended when people can only come up with pop culture references whenever someone brings up a philosophical topic.
The next person to mention The Matrix (or the awful two-part sequel) in a discussion about the nature and definition of reality, or objectivity, gets a spork in the eye.
 
Well, Liquid Snake (the main adversary) has a rather long rant covering a number of topics. One of them, a running topic throughout the game, is destiny and it's relation to our genetic information. Are we more than what our genes tell us? Or is our sole purpose of survival to pass on our genetic information, and everything else a self-imposed delusion. Liquid Snake uses this information to define his very life.

Feel offended, if you wish. It not the 'only' thing I could 'come up' with, but is the only thing I wanted to post. These repetitive discussions don't hold much of a spark for me. I thought it was an interesting enough comment, a bit light-hearted; but you are completely free to ignore it. I don't equate it with a serious reference to philosophy in the Matrix, which would indicate a shallow understanding.
 
If you are seriously interested in my point about genes, I'd suggest you read The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins.

I'm not pissed off at anyone in particular, I've just grown allergic to this kind of reference ever since people started bombarding others with The Matrix and Ghost In The Shell quotations and thinking that'd prove their ultimate understanding of all that is philosophy (and anyone who thinks they "know" philosophy doesn't get it anyway).
 
Actually, I have, and I suspect sure the developers of Metal Gear Solid have as well. There is a commonality between the topics, though the game offers a highly inadequate exploration of the subject. In the end, my comment was facetious: noting a similarity between your post and a section of Liquid's Snake's speech, nothing more.

I do agree about The Matrix and Ghost in the Shell ('a bad photocopy of a bad fax from the pages of basic philosophy' is a phrase that occurred to me).
 
I hate the Matrix. I hold it accountable for most of the financial, ecological, biological, meteorological, and social disasters of most of the past eight hundred years. And what the hey, let's tac on pollution and AIDS.

That being said.
I hold Fight Club accountable for that, and more.

Addressing the topic of guns? Well I think I've already covered my stance on them. But to put in summation for those who will not bother reading the proceeding posts.

I wish we didn't have them at all. But that is not a reality, so I admit that we may have to have them in todays society.
 
I am not sure Jebus, if one example is a fair one, nor whether you can simply write this off to an issue about the how communities perceive the value of human life.

I think that the thinking about gun violence has been too simplistic. It's not just a matter of the number of guns or the ratio of guns in a society. If anything, guns are only factor in this equation.

There are other elements at work. For one both the US and Brazil have high rates of social inequality.

I think its fair if you look at other countries that have high gun-related deaths, you might also find high levels of inequality. South Africa certainly. I also understand that gun-related deaths are becoming more widespread in Russia and Eastern Europe.

Ok, so what else- Fear. High levels of insecurity. I think one reason the measure might be voted down in Brazil has to do with perceptions of fear. Fear of violence raises the question of whether one has confidence in the state in providing adequate police protection. Where there is a high level of fear there is also a higher likelihood that many members of the community will look to self-help to arm themselves. Therefore higher rates of guns as well as a greater likelihood of using them.

I might also add that I believe that most social problems exist because someone makes a profit out of it. So I would be curious to see how the gun lobbies and the manufacturers are campaigning or calculating what they are willing to risk should gun control be taken more seriously.

I think there are two levels to this problem. The micro/individual level- is the perceptions of the individual of fear and the need for self-protection.

At the macro-social level- comes the question of whether a society is better off being heavily armed or not.
 
Talking about the Fear factor, I can only add that I've only bumped into "trouble" on the street twice in my life and in both cases they were unarmed and drunk and I was able to talk my way out of the situation.

I'm not a bit afraid of someone breaking into my home and I am pretty sure I won't be the victim of any street crime within the rest of this decade, or ever after, for that matter.

I am aware of the "bad" places to be in (the suburbs of) this city and I avoid them most of the time, but I have little reason to go there in the first place.

Lastly, I feel comfortable with our police and know that they will do their duty if I ever need them. The closest police station is a few hundred meters down the road. The next closest one isn't far away from that either.

I think it's the same for most people I know, and of them, not one owns a firearm.
 
Ashmo said:
Did you actually read what I wrote or just scan the text for something you could reply to with a simple arbitrary example for gun ownership not resulting in vast amounts of deaths by gun shots?
Click to expand...

Option 2.

Was it that obvious? It's just, y'know, I've been dying to say that to someone for months now, AND I NEVER GOT AN OPPORTUNITY! You have any idea how frustrating that is?
 
Perhaps self defense is less necessary in Germany Ashmo, but here in the states, our populous seems to be inherently more violent. For example, you get pissed off at a bunch of gang bangers for groping your sister while at a club and then get your ass beaten down and your head stomped on because you confronted them for doing so. Or when at a pizza parlor and some crazy women cuts you in line and then gets her ex-con husband to knock you senseless because you mention to your wife that she cut you. Both are true stories and both are perfect examples of when a gun would have come in handy.

Besides, the U.S. was founded as a result of a revolution against tyrannical rule; citizens owning firearms is an effective check and balance system. Something the Jews could have used during the holocaust.
 
No, but my point is that compared to most other developed nations, the U.S. seems to have the most civil violence. Perhaps even conducive to higher gun crimes. Chicken or the egg?

The aforementioned examples aren't personal experiences by the way, just needless violence that made the news. I mentioned them because stuff like that does happen, regardless of Ashmo's experiences in Germany.
 
Maybe your country is that fucked up, or maybe your fears are just unfounded.

From what I have seen and heard (this is not a first-hand experience, so I cannot back it up), the USAmerican news reports are full of violence and crimes. "Bowling for Columbine" (as biased as it is and propagandistic as it turns out near the end) already compared that to other country's news shows -- in this case: Canada -- which show considerably less "everyday" crimes or report less vigorously about them and have a more balanced coverage.
If you're constantly exposed to every single crime that happens in the vast cities of your country (and those crimes that later turn out to have never happend or not to have been crimes in the first place), you'll neccessarily feel less secure.

Then there is of course the case where someone just happens to live in the worst shithole of the country or constantly bumps into the only couple of bad mofos within ten miles in every direction. In that case it's personal experience, but it's a non-representative experience when it comes to life in that country in general.

Cologne, the city I live in, is certainly not a paradise and the boulevard magazines tend to write about rather random crimes when they don't have anything more interesting to cover, but most people here (and in the rest of Germany and most other places throughout Europe and possibly the rest of the world) don't experience a constant (unfounded) fear -- maybe except for some of the elderly, like my grandmother, who's constantly afraid of someone breaking into her house -- but bars on the windows and glass doors of the ground floor are enough to calm her down to normality, in fact, we only have two locks on the apartment door and never lock the door when at least one of us is at home (although she insists on locking one of them when everyone's asleep), actually we also have a chain we never use.
There is just not any reason to.
 
Mingus said:
Something the Jews could have used during the holocaust.
Click to expand...


Now that's a retarded argument. You've got a million german soldiers with automatic high-caliber weapons, an entire airforce, a few panzer divisions, against a scattered and hated group of people, most of them old people and children weakened by hunger and poverty, with at best bolt action rifles from the early 1900's.

I don't know how many Rambo movies you're basing your experience on, Dingus, but I somehow doubt they would have pulled that stunt off.
 
From what I have seen and heard (this is not a first-hand experience, so I cannot back it up), the USAmerican news reports are full of violence and crimes. "Bowling for Columbine" (as biased as it is and propagandistic as it turns out near the end) already compared that to other country's news shows -- in this case: Canada -- which show considerably less "everyday" crimes or report less vigorously about them and have a more balanced coverage.
If you're constantly exposed to every single crime that happens in the vast cities of your country (and those crimes that later turn out to have never happend or not to have been crimes in the first place), you'll neccessarily feel less secure.
Click to expand...

It's not that simple. It's not a mere feeling of being insecure as the U.S. actually IS statistically more violent than Canada. If Canada can have more guns per capita than the U.S. and still have considerably lower gun related crimes, then something else must be at fault, not the guns themselves. What's the difference between the U.S. and canada that causes this? Unfortunately I don't know, but if I had to take a guess, I would look at the racial tension among citizens and even the issue of inequality as Welsh pointed out. There is no denying that the U.S. has more of both than Canada. I say, instead of attacking the idea of personal gun ownership, as it is not the real reason reason behind the crimes, we concentrate on figuring out what is. As cliched as it is, "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns," and living in such a violent country (world), that thought worries me.

Moreover and civil violence aside, let's also look at check and balance status of an armed population over its government. That idea may seem obscure and superficial to some, but it was a point heavily emphasized on by the founding fathers. As I said before, this nation was founded as a product of that ideal.

Now that's a retarded argument. You've got a million german soldiers with automatic high-caliber weapons, an entire airforce, a few panzer divisions, against a scattered and hated group of people, most of them old people and children weakened by hunger and poverty, with at best bolt action rifles from the early 1900's.

I don't know how many Rambo movies you're basing your experience on, Dingus, but I somehow doubt they would have pulled that stunt off.
Click to expand...

I never said that the Jews would have suceeded in stoping the nazis, that would be a ridiculous arguement. What would have happened is that they wouldn't have slowly and methodically been rounded up and exterminated with no means of fighting back. Remember, it was most of the developed world verus Germany. The fact that the Jews had no means to defend themselves must have been comforting to the Nazis.
 
Read up on history before you post bullshit. They did fight back. In return, the Germans entered the ghetto and slaughtered everyone.
 
So it would have been a lot better if they had guns and would have fought back, resulting in even more violent repercussions by the Germans, who would have killed them all without bothering to send them to concentration camps? Is THAT your point?


Guns don't solve ANYTHING.
 
The Overseer said:
So it would have been a lot better if they had guns and would have fought back, resulting in even more violent repercussions by the Germans, who would have killed them all without bothering to send them to concentration camps? Is THAT your point?


Guns don't solve ANYTHING.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that no act of defiance should ever be performed? That any time victory is not guaranteed, the group with less power should just roll over and say, "Hey, it could get worse if we stick it to them?"
 
I'm not saying that, but Mingus is wrong presenting armed resistance as some kind of solution. My point is that there wasn't really any solution to the problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top