a letter from my site visitor - and my humble reply

Status
Not open for further replies.
i "blame movies and games" only as a part of mass culture which treats violence as a common and even "cool" way to solve things rather than ultimate solution 'when all else fails'. Of cause, this is only part of the bigger picture, but it is most obvious one.

I have much the same opinion. Mass culture influences people and we increasingly have a problem of with many people lacking role models in their life. A lot of young people have no better teacher than the entertainment industry, a sad state of affairs. I'm irritated by entertainment that romantices violant struggle in daily life, things like rap records that drone on about fallen brothers and 'beefs'.

Media doesn't make people do anything but it's one aspect that influances people and shouldn't be ignored.
 
I think it's two sides of the same coin. Movies and video games can indeed influence behavior in people. And guns can enable some people to commit more violent crimes than they could otherwise. In either case though, it's an individual's chosen actions that are the real problem.

I don't mean to criticize your main response to the original email, but to point out that we can't dismiss the responsibility of a gun culture for the pain caused by guns and simultaneously blame an American culture that enjoys some violence and fantasy in their games and movies. Pot and kettle and all.
 
Heck, a revolver in the hands of Jerry Mikulek (sp?) has a rate of fire of about 145 rounds per minute... but only untill its time for him to load another 6 bullets.

Actually, if you take his 8 shots in 1.00 seconds record and extend that out he's shooting at 480 rounds per minute.

Sweet mother of God that's fast!
 
I think the mention of games and movies is an example of the culture, not necessarily the cause. America has been historically more violent than other 'civilized' nations. In 1900, I don't think there were a full dozen shooting deaths in London - at a time when there was no gun control. In America, on the other hand, a lot more shooting was going on (I think John Lott had stats on this). Maybe it's due to our mishmash of cultures all tossed together in one country. But it doesn't seem to be racist in nature - as crimes seem to happen in their own cultural enclaves, primarily. Blacks shoot blacks, whites shoot whites. Maybe these enclaves somehow foster violence - due to poverty or some such. I've got no idea.
American fiction, for example, tends to be a tad more violent than British. Example: (Britisher) G.A. Henty wrote around a hundred historical fiction pieces, usually involving a war (typically something in the British Empire). His heroes typically become officers, and the battle scenes are simply a story of tactics and (especially) leadership. The hero keeps a cool head and keeps his focus on the mission, which is not usually shooting everybody. Compare this to the Hardy Boys. You are almost guaranteed a knock-down, drag-out fistfight at some time, usually more than one. If Henty has one, it's generally a fight with Marquis of Queensbury rules - fencing match, boxing match. The Hardy's just go in and try to beat everybody up, no rules allowed.
 
America has been historically more violent than other 'civilized' nations.

This is unsubstantiated horse - as Harry Truman would say - manure.

Just like Soviet Russia, Mao's China, or Hitler's Germany, the USA has an unenviable record of violence against the individual. I guess you would agree with that statement, too, huh? Let's not bother to dig into a history book and read about pre 20th century "civilized" cultures, OK? :barf:
 
Well, if you will count the number of wars, fought in Europe during the 19th century, you will hardly find the Europe to be a "peaceful place". Too many states, too many rulers, to many crossing interests. Add some revolutionary / separatist movements and you'll get a boiling bucket of blood called Europe ;)

I think it all has changed in Western Europe after WW2 - too much strain was put on societies during two subsequent World Wars, IMO.
Eastern Europe is quite different (see agonizing ex-Yugoslavia, for example).
 
First of all lets all try to take the high road in our responses. Second of all Geronimo45 isn't off the mark. I have Bachelor in Liberal Arts (history) and the U.S. does admire the violent individual. Whether that individual is factual like Billy the Kid, Jesse James, John Dillinger, Wyatt Earp, Richard Marchinko or fictional like Dirty Harry, Batman, John Maclean, or Claude Dallas. Incidentally I'm a cop in the city where Dallas was tried for killing the two Idaho Fish and Game officers. There are many who consider him to be hero. So it goes.

Our culture focuses on the strong individual who takes on the establishment, usually with violence, and emerges victorious. It's not a cliche nor is it a knee jerk liberal reaction to aknowledge this.

And as far as goverment violence against the individual in the U.S., well perhaps you should look more completely.

The Colorado national guard using violence against striking miners in Colorado in the 20th century. The regular army being used against striking miners in Northern Idaho in the 1890's. The army busting up the Bonus Army in 31, or was it 32.

The Molly McGuires case. The various state and local goverments that looked the other way in the late 19th century and alot of the 20th century as lynch mobs and the Klu Klux Klan ran rampant. You don't think that was goverment violence?

Hey before I was a cop I was a soldier. My entire adult life I've worked for the goverment. The part of the goverment that carries guns and has goverment authority to use violence (within reason). We're better then many other nations but we have our skeletons and bad things stll happen.

This isn't properganda to aknowledge this.
 
You done good Max.
In future, I might suggest that you nip it in the bud, and go with the implied "need" in their question (as this is really the source of their agenda).
Who decides what someone needs? Is it the person asking the question who will be the arbiter of what everyone else in the world needs?
What if I get to decide what the person asking the question "needs"?
Do they "need" a house? People can live in tents.
Do they "need" all of their income? I suspect they could get buy on less.
Why should they be allowed to decide what I "need"?
Why shouldn't I decide what I "need" and they decide what they "need"?
Isn't that really what is truly fair?
 
I'm curious - what logical reason can you give for why you sell/produce guns that can shoot "600, 750 rounds per minute?"

Did you notice that you did not answer the question? Maybe you were too busy pontificating?

You did not explain any uses of a weapon that fires "600, 750 rounds per minute". That's what she asked.

You have several reasons for owning weapons in general - hunting, target shooting, and self defense. You did not explain why a select fire or full auto weapon was more appropriate for those purposes than a semi-automatic weapon.

You answered the more general question, "What logical reason can you give for owning guns?" But that's not the that question was asked.

If you have logical reasons for owning select fire/full auto weapons, you should have explained them. The only reason I'd want to own one is because I think they'd be a heck of a lot of fun. :) As long as someone else is buying ammo ...

I think maybe your ego got in the way of your brain? :)

Mike
 
I agreed with you right up until you said that you blame computer games, in part, for some of the recent shootings.

That argument is just as flawed as gun control.

(I'm not attacking you personally.)
 
It is the assumption of your writer that is "wrong".

First.

The 2ndAmendment is not about anything except national defense and by extension, self defense.

Secondly, with very notable exceptions the ordinary Cowboy at 19 years of age cannot buy a fully automatic weapon. It's Frankly very difficult, and very expensive to get a Automatic weapon over 21 too.

ASk them, (NICELY), to rethink then restate his question in light of these 'FACTS'.

That is my suggestion. But that is only if you want to attempt, (low percentage of success) to plant a seed in his mind, that may bring rational thought to him.

Good luck

Fred
 
This isn't properganda to aknowledge this.

It's also not necessary to put on a hair shirt and flagellate yourself in public.

America has a love affair with violence, sure. Violence is an alluring thing. But there is a difference with being interested with violence and acting out. The people that excuse antisocial behavior are enablers of the problem. Not guns.

You can thank your liberal education system for turning out individuals with hardly a trace of fiber - moral fiber. And thank the permissive parents who don't supervise their kids and discipline them.

The smattering of examples you named are just that; isolated individuals that did something antisocial and have become folk heroes. There are only a couple of instances of actual shootemup behavior documented, despite the thousands of movies and television programs that have shown the high noon show down.
 
Well, if you will count the number of wars, fought in Europe during the 19th century, you will hardly find the Europe to be a "peaceful place". Too many states, too many rulers, to many crossing interests. Add some revolutionary / separatist movements and you'll get a boiling bucket of blood called Europe
I always look forward to Germans whining about "guns" and "gun crime" in the United States.

I always say, "Yeah, but we've got a lot less Zyklon-B and Zyklon-B crime here..."
 
Who decides what someone needs? Is it the person asking the question who will be the arbiter of what everyone else in the world needs?

Well said, Dr Dickie. Something I'm going to have to remember and use as often as possible...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top