BF2S Forums Gun Culture

The problem isn't guns. It's criminals, loose law enforcement, and improperly trained morons who haven't learned to respect firearms for their destructive power that cause most of the problems. If you outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have them. Think about that for a few moments.

P.S. Michael Moore is a fat douche.

Oh, and our government is more concerned with passed bullshit legislation like the previous "assault" rifle ban than making firearm training mandatory. But look how many dumbfucks get in car accidents every year because they were fucking around on a cell phone or eating a cheeseburger. The only way we're gonna stop people from doing stupid shit is if we chop off everyones hands and chain them to a padded wall.

I don't entirely agree with the commonly held view that the fact that guns are legal in the US is what makes gun crime rates there so much higher than in other western nations (where gun ownership is either illegal or very strictly regulated). The easy availability of guns is partly to blame but the main culprit is the particular brand of capitalism peddled by the US. US capitalism is a real 'survival of the fittest' and is particularly ruthless. Capitalism produces winners and losers. US capitalism in particular produces a very wide (and ever widening) gap between the winners (the 'haves') and the losers (the 'have-nots') in society. With guns available to these desparate 'have-nots', surrounded by affluence, it seems an easy option for them to turn to gun crime to make their miserable lives temporarily more bearable. This gap is what I believe is responsible for the higher prevalence of gun crimes in the US. It is evident not just in the US but, as I have seen for myself, all throughout latin america as well where similar gaps between rich and poor exist.
Canada, which exercises a European brand of capitalism, has no such gun problems.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-06-19 07:16:17)

From my prospective " The Widening gap " between rich and poor in the USA is a myth.

I just didn't see it here in NYC, Harlem, Bronx, Jersey City etc. Opportunities abound.

Dominican's came here and in less than 5 years they made it into mainstream America. Their neighborhoods are Vibrant and prosperous.

The people who are down want to be down. We used to call them bums. The only thing that keeps poor down is the Welfare State. If they start to prosper, They lose access to the state provided housing and income in a proportionate manner.

This must be changed. To many welfare people it has become a way of life. For generations its all they know and all they want. They also feel it is theirs exclusively by right, It is owed them and they have absolutely no intention of ever changing their status.

Government Assistance Agency's are also Rife with Waste and Corruption in my experience.

If you point it out, " you are heartless and hate the poor." Personally I am glad to be done with them.

At the very least I feel if housing is government owned and run we should be able to control who and what comes in out and when. Including bed times. I also feel government housing should not be on the most expensive real-estate in The USA, ( Manhattan) it should be out west some where. As a working tax payer I had to commute 90 minutes into NYC but Bums get to live there for free on my Dollar? WTF ?

Let the expensive land produce income with property tax paid by people who do not drain the resources of the Government. With the money the area would produce we would have more to spend on the truly needy. Plus Government projects bring down the Entire surrounding Area with the crime they produce.

MY point of view comes from the fact that at one time for The Telephone Company I had as my clients NYPD, NYFD, NYC Human Resources, NYC Cultural Affairs, NYC Parol Board, NYC Housing Authority,

NYFD made do with next to nothing in expences, NYPD was not much better. NYC Cultural Affairs was State Of the Art Equipment, Go figure.

Last edited by Horseman 77 (2006-06-19 07:16:26)

Horseman 77 wrote:

From my prospective " The Widening gap " between rich and poor in the USA is a myth.

I just didn't see it here in NYC, Harlem, Bronx, Jersey City etc. Opportunities abound.

Dominican's came here and in less than 5 years they made it into mainstream America. Their neighborhoods are Vibrant and prosperous.

The people who are down want to be down. We used to call them bums. The only thing that keeps poor down is the Welfare State. If they start to prosper, They lose access to the state provided housing and income in a proportionate manner.

This must be changed. To many welfare people it has become a way of life. For generations its all they know and all they want. They also feel it is theirs exclusively by right, It is owed them and they have absolutely no intention of ever changing their status.

Government Assistance Agency's are also Rife with Waste and Corruption in my experience.

If you point it out, " you are heartless and hate the poor." Personally I am glad to be done with them.

At the very least I feel if housing is government owned and run we should be able to control who and what comes in out and when. Including bed times. I also feel government housing should not be on the most expensive real-estate in The USA, ( Manhattan) it should be out west some where. As a working tax payer I had to commute 90 minutes into NYC but Bums get to live there for free on my Dollar? WTF ?

Let the expensive land produce income with property tax paid by people who do not drain the resources of the Government. With the money the area would produce we would have more to spend on the truly needy. Plus Government projects bring down the Entire surrounding Area with the crime they produce.

MY point of view comes from the fact that at one time for The Telephone Company I had as my clients NYPD, NYFD, NYC Human Resources, NYC Cultural Affairs, NYC Parol Board, NYC Housing Authority,

NYFD made do with next to nothing in expences, NYPD was not much better. NYC Cultural Affairs was State Of the Art Equipment, Go figure.

I would agree with certain points you have made but I would like to say a few things in defence of the 'bums'. Unemployment is spirit-crushing and there is not an inexhaustible supply of jobs in many economies on this planet. Most unemployed people WANT to or WOULD LIKE to have a job. I think you generalise when you seem to dismiss most unemployed as 'bums'. People, having been made redundant, may also find themselves marooned in an area where employment opportunities may be limited, without the resources to relocate to somewhere better. Other 'bums' might be victims of circumstance - the wife has a job but the husband can't get one, etc.
I don't agree with the fact the welfare state keeps the poor down. The welfare state provided by the US is particularly meagre when compared against European welfare states. Without the welfare state a state of chaos would reign in USA as it would in any country. A necessary by-product of capitalism are economic 'losers' - we, as the 'winners', shouldn't begrudge paying taxes that support them when the reason we are the 'winners' is because of the 'bums'. Anyway someday, if things don't go our way, any one of us might wind up as 'bums' ourselves....

Erkut.hv wrote:

Why is it an illegal can find a job in no time flat but the "downtrodden" can't seem to find one?

Not sure how your system works, but in the UK the homeless can't get a job because you need a fixed address and they can't get one of those because they don't have a job, so it's catch 22.

The "illegals" won't get work because they are well, illegal and have no papers but they obviously get work one way or another.  However, I feel this has more to do with them getting jobs with "contacts" that have in the UK which a homeless person wouldn't have;  So the illegal pays a guy to get him into the country and part of that deal gets him a dodgy job with an equally dodgy employer known to the traffickers.

I just wear Dark wap aroud " Terminator Style " Glasses. When they cant see your eyes, its like trying to catch a horse that has a fly mask on. Scary stuff if you ever try it.

I like how Moore used Japan as one comparison for gun deaths.  (Owning a gun is illegal in Japan.)

How are we defining "Gun Culture?"  Are we talking the "average, legal gun owner," the "Columbine shooters," or the "gangsta rapper" image?  I know quite a few people who own guns.  They have proper respect for them and are not criminally minded (i.e. "average gun owner")

I'm Canadian and I like guns.

America is out of place with them though. Children have guns there. Children my cousin's age. That's fucking 6!

CameronPoe wrote:

I don't entirely agree with the commonly held view that the fact that guns are legal in the US is what makes gun crime rates there so much higher than in other western nations (where gun ownership is either illegal or very strictly regulated). The easy availability of guns is partly to blame but the main culprit is the particular brand of capitalism peddled by the US. US capitalism is a real 'survival of the fittest' and is particularly ruthless. Capitalism produces winners and losers. US capitalism in particular produces a very wide (and ever widening) gap between the winners (the 'haves') and the losers (the 'have-nots') in society. With guns available to these desparate 'have-nots', surrounded by affluence, it seems an easy option for them to turn to gun crime to make their miserable lives temporarily more bearable. This gap is what I believe is responsible for the higher prevalence of gun crimes in the US. It is evident not just in the US but, as I have seen for myself, all throughout latin america as well where similar gaps between rich and poor exist.
Canada, which exercises a European brand of capitalism, has no such gun problems.

Crime is not perpetuated solely by the "have-nots" of US society, nor does all crime involve handguns. A combination of culture and stupidity are what contribute so heavily to crime. I went to a high school with its fair share of "have-nots," and some of them were serious enough to pay attention and study. Of course, they were accosted by other "have-nots" for acting different.

And Canada is not a great white bastion of perfect government.

As for the evils of American capitalism, here's an excerpt from an old bit of internet comedy:

Hitler[AoE]: wtf
Hitler[AoE]: america hax, u had depression and now u got a huge fockin army
Hitler[AoE]: thats bullsh1t u hacker
Churchill: lol no more france for u hitler
Hitler[AoE]: tojo help me!
T0J0: wtf u want me to do, im on the other side of the world retard

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-06-19 20:50:54)

Fred[OZ75] wrote:

America has a high ownership of guns which in itself is no problem, also legally owned guns of any type with a safe and responsible owner pose no problem. Gun control is not always what the NRA say it is, gun control is mainly enforcing measures to keep guns in safe hands and away from criminals and those who are not responsible.

A NRA fun fact is that Australia has basically baned guns, in FACT Australia has a high gun ownership rate compared with most OECD countries (ok the USA has a much higher rate). Mostly Australia's gun control is about correct storage and handling of guns, making sure that criminals find it harder to acquire guns, in fact this had lead to a 30% drop in gun related crime since the new national wide laws where introduced.

Criminals mainly get guns which are stolen from people who have legally owned them, most are stolen from homes when the owners are away. Just making sure every gun owner is required to store his gun in a immobile metal box would greatly reduce the amount of guns available to criminals. The problem in the US is that there is no way anything short of a rocket launchers can be controlled from sale and there is no way that national laws could be put in place to have any form of decent gun control (IE safe handling and storage laws). Also it seems that the laws already in place are rarely followed up on and punishments are vastly too weak. Any state which does enforce gun control is limited by the fact anyone can just go to the next state and buy anything they want.

Then again in some US states you are more likely to be shot to death than in war zones (ie Iraq today)

Where do you people come up with this shit.  "More likely to be shot in some US states than in Iraq"

There are many laws on the books that involve purchasing guns in another state other than ones Home state.

The biggest problem is lax enforcement of the laws that are already on the books.  I have heard of many anti-gun politicians say how many criminals or convicted felons they have stopped from buying guns with this law or that law, but none of these felons are arrested for trying to buy a gun.

The NRA is about allot more than just gun ownership.  They help protect hunters rights against crazy groups like peta. They help protect freedom of speech with the very first lawsuit against the Campaign Finance Reform Act which limits groups such as the NRA from saying anything about a politician within 30 days of a primary election and 60 days before a general election. If that isn't a violation of the First Amendment to the constitution then I dont know what is.  The lawsuit unfortunatly failed. Without the Second Amendment, the government can take away the whole constitution.