Stress-Test

[Kencho]

CaseyB, that's the point with laws: Society members agree to cut out certain freedoms in order to improve the overall security

warmi, first of all, you said the US is the best that happened to the world in the last two centuries, and the fact that they dropped two atom bombs barely 60 years ago isn't really supporting your idea of "the best that happened to the world", thanks.

Second, I blame anyone who start a war, be it my neighbours or not.

Third, can you explain me why we have to lose people in wars you started just for your strategic resources? The wars you mention are WWII just, that I can remember, and that doesn't even count as a local war began escalating until it affected the whole world (Asia was involved too). But I'll give you that.

And last, the fact that one of the first nuclear powers in the world believe itself to be the holder of the absolute truth and the only righteous one, to use its power when and however it likes isn't right. Believe what you want, but a society doesn't need cops: it needs balance. If a country starts a conflict, it's the matter of the rest of countries to hold it back and solve that conflict. As CaseyB said, that's why the UN organisation was born, and I doubt you're righteous enough to oppose to something the whole world thought right.

[KungFooMasta]

@Kojack:

[Tenttu]

My country is better than your country discussion is just ridiculous. Stay on topic before the stress test fails.

[Kojack]

Speaking of Finland kicking major ass...

Simo Häyhä is damn cool. He was a finnish sniper, who in only 100 days got 542 confirmed kills with his rifle (iron sights only, he didn't like scopes) and around 200 kills with a sub machine gun.

I'm not from finland, I just think he was pretty damn impressive. Although in a sword fight... I think I'd have a chance against him (the fact that he died 6 years ago does kind of stack the odds in my favour).

[jjp]

Actually, regardless of circumstances, I don't think killing humans is something to brag about Now this is really straying away from the topic.

[johnhpus]

In the U.S., the people absolutely have a right to own guns and according to the constitution that cannot be taken away or diminished.

Now, technically it is diminished in good ways. I don't want just any jackass to own a truck mounted machine gun. But the idea that you can't legally own a handgun in certain cities is disturbing to me.

Not to mention, and this should be popular with U.S.-haters, that we need an armed populace to keep the government in check. Big business already screws the average guy at every turn. Imagine if American business leaders and politicians didn't have to worry about the, admittedly minuscule, chance that a bunch of poor people could revolt.

Like ending a world war by throwing two atom bombs at populated towns?

I guess the winners write the history books, but from what I've been told, you're glossing over tons of important information regarding that.

A land invasion of Japan would have resulted in far more casualties, U.S and Japanese, than the atomic bombs did.

You also mentioned something about how a demonstration would have been enough. That's also not true, as the two direct hits were barely enough to convince the emperor. And some of his generals weren't convinced. They tried to mutiny to avoid surrender.

Also, both of those cities had important roles in manufacturing. If the U.S. just wanted to blow the hell out of civilians, they could have dropped both of them on Tokyo.

The Japanese didn't have a stunning record themselves. Remember China?

If you want to complain, and call out the U.S. on its history of crimes against humanity, you should mention the firebombings of WWII instead. They were much worse.

And while you're pointing a finger, what about Spain? Weren't they sympathetic to the Axis powers? Weren't they denied entry to the United Nations because of it?

[:wumpus:]

I'm always surprised how people in the US claim everything is allowed in the name of freedom. Respect for that, I'm all for personal freedom, even if it means carrying guns around.

But, on the other hand, they are the ones that allow all kinds of silly laws to pass restricting privacy, causing inconvenience when travelling, allow surveillance to zillions of three letter agencies, in the name of "security before freedom".

What is it? It seems to me you have the worst of both over there. You're not free at all, and you're also in danger from your neighbours and random people on the street that can shoot you.

Would your gun really help you if the state turned oppressive? If you withstood the propaganda, how long would your militia last against trained soldiers or policemen? Do the guns really help make you more free?

[johnhpus]

But, on the other hand, they are the ones that allow all kinds of silly laws to pass restricting privacy, causing inconvenience when travelling, allow surveillance to zillions of three letter agencies, in the name of "security before freedom".

I'm definitely against that. It's very scary how privacy has been invaded in the name of security. Privacy isn't all we've lost. Free speech and a fair trial are on the fence.

You're not free at all, and you're also in danger from your neighbours and random people on the street that can shoot you.

That's probably a misconception. I live in a rural town of about 10k people. Many people own guns here. Sport hunting is popular, so that contributes to the number of guns. It's also common for a family that doesn't hunt to own a shotgun "just in case".

I have no absolutely no reason to fear that I'll be shot here. People don't go around brandishing guns, or threatening to shoot each other. Drunk rednecks stab each other every couple of years, that's about the worst.

But there is a town about three times as large as mine, and about 30 miles away. It has a large ghetto. If you go there, you can probably get yourself shot pretty easy.

[Kencho]

And while you're pointing a finger, what about Spain? Weren't they sympathetic to the Axis powers? Weren't they denied entry to the United Nations because of it?

Yes. The difference with all of you is that I'm not proud of my country's past and errors.

And justifying the atom bombing has no forgiveness. Sorry, but it's like saying 9/11 wasn't that bad compared to continued smaller attacks across the US. Both are bad! The only good way would be not to attack. Why are you always believing the only solution is to bomb and/or invade a country?! Germany didn't fall much later than the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing. Do you really think Japan would've go ahead with its war campaign if it was alone against the whole world? By just finishing Hitler would've been more than enough for them to surrender. The states just wanted to show their "overwhelming power" to the rest of the world, and to send a message that they're above all human being thanks to their new toy. Now it's up to you to remove the bands from your eyes and embrace the real world, or not.

[sinbad]

My take - if you need to own a gun to feel safe, then something is already very wrong in your society.

Sure, criminals will always avoid the law, that's not really the issue here (even ignoring that fewer minor criminals have access to guns the harder they are to obtain). The problem with a gun is that it's incredibly easy to inflict horrific, mortal injuries with it in a very short space of time, either by accident, because of an overreaction, a mistake, or just because you're a nutjob. People are not perfect, and whether it's because they're scared, a bit mentally unstable or whatever, if you can get a gun you can do more damage, more easily, which equals more casualties. It just makes a bad situation worse. Would you have as many deaths in high-schools in the US if unhinged young people didn't have such easy access to convenient, easy to use deadly weapons?

Where I live it's illegal to be in public carrying a knife without good cause, and not even police carry weapons. It's almost unheard of to have serious crime here, and yet fairly recently a young guy died on our high street because he was stabbed. The reason the other guy gave for carrying a knife was that it was 'for protection'. What happened is, he got into an argument, felt scared by being threatened by a bigger bloke and thus pulled the knife while they wrestled, killing the other guy. What should have been a punch-up between drunk kids turned into a death, just because he reacted too strongly in the heat of the moment, and had the tool to do it. Had he not had the knife that night, one life would have been saved and multiple other lives wouldn't have been ruined (he's in prison for a long time, both families wrecked). Carrying the knife 'for protection' might have sounded like a good idea, but it was supremely dumb. If he'd had a gun, goodness knows what might have happened (bystanders etc).

The trouble is, once you get into the stage where everyone is armed, you're screwed. Your society is already filled with deadly weapons that everyone hopes they don't have to use, but inevitably they will, and probably for the wrong reason in many cases. No-one's going to get rid of them because everyone else has guns, and everyone is too scared not to have one for 'protection'. Personally I think it's a sign of a society broken at a far deeper level and the guns are just a symptom. Not sure how to solve that, I'm just glad I don't have to deal with it.

[sinbad]

Not to mention, and this should be popular with U.S.-haters, that we need an armed populace to keep the government in check.

I don't buy this argument at all. How come every other civilised nation manages to keep their government in check without needing to be a public army in waiting? And do you really have an organised plan, should that become necessary? Or isn't it more likely that you'll just get a massive civil war instead if it came to that because everyone can assemble their own little armies, and plenty would try to take advantage.

Besides, doesn't this idea go completely against the idea of democracy? Democracy is supposed to prevent this kind of thing, if you feel you need a gun to overthrow your government, doesn't that mean you don't believe in the electoral process as a checks/balances system?

It seems to me that all the reasons for owning a gun are 'just in case' arguments. Personally I don't think that remotely justifies the collatoral damage that surrounds gun proliferation (from my perception).

[:wumpus:]

Of those 29,573 firearm related deaths in 2001:
16,869 were Suicides
...

I was thinking about that as well, if kids can easily get access weapons, they can kill themselves or others, something that would probably never have happened with other means. Stabbing or strangling someone to death takes a whole other mindset than just pushing a trigger.

[FrameFever]

you're definitly right sinbad.
100% agree.

[johnhpus]

Yes. The difference with all of you is that I'm not proud of my country's past and errors.

I must have come across the wrong way. I'm not at all, not in the least, proud that innocent people were killed by my government. The idea of what innocent people have suffered through war, now or in history, is absolutely crushing to me.

I just don't think you can point a finger at the U.S. over the atomic bombing of Japan. It was as least as justifiable as a land invasion.

[johnhpus]

I don't buy this argument at all. How come every other civilised nation manages to keep their government in check without needing to be a public army in waiting? And do you really have an organised plan, should that become necessary? Or isn't it more likely that you'll just get a massive civil war instead if it came to that because everyone can assemble their own little armies, and plenty would try to take advantage.

I assume that Europeans are exposed to more variates of culture and differing viewpoints than are Americans. We're, for the most part, a homogenized people who don't know the rest of the world from our backsides. We believe what the media and politicians tell us (and don't seem to notice that this information is false and manipulative). Our average citizen doesn't vote, doesn't know anything about law, and won't be bothered to pay attention.

Clearly we (they) don't care what's happening to our country so far. At least not enough to put our supposed democracy into action and do something about it. The only thing I see that keeps the government in check is what the people will let them do, and that not by democracy, but by the threat of a violent breakdown in society.

Look at the L.A. riots. They were trying to make a point. They could have used the proper political channels to express frustration and bring about a positive change. Instead they let it go until things were completely out of control with police beatings and hostility. Then they lashed out in a colossal display of violence(destroying their own neighborhoods as I understand, but however, I'm not saying it was good or smart). Of course guns weren't a major factor in that right, as far as I know. And I'm not sure it accomplished anything. But some kind of major national outrage, a national Rodney King, could cause that same effect everywhere.

I do agree that nothing great would come from a civil war. It would probably be a bit like the old feudal systems until power structures were sorted out. But like nuclear weapons it's not the actual use of the weapon that counts. It's the fact that the weapon exists at all.

And of course the army would crush anyone who tried to stand up to them. But look at Iraq. They have far fewer people, and they've been battling with the army for quite a while now. A hostile population of size would be quite an obstacle.

For the record, if shit ever goes bad on that scale in America, I'll be hiding in the mountains until it works out.

Oh, and I don't own a gun.

[CaseyB]

Wow! There have been a lot of good posts since I went to bed!

Yes. The difference with all of you is that I'm not proud of my country's past and errors.

I am not proud of our past errors and freely admit when we did the wrong thing (read my comment about Iraq). I think that patriotism is loving your country and trying to make it the best it can be, but it doesn't mean that you always have to agree! You just do your best to keep it from making mistakes and try to help rectify it when it does!

How come every other civilised nation manages to keep their government in check without needing to be a public army in waiting? And do you really have an organised plan, should that become necessary? Or isn't it more likely that you'll just get a massive civil war instead if it came to that because everyone can assemble their own little armies, and plenty would try to take advantage.

Besides, doesn't this idea go completely against the idea of democracy? Democracy is supposed to prevent this kind of thing, if you feel you need a gun to overthrow your government, doesn't that mean you don't believe in the electoral process as a checks/balances system?

It seems to me that all the reasons for owning a gun are 'just in case' arguments. Personally I don't think that remotely justifies the collatoral damage that surrounds gun proliferation (from my perception).

The reason the checks in balances are included in our constitution is because, not all THAT long ago we had to take up arms to fight against a tyrannical government. And the founding fathers put the right to bear arms in the Bill of Rights as a final, worst case balance.

I was thinking about that as well, if kids can easily get access weapons, they can kill themselves or others, something that would probably never have happened with other means. Stabbing or strangling someone to death takes a whole other mindset than just pushing a trigger.

Actually the US is among the lower end as far as suicides go!

Suicides per 100,000 people
AUSTRALIA 1999 5.1
BELGIUM 1996 10.7
CANADA 1998 5.1
CHINA 1999 14.8
CUBA 1996 12.0
FRANCE 1999 9.4
GERMANY 1999 7.3
HUNGARY 2001 13.0
JAPAN 1999 14.1
LITHUANIA 2000 16.1
SPAIN 1999 4.0
SRI LANKA 1991 16.8
UK 1999 3.3
USA 1999 4.1

[johnhpus]

Germany didn't fall much later than the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing. Do you really think Japan would've go ahead with its war campaign if it was alone against the whole world? By just finishing Hitler would've been more than enough for them to surrender.

"Six days after the detonation over Nagasaki, on August 15, Japan announced its surrender to the Allied Powers, signing the Instrument of Surrender on September 2, officially ending the Pacific War and therefore World War II. (Germany had signed its Instrument of Surrender on May 7, ending the war in Europe.) The bombings led, in part, to post-war Japan to adopt Three Non-Nuclear Principles, forbidding that nation from nuclear armament."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bom ... d_Nagasaki

"after several more days of behind-the-scenes negotiations and a failed coup attempt that Emperor Hirohito gave a radio address to the nation, the Imperial Rescript on Surrender, announcing the acceptance on August 15. In this address, the Emperor emphasized the role of the atomic bombings in his decision, saying, "The enemy now possesses a new and terrible weapon with the power to destroy many innocent lives and do incalculable damage""

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan

[jjp]

Actually the US is among the lower end as far as suicides go!

I think the point wasn't suicides in general but something like "accidential killings" among children that become more likely when guns are available easily. Though this is still a social issue I guess. Because for this to happen there must be parents that don't take enough care to lock away their guns from children.

[warmi]

How come every other civilized nation manages to keep their government in check without needing to be a public army in waiting?

They haven't – I find it ironic that this sort of critic is coming from people whose very recent ancestors saw more bloodshed and abuse than just about in any other time in history and I don’t mean this personally for you are one of the lucky ones living in a pretty unique country that has not seen this sort of abuse for ages but overall, the Europeans have a very poor record as far as being able to keep their personal freedoms intact.

We are just talking here about 50 years of peace in Europe , where for about 40 out of 50 years, the peace and internal stability was more-less enforced by the external threat in the form of USSR.

Let us wait another 30 or so years ... the real test for EU is just beginning, especially now with US most likely descending in another round of isolationism, if history is any guide, things will get ugly.

[BigB]

I was in the US, 3 months ago, and while i was there (San Francisco / Oakland) i saw a story in the newspappers that really shocked me.

There was this kid, he was 7 year old that was taking a Piano lesson in some school. Near by, another kid (17 year old) was assaulting a gas station, and was shooting around.
One of his lost bullets hit the 7 year old kid in the spine, and the kid was paralysed on the spot.
When a 17 year old has access to guns, something is going wrong in the society.
Then on the newspappers the add, was for anonymous people to help the parents of this kid, because the insurance wasn't going to pay for all the therapy needed.
Also in Oakland, there's a church there, and on the park of the church there's a white cross in the garden for each people that got murdered in Oakland in that year. I was there in November last year, and the garden was full of white crosses.
The US by European standards, has a lot but a lot of social problems, that go from arms to medical treatments.
This has nothing to do with guns, but i tought it was weird that in the streets i would see so many people limping or with some kind of walking problem.
That's when i was told by a local that many people either break their legs when thet're kids, but they don't have the money to get proper treatment, so, the hospitals just "fix it" in a quick way.., the result, lots of people limping around.
On the other hand, if you go to Nevada( i was there for 2 days) , the state right next to California, you have adds giving state health benefits to people if they move to Nevada.., something that to me resembles an add to a supermarket.
I may have been in bad areas, but the idea i had of the United States, was really really bad.
Oh well...

[jjp]

They haven't

But how do you even get the idea that guns would have changed any of that? The Nazi party didn't seize power because the population wasn't sufficiently equiped with guns, for example.

Let us wait another 30 or so years ... the real test for EU is just beginning, especially now with US most likely descending in another round of isolationism, if history is any guide, things will get ugly.

Well, I don't think isolationism is going to happen for anyone. Unless someone finds a good way to replace oil real quick

[warmi]

Our average citizen doesn't vote, doesn't know anything about law, and won't be bothered to pay attention.

That is generally a good sign .. a sign of a stable society where people generally don't need to worry if a next candidate will turn out to be a dictator or perhaps just a common thief.

We believe what the media and politicians tell us (and don't seem to notice that this information is false and manipulative).

Well, if you think the media is being manipulative you are free to start your own outlet and keep the truth alive - I bet there would a lot of people who would find your take on things quite manipulative.
In other words, the media is not being manipulative , they are just representing different points of view - a typical editorial in NYT is vastly different than what you would find in National Review or would hear on Fox News.

[warmi]

There was this kid, he was 7 year old that was taking a Piano lesson in some school. Near by, another kid (17 year old) was assaulting a gas station, and was shooting around.
One of his lost bullets hit the 7 year old kid in the spine, and the kid was paralysed on the spot.
When a 17 year old has access to guns, something is going wrong in the society.

I saw a shocking story about a German cannibal who was able to find a willing and happy victim ... I mean there must be something really wrong with their society.

I hope you get the point ... you can't just come up with a story you saw and then proceed to make a generalization about 300 million nation.

[CaseyB]

When a 17 year old has access to guns, something is going wrong in the society.
...
Also in Oakland, there's a church there, and on the park of the church there's a white cross in the garden for each people that got murdered in Oakland in that year. I was there in November last year, and the garden was full of white crosses.

California has the strictest gun laws of any state in the US. They boy had the weapon illegally, but that goes back to my point about criminals finding a way to do harm regardless of the law.

[sinbad]

How come every other civilized nation manages to keep their government in check without needing to be a public army in waiting?

They haven't – I find it ironic that this sort of critic is coming from people whose very recent ancestors saw more bloodshed and abuse than just about in any other time in history and I don’t mean this personally for you are one of the lucky ones living in a pretty unique country that has not seen this sort of abuse for ages but overall, the Europeans have a very poor record as far as being able to keep their personal freedoms intact.

We are just talking here about 50 years of peace in Europe , where for about 40 out of 50 years, the peace and internal stability was more-less enforced by the external threat in the form of USSR.

Well, actually the place I call home was occupied during WWII, the only British soil to be under the jackboot, so we didn't exactly escape the effects, although I'm too young to have been directly affected, it did affect my Grandparents a great deal. We still have Nazi fortifications all over the island, and interesting historical reminders such as unexploded shells that still occasionally turn up to this day. We even have an extra public holiday to the mainland UK - 'Liberation Day'.

But surely you're not seriously suggesting that WWII wouldn't have happened if everyone in Germany had owned a gun? As I understand it the Nazi party was voted in like any other, they just exploited what was already a bad local situation to get people into a right-wing cycle of fear and desperation, exploited for political gain (and they would not be the last political party to do that). I don't think the populace having guns would have made any difference at all - what was really needed was sorting out the fundamental social & economic problems so people could live without all the fear and hardship.

Let us wait another 30 or so years ... the real test for EU is just beginning, especially now with US most likely descending in another round of isolationism, if history is any guide, things will get ugly.

I personally am hoping that a new US administration will bring some form of sanity back to US foreign policy - the road the Bush administration has been going down is a dead-end.