RecPit

...all those political "discussions" we used to have back at the old place? Everybody too burned out? Has all the SHIT going on exceeded the limits of credulity? I mean, Russians spies running The White House, WTF?

None of of the other audio sites allow anything political, too afraid of offending someone....

Ban guns!

Decriminalise copyright infringement! Oh, wait...

What do you mean, "all the political "discussions""?

Mixerman might start one up just before he released a book to try to gin up some traffic, but otherwise it was discouraged. If you recall, we left the "MARSH" a steaming cauldron of bbasement (not a typo) bullshit.

I locked a few political threads at the Womb precisely because

YOU'VE GOT THE ENTIRE REST OF THE MOTHERFUCKING INTERNET FOR THAT SHIT!

Can't we have ONE FUCKING PLACE where we can discuss recording, mixing and music without it getting polluted by toxic discussions?

John, if you want to argue politics (mine tend to be similar to yours, so it isn't that) go on Facebook and Twitter like everyone else.

You really don't remember what a shithole the bbasement turned the MARSH into by inviting "political" discussion?

Besides, we have the Band Names thread to do that.

nobby wrote: ↑September 23rd, 2017, 11:52 pm

YOU'VE GOT THE ENTIRE REST OF THE MOTHERFUCKING INTERNET FOR THAT SHIT!

Yeah, but the rest of the internet is full of idiots!

I was thinking of that lovely discussion concerning healthcare we had a few years ago.

And no gun control discussions. All that does is pit urban idiots who have have a stupidly irrational fear of guns against rural/small town idiots who are afraid of "government repression." (While voting for a home grown oligarch and demagogue backed by the Russian FSB with organized hacking and election rigging.)

BTW, in case nobody's noticed, the terrorists - but religious zealots and home grown right wing nuts - have started using automobiles as weapons of mayhem and terror, just as I predicted They haven't haven't got very good at it yet but they will - it's inevitable.

Guns aren't the problem, the problem is the underlying social, economic, and medical/psychological factors that drive people to attack strangers/heterogeneous groups of people at random. Gun control is just another feel-good "easy fix" that doesn't address the real problem(s) and won't solve anything. It certainly hasn't done a damn bit of about terrorism in Europe.


------------------------------------------------------------------OOPS!----------------------------------------------------------------------


It's the same kind of idiot thinking that has people asking on Gearslutz for the secret that will allow them to mix hit albums in 6 weeks after buying their M-Box and Fruity Loops..

Everybody wants an easy, instant solution to difficult, intractable problems.

THERE ARE NO EASY FIXES,. NO MAGIC SOLUTIONS!

Except nuclear war, of course. That'll fix everything!





Note that I'm not a gun owner and don't much like guns, they make me nervous, I'm just opposed to brain dead feel good (non)"solutions" that do nothing but breed more divisiveness.

If it wasn't for that single issue we'd have a democrat in the White House today, Russian hacking and skullduggery notwithstanding. Way to go, kids!

With that kind of logic, John, you could be President!

John Eppstein wrote: ↑September 24th, 2017, 4:44 am
BTW, in case nobody's noticed, the terrorists - but religious zealots and home grown right wing nuts - have started using automobiles as weapons of mayhem and terror, just as I predicted They haven't haven't got very good at it yet but they will - it's inevitable.

Hundreds of times more people die of gun violence in the US than die from terrorism in the US and Europe combined. The only gun legislation I'm aware of that was proposed at the federal level was to keep guns out of the hands of convicted felons and lunatics through a national registry. But the NRA wants every criminal and nut case to have a gun, no questions asked.

And there are about a dozen factors, any one of which would have changed the outcome of the election. It's like a Chinese menu. But I'm sick of trying to convince people who focus on one issue with tunnel vision of this obvious fact.

nobby wrote: ↑September 24th, 2017, 9:26 pm

John Eppstein wrote: ↑September 24th, 2017, 4:44 am
BTW, in case nobody's noticed, the terrorists - but religious zealots and home grown right wing nuts - have started using automobiles as weapons of mayhem and terror, just as I predicted They haven't haven't got very good at it yet but they will - it's inevitable.

Hundreds of times more people die of gun violence in the US than die from terrorism in the US and Europe combined. The only gun legislation I'm aware of that was proposed at the federal level was to keep guns out of the hands of convicted felons and lunatics through a national registry. But the NRA wants every criminal and nut case to have a gun, no questions asked.

And there are about a dozen factors, any one of which would have changed the outcome of the election. It's like a Chinese menu. But I'm sick of trying to convince people who focus on one issue with tunnel vision of this obvious fact.

And more people die of automotive related causes by at least an order of magnitude, if not two.

We do need compulsory firearms education (like driver ed). I had it in summer camp. It didn't turn me into a gun-toting, firer0breathing monster.

I won't argue that the NRA do appear to be a bunch of wackos - but frankly I'm coming to believe that they might not really be any more "wacko" than Google and their stooges, who will do anything to tear down copyright at OUR expense, for THEIR profit.

PROFIT being the key word herre. The NRA is simply a industry organ, charged with protecting and magnifying the profits of their member companies.

The solution to that is to get the damn money out of politics - but most of the so-called "progressive" politicians privately don't want that, because it would impact their take as well. I'm looking at YOU, Dianne Feinstein, you syphilitic whore. (Of course in her case it's the building developers and real estate speculators, who just screwed ME along with most of the SF artistic community.)

As far as "criminals" being denied guns, I have a somewhat different tack on that than the so-called "progressive" community. The reason is this - anybody who really is a violent criminal can get all the guns he wants with ease, without ever entering a gun store. Those are not the people that the government wants to disarm. (In some cases the government has even supplied them - sometimes with military weapons that a private citizen cannot purchase legally.)

What is the single largest group of "felons" in the USA? You have 5 seconds to answer. Got the answer? Was it, by any chance "POTHEADS"? If it wasn't, think again.

Understand, I'm half Jewish and I grew up hearing horror stories about Kristallnacht and the razing of the Warsaw Ghetto. I lost many relatives to the Nazis whose names I'll never even know. My cousin Debby, the family genealogist probably knows some of them. I believe in gun ownership (although I dislike guns) because it you give up your arms you have no defense. Naive people say it can't happen here. LOOK AROUND YOU! What's happening now is almost exactly what happened in Germany in the early to mid '30s! It's like Trump is following Hitler's playbook, he's just not that good at it.

Who do the people in government look on as enemies? Well, there's the Muslims and Latin-Americans of course, but do you think they'll stop there? HELL, NO! It won't be long before they come after them mary-jew-wanna smokin' leftist potheads.

They're not afraid of the real criminals - half of those are in cahoots with certain factions in the government anyway - they both profit from the same things.

What they're afraid of is that what's left of the left in this country is going to finally wake up and start arming themselves.

Remember what Bob O says about Roosevelt and the New Deal - how FDR was actually an "upper crust" guy and his policies were (very adroitly) crafted to defuse a possible armed communist revolution in this country. THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE OLIGARCHS (OF BOTH "PARTIES")_ ARE PETRIFIED OF TODAY!

And that's why they want checks of people's criminal records before buying guns. It's not for the benefit of society - because it will have essentially no effect of gun availability to real criminals. IT'S 100% POLITICAL!

Maybe you don't see it because you don't live in a part of the country where the dominant oligarchical machine pretends to be "liberal democrats" instead of "conservative republicans" but that's the reality of the situation. And it's scary as hell.

Am I paranoid?

Maybe.

But just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not after me.

And when they ARE after you, an intelligent person becomes "paranoid". It's called "the instinct for self-defense."

I'm 100% in favor of keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, but in all too many cases the diagnosis comes way too late. Maybe if we actually had decent health care and mental health services? Maybe if we actually did something about bullying in schools and workplace abuse?

Maybe if we didn't breed crazy people like lab mice?

About "factors that might have changed the outcome of the election", other than the carefully orchestrated campaign of voter repression, disinformation,and hacking, I really see only the one. And I firmly believe that without the Democrat's suicidal insistence on hammering on that one issue for more than 4 years leading up to the election the Democrats would have won despite all that other stuff.

People who live in urban, primarily liberal/"progressive" seem totally blind to is that people who don't live in those places disagree STRONGLY about gun control. Over the last year I was forced to leave liberal San Francisco and move about 60 miles north to the lovely small town of Fairfield, California. The difference in attitude toward that one issue is striking.

Fairfield is a small, mostly working class town (pop 114,756) of primarily non-right wing values. It's highly integrated with a number of ethnicities who mingle together with a near complete lack of racism. However the majority of males I've met between the ages of 18 and 60 own firearms and most of those engage in at least some hunting. Around election time there was significant support for the Republican ticket, most of it due to that ONE issue. Many, if not most of them didn't really like Trump - but they liked Hillary* even less. Hell, there were even Mexican-Americans actively campaigning for Trump (or against the democratic platform.) That should tell you something. And this is just 60 miles from SF, halfway to Sacramento!

The Democratic party needs to stop cutting their own throats. Because if they don't, come next presidential election the repubs will run a ticket a little less odious than the last (even some republicans are capable of learning from their most egregious blunders), and we'll lose again and be running around like the proverbial headless chickens wondering what happened.



* - not too surprising. Hillary was not a very likeable candidate. (Should have run Monica instead.) I started out as a Bernie guy with ambivalent feelings toward Hillary, ended up actively hating her** even though I voted for her as there was no electable alternative.

** - She was just too smug, autocratic, so confident she had it in the bag that she didn't think she needed to pay attention to the wishes of the people, and above all, way too "republican lite".

John Eppstein wrote: ↑September 25th, 2017, 3:15 am
Hundreds of times more people die of gun violence in the US than die from terrorism in the US and Europe combined. The only gun legislation I'm aware of that was proposed at the federal level was to keep guns out of the hands of convicted felons and lunatics through a national registry. But the NRA wants every criminal and nut case to have a gun, no questions asked.

And there are about a dozen factors, any one of which would have changed the outcome of the election. It's like a Chinese menu. But I'm sick of trying to convince people who focus on one issue with tunnel vision of this obvious fact.

And more people die of automotive related causes by at least an order of magnitude, if not two.

These stats are from 2014. I'm kind of busy but maybe you could find more recent ones:

Motor vehicle traffic deaths
•Number of deaths: 33,736
•Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.6

All firearm deaths
•Number of deaths: 33,594
•Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.5

90% of US households have cars. 3% of gun owners own half of all the guns.

85 percent of Americans favored background checks on all private gun sales and gun show sales – a step further than Obama was set to propose.

To your point, 77 percent said they thought that better access to mental health treatment and screening would do a lot or some to reduce gun violence.

Could reduce political discussions on music sites, too

I won't argue that the NRA do appear to be a bunch of wackos - but frankly I'm coming to believe that they might not really be any more "wacko" than Google and their stooges, who will do anything to tear down copyright at OUR expense, for THEIR profit.

That is not, in any way, reassuring.

nobby wrote: ↑September 25th, 2017, 4:55 pm

John Eppstein wrote: ↑September 25th, 2017, 3:15 am
Hundreds of times more people die of gun violence in the US than die from terrorism in the US and Europe combined. The only gun legislation I'm aware of that was proposed at the federal level was to keep guns out of the hands of convicted felons and lunatics through a national registry. But the NRA wants every criminal and nut case to have a gun, no questions asked.

And there are about a dozen factors, any one of which would have changed the outcome of the election. It's like a Chinese menu. But I'm sick of trying to convince people who focus on one issue with tunnel vision of this obvious fact.

And more people die of automotive related causes by at least an order of magnitude, if not two.

These stats are from 2014. I'm kind of busy but maybe you could find more recent ones:

Motor vehicle traffic deaths
•Number of deaths: 33,736
•Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.6

All firearm deaths
•Number of deaths: 33,594
•Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.5

90% of US households have cars. 3% of gun owners own half of all the guns.

85 percent of Americans favored background checks on all private gun sales and gun show sales – a step further than Obama was set to propose.

To your point, 77 percent said they thought that better access to mental health treatment and screening would do a lot or some to reduce gun violence.

Could reduce political discussions on music sites, too

I don't have any newer stats handy but I do know that, contrary to the popular hysteria, gun violence has actually been decreasing over the past few years, while automobile deaths have not.

That stat on ownership is pretty meaningless. Guns, like various other types of objects (such as guitars), inspire their aficionados to collect them, and for fairly obvious reasons - they're really beautiful examples of the machinist's art for those who appreciate that sort of thing.And there's the historical aspect, too. Additionally, different guns are suited for different activities - you don't use the same type of pistol for match target shooting as you do to hunt big game out in the wild. (Yes, there are people who use pistols for big game hunting. I remember reading about it in sporting magazines when I was a kid.) You don't use the same type of shotgun to hunt ducks that you do to kill varmints on the farm/at the country vacation house. You don't use the same rifle for rabbits as you do for wild boar.

I won't argue that the NRA do appear to be a bunch of wackos - but frankly I'm coming to believe that they might not really be any more "wacko" than Google and their stooges, who will do anything to tear down copyright at OUR expense, for THEIR profit.

That is not, in any way, reassuring.

There is very little about the connection between big business of any type and American politics that is reassuring.

However the "gun issue" ifs a perfect foil for politicians on both sides of the aisle to distract the populace from issues they'd rather not have examined too closely.

Yopu want to know one sure-fire way to reduce gun violence?

STOP PUBLICIZING IT! Each time the media makes a big fuss over some atrocity it inspires a whole bunch of mentally ill, attention seeking narcissists to go out and do the same thing because, LOOK AT THE HEADLINES! It's a sure-fire way to get your name on all the news media for MONTHS! Instant fame for insecure nobodies!

I'm not saying to ban all reporting, but give it 2 inches on the next to back page of the paper, don't splash it all over the front page for weeks and months. And maybe we should refrain from reporting it on TV - there's a lot more deserving stuff that never gets reported, perhaps we should look at taking a public service approach to the idea of giving unlimited free advertising to any nobody who perpetrates a violent act.

Look at the new trend of using motor vehicles as weapons. It was nearly unheard of for a long time. Then there's one fairly high profile attack. The resulting publicity begets two or three more, relatively quickly. The publicity from those inspires more, and before you know it neo-nazis are plowing into crowds of peaceful protesters.

But they're not going to do that because both sides get too much mileage off the hysteria.

And the right loves it when the left goes nuts about the subject because it just pushes more people in their direction.

John Eppstein wrote: ↑September 26th, 2017, 8:57 pm I don't have any newer stats handy but I do know that, contrary to the popular hysteria, gun violence has actually been decreasing over the past few years, while automobile deaths have not.

That stat on ownership is pretty meaningless. Guns, like various other types of objects (such as guitars), inspire their aficionados to collect them, and for fairly obvious reasons - they're really beautiful examples of the machinist's art for those who appreciate that sort of thing.And there's the historical aspect, too.

Additionally, different guns are suited for different activities - you don't use the same type of pistol for match target shooting as you do to hunt big game out in the wild. (Yes, there are people who use pistols for big game hunting. I remember reading about it in sporting magazines when I was a kid.) You don't use the same type of shotgun to hunt ducks that you do to kill varmints on the farm/at the country vacation house. You don't use the same rifle for rabbits as you do for wild boar.

You seem to think I'm a suburb slicker with no knowledge of the subject matter. Firstly, there are probably more guns in the hands of preppers than there are in the hands of collectors. These aren't your engraved dueling pistols but utilitarian, kind of ugly military weapons.

I stumbled across a vid where a farmer was killing wild boar at night with a .22LR (rabbit gun) and enhanced optics. The critter would come for the bait and he'd put one behind its ear.

You use the same rifle to kill varmints on the farm that was designed to kill enemy soldiers. The .223 Remington/ 5.56mm NATO is basically a slightly beefed up varmint cartridge that Remington developed to meet US military standards -- it had to be able to penetrate a steel helmet at 300 meters. US and NATO have been using it since the Viet Nam war. Works very well on coyotes also. Since there is so much military surplus, it's extremely popular.

However the "gun issue" ifs a perfect foil for politicians on both sides of the aisle to distract the populace from issues they'd rather not have examined too closely.

Again, 85% of Americans want background checks for gun show and private sales. That's all that Democrats have been asking for at the national level.

Republicans tell the lie that the gubment coming to take your guns! and fools believe it.

Over the last year I was forced to leave liberal San Francisco and move about 60 miles north to the lovely small town of Fairfield, California. The difference in attitude toward that one issue is striking.

They ought to know better than most people that gun laws are mostly made at the state level and that California has, along with New York, the toughest gun laws in the country.

CA and NY are the only states I know of offhand that restrict magazines to a ten round capacity. Pretty much the rest of the country can order 30, 40 round box magazines (and 50 round drum magazines) through the mail.

Yopu want to know one sure-fire way to reduce gun violence?

STOP PUBLICIZING IT! Each time the media makes a big fuss over some atrocity it inspires a whole bunch of mentally ill, attention seeking narcissists to go out and do the same thing because, LOOK AT THE HEADLINES! It's a sure-fire way to get your name on all the news media for MONTHS! Instant fame for insecure nobodies!

Violence sells news. You've seen the old movies where the kid is in the street in Victorian London hawking papers, yelling "MURDER! BRUTAL MURDER! READ ALL ABOUT IT!

Nothing has changed. Ideally, awareness of the situation would create a change, like more funding for mental health screening. Or keeping violent felons from getting guns. Ideally.

But, sadly, you are quite correct that some people will do violent acts for the notoriety that they generate.

Look at the new trend of using motor vehicles as weapons. It was nearly unheard of for a long time.

People sure are resourceful. I reckon it isn't too hard to get a fairly small drone to drop a grenade.

What gets people's attention is the massacres, even though that only accounts for a tiny fraction of gun deaths in the US. I'm in NY. No matter how many people are murdered in the neighboring state of NJ, it won't make the news here as long as it's just one or two people who were killed.

Vehicles are a proven method for massacre (I imagine the guy who killed those 50 people in that club with an assault rifle could have stolen a cement truck and accomplished the same thing).

But, again, the vast majority of gun deaths in the US are murders of specific people, not crowds (and suicides) and guns are far, far superior for that sort of thing.

And the right loves it when the left goes nuts about the subject because it just pushes more people in their direction.

Show me the left going nuts about the subject. I want some examples. Mainstream media, not crackpot sites.

The 85% of Americans that want background checks at gun shows and private sales are not some fringe element.

nobby wrote: ↑September 26th, 2017, 10:50 pm

John Eppstein wrote: ↑September 26th, 2017, 8:57 pm I don't have any newer stats handy but I do know that, contrary to the popular hysteria, gun violence has actually been decreasing over the past few years, while automobile deaths have not.

That stat on ownership is pretty meaningless. Guns, like various other types of objects (such as guitars), inspire their aficionados to collect them, and for fairly obvious reasons - they're really beautiful examples of the machinist's art for those who appreciate that sort of thing.And there's the historical aspect, too.

Additionally, different guns are suited for different activities - you don't use the same type of pistol for match target shooting as you do to hunt big game out in the wild. (Yes, there are people who use pistols for big game hunting. I remember reading about it in sporting magazines when I was a kid.) You don't use the same type of shotgun to hunt ducks that you do to kill varmints on the farm/at the country vacation house. You don't use the same rifle for rabbits as you do for wild boar.

You seem to think I'm a suburb slicker with no knowledge of the subject matter. Firstly, there are probably more guns in the hands of preppers than there are in the hands of collectors. These aren't your engraved dueling pistols but utilitarian, kind of ugly military weapons.

I stumbled across a vid where a farmer was killing wild boar at night with a .22LR (rabbit gun) and enhanced optics. The critter would come for the bait and he'd put one behind its ear.

You use the same rifle to kill varmints on the farm that was designed to kill enemy soldiers. The .223 Remington/ 5.56mm NATO is basically a slightly beefed up varmint cartridge that Remington developed to meet US military standards -- it had to be able to penetrate a steel helmet at 300 meters. US and NATO have been using it since the Viet Nam war. Works very well on coyotes also. Since there is so much military surplus, it's extremely popular.

However the "gun issue" ifs a perfect foil for politicians on both sides of the aisle to distract the populace from issues they'd rather not have examined too closely.

Again, 85% of Americans want background checks for gun show and private sales. That's all that Democrats have been asking for at the national level.

Republicans tell the lie that the gubment coming to take your guns! and fools believe it.

Over the last year I was forced to leave liberal San Francisco and move about 60 miles north to the lovely small town of Fairfield, California. The difference in attitude toward that one issue is striking.

They ought to know better than most people that gun laws are mostly made at the state level and that California has, along with New York, the toughest gun laws in the country.

CA and NY are the only states I know of offhand that restrict magazines to a ten round capacity. Pretty much the rest of the country can order 30, 40 round box magazines (and 50 round drum magazines) through the mail.

Yopu want to know one sure-fire way to reduce gun violence?

STOP PUBLICIZING IT! Each time the media makes a big fuss over some atrocity it inspires a whole bunch of mentally ill, attention seeking narcissists to go out and do the same thing because, LOOK AT THE HEADLINES! It's a sure-fire way to get your name on all the news media for MONTHS! Instant fame for insecure nobodies!

Violence sells news. You've seen the old movies where the kid is in the street in Victorian London hawking papers, yelling "MURDER! BRUTAL MURDER! READ ALL ABOUT IT!

Nothing has changed. Ideally, awareness of the situation would create a change, like more funding for mental health screening. Or keeping violent felons from getting guns. Ideally.

But, sadly, you are quite correct that some people will do violent acts for the notoriety that they generate.

Look at the new trend of using motor vehicles as weapons. It was nearly unheard of for a long time.

People sure are resourceful. I reckon it isn't too hard to get a fairly small drone to drop a grenade.

What gets people's attention is the massacres, even though that only accounts for a tiny fraction of gun deaths in the US. I'm in NY. No matter how many people are murdered in the neighboring state of NJ, it won't make the news here as long as it's just one or two people who were killed.

Vehicles are a proven method for massacre (I imagine the guy who killed those 50 people in that club with an assault rifle could have stolen a cement truck and accomplished the same thing).

But, again, the vast majority of gun deaths in the US are murders of specific people, not crowds (and suicides) and guns are far, far superior for that sort of thing.

And the right loves it when the left goes nuts about the subject because it just pushes more people in their direction.

Show me the left going nuts about the subject. I want some examples. Mainstream media, not crackpot sites.

The 85% of Americans that want background checks at gun shows and private sales are not some fringe element.

Well, recently they haven't been going nuts about it because they've had a lot more serious problems to deal with - but I've still seen some "progressives" touting it as a major plank in their election platforms, and that's a big mistake. We need to let the working people get pissed off at Trumps lies, abuse, and clowning and not remind them of things they didn't like about the policies we were pushing.It's not the time to shoot ourselves in the foot (again) and not the time to get overconfident (again).

Eyes on the prize! I don't know if this country can take another republican victory.

Concerning background checks - A couple years ago I was all in favor, but after the last election I'm not so sure. And some of Obama's mores in the last couple years of his te3nure made me wonder a bit. As i pointed out, the majority of "convicted felons" in the USA are nonviolent drug users, predominantly potheads. And hard core b angers have no difficulty obtaining arms through illicit channels, sometimes from the government itself. "Well, yes, we did sell a truckload of M-16s and grenades to the cartel so we could trace the channels they go through." "What? Well, yes, we did totally lose track of them...."

We're supposed to BELIEVE that crap?

The forum savaged my attempted edit and extension to my last post. This SUCKS!

The NRA wants to legalize silencers because that's practically all that's left in small arms that's illegal at the fed level.

You can't have a rifle or shotgun with a barrel less than 16" without a special permit.

You can't have a fully automatic machinegun without a special permit. Ditto a silencer, for now.

Should we let the NRA have every fucking thing they want to satisfy paranoid preppers?

I'm reminded of the only-in-America story of the 13 year old girl who went to one of those ranges where they let you fire fully automatic weapons.

The girl was given an uzi. It wound up a bit more than she could safely handle in full automatic and she put a bullet through the instructors head, killing him instantly. This is a gun made to be used by adult soldiers, not for idiots to give their children to use.

Not what you'd call a "well regulated militia", is it?

So should we let every yahoo have a silencer because nobody has the balls to stand up to the NRA?

It would be great for bad guys because new technology allows cops to determine the location of gunfire through audio triangulation.

nobby wrote: ↑September 28th, 2017, 4:33 am The NRA wants to legalize silencers because that's practically all that's left in small arms that's illegal at the fed level.

You can't have a rifle or shotgun with a barrel less than 16" without a special permit.

You can't have a fully automatic machinegun without a special permit. Ditto a silencer, for now.

Should we let the NRA have every fucking thing they want to satisfy paranoid preppers?

I'm reminded of the only-in-America story of the 13 year old girl who went to one of those ranges where they let you fire fully automatic weapons.

The girl was given an uzi. It wound up a bit more than she could safely handle in full automatic and she put a bullet through the instructors head, killing him instantly. This is a gun made to be used by adult soldiers, not for idiots to give their children to use.

Not what you'd call a "well regulated militia", is it?

So should we let every yahoo have a silencer because nobody has the balls to stand up to the NRA?

It would be great for bad guys because new technology allows cops to determine the location of gunfire through audio triangulation.

Now you're just being silly.

Gronk wrote: ↑September 24th, 2017, 5:47 am With that kind of logic, John, you could be President!

Yes, but the problem is that I'm immanently qualified - I don't want the job!

BTW, WTF has happened to the country since the last time I visited this thread?

If somebody had made a TV show like this it would have been panned as unbelievable, even as an ineptly written dark comedy!

Yes, from this side of the sphere it appears that the USA is written and produced by David Lynch and Larry David.
It must be hard to do satire these days.

It has become impossible.

I think The Onion has gone out of business.

What scares me is that the oligarchs are so full of themselves that we could have an armed rebellion only with drones and not firearms.

Let me preface by saying that I totally accept that different societies have different values, ways of life, and there's no single "correct" way to see the world...

...But from the POV of a 32 year old British person, American gun culture seems crazy; the tragedies, the statistics, the pro-gun counter arguments that seem like they're beamed straight from another reality... makes my mind boggle.

And I should point out that I'm not averse to guns; My dad kept a couple of rifles for a few years when I was in my teens for clay pigeon shooting, and boxes of cartridges in a locked store cupboard. We learned gun safety/ respect from him, knew we had to tell, say, firemen where the ammo was if they ever had to be called, saw him keeping it in good order... I think sometimes when I talk to Americans, they imagine that I'm speaking from a position where a gun invokes some kind of hysteria or terror in me. It doesn't.

I live in a country where there are very few shootings - more than none, but very few. Most police are unarmed. In America, well, I'm not going to bother posting the stats because everyone knows them.

A mate recently suggested something I thought was quite interesting; essentially, that America is a more primitive and violent culture. At first I thought "WTF, that's a bit insulting surely?" but when he explained some more it kinda made sense. I'd be interested to see what Americans think of this;

Essentially, most societies are quite old - in the UK our government can trace itself back in roughly its current form to the mid 1600's, when we moved from an absolute monarchy to a parliamentary system. Changes, before and since, were incremental for the most part. And on a personal level, people could trace their roots back through communities for generations, traditions, social conventions and cultural norms were developed over long periods of time and this influenced the way we deal with each other.

The US doesn't really have that. When settlers landed in America, they were entering essentially a wilderness with no rules (from their point of view anyway, I won't bring in the native americans!), beyond the frontiers of civilisation, where they would live or die by their own hands and had to fight for and protect what was theirs.

And that frontier spirit pretty much continues as new waves of settlers from Europe arrived and pushed across the interior through the 18th and 19th centuries. Essentially, the settlers left society behind and moved to a land with no rules.

That might well be overly simplistic, but I think it's an interesting thought - that the violence in America, including gun violence, is a symptom of the way that America is just quite a new society in historical terms, and it takes more generations than you've had to put that, essentially, primitive mode of human interaction behind you through codified social norms.

There's another thought I have, which ties into the above;

Since the 1950s there's been more of a sense of individualism, and people less and less feel that they belong to a cultural group - either a class (think of working class solidarity), or a trade (the coal miners in the UK come to mind), or a location ("My great grandad build the church over on that hill...). Modern capitalist societies expect us all to feel like the centre of the universe; the main protagonist in our personal life epics, and other people are just playing minor roles in that story. We don't have shared narratives any more; society has fractured in the last ~70 years. And I think that probably produces an increase in the number of people who would, in a moment of madness or a blind rage, be psychologically able to murder other people in pursuit of what they think they *have* to do at that moment.

Going back the the other point about more primitive societies, in most countries we entered that modern social fracturing from a position of tradition, community, shared values. In the US, you had what, maybe 50 or 60 years between frontier, startup nation and the splintering of society? Maybe that's why you have it worse.

Eh, I don't know, I'm a songwriter, not a social historian.

Cirrus wrote: ↑March 9th, 2018, 11:20 am
Eh, I don't know, I'm a songwriter, not a social historian.

I like it, but it could probably lose a couple of verses. Unless you're Leonard Cohen?

Cirrus wrote: ↑March 9th, 2018, 11:20 am Let me preface by saying that I totally accept that different societies have different values, ways of life, and there's no single "correct" way to see the world...

...But from the POV of a 32 year old British person, American gun culture seems crazy; the tragedies, the statistics, the pro-gun counter arguments that seem like they're beamed straight from another reality... makes my mind boggle.

And I should point out that I'm not averse to guns; My dad kept a couple of rifles for a few years when I was in my teens for clay pigeon shooting, and boxes of cartridges in a locked store cupboard. We learned gun safety/ respect from him, knew we had to tell, say, firemen where the ammo was if they ever had to be called, saw him keeping it in good order... I think sometimes when I talk to Americans, they imagine that I'm speaking from a position where a gun invokes some kind of hysteria or terror in me. It doesn't.

I live in a country where there are very few shootings - more than none, but very few. Most police are unarmed. In America, well, I'm not going to bother posting the stats because everyone knows them.

A mate recently suggested something I thought was quite interesting; essentially, that America is a more primitive and violent culture. At first I thought "WTF, that's a bit insulting surely?" but when he explained some more it kinda made sense. I'd be interested to see what Americans think of this;

Essentially, most societies are quite old - in the UK our government can trace itself back in roughly its current form to the mid 1600's, when we moved from an absolute monarchy to a parliamentary system. Changes, before and since, were incremental for the most part. And on a personal level, people could trace their roots back through communities for generations, traditions, social conventions and cultural norms were developed over long periods of time and this influenced the way we deal with each other.

The US doesn't really have that. When settlers landed in America, they were entering essentially a wilderness with no rules (from their point of view anyway, I won't bring in the native americans!), beyond the frontiers of civilisation, where they would live or die by their own hands and had to fight for and protect what was theirs.

And that frontier spirit pretty much continues as new waves of settlers from Europe arrived and pushed across the interior through the 18th and 19th centuries. Essentially, the settlers left society behind and moved to a land with no rules.

That might well be overly simplistic, but I think it's an interesting thought - that the violence in America, including gun violence, is a symptom of the way that America is just quite a new society in historical terms, and it takes more generations than you've had to put that, essentially, primitive mode of human interaction behind you through codified social norms.

There's another thought I have, which ties into the above;

Since the 1950s there's been more of a sense of individualism, and people less and less feel that they belong to a cultural group - either a class (think of working class solidarity), or a trade (the coal miners in the UK come to mind), or a location ("My great grandad build the church over on that hill...). Modern capitalist societies expect us all to feel like the centre of the universe; the main protagonist in our personal life epics, and other people are just playing minor roles in that story. We don't have shared narratives any more; society has fractured in the last ~70 years. And I think that probably produces an increase in the number of people who would, in a moment of madness or a blind rage, be psychologically able to murder other people in pursuit of what they think they *have* to do at that moment.

Going back the the other point about more primitive societies, in most countries we entered that modern social fracturing from a position of tradition, community, shared values. In the US, you had what, maybe 50 or 60 years between frontier, startup nation and the splintering of society? Maybe that's why you have it worse.

Eh, I don't know, I'm a songwriter, not a social historian.

My views actually have very little to do with "Murrican culture and a whole lot to do with the Jewish experience in WWII.

Especially with the current socio-political situation.

Those who fail to remember history are doomed to repeat it.

Cirrus wrote: ↑March 9th, 2018, 11:20 am ...
A mate recently suggested something I thought was quite interesting; essentially, that America is a more primitive and violent culture. At first I thought "WTF, that's a bit insulting surely?" but when he explained some more it kinda made sense. I'd be interested to see what Americans think of this;

I don't think there is any question that it's true.

One has to remember that the US was colonized to a large degree by a lot of people whose views were too intolerant for Europe.
Religious nuts, basically.

It's not ALL Americans, obviously, but there is no question that there is a large anti-intellectual, anti-science, and anti-social segment of the population.
To them, the "public good" isn't a reason to, as they would see it, "give up" anything they WANT.

Even if that 'public good' would benefit them at least as much as anyone else.

The political party of the rich (I'm calling them the Southern Strategy or SS party lately) has been preaching that government is the source of all problems for 45 years as America's middle class has all but disappeared. This has created a lot of very angry people. The SS party has also been pushing the idea that guns represent protection from the government and that their dreaded opposition wants to take people's guns, i.e. protection from the government, away.

Of course, the irony is that guns offer little or no real protection or defense from the government or even a burglar or mugger.

Agreed.

It’s also a myth that Jews were “unarmed”, or disarmed, in Europe leading up to WWII.
THEY WERE NEVER going to be a match for a massively equipped army.
Just as no moron in a cowboy hat is going to be against Navy Seals.

Cirrus wrote: ↑March 9th, 2018, 11:20 am that the violence in America, including gun violence, is a symptom of the way that America is just quite a new society in historical terms, and it takes more generations than you've had to put that, essentially, primitive mode of human interaction behind you through codified social norms.

The relevance is that, since America got a late start, guns were around since the beginning. In England, you started with spears.

Also, guns have a cultural significance that is tied in with the Revolution.

When I was a child, we didn't have a gun in the home. But I can clearly remember in music class (this was decades ago) we used to have to sing this song. It's a march with a really catchy melody.

THE RIFLEMEN'S SONG AT BENNINGTON (trad.) (1770s)


Why come ye hither, Redcoats, your mind what madness fills?
In our valleys there is danger, and there's danger on our hills.
Oh, hear ye not the singing of the bugle wild and free?
And soon you'll know the ringing of the rifle from the tree.

CHORUS:
Oh, the rifle, oh, the rifle
In our hands will prove no trifle.

Ye ride a goodly steed, ye may know another master;
Ye forward came with speed, but you'll learn to back much faster.
Then you'll meet our Mountain Boys and their leader Johnny Stark,
Lads who make but little noise, but who always hit the mark.

Oh, the rifle, oh, the rifle
In our hands will prove no trifle.

Tell he who stays at home, or cross the briny waters
That thither ye must come like bullocks to the slaughter.
If we the work must do, why, the sooner 'tis begun,
If flint and trigger hold but true, the sooner 'twill be done.

Oh, the rifle, oh, the rifle
In our hands will prove no trifle.

Here's another clue for you all:

There are wide discrepancies among the states in terms of gun laws. The states with the most lax gun laws (like Florida, for example) are, for the most part, states that lost the Civil War.

A lot of people there apparently still hate the federal government and cling to the illusion that they can overthrow the government if it becomes too liberal.

A) there is no such thing as “too liberal”

B) the same morons in hats who fantasize that the US military is near invincible elsewhere imagine that they can win a war against F15s and cruise missiles with AR15s.

weedywet wrote: ↑March 13th, 2018, 1:01 am A) there is no such thing as “too liberal”

B) the same morons in hats who fantasize that the US military is near invincible elsewhere imagine that they can win a war against F15s and cruise missiles with AR15s.

Maybe they've been taking lessons from the Taliban...