The Humour Club discussion
General
>
Politically Incorrect
This is the thing I don't understand. Your approach to guns clearly isn't working. You have one of the worst records for gun crime in the world. Your guns are killing innocents on a daily basis - including this latest heart-breaking story about two kids arguing over a puppy.Other countries have successfully banned weapons and their rate of gun crime has fallen. Australia is the example most often quoted.
And yet you continue to insist that it won't work. The argument seems to be that unless you can totally eradicate gun crime you shouldn't even try to reduce it. Sure, there will always be people who manage to get hold of illegal guns. But that does not mean for one instance that you shouldn't make guns harder to get. This isn't about making gun crime 100% impossible - it's about reducing the number of people killed by guns.
And equally there will always be bad people who do bad things. Take the guns away (or make them harder to get) and these bad people will switch to other ways of making their point. Knives, explosives, whatever. But that's the point. Knives tend to kill one person at a time. Explosives take a bit of expertise to use. Nothing kills as many people and as easily as a gun.
I've been following this debate on a number of forums across the internet. What seems to be happening is that a group of people - mostly American - are coming up with largely emotional arguments to explain why they need a gun. They try for the occasional logical argument (eg we don't ban cars), but these arguments are paper thin and easily dealt with. And quite possibly the least logical argument of all which is that we can't control all guns so we should try to control some. If we made policies on that basis we wouldn't do anything.
No, the main arguments for not having gun control are emotional. They are largely based on fear and on a distrust of "bad people", which in some cases equates to "people with a different colour skin to mine".
And that is what makes it such a difficult argument because it is very hard to challenge an emotion.
Mod
Taking away the guns that are already out there is an impossibility. Occasionally police departments offer a buyback or gun trade-in program and that gets a few guns off the street. Obama caught a lot of shit during the 2008 campaign for making a remark about people clinging to guns and religion, but I don't think a truer political statement has ever been uttered. One of the easiest ways to get your candidate elected is to claim that his opponent wants to TAKE AWAY YOUR GUNS!
From the fascination with the Civil War to cowboy culture, the American mindset seems to be deeply rooted in guns. The average male continues to name the gun-toting John Wayne and Clint Eastwood as favorite actors. (Note - I use the term "actor" loosely.) Every time there is a mass shooting, a large segment of the population immediately claims that it wouldn't have happened if only there'd been a good guy there with a gun.
What can we do?
We can increase the penalties for anyone caught committing a crime with a gun. (We'll have to throw some of the people imprisoned for minor drug offenses out of prison to make room for them, but I see that as a plus.)
Also, I brought up my son's attempts to learn to drive for a reason. Why shouldn't buying a gun be just as difficult, time consuming AND as much of a pain in the ass as getting a driver's license? I think Joel and Will have established that cars and guns can both be lethal weapons. Why shouldn't someone who wants to own a gun have to take a written test, be examined by a doctor, take classes in properly using a firearm and finally, pass a physical test?
If you want to own a gun for wholly legitimate purposes, I see no reason why you should object to any of that.
Why would it be an impossibility to take away the guns that are already out there? Or at the very least to start phasing them out? Difficult, yes. Impossible to do 100%, yes. Contentious, yes. But it's only impossible if you believe it is.
At the very least, start down the road that leads to a gun-free culture. It's not an easy or quick road, but that's no reason not to start.
Mod
They OWN politicians, quite literally. Any attempts to propose new gun control legislation are met with their team of very expensive lawyers. And then we end up PAYING THEM for the offense. This is just one example from Wiki:
In November 2005, the NRA and other gun advocates filed a lawsuit challenging San Francisco Proposition H, which banned the ownership and sales of firearms. The NRA argued that the proposition overstepped local government authority and intruded into an area regulated by the state. The San Francisco County Superior Court agreed with the NRA position. The city appealed the court's ruling, but lost a 2008 appeal. In October 2008, San Francisco was forced to pay a $380,000 settlement to the National Rifle Association and other plaintiffs to cover the costs of litigating Proposition H.
Until we can do something about their hold on the American political system, we are pretty much powerless.
And what might that something be to challenge their hold on the American political system? I can tell you one thing it is not - giving up and saying that it's impossible.
Mod
That's pretty much the way this country feels about guns. Many people do want stricter legislation, but no one is offering to fight for it. To run for office claiming you want to take a firm stance on gun control is political suicide here, I kid you not.
Sadly, I'm convinced that even more people's lives will need to be touched by gun violence before the anger reaches a boiling point and things begin to change. I'm not saying it will never happen, but it's not going to be soon.
Mod
They OWN politicians, quite literally. Any attempts to propose new gun control legislation are met with their team of very expensive lawyers. And then ..."
I don't suppose it occurs to anybody that people, elected officials included, might actually agree with gun rights of their own volition
Mod
Mod
Then we have the contingent who thinks ALL guns should be available to ALL.
I say let every American household, like my great-granny, own one hunting rifle. That should serve all your needs. If you feel you need to own more firepower than that, you should seriously question your motives.
I grow weary of this argument, so I'm going to try to inject a little humor - NSFW - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OZIO...
Mod
No, I am not saying confiscate all guns. What I am saying is that the US needs to do something about its awful record for gun-related deaths. Gun control is surely a part of the equation, but it's not the only thing you would need to do. You would also need to tackle the underlying arrogance which states that it is okay for me to have a gun, but it's not okay for you to have a gun.The UK does not have a blanket ban on guns. They are allowed in certain circumstances and with some safeguards - eg in licensed gun clubs and in locked containers.
"Despite the rhetoric of people with agendas" - you mean, including the NRA's agenda? I kind of like the agenda around keeping people alive. That's my kind of agenda.
I'm trying to be done with this conversation so this is my last contribution on it.I think everyone is in agreement that the only people who should have access to gun ownership are sane and responsible people, which, Will, is different from saying "there is an underlying arrogance which states that it is okay for me to have a gun, but it's not okay for you to have a gun."
Let's be honest, though, any regulation passed would be based on "it's okay for some people to have guns and not others" whether that means only people who pass a test or apply for a license etc.
Because, again, if we're really honest with ourselves, we have to admit that the problem isn't necessarily that people HAVE guns it's in how and why people USE those guns.
In addition to those 300 million legal guns in the US there are many more illegal ones out there. And you cannot take illegal guns away from people with ease. We don't even know how many there are. We do know that 15% of the people we have federally incarcerated who committed crimes with guns did so with legal guns. That means 85% of the rest were done with illegal guns.
How do you take care of the illegal gun population? You focus on taking care of the people who find that to be their only outlet -- That's the true underlying problem.
One more thing, though, (and I mean it this time). Violent crimes are on the rise in the UK, particularly with knife-wielding men attacking and raping unarmed women. And after Australia reformed their gun control, the the head of New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research said the change in the level of gun ownership had no effect on the change in the level of violence. It certainly didn't prevent the hostage situation in Sydney in 2014, where the perp used an illegal gun. In other words, guns don't necessarily have anything to do with the violent nature of an individual. They are a tool and if that tool didn't exist, another tool will take it's place.
We need to "fix" -- that is help -- the individuals. We teach our kids not to put their fingers in light sockets. We don't restrict access to their fingers nor to the light sockets.
I know you want to stop the conversation and it is getting to the point where we've said it all. But there are so many assumptions in what you have said that I just have to comment.The UK violent crime rate as a whole is falling, not increasing:
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime-s...
Not everyone agrees that the Australia gun controls haven't worked:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012...
Yes, violent individuals will find an outlet for violent tendencies. But can you think of another readily available device that can kill so many people so quickly as a gun? If another tool takes its place, that tool is less likely to kill in such industrial quantities.
And if you think that it would be difficult to control inanimate objects - the number of guns - how hard do you think it is going to be to change people?
I really don't buy the argument that "gun control wouldn't work because there are so many illegal guns out there". Effective gun control is not simply about a more stringent licensing system for gun ownership. It is also about enforcement, amnesties, education and shifting culture. And just because you can't achieve 100% doesn't mean that you don't start to make a change.
The UK has illegal guns too, just far fewer of them. And why is that? Because we have a culture that doesn't glorify gun ownership to the same extent.
Keeping guns for some people and then trying to tell other people they can't have them? Or they can have them but shouldn't use them? That is going to make it very hard to change culture.
We teach our kids not to put their fingers in lights sockets. True. We also pass legislation banning certain types of light sockets. Have you tried putting your finger in a light socket recently? You will probably find that your finger won't fit. And that is because the types of sockets that you can put your finger into have been made illegal.
Will wrote: "Have you tried putting your finger in a light socket recently? You will probably find that your finger won't fit. And that is because the types of sockets that you can put your finger into have been made illegal."Maybe that's so in the UK. But in the US, not the case. I think my finger fits in just about all the light sockets in my home except for the holiday decoration ones. I bet even my thumb will fit in them, too, but I'm not foolish enough to try.
Melki wrote: "I grow weary of this argument, so I'm going to try to inject a little humor - NSFW - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OZIO..."You said it, Melki.
Think I'll go find a light socket. Meanwhile;
Melki wrote: "I grow weary of this argument, so I'm going to try to inject a little humor - NSFW - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OZIO... ..."That was funny- thanks, Melki.
I'm about ready to go put my finger into a light socket.
OK! So we all agree that we have a gun crazy society and understand it must change. I'll do what I can. Now I'm going to go look for some more juicy pc stuff to add here...after I put my finger in the socket.
Please, Andre, take care of the fingers! We'd prefer they stay able to put pen to paper.
I've gotten a few jolts in my lifetime from outlets and several from loose wires where the electrician neglected to turn off a certain breaker, so that I've grown somewhat accustomed to it. I now use it for a quick wake-up when there's no expresso or crack readily on hand, but thanks, Lisa, for caring.
Mod
Mod
Any particular story behind the outpouring of feeling?
Mod
Mod
Mod
Yeah, Will. People keep beating the same issues to death, issues whose address falls within the purview of, in most cases, individual state legislators, and occasionally, Congress. And the candidates never bother explaining, "No, the President doesn't do that. Different job entirely, in fact. Sorry for the inconvenience." Or something like that. Sadly, people with apparently no idea about how our government works will determine who the rest of us get to vote for.
I guess this would fall more appropriately under the Rant category. Maybe I'll file it under both.
You mean that I shouldn't have sent that angry letter to our president about getting that SLOW sign planted on our back street? What about the vice president, it's not like he's really going to be busy running a campaign or anything. And God knows who'll be Speaker...Who can I call?Joel, what's scary is that many folks who will be voting could barely tell you who's running, some can't even tell you where Canada is. I used to love Jay Leno's man on the street. But what, exactly, got your dander up?
Mod
This President? Street signs are probably right in line with his domestic policies. Foreign ones, too. It's just listening to candidates, the questions they're asked, and the "buzz" - what people think is important for their next Social-Worker-in-Chief. I guess schools don't require a basic knowledge of civics anymore.
Schools don't require a basic knowledge of much any more. Especially schools systems that adopted the "Common Core" curriculum guidelines. They don't teach grammar at all, spelling is optional and math is now a bizarre subject. Remember when adding 45
+37
Meant adding 5 to 7, getting 12 so you put down 2 and carry the 1 to add to the 4 and 3 to get an answer of 85?
You don't do that any more.
You take 5 from 40 and get 40.
The you realize 37 is 3 away from 40
So you add the 40s and get 80.
Now you're left with a 5 and 7 and I honestly can't remember what you do next.
Mod
Ask for another set of dice.
I think the point of democracy is that we are asking our potential leaders to apply for a job for which they usually have no past experience. Apart from a President or Prime Minister applying for re-election, the candidates generally have not done the job before.That means that the electors have to judge the candidates on their general qualities. Or lack of them. In the UK and US, that usually means the candidates shouldn't have had affairs, should be family men/women, should have distinguished military records and/or be good at business.
It is more or less than same in France and Italy, with the exception that candidates are more likely to be successful if they have had affairs.
That is why the electorate are interested in characteristics which might seem to have nothing to do with the candidate's ability to do the job, such as as whether they wear a tie or not. I don't suppose that's changed much since the good people of Athens and Rome were choosing their ruling elite on the basis of who had the nicest toga.
Mod
Joel wrote: "This President? Street signs are probably right in line with his domestic policies. Foreign ones, too. It's just listening to candidates, the questions they're asked, and the "buzz" - what people think is important for their next Social-Worker-in-Chief. I guess schools don't require a basic knowledge of civics anymore. ."Yes it's bad enough that we're giving away everything, entitlements galore, but listening to the Democratic presidential debate (basically the two contenders) make it sound like the government's not doing enough domestically. It's just not doing it right!
I'm not comfortable with this socialist leaning agenda they're putting forth; Free college educations to anyone able to cross into our borders. Health care, food, housing is already a given 'right'. And no one's even particularly concerned about that tiny deficit problem but let's keep spending on more entitlements.
Now, although I agree that too many black lives have been taken in recent years, some by police but, let's be honest, mostly by their peers. But, excuse me, ALL lives matter even though I understand the "PC-ness" of Black Lives Matter. But not one of them had the courage to say that.
And Will, you're right, I also think someone that can manage others well, communicates well, plays golf fairly well, and sports a humungous ego should be able to handle the position of president or PM.
Mod
When I went to school, the teachers didn't give a damn about my self-esteem, they wanted the right answer.
I didn't fully realize how poorly our schools are doing until I mentioned Mark Twain to a high school junior and he said, "Who?"
There are some very legitimate fears for the younger generation.
Jay wrote: "Lisa wrote: "Schools don't require a basic knowledge of much any more."When I went to school, the teachers didn't give a damn about my self-esteem, they wanted the right answer.
I didn't fully r..."
He didn't know who Mark Twain was. Oh, that makes me cringe.
I had some really tough teachers who insisted on proper grammar and spelling (in EVERY subject, not just English) and I really respected them. I hope things swing back to something a little more balanced. The fact that even spelling mistakes aren't corrected on their essays is worrying.
The sad thing is the knowledge is there for them, if they want it, but many students are not eager enough to study or even pay attention in class. I would think that the young man was busy updating his Facebook page or battling Gwahr The Merciless when Mark Twain was being discussed.
Mod
Mod
So true!
It's actually pretty normal for people to worry about the younger generation as they get older, but some of today's statistics are really frightening. According to the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), the United States is below average in math, science and reading. Most depressing, we've dropped from 11th to 21st in reading.
Reading!!
Oh, well. I can at least take comfort in the fact that by the time today's teenagers are running the country, I'll be dead.
But. But Kanye's running in 2020.
I suspect that every generation eventually grows old enough to complain about how the "youth of today" aren't as good as they were when they were young.
Mod
Is it the students themselves? They have the ultimate teaching tool - the INTERNET - which contains all mankind's collected information, and yet they spend all their time chatting with friends and watching cat videos.
Is it the "teaching to the test" mindset? My kids have actually been forced to stop learning interesting subjects so they could cram in class for whatever upcoming test will guarantee more money for the school.
Is it the ever-shrinking curriculum? My oldest will be the last student to graduate from his college with a degree in Philosophy - they're doing away with the program. I suspect Art, Theater and Music will be next. We will be filled with a world of business and computer majors who know nothing beyond their particular fields of study.
Is is the continual cuts to funding for schools? We have an entire political party that seems to see education as unnecessary, science as downright evil. It was only four years ago when Presidential candidate Rick Santorum referred to those wishing to get a college education as "snobs."
Truly - where do we start?
Melki wrote: "We have an entire political party that seems to see education as unnecessary, science as downright evil."They think of public education as unnecessary, The rich can send their kids to private school. Dumb minions are easier to control.
Melki wrote: "I don't even know where to begin to lay the blame for the mess that is the American educational system. . .Is it the students themselves? They have the ultimate teaching tool - the INTERNET - whi..."
I think it's all of the above, Melki and more.
It's also the helicopter parents who yell at teachers for having the audacity to give precious Johnnie the grade he deserves when he doesn't study for a test and fails it.
It's the districts, like the one my kids are in, that love to boast how they're so innovative because they've done things like dumped actual books and paper and now every child is given a school-purchased iPad. Why is that bad? No more collaborative projects with other students. No more stand-up presentations in class. No more one-on-one face time with teachers when students have problems -- it's all done online, even when in the classroom with the teacher! Those studies that suggest we don't retain as much information when we read from a glowing screen as when we have a kinetic response by turning pages, and having to make our eyes adjust to differences in light with a real book are ignored even though those precious test scores are lowering with each year the innovative iPads continue to be in use.
It's putting a priority on athletics at the expense of the art programs. Can I tell you how pissed I was when they put in a new astroturf football field (the previous astroturf field was only a couple years old but it didn't have the fancy new drainage system the new one does -- it didn't matter that the old one worked fine)? The school found money in the budget for it --almost $400,000. The same year the roof leaked and damaged over $100,000 in musical equipment. The school's insurance didn't cover all of it so the parent's rallied and fundraised.
Aarrgh! I think I need to quit ranting now. I want to have a drink.
Mod
You just don't understand how much more important a football field is than a roof. No one plays football on the roof.
I would think it would be obvious. :)
Jay wrote: "You just don't understand how much more important a football field is than a roof. No one plays football on the roof.I would think it would be obvious. :) "
I suppose you're right. I never thought about it that way. I still feel the need to have a drink, though.
I neglected to mention the funny part -- (oh, and for you non-Americans, by "football" I mean "American Football"). Our football team hasn't had a winning season in anyone's memory. Last year, we won 1 game, this year none so far and there's only two weeks left in the season. Our highest-scoring game was 6 points. Meanwhile, our marching band competes on a serious level. Last year, we won local, state chapter, state and Atlantic Coast Championships (all 1st place, honest). The winter drum line is equally successful.
I cringed reading how books are becoming so insignificant in classrooms these days. Back in the late 90's declining newspaper sales and an emerging info super highway was already affecting many syndicated cartoonists. Page sizes shrunk and the artwork required some creative changes on the more detailed strips. Magazines eventually followed suit, buying less and using more of their space for advertising. So, let's hope that, in a century or two, there will still be the odd group of bibliophiles, with some paper collections, sharing thoughts about Mark Twain on a humor discussion group, maybe one named Goodreads.
Mod
You remember them. The student reads the required book, and writes a paper discussing the plot, the characters, the mad cow in chapter four, and what the student thought about everything between the covers. ...er...the book covers, I mean.
I'm just curious to see if "required reading" is still required.
Mod
When my kids first started in this school district (one not exactly known for producing Harvard-bound scholars) they all spent the last half hour of every day practicing "Silent Sustained Reading" (also known as READING.) Each student was expected to bring a book or magazine to READ. Now that period is a "study hall" where students are expected to DO HOMEWORK not READ.
My youngest is reading a book right now for English - The Glass Castle. He does not have to do a report, as such, but he does have to answer "stupid questions." (His words, not mine.)
I remember the mad cow, but don't know anything about what goes on in our local schools, Lisa knows and that's why she's going through the cupboards now looking for spirits.
Book reports! Oy! (Pause for me to take a sip/gulp.)My son recently took an extra-credit class AFTER school hours where he learned to do an "adult book report." I asked him if they were reading "50 Shades of Gray." Apparently not. It taught the kids how to read a book, figure out who the hero is, what hero wanted to achieve, what the hero was fighting against and what was at stake should the hero fail and then write an essay listing their findings.
Other than that, no, they don't do book reports once they are out of elementary school. At least not in New Jersey. What they do instead, is give the kids a question and then ask them to find the answer based on what the text says. They do that because the standardized tests ask them to do that in order to determine if the kids understand what they are reading.
Before you start thinking that's a good thing, here's an example of a question my son thought was the funniest thing ever. The text (not book) that they gave the kids was a passage from the screen play of the movie "Gravity" (yes, the Sandra Bullock and George Clooney movie). It was the part where Georgie fails to re-connect Sandy to the ship and the wildly spinning arm knocks her into space.
The question was something about how did Christopher Columbus and his team feel about finding the island of Hispaniola?
His teacher couldn't even talk to me about it with a straight face. He kept shaking his head and saying "I know. I know. It doesn't make sense but they tell us by the time the kids graduate everything will click together and be more useful."
Meanwhile, I drink.
Mod
The Humour Club
Books mentioned in this topic
Unfinished Business (other topics)The Office (other topics)
Pacific Crucible: War at Sea in the Pacific, 1941–1942 (other topics)
Pacific Crucible: War at Sea in the Pacific, 1941–1942 (other topics)
The Glass Castle (other topics)
More...
Well said btw. In any community, there will always be some unbalanced people and they will sometimes find a way to harm us in great numbers. Our problem with gun violence needs to be addressed by each community. Absentee fathers, deadbeat dads, white and black need to be put to task for one, better education for the children. So many good organizations out there without the funding needed.
Sadly, Will, with weapons, as with drugs, and sex and slavery, there will always be the demand and damn it - someone there to supply it.
SOS-DD.
I can understand your point, Will, that gun control must start somewhere, sometime. But, for now, the right to bear arms may have never been in your constitution but it is in ours. The gun control laws we have in place now, although well meaning, are already ineffective. But I hear our president will be submitting some proposals, on just this issue, possibly tomorrow. However, they will not try taking the legal guns away. That would be sheer craziness! A total disaster.
The only winners would be the local gangs and criminals with the illegal firearms while the working class/legal firearms owners, powerless, would become their victims faster than you can say pfft!