Miami Holiday

[Maximius]

Ish: The issue of taking people's guns away is not so simple though. Many view the constitutional right to bear arms as one of those freedoms that you are so worried about the gov't taking away. One of the reasons the right to bear arms was included in the constitution was so that citizens would have the ability to overthrow the government if it became oppressive.

 

Max: The right to bear arms is an anachronism frankly. The rhetoric of the "right to guns" crowd is a useful tool for promoting right leaning political agendas but little else. The notion that this country was birthed and nurtured by armed citizens is a myth in fact, the VAST majority of early U.S. colonists did not own weaponry as they were extremely expensive and often quite dangerous to the bearer. It was not until the U.S. industrial revolution that standardized processes for making arms brought down the price and raised the safety level for the user, and even then they were not as commonplace as everyone assumes. The Wild West image of the gun slinger was largely apocryphal as well, although they were undoubtably more common then during the Colonial period. (This myth makes for great flicks though!) The people with the most guns has always been, and is today, the government and wealthy private interests. Big surprise.

 

The time when armed citizens could toss off the U.S. government is long gone, if it ever existed. I dont care how many hunting rifles or assault rifles or automatic pistols you own, you will be crushed by the Imperial Army in a split second. Ask the Branch Davidians from Waco, Texas. Or ask a survivor of the MOVE bombing here in Philadelphia back in the 1980s, the only instance of a government using artillery against a civilian group since Hitler bombed a socialist workingmens beergarten in Austria. The notion that a group of armed citizens could withstand such an assault is pure fantasy, and even if the whole damned nation rose up in arms, who would coordinate such an attack? There is no cohesion to this "force for liberty", and any military strategist will tell you that a disorganized military force can be whipped by a much smaller but better organized force. Thats why they still study Hannibal at Cannae, he was heavily outnumbered but he used his assets wisely and trounced the Roman legion, who thought themselves invulnerable due to their numbers.

 

Your average SWAT team could handle the majority of small groups that may attempt to use armed force to accomplish some goal. And immediately after they got done, the media would be there to trumpet the defeat and ridicule further notions of throwing off the power of the Man. So lets imagine that the stout gun owners of America have risen up to defend themselves against the Federal Tyrant. After slaughtering a few groups, and arresting hundreds more, they would be paraded on television and radio as an example to others. You can see a form of this media manipulation right here and now, just turn on "COPS" or "AMERICAS MOST WANTED." The constant message being implicitly beamed to the viewers is "We are everywhere, we are all powerful as well as righteous, to resist us is stupid at best and suicidal at worst." They dont have to come out and say such things, the video images do that well enough. Or another gem of popular media culture "WORLDS STUPIDEST CRIMINALS." This is another form of soft oppression, no need to pull out the gun to keep folks in line when you can parade examples across their T.V. screens 24/7. Barry Glassner discusses this in depth in the wonderful book "The Culture of Fear."

 

If there were a revolution in this country, which would more than likely a rightward reaction instead of a leftward revolution, and things got so shook up that privately armed citizens could make a difference, then the government has been pushed there by forces far outside the control of the average Joe and his gun collection. Governments tumble due to systemic causes, the armed insurrections that often follow are simply one group seizing the reigns from an already dead hand. Governments that are healthy, in control of their military and police assets as well as the hearts and minds of at least a chunk of the population, can only be knocked down by outright war with a co-equal or a collection of such, long term economic illness, or combinations of the two.

 

Ish: That's the whole point of metal detectors at schools, to make sure that people don't bring in guns in the first place and prevent something bad from happening.

 

Second, this is not true at most schools in the US. It's true mostly at massively overcrowded inner-city public schools, where some failure of the education system has already taken place. I agree it is depressing nonetheless, and I don't think anyone in America thinks of this is a good thing.

 

Max: If you see my post above this one, I discuss the arms industry around the world but I did not mention that its busy as hell here too. A recent attempt to bring accountability to companies who dump cheap handguns into the streets , weapons whose only purpose is to kill other humans, failed of course. The arms industry has powerful allies on both sides of the aisle. Its simply not enough to erect metal detectors everywhere, we have to get these things off the streets. And consider this, all the major school shootings in the last few years, Columbine and its kin, occured at mostly white, middle class suburban schools, not in urban mostly minority schools.

 

True, the educational system is failing the inner city schools, failing them miserably to our deep shame as a nation. But its relatively well off white children who have taken up arms against their fellow students and the schools. I would argue this is another aspect of the fetishized, mostly mythical gun culture, a culture largely created by the arms industry itself and private dealers and buttressed with stiff doses of nationalistic/patriotic superstitions.

Edited January 31, 2006 by Maximius

[sparhawk]

Max you can realy phrase many tings MUCH better then I could ever hope for. Not that I even were aware of all teh stuff you seem to know.

[sparhawk]

So much for me trying to change the topic

 

Thread drifts are a natural occurence for all discussions, so the internet is not really an exception. But thread drifts rarely occure because somebody frantically tries to change the topic. If you want to change the topic, you must provide arguments to the discussion at hand and let them drift over to where you want it to.

[Maximius]

Max you can realy phrase many tings MUCH better then I could ever hope for. Not that I even were aware of all teh stuff you seem to know.

 

 

Thats very kind, sparhawk, Im glad I can offer something to this incredibly talented group of individuals even if its only my political ravings to consider.

 

At the risk of sounding like Im bragging (which Im not!), these "current events" topics are my field, or fields. I have a dual history/political science degree with a philosophy minor, so in a sense Im trained to understand the present political environment through the binocular vision of historical and philosophical analysis. Im very pleased that you find value in my discussion points, I consider them a poor return on the beautiful work you are all engaged in.

[sparhawk]

Actually I really enjoy these dicsussions, even though I don't contribute that much to it. And I know that my rantings about tv and movies may contribute more to the amusements of the audience also.

[obscurus]

Another interesting bit of trivia regarding gun ownership: statistically, gun owners are more likely to die by their own weapon being used against them or being accidentally fired at them by their kids or while cleaning itthan they are to be shot by someone else's weapon. Statistically, owning a gun is more dangerous than not owning a gun, unless you are in an actual war zone.

 

Max, have you read any of John Ralston Saul? While I don't always agree with him on everything, he has a very deep understanding of what drives the global military-industrial machine, and how the biggest global industry is the manufacture of weapons, and the US role in keeping wars going to keep the wheels of its arms business running smoothly.

 

The US had three main goals in going to war in Iraq and Afghanistan:

1. Use up surplus ordinance to trigger increased poroduction of arms, and to test their newer weapons (the US needs a war every ten to twenty years to keep its economy going).

2. Re-assert their desire for all international trade to be made with the US dollar, not the Euro, as that is the only way they can keep from having to pay their massive debts, and make it look like other countries owe the US money.

3. Make a grab for more oil production to prop up its failing economy. The US economy depends on massive consumption and waste to maintain its econimic hedgemony, so running out of cheap oil would be a disaster for them.

 

They had a cover story about Mr. Hussein and some WMDs, and militant Islamists, but that is all it was. Quite why the US should be able to possess and use a gargantuan arsenal of WMDs, while Iraq couldn't was never explained.

[sparhawk]

Statistically, owning a gun is more dangerous than not owning a gun, unless you are in an actual war zone.

 

IMO that's simple common sense, even if you exclude such accidents. I think that many people are not really prepared to shoot a gun at another human. I would bet that most people hope that holding the gun itself is already frightening enough so that they wont have to fire it. But such an attitude is more dangerous for teh owner, then for the criminal, because the criminal has more incentive to turn the situation to his advantage, especially when he gets a gun pointing at him.

 

3. Make a grab for more oil production to prop up its failing economy. The US economy depends on massive consumption and waste to maintain its econimic hedgemony, so running out of cheap oil would be a disaster for them.

 

I think the oil is a bit overestimated, even though it's surely an important factor. You forgot another reason. To detract from bad governing and internal problems. Uniting against a 'common' enemy is always a good phrase.

[Darkness_Falls]

Thread drifts are a natural occurence for all discussions, so the internet is not really an exception. But thread drifts rarely occure because somebody frantically tries to change the topic. If you want to change the topic, you must provide arguments to the discussion at hand and let them drift over to where you want it to.

I know, I was just kidding. I was essentially saying, "Sooo, how's the weather?" when I jokingly tried to change the topic. Obviously that's not going to do much to change the subject.

[obscurus]

IMO that's simple common sense, even if you exclude such accidents. I think that many people are not really prepared to shoot a gun at another human. I would bet that most people hope that holding the gun itself is already frightening enough so that they wont have to fire it. But such an attitude is more dangerous for teh owner, then for the criminal, because the criminal has more incentive to turn the situation to his advantage, especially when he gets a gun pointing at him.

I think the oil is a bit overestimated, even though it's surely an important factor. You forgot another reason. To detract from bad governing and internal problems. Uniting against a 'common' enemy is always a good phrase.

 

 

As far as self defence goes, I am all for running away or hiding, unless I have no choice. This isn't cowardice, it is intelligent conflict avoidance. Engaging in any form of combat is extremely dangerous, even fist fights can be fatal, and they will invariably result in very serious injuries for one or both parties. I guess that is one reason I like Thief - I can play the game for the most part without ever physically contacting any of my opponents, I don't have to be a hero. Even if you are a very skilled and powerful warrior, combat is very unpredictable, and luck plays a huge part in it. The best soldier in the world could have his gun lock up at a bad moment, or he could trip, or sneeze, or just make a mistake, giving his unskilled opponent an opportunity to take him down.

 

 

Oh, yes, I did forget reason 4 - distraction from domestic problems. Ever seen the movie Wag the Dog? All about the US government faking a war to take the public eye off how badly the president was performing....

[Ishtvan]

@Max : I never said I agreed with the right to guns people, and you make some good points. However, I hope as someone with such distrust of the US gov't, you can see how some people might have a problem if the gov't were to say "You no longer have the right to defend your home with a gun, but don't worry, we'll do it for you. We're so good at keeping guns away from criminals and the prison system is so great at deterring crime and correcting people that no criminal will ever come to your house with a gun, and even if they did, our police always respond before they could hurt you."

 

Also, I agree that violence in schools is not limited to "inner city" schools. Sparhawk was talking about metal detectors specifically, and those do seem to be mostly in urban schools, although I guess some large suburban ones have them too.

 

I'm not sure if the school-violence problem is so much a culture of violence in the sense that "violence is cool." If that's all it takes, I'd have to look at Hong Kong movies and wonder why everyone isn't shooting eachother all the time in that country. It seems like in a lot of these cases, people who are different in some easily identifiable way get abused until they snap, thinking violence is the only solution. I think a big part of the problem is more a culture of conformity and social stratification.

 

@Obscurus:

(the US needs a war every ten to twenty years to keep its economy going)

That is often said, but is a myth. A foreign war is not beneficial to any economy, ever (leaving out whatever assets/territory might be claimed in that war). The logistical costs of just maintaining an overseas army are in the millions-billions every week. All that money is coming ultimately from the citizens of the country, and offsets any benefit like jobs created.

 

Also, the "war is good for the economy" myth rests on the Keynesian notion that increased government spending (by buying arms for war, for example) is beneficial to the economy. That spending isn't just appearing out of nowhere, it ultimately comes from tax revenue collected from citizens. Citizens know this, and tend to increase private savings when the gov't deficit spending increases, in anticipation of higher taxes later (see the Barro-Ricardo Effect). That has the opposite effect from what the politicians intend when they argue for deficit spending (decrease savings increase consumption). Also, the government spending during a war is going toward purchasing things like missiles, which can't be sold again into the private sector to further increase consumption. Missiles are not really the ideal good to be buying to get the economy going.

 

Some of the US leaders seem to believe this myth though, that is the problem.

[Maximius]

Max, have you read any of John Ralston Saul?

 

No, Im not familiar though the name rings a bell, I will look him up on Google.

[Maximius]

Ish:

@Max : I never said I agreed with the right to guns people, and you make some good points. However, I hope as someone with such distrust of the US gov't, you can see how some people might have a problem if the gov't were to say "You no longer have the right to defend your home with a gun, but don't worry, we'll do it for you. We're so good at keeping guns away from criminals and the prison system is so great at deterring crime and correcting people that no criminal will ever come to your house with a gun, and even if they did, our police always respond before they could hurt you."

 

I agree with that, I know a lot of people who dont raise a fuss when their children are poisoned with pesticides in their food or poisoned by the cheap, sugar-packed food itself, who accept workplace abuse with a sickly smile or some mumbling about "this is just the way it is..." but who would flip out if someone came along and said give up your hunting rifle. Its one of the reasons I am so anti-gun culture, I see it as a diversionary issue.

 

Ish: Also, I agree that violence in schools is not limited to "inner city" schools. Sparhawk was talking about metal detectors specifically, and those do seem to be mostly in urban schools, although I guess some large suburban ones have them too.

 

I would not be surprised to find that metal detectors and "security" measures in general are becoming commonplace in schools, especially public schools. Whether or not there was ever an incident of violence is secondary to the perception that leaders are "doing something." No one wants to talk about getting the fucking guns off the streets and taking their makers to prison, they would rather install metal detectors and campus cops and video cameras and all the other crap that is slowly turning our schools into boot camps

 

Ish: I'm not sure if the school-violence problem is so much a culture of violence in the sense that "violence is cool."

 

I think that +is+ the culture of violence! Or at least an aspect of it.

 

Ish:If that's all it takes, I'd have to look at Hong Kong movies and wonder why everyone isn't shooting eachother all the time in that country.

 

I would suggest because they dont all own personal handguns, as we Americans do, or many of us do. Nor do they have easy access to such weapons, as we do. I had friends who regularly bought and sold automatic weapons for their collections, you wont find such opportunities in the majority of industrialized nations. And Im not familiar with the culture of Hong Kong, but I know as an American we eat, sleep, and crap guns. People's sexual identities are wrapped up with their guns, they see them as an extension of their manhood or as being an empowered woman.

 

Ish: It seems like in a lot of these cases, people who are different in some easily identifiable way get abused until they snap, thinking violence is the only solution. I think a big part of the problem is more a culture of conformity and social stratification.

 

I think that you have captured the problem in a nutshell, but you have to re-insert the weapons into the equation. the gun culture and the myths of threatened freedoms and looming repression held at bay by personal arms are tied into the notions of conformity and maintaining social stratification. The gun culture is a diversion from real issues, IMO, issues that would force people to re-consider the price they pay for conformity and their real niche in the economic order. It creates a false community of folks who, rather than examining their real oppressors, turn to attack what they see as the key threat to their "liberty."

[Maximius]

No, Im not familiar though the name rings a bell, I will look him up on Google.

 

 

I have heard of this guy, a few years back. Ill have to re-acquaint myself with his arguments. He has a lot of good stuff to say, IIRC, I probably wont agree with it all of course.

[obscurus]

That is often said, but is a myth. A foreign war is not beneficial to any economy, ever (leaving out whatever assets/territory might be claimed in that war). The logistical costs of just maintaining an overseas army are in the millions-billions every week. All that money is coming ultimately from the citizens of the country, and offsets any benefit like jobs created.

 

Also, the "war is good for the economy" myth rests on the Keynesian notion that increased government spending (by buying arms for war, for example) is beneficial to the economy. That spending isn't just appearing out of nowhere, it ultimately comes from tax revenue collected from citizens. Citizens know this, and tend to increase private savings when the gov't deficit spending increases, in anticipation of higher taxes later (see the Barro-Ricardo Effect). That has the opposite effect from what the politicians intend when they argue for deficit spending (decrease savings increase consumption). Also, the government spending during a war is going toward purchasing things like missiles, which can't be sold again into the private sector to further increase consumption. Missiles are not really the ideal good to be buying to get the economy going.

 

Some of the US leaders seem to believe this myth though, that is the problem.

 

 

Well, perhaps I should have clarified that as 'the US thinks it needs a war every 20 years or so....'. Nevertheless, I think you are underestimating the importance of the arms trade in the world economy. It is a false economy, of course, and we could well do without it, but the perpetual mass manufacture of arms keeps quite a few people very rich. Now, if those weapons aren't used, they won't sell any more bullets, or grenades, or land mines etc. If you want to get wealthy quick, and sell more ammo and guns, here is how to do it: send agents to infiltrate a couple of neighbouring countries, to stir up any animosities between them you can find, and make sure it escalates into a full scale war. Then sell weapons to both countries, as they use them up, they buy more and more.

 

Of course the general 'real' economy could well do without guns 'n' ammo, but the military-industrial complex, especially in the US, is almost a whole separate econmomy, closely tied to governments. About 18% of the US annual budget comes from arms sales - vastly more than any other nation.

 

In real economic terms, all of this weapons production is a huge drain on the global economy, but since it generates a lot of wealth for a few individuals who have a very close grip on politicians, it is very difficult to get rid of.

 

 

I know wikkipedia is not always the most reliable source of information, but it is easier to link to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_trade

 

 

 

Max: Some links. J. R. Saul was most recently the husband of the last Canadian Govenor General (ie, the Vice-Regal Consort), but is primarily noted for his novels and essays. I disagree quite a bit with some of his views, but his analysis of many issues surrounding global economics, politics, history and the global arms trade is very insightful, near flawless on occasion.

 

http://afr.com/articles/2004/02/19/1077072774981.html

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

[Napalm]

2. Re-assert their desire for all international trade to be made with the US dollar, not the Euro, as that is the only way they can keep from having to pay their massive debts, and make it look like other countries owe the US money.

 

This point doesn't really make sense to me, I don't know if it's one of those key factors they wave about in Australia, but US of A currently has over a 3 TRILLION USD debt to other countries/peopels/ect......Previously we were in a surplus....so I don't get why they would use this as a reason to hide....since for one they don't...and two its made things go from good to bad. Would you care to clarify what you mean? You mentioned money going to rich beuruacrats ect., butt hat's not really what this comment was refering to

 

 

(well, we are more civilised than the US at least, though our current government's efforts to emulate the US and constant US televison are causing a lot of cultural degeneration),

^Well thats not slightly bias Nationalism..... I know now I can trust you to be objective in your views

[Maximius]

2. Re-assert their desire for all international trade to be made with the US dollar, not the Euro, as that is the only way they can keep from having to pay their massive debts, and make it look like other countries owe the US money.

 

This point doesn't really make sense to me, I don't know if it's one of those key factors they wave about in Australia, but US of A currently has over a 3 TRILLION USD debt to other countries/peopels/ect......Previously we were in a surplus....so I don't get why they would use this as a reason to hide....since for one they don't...and two its made things go from good to bad. Would you care to clarify what you mean? You mentioned money going to rich beuruacrats ect., butt hat's not really what this comment was refering to

(well, we are more civilised than the US at least, though our current government's efforts to emulate the US and constant US televison are causing a lot of cultural degeneration),

^Well thats not slightly bias Nationalism..... I know now I can trust you to be objective in your views

 

Napalm you should really read that book I put up earlier, SuperImperialism, I can send you the link again. The U.S. is deeply in debt but it uses that debt to manipulate the world. In short, it owes everyone money but its the only bank in town. It pays back those debts with worthless dollars. Other nations are forced to finance the U.S. debt in order to stay economically viable. This is accomplished through the World Bank and the IMF. But seriously read it for yourself, its a really good book and it wil answer a lot of your questions.

[Ishtvan]

I'm also skeptical about whether it would actually be beneficial to the US if all trade were conducted in dollars. I thought the whole idea of having a currency market was so that different currencies could be valued differently based on confidence in the associated country. Also, believe it or not, the US exports some goods in addition to importing, so if the dollar is valued too highly relative to other currencies, other countries will not buy US exports.

 

I don't really know enough about it to judge one way or the other though. I would just caution against drawing conclusions after reading/hearing only one side of the argument; things are rarely that clear cut.