Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

A Sickness in US Society

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

A Sickness in US Society

Old 28th Aug 2015, 18:58
  #61 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 2,003
Originally Posted by tdracer View Post
SERIOUSLY? If someone comes after you with a weapon, with the obvious intent of doing you seriously bodily harm, you don't have the right to use deadly force to defend yourself unless you're Police or Military? What the are you planning to do, hope the guy trips and falls and knocks himself out?
How many private citizens in the UK have actually used a firearm against another person in self defence in recent years? There is only one I can recall - a guy who's name, if I recall correctly, was Tony Martin, who discharged a firearm against an intruder who he killed and who, as it happens wasn't armed with a firearm himself.

Can't think of many others myself, though I guess someone else might be able to.

Point is, the only logical reason for a private individual to carry weapons, and potentially discharge them against other citizens would be because there were so many weapons in society it is inevitable that some would get into the hands of criminals who, because they fear their victims may also be carrying weapons and therefore carry them.

It's a ridiculous vicious circle that could be easily remedied by taking the right to bear arms away from the public.

This works extremely well in most western European countries - why it shouldn't work in the US of A heaven (and the NRA / it's supporters) only know.

Last edited by ATNotts; 28th Aug 2015 at 18:58. Reason: To correct American (mis)spelling of defence
ATNotts is online now  
Old 28th Aug 2015, 19:05
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Great White North
Posts: 186
Hi Lonewolf. I disagree with a couple of things you said here.

Link that to a general societal moral decay
Who decides what is and is not moral and how is it decaying? Who enforces this morality? Stuff like this makes my skin crawl with the idea of morality police running through the streets and rounding people up for the crime of the week. Once these monsters are set free, they are out of your control and develop an agenda of their own.

When "it's all about me"...
I agree with that, to a point. The issue is often that people forget freedom is a two sided coin. The other side of the coin being responsibility. Responsibility for your own actions and for their effects on the society at large. Self policing, as it were. Too many people speak of freedom, not enough about the other side of that coin.

As gen x showed up, during another burst of economic increase
I'm not sure what economic burst to which you are referring? Generation X, named by Douglas Coupland in his book by that very title, starts at 1965. Being part of that illustrious group, I graduated into 25% youth unemployment and a decade of recession and inflation. The high paying jobs of our parents having been slowly outsourced and the rise of the low paying service sector jobs. The McJob, if you will (again, borrowing from the book Generation X). This generation tended to pay the maximum price for all goods and services while working at low wages, because the prices had been inflated due to the demand of the large number of Baby Boomer’s ahead of them. It's an economic cycle spelled out in Boom, Bust and Echo (with the Boom being the Baby Boomer’s, the Bust being Generation X and the Echo being the children of the Boomer’s, usually called Generation Y). So, unless things were a lot different where you grew up, I can assure you, sacrifices were made. In-spite of that, the dystopian future of The Warriors or Mad Max never materialised.

While each generation thinks it has had it harder than the previous one, to blame one group is simplistic and unfair. Each generation has had to face different and unique challenges that the previous group did not.... so in a way, each group is correct and incorrect at the same time.

While I agree with many of your points, I don't think we should over simplify things too much.

In general, the violence that arises is complex and there will truly be no simple fix. I don't agree that it is the entitlement argument that drives people to violence, I believe it is a mix of issues ranging from economic issues and opportunities, education, social conditioning, health care (mental), population density, and a host of other issues. There is a lot of cultural clash in countries that are made of immigrants, as opposed to a more homogeneous society.
Mostly Harmless is offline  
Old 28th Aug 2015, 21:27
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50
If you don't try to break into my home...you have nothing to fear from me.
The cultural difference is that you seem quite happy to take the life of someone who is simply trying to steal your TV. Most of the rest of civilised society considers that 'right' a tad extreme.
Property is the main driver of US law. That said, are you implying that our culture says it's ok to kill someone because they are merely taking a TV from your house?
FakePilot is offline  
Old 28th Aug 2015, 21:42
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: The Luberon
Age: 68
Posts: 916
Are you going to take the chance and hope that the hooded person who has broken into your home is only there for the TV?
sitigeltfel is offline  
Old 28th Aug 2015, 21:42
  #65 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Simply Towers.
Posts: 3
I can almost umderstand how frightened people must be to feel that they need to carry a firearm just in case. It must be awful to live in a society where that is the norm.
Given that self protection is always quoted as main reason for owning firearms, I would have thought the best firearm is the one you have with you.
You are unlikely (I hope) to go out for a days shopping carrying an assault rifle so you wouldnt have that with you.....why then the need for those weapons to be lawful? Why is it such a massive step to just take some common sense steps like banning assault weapons and suchlike?
Do americans think they are about to face a Zombie Apocalypse or a full on terrorist threat on their homes?
Simplythebeast is offline  
Old 28th Aug 2015, 21:46
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 67
Posts: 1,954
This is not to be taken as US bashing, but there is a sickness, a cancer in the US psyche that allows people to normalise behaviour that is unconscionable.
If calling this sort of senselessly violent behaviour as "normalized" is not "US bashing", I don't know what is.
KenV is offline  
Old 28th Aug 2015, 21:48
  #67 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 67
Posts: 1,954
I can almost umderstand how frightened people must be to feel that they need to carry a firearm just in case. It must be awful to live in a society where that is the norm.
Given that self protection is always quoted as main reason for owning firearms, I would have thought the best firearm is the one you have with you.
Hmmmm. The post began with two back-to-back statements that are utterly false. Is it worth the effort to read the rest?
KenV is offline  
Old 28th Aug 2015, 22:35
  #68 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Simply Towers.
Posts: 3
Sorry Ken but we are continualy being told that many people feel the need to purchase firearms in order to protect themselves. Im just not sure I would want to live in that type of society. Just saying.
Simplythebeast is offline  
Old 28th Aug 2015, 22:43
  #69 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 67
Posts: 1,954
Sorry Ken but we are continualy being told that many people feel the need to purchase firearms in order to protect themselves. Im just not sure I would want to live in that type of society. Just saying.
I would not want to live in that type of society either. And I don't. I live in the heart of Texas.
KenV is offline  
Old 28th Aug 2015, 22:55
  #70 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Simply Towers.
Posts: 3
So those people who talk of buying guns to defend themselves and their families are not doing so. the women who carry them in their handbags are using them for sporting purposes?
Simplythebeast is offline  
Old 28th Aug 2015, 23:02
  #71 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 67
Posts: 1,954
Sure, there are folks who live that way. But our society does not live that way, nor is our society "that type" that requires or even encourages its citizens to live that way. You appear to be guilty of painting with a very broad brush a society you do not understand.
KenV is offline  
Old 28th Aug 2015, 23:44
  #72 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 808
Most of the rest of civilised society considers that 'right' a tad extreme.
Speaking for the rest of civilized society again? Though in this case I "believe" you may be technically correct. That said, a standard response by the left to try and denigrate a persons stance, and make them feel worse of a person than they really are.

Like the usual response were people come out and say he was killed for "insert trivial cause here" by the police, the statement hides the true underlying cause.

In most case these thing occur due to uncertainty, that if you delay an action, the innocent parties are the one that will be killed. Whether that be the home owner, family, innocent bystanders or police officer. In other cases, its because the perpetrator escalates the situation giving rise to the previous.

Rarely people are killed by people trying to stop a crime just for trivial reasons.
Who decides what is and is not moral and how is it decaying? Who enforces this morality? Stuff like this makes my skin crawl with the idea of morality police running through the streets and rounding people up for the crime of the wee
So your happy with, bestiality, multiple partner marriage, adult incest, and we can keep going down the list of simple moral outrage practices and start inserting crimes like rape etc.

The fact is, all laws are morals, there is no right or wrong, and societies are based on common values. We tend to trivialize the minor moral ones to justify us doing them when our genitals tells us we want to do it.
rh200 is offline  
Old 29th Aug 2015, 00:39
  #73 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Scotland
Age: 76
Posts: 452
Oleo Strut - the violent crime rate is not spreading,even in the U.S. The murder rate is falling. All countries in the developed world are influenced by the same things in society,the reason for the huge gun homicide rate there is that the means is readily available.
bcgallacher is offline  
Old 29th Aug 2015, 04:50
  #74 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Arlington, Tx. US
Posts: 614
KenV

If the Belgium/France train terrorist act had happened in Texas the terrorist would be freed for just practicing open carry, the two white Americans would have been arrested by the crip govenor's militia for being part of Jade Helm, and the African-American hero shot while trying to "escape." No sane state should allow open carry of little boy assault rifles in public places, but in Texas it is championed by the right wing retards in power. Soon the extremes will be marginalized and Texas may be welcomed back to the human race.


The Sultan
The Sultan is offline  
Old 29th Aug 2015, 05:40
  #75 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 65
Posts: 2,994
Point is, the only logical reason for a private individual to carry weapons, and potentially discharge them against other citizens would be because there were so many weapons in society it is inevitable that some would get into the hands of criminals who, because they fear their victims may also be carrying weapons and therefore carry them.
ATNotts. You apparently read my post given that you quoted it, so I have to assume reading comprehension isn't one of your stronger points.

First off, I never mentioned firearms. You specifically stated that NO ONE that wasn't in the military or police was entitled to use deadly force, even in self defense. I called Bull$hit.

If someone is coming at me (or my family/loved ones) with the intent to do serious harm, whatever means I use to defend us is legit - I consider that to be a fundamental human right. It might be a firearm, it might be an ax, a sword, a machete, or even a kitchen knife - I'll use what ever is handy.
Now, I don't expect to ever be in such circumstances, but if it does happen, I pray that I'm the one that comes out standing at the end. And if that results in fatal injuries to the attacker, so be it. I'll likely feel badly about taking another's life, but I won't regret that I was the one that survived.
You see, I don't want to be a victim, and I'll do everything in my power to prevent that.

That you apparently feel you'd prefer being a victim says much more about you than it does about me.
tdracer is offline  
Old 29th Aug 2015, 05:52
  #76 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 65
Posts: 2,994
Sultan, you don't seriously believe that you just posted, do you?
There is a big difference between "Open Carry" and taking target practice at people on a train. Oh, and Open Carry has never applied to fully automatic assault rifles.
tdracer is offline  
Old 29th Aug 2015, 06:36
  #77 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,960
Originally Posted by FakePilot
That said, are you implying that our culture says it's ok to kill someone because they are merely taking a TV from your house?
Actually I was implying LoneWolf is. But yes, your Laws allow you to kill someone for 'merely taking a TV'. Laws reflect society, no?

Originally Posted by sitigeltfel
Are you going to take the chance and hope that the hooded person who has broken into your home is only there for the TV?
Why else would they be breaking into your house? Wearing a balaclava would suggest they're not there to murder you...

Originally Posted by rh200
Speaking for the rest of civilized society again? Though in this case I "believe" you may be technically correct. That said, a standard response by the left to try and denigrate a persons stance, and make them feel worse of a person than they really are.
Are you capable of making a single post on any subject without inserting some bent political rant into it?

You can 'believe' all you like, but the Law in most civlised countries says that if you kill someone for attempting to steal your television you will get charged with at least manslaughter. As I said, the Law is a reflection of the society that creates it, whether you 'believe' or not..
Hempy is offline  
Old 29th Aug 2015, 10:00
  #78 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 808
Are you capable of making a single post on any subject without inserting some bent political rant into it?
Only if the poster isn't using an underhanded way of doing it themselves. You know full well the US isn't like that.

You can 'believe' all you like, but the Law in most civlised countries says that if you kill someone for attempting to steal your television you will get charged with at least manslaughter. As I said, the Law is a reflection of the society that creates it, whether you 'believe' or not..
It may be true, as I said though there are exceptions when you truly believe your life or someone else's may be in danger. If the perpetrator chooses to increase the threat level when you use your own rights to try and prevent a crime happening thats there fault, they can surrender or walk away.

I'm gathering your on the side of not intervening or trying to protect your property side of politics. What next from the left, laws to prosecute people for protecting their own property or trying to prevent a crime. Note that does not include executing people.
rh200 is offline  
Old 29th Aug 2015, 10:15
  #79 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: eastcoastoz
Age: 73
Posts: 1,701
rh,
As you should know, in OZ the laws have been in place for many years.
Suggest you brush up on them before you get yourself in trouble.
Stanwell is offline  
Old 29th Aug 2015, 10:31
  #80 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 72
Posts: 1,561
Different locales have different rules. Some seem to have no rules at all.

Try stealing something in a Nigerian market to see what happens next. "Chased down and beaten or burnt to death" will be your most likely fate then. That will teach you!

In the States, in many states, you can shoot an intruder stone dead, just for intruding, and never mind what he's up to in your home. Some exceptions do apply, though, as in the case of that guy who was convicted of murder for killing a German exchange student who had merely sneaked into his open garage, deliberately left open, to steal some beer. Both of them got that one wrong.

You guys who always need to have hissy fits about the way it's done in the States ... what is your problem anyway? You live someplace where they do it all very differently, right? It's not as if you are at risk of being shanghaied to Texas, is it? You might fit in Austin with this lame "sit down to pee" mindset, but nowhere else, so that I guess you are going to stay home and work off some steam posting about how others choose to live. Get a life!
chuks is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.