We are no different than any other wild animal. Feed us, cloth us, give us shelter, and we lose the skills necessary to survive independently. I to grew up watching my grandfather, born in 1888, as he farmed his land, went to the ice house for blocks of ice for his icebox, plowed town roads with his tractor in winter to pay his real estate taxes, dig a new privy, shoot and hang deer for food for him and my grandmother, hand pump water into the kitchen sink, and so on and so forth. If he didn't do these things, he didn't survive.
Honestly? Through the idiocy and systemic racism of the so-called "Drug War". We incarcerate low-income minorities for life for non-violent drug crimes while giving white elites slaps on the wrist. Then, whenever the prisons run out of room and have to start reducing prison populations, they tend to release the murderers and rapists before they release those incarcerated for drug crimes. There's a "warped ideology" all right, but mine isn't it. The "reality of crime" in the US is that our priorities in fighting it are screwed up. We are supposed to be a free society, where the rights of the individual are paramount... and we work too hard to protect the rights of the perpetrator over the rights of the victim. As a free society we bear a certain responsibility for our own security, and too few accept that responsibility. Most people go through life expecting someone else to come save them when they are confronted by violent criminals; criminals who go through a revolving door of incarceration that returns them to society not rehabilitated but only with the training to be even more dangerous.
Certainly a pertinent issue, but it goes beyond that. Focus, for example, on the inequalities (e.g. inequality of opportunity regarding education). This makes a mockery of any approach focused on individualism. In addition, the high prison propulation is rather inconvenient for deterrence theory (which is often applied by pro-gunners). If deterrence operated, as expected, higher prison populations should be associated with falling crime rates. Any country with such high poverty and low social mobility isn't really freindly to the 'rights of the individual'. Its, by definition, class ridden.
I'm not arguing that we're a nation of equal opportunity; though of all nations we should understand the necessity to be. One cannot hide from the fact that there is tremendous inequity that prevent many from having the same chances for success as others, and this needs to change. Deterrence would be fine if incarceration operated as it is supposed to... but it doesn't. In some strata, having been to prison is considered a status symbol. Prisons enable inmates to learn from others how to be better criminals. Many serve ludicrously short sentences for truly savage crimes... and come out of the system even more hardened and violent than they were before they went in. Incarceration can't achieve deterrence if the prisoners don't fear it, but instead, look upon it with anticipation. ...And we need to get our priorities straightened out. Our entire political system has been corrupted to reinforce the social inequities, divide the populace along political, religious, ethnic, and racial lines, and to feed the power and wealth of the true engineers of power. Our Constitution has been ignored or even blatantly defied, and no one seems interested in acting to see that changed in any substantive way. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance... and the American people are more vigilant regarding the next sale at Bed, Bath, and Beyond than they are in being vigilant in defense of their own rights and freedoms.
Can a country really embrace individualism if it denies equality of opportunity? A high prison population should, if you buy deterrence, increase the costs associated with crime and therefore reduce crime rates. That economic factors are dominating indicates big problems for the US. Race is typically used as an excuse. Its all about class. The US is class ridden and is on a par with Dickensian Britain. Charles wasn't a fan of American much mind you: "These are the weapons of Freedom. With sharp points and edges such as these, Liberty in America hews and hacks her slaves; or, failing that pursuit, her sons devote them to a better use, and turn them on each other."
As a nation based in the concept that ALL men are created equal, the United States needs to stop turning its back on its founding ideals, and instead fight tooth and nail to live up to them. The battle against crime and violence is far more complex than that. Well, I don't really care about the views of people whose only interest is badmouthing my country. My country has its flaws, that is true. But the ideals we were founded on remain worthy of fighting for. We may not always (or even often) live up to those ideals, but I continue to find them meritorious and worthy of striving for.
That would arguably entail being liberal or social democratic (given such countries pursue equality of opportunity) Not according to deterrence theory. Charles Dickens of course started with high hopes for the US, particularly in trying to show an example for Mother England. His views on firearms, however, tainted his views. It was also noticable that he linked it to slavery and a viciousness which was ultimately anti-individualism.
Arguably, I don't see it that way. I recognize the dangers of rampant democracy, and don't trust liberal or social democracy in the least. A theory I don't subscribe to. As I've said before, I acknowledge the myriad of ways that the U.S. has betrayed its own ideals regarding its treatment of its own people. Instead of suppressing/oppressing people, we should be making sure everyone has the same opportunities to succeed (or fail) on their own.
Which is what delivered rampant inequalities and destroyed any chance of individualism. There's a reason these countries have higher rates of self employment. Without deterrence theory, the likes of Lott and Kleck have very little to justify their conclusions. How? The US is neoliberal (I.e. adopts market fundamentalism). That's obviously failed!
You have your worldview, and I have mine. I don't know you, so I don't know what life lessons you've had that made you see the world the way you do; but based on what you present here you seem to be someone who wants to believe the complexities of life to be distilled down into econometric data. That raw figures and simple statistics can explain why things are what they are, or that things happen the way they do. As such, you look at the raw numbers devoid of nuance and accept the conclusions of the researchers all striving to be able to make life be definable by math. I was raised differently, by a different type of people in a different culture. Their beliefs could be very fundamental, certainly; but the circumstances of their culture and society created variables that were contraindicated by simple econometrics. It was a society that embodied the whole "an armed society is a polite society" and in defiance of the claim that "more guns = more crime" they had a society that was relatively peaceful. Individualism was not just a theory but a way of life, and one that ironically created a more harmonious society where people looked out for their neighbors and gave a helping hand when needed. People were independent and self-sufficient... which made them more generous in sharing their surpluses with their fellow citizens when they were in need; knowing that if they faced hardship their community would rally to support them. Nothing is definable by simplistic terms. There are places where "deterrence theory" might actually work; but not in others. There are too many variables, which boil down to something surprisingly simple: People need to learn how to stand up for themselves, and to take responsibility for themselves. When we learn to do that as an entire nation, we will be better for it. That's your opinion. Our economy is strong and getting stronger, and is one of the most powerful in the world right now. It's not perfect, but it's hardly "failed" by that benchmark. However, I will acknowledge that at this time our strong economy is not truly equitable for all citizens. We, as a nation, need to figure out how to make sure every American has the same chances and the same opportunities as any other citizen for financial and personal success; but we will only achieve it if we elevate all citizens, not try to elevate some while suppressing others. Then and only then will people truly be able to seize control of their own destinies, to understand their actions have consequences, and to take responsibility for their own choices, come what may.
All I said was that liberal and social democratic countries have higher self-employment rates. Do you find such example of individualism problematic? You've gone off on one with your reference to econometrics. Hypothesis testing is used by both sides of the gun debate. It just happens that most of it is inconvenient for your bias! I hope you shed a little tear when typing that inane nostalgia. You'll be saying the American Dream is real next! You're still arguing against the theory used by pro-gunners. I find a level of amusement in that. Irrelevant. Of course there are multiple variables. You'd have to show omitted variable bias. Given your class limitations, good luck with that! Nope. It was factual. The US is neoliberal. That's the real problem. You're a flag waver, rather than an individualist. The US economy isn't strong, except if you're a 1 percenter. For the majority, there is only wage underpayment and very little opportunity for change. Bit obvious really, given you ape the class ridden limeys! Soundbite guff! You forgot to mention 'how'
Why the same way Hoover promised a chicken in every pot and 2 cars in every garage ! By art of magic ! Here in the U.S. there is no peerage.
My post was true. Herbert Hoover did not prove how he was going to pull off prosperity to provide a chicken in every pot and 2 cars in every garage. And we have no royalty in America. Although I am a hereditary Baron and Knight of Spain, lol......
True. But the point is that you don't need to be good with a gun to be dangerous with a gun. Merely being able to fire it increases your personal threat level, and a group of armed people are a dramatically higher potential threat than a group of unarmed people, regardless of their skill.
Sorry, but I could not understand that at all and I am no newbie to firearms and firearms training etc etc..... To me not being good with firearms and dangerous sounds like a dangerous combination, and I Worked a very long time and expended mountains of ammo to become a fairly decent shot.
Criminals arent concerned with how skillfully you can shoot back, but merely that you can at all. Does that make more sense? Of course the more skilled you are, the greater your ability to defend yourself, and no experience whatsoever can easily become a detriment, but the threat increase of potential lethality exists regardless by merely having a firearm, a dynamic that doesnt exist with other weapons.
The inability on the part of yourself to accept what is ultimately reality, is not the fault of anyone present except for that of yourself. Reality is not something that can be typified, codified, and explained away with matters of mathematical equation, no matter how advanced the science behind the equation may be. Despite the best attempts of economists and others who hold degrees, there is simply no way to reliably predict what is ultimately the result of basic human nature, which itself is deeply rooted in the element of chaos.
You don't have reality. You have tabloidism. Happy of course for you to critique deterrence theory. Seems counterproductive mind you, given it's a central plank of the pro gunner position.
Reality is individuals engaging in behavior that is devoid of sound logic, in a manner that does not conform to what is predicted by so-called "experts" on matters pertaining to economics. There is no rational, logical reason for someone to commit murder, or participate in the use or distribution of prohibited narcotic substances, and yet they choose to do so regardless.
It continues to fascinate me that you're whinging about deterrence when it's theory used by pro gunners...
