New Mars Forums

Many of our police oppose gun control. I've gone shooting with a few of them, they recognize that it's a bad idea because the people that they have to worry about shooting at them won't be stopped by yet another law. Criminals are funny that way, always breaking the law.

Where did they go and what were they doing when they were stopped? I'm the first to agree that American police can be real pricks and are particularly anal about speeding compared to other nations, but never once have I had a cop approach me with a gun drawn during a traffic stop.  There's something that doesn't jive about the story, some piece of information that's missing.

But again, when police stop people here they can be divided into three types. Those without weapons, those legally carrying weapons, and those illegaly carrying weapons. Only the last group is a threat and the police generally act accordingly. If you have a legal weapon, they ask where it is, you show them, sometimes they ask you to unload it and set in on the roof while they run your driver's license. It's just not something law enforcement worries about, anyone legally carrying a gun isn't a threat to them.

No, I'm not. There are statistics of crimes being prevented with privately owned firearms, though mostly at the state and local levels rather than nationwide studies. Sometimes the attacker is killed, but far more often merely brandishing the weapon ends the attack. There are also secondary statistics on crimes committed on victims who had neither the means to protect themselves nor the opportunity/time to call the police. No, I've talked to too many people who are alive and/or unviolated today solely because they had a weapon to brush them off as "pretend."

And yes, there are women here who have guns in their bags. There's no way to tell which ones just by looking, and that's kind of the point.

I agree with you here, though don't put too much stock in our movies.  American housing is poorly built. But that's only half the problem, a weapon gives a person some means of protection outside the home as well. Cops can't be there all the time.

Such incidents are a tiny, statistically insignificant percentage of the total homicide rate. They get alot of press coverage because they're dramatic, but they're flukes. Making policy based on such flukes would be like saying trains are bad because Nazis used them. It's silly.

Spoons don't make people fat and guns don't kill people. It's the person, not the tool.

But there's something that needs to be pointed out here and I'd be remiss if I didn't mention it. Guns are more available here than elsewhere, making it easier for crazy people to do crazy things even though they have to break the law by stealing the weapons.

But 50 years ago guns were much easier to get and we didn't have anywhere near the crime rate. We didn't have shooting rampages in schools. So how is it that guns are the problem now, but they weren't in 1950 when a 17 year old could walk into Sears and buy one with no paperwork? Or 1930 when that same 17 year old could buy a machine gun with no paperwork?

No, blaming an inanimate object for social ills is an admission that one doesn't know the real cause and has no idea how to address it. It's floundering and stalling. And in this case, it would only make it worse by disarming the victims and emboldening the criminals.

Incindentally, schools are considered "gun free zones." Weapons aren't allowed. All those defenseless people scurrying about in a panic. Is it a coincidence they are popular targets of shooting sprees? If guns were the problem, we'd expect these things to happen at, oh, gun shops maybe.

If gun control works for the French and Canadians, keep at it and good luck. But it wouldn't work here, it's failed miserably every time it's been tried. As our capitol illustrates.

What we have here may be one of those cultural differences that prevents a full understanding between the participants. Canada, France and the US are very different places. Things work differently, the people are different, social forces are different. For the time being and for whatever reasons, right now the most unsafe places to live in America are the very places with the strictest gun laws. And that is statistical fact.

So much horse excrement in this discussion I don't know where to start. . .

Let's cut through the bull and break this all down, shall we? First, the assertion that America is causing more terrorism by its actions. Sure, that's a valid point. In the same way that resisting any opponent causes a war. Now I know Iraq had no working relationship with Al Qaeda and probably not much of a WMD program. But those things aren't the issue and to pretend they are is willful ignorance. The only reason anyone gives a damn about the MidEast is oil. Oil is why we put up with their backwardness, oil is why they have the illusion of functioning modern societies. Without oil, the Middle East is Africa with fewer trees. Iraq is about oil. Not stealing it like the knee-jerk Bush-haters like to claim, but securing a foothold and maintainign some semblance of order in the region that produces it.

Some would call Iraq the exact opposite of order, but from a global standpoint of regional leverage over oil production, it's not so chaotic as it seems. Petrol and Euros and bombs, oh my. . .

On one point Tom is right, there is a conflict of civilizations here. I'm not saying that all Muslims are terrorists waiting to happen, but there's a reason that the Muslim world so easily swings en masse against the West. Not just America, the West as a whole. Even the oh so accomodating France, as recent events illustrate.

We like to talk about multi-culturalism, self determination of peoples and other such feel-good rot, but it's all fantasy. Any nation, I don't care if it's the US, Britain, France, Iran, or North Korea has a sovereign right to keep out whomever they feel like. If a group of immigrants don't mesh with the host country's culture and values, it only makes sense for that country to not want them there.

But the US violated that by invading Iraq and Afghanistan!! Yes. That's why it's called an invasion. We didn't send 150,000 soldiers to "temporarily immigrate" into Iraq. Clear violation of sovereign rights.

Only it's playing out the other way too, but more subtlely. When people move into one country but retain stronger ties to their old culture than the new one they live in, they're foreign colonists. It doesn't matter if it's Arab Muslims in Britain, North African Muslims in France, Mexicans illegaly in the US or American oil workers in Saudi Arabia. To live in a place implies a certain acceptance and conformity to the local ways. Anything less is an invading element.

Add to this that numerous Muslims, both laymen and leaders in some Western countries have openly stated that they have no intention of assimilating and the problem becomes quite clear. No nation is obligated to tolerate foreign invaders. If the Iraqi's have the right to forcefully expel American troops (and I'd argue they do) then the people of other states have the same right to forcefully expel any invasive element in their lands.

Unfortunately very few Muslims speak out to condemn the rhetoric and actions of this minority element within their population. That makes it very easy to blanket them all.

But there's another factor here to consider. It isn't about fairness and we aren't all simply going to stay in our own countries and be happy. Humans don't work that way. Human societies, like everything else in the world, adhere to the simple rule that for anything to live, something else must die. Nothing exists in a vacuum.

I'm partial to Western civilization, the Anglo-American variety preferably. I have no desire to lay waste to anyone, but if it comes down to us or them. . . I have no qualms about make sure it's them that go the way of the dinosaur.

Are we using the best strategy to bring out a favorable outcome for ourselves at the moment? No, clearly not. Too many blunders have been made, too many shots have been called. Cowboys don't win chess tournaments, to use DonPanic's analogy.

But make no mistake, we're not the only player at the board and the opponent is using our own blindness and delusions against us. Hostile elements are seeping into Western states that are so terrified of being labeled "racist" that they won't even discuss whether there's a problem. Well, I don't care if someone wants to call me racist, even if I do reject the label.

I hate on a case by case basis.

When a foreign population moves in, doesn't speak the language, holds values at odds with the host nation's and cluster together into enclave communities while (actively or passively) undermining the sovereignty of the state in which they reside. . . That's a problem, I don't care what country we're talking about.

Bringing us to a comment by Stormrage:

That is the sort of thing one of those hostile, invasive elements would say. Don't be surprised when your fellow residents of Britain backlash against such sentiments because I assure you, for them it would most certainly not be a happy place if the MidEast fell entirely into the thrall of Islamic nutjobs, sparking all-out war with Israel and massive disruptions to the entire world economy.

And even though you'd come to realize that it isn't such a happy place, your fellow Britons won't be so forgiving of those who cheered it on.

Clark makes a good point albeit it not entirely by design, blaming any of this on a single religion in its entirety is grossly oversimplifying the matter with a blanket statement.

But then reducing it to economics is no better. Reality is more complex than that.

It just so happens the Middle East is not only overwhelmingly Islamic, a religion that does contain plentiful impetus to wage war in its name, but is also full of oil rich countries run by corrupt autocrats. Most of the people are poor, but it isn't simply because they're exploited by outside powers via their own governments. Middle Eastern nations for the most part have never developed functioning economies, everything is based on oil. It's as though one of us had a beer tree in our yard, the only source around, and we could just sell people cases all day with no effort beyond picking them. No real skills, no need for them. Just load it up and collect the money. It's almost like being on welfare but with the illusion of self-sufficiency. It destroys the capacity to do anything else.

Woe to us if that beer tree ever dies.

Add to that, Arabic culture is very macho. The man is king and they teach themselves that theirs is the greatest society in the world, favored by Allah above all. And yet they look around and what do they see? In every sphere of endeavor they are surpassed by both the West and the East.  "At least we're not Africa" could be the motto for the whole region. Quite a kick in the gonads ain't it?

Now, take a big dose of constant humiliation at having not accomplished anything of note for the better part of 800 years, add a dysfunctional oil economy that must import almost everything, mix in some religious fervor and the orgasmic thrill of impending matrydom and there we are, recipe for crazy jihad fun.

We can't simply convince them that Islam is a religion of peace. We can't just "educate" them and expect that the problem will go away. We can't pretend that if only they weren't so poor they'd mellow out, alot of terrorists tend to come from middle class, educated backgrounds rather than the poor ignorant masses. There's more than poverty and ignorance at work here.

Previous eras have models that could be followed for remaking that society of course, none of them 100% successful. the Japan "crush them until they give up against overwhelming force then occupy the crap out of them" method isn't going to fly these days, not without much more provocation.

"Kill everyone" is just so crude and leaves a sour taste. And the cleanup is obscene.

Leaving "go live there" as an outside chance for success. Colonial-Lite if you will, enough close contact to start molding the culture as well as improving education and economic prospects.

Hey, I don't print the cards, I just call the hand as it hits the table.

With you there.

Yep, well said.

No true. Such thinking is rooted in the relatively modern assumption that nation-states are the only entities that wage wars. Wars can be (and historically have been) waged by families, tribes, business interests, churches and other non-state entities. Such warfare is already making a comeback, see Hezbollah, al Qaeda et al. In military circles it's referred to as Fourth Generation Warfare.

War is a given, it's a function of human presence anywhere.

Moving on to the Roman comparison, that makes some good points. Some government is good, otherwise we're left with that "perfect state of nature" in which the strong prey upon the weak with no recourse for anyone. In the case of Mars it would be beneficial to have some government, some coherent rules for how colonies conduct their business and relate to each other, standards for communication, transport and such. But a government can be large in scope but small in footprint. That's what we need, a government that covers Mars as well as it's relations with Earth but without interfering in the day to day business of people's lives like nearly every functioning government on this planet currently does.

Government is good when it minds government's business. When it meddles in the business of the citizenry it is at best a burden and at worst a tyranny.

Posts are wiped. Two in every section. Josh, please ban this wanker before I hunt him down and hang him with his own entrails. . .

It's great getting him all worked up like that. 

Welcome RIZ4ROCKET.

He said we were going, but never to my knowledge nor in any of the records available to me was the "within a decade" timeframe either stated or implied. From day one the "Vision" has entailed a Lunar detour followed by Mars missions sometime in the 2020-2030 range.

To that end, the program is going forward. Hardware is being designed, red tape being unfurled, and NASA is undergoing a much needed and long overdue shift back to being destination-driven. It's a mess and will be for awhile, but it is progress.

But it's not just about "stuff," it's about principle and the cumulative affect of letting things slide. If people don't fight burglars, what's to stop them from burgling? Police? Laughable, you call the police after the crime and tell them some guy in a mask stole your stereo? He'll be back.

Now you catch him in the act and give him a good whoopin' then suddenly we have a level of deterence. Contrary to popular misconception police don't prevent crimes, they show up after crimes and more often than not they never catch the guy. It's up to citizens like you and me to deter crime by making it harder. Raise the risk side of the risk/reward equation for the criminal.

Going to another level, say you stand by as some goon robs your house because "stuff isn't worth risking injury." You've advertised that you won't lift a finger, you will be robbed again. Does an increase in criminals breaking into your home increase or decrease your chances of being attacked?

To advocate non-action against criminals is an irrational and immoral position. It breeds crime and through that endangers everyone.

Welcome to the Skull and Bones gang Rxke! Now you can dispense dictatorial decrees and indiscriminate censorship with us! 

Why are divorces so expensive? Because they're worth it. 

But the Moon isn't. It's not good colonization real estate. Research, mining, bases, testing. But not cities.

I couldn't agree more.

Further, a nation that does "big things" will always have a certain attitude and way of conducting itself that could be interpreted as arrogance. So many Americans are terrified of being perceived as arrogant for reasons that elude me.

Well, I have some theories but none of them flattering.

Let's get off our collective butts and strive for greatness again people. Whining of the meek be damned.

I call it firewood.   :twisted: