posted
Those of you who follow US news know that the Supreme Court recently held, for the first time, that the Second Amendment to the US Constitution protects an individual right to possess usable firearms in a functional state for hunting, self-defense, and resisting tyranny.
It's been educational watching reactions to the decision. The majority of Americans expressed relief at the opinion--relief that what they see as common sense and right reason prevailed. A lot of Britons and other Europeans are scratching their heads in complete incomprehension of how a civilized country can not only allow its citizens to own weapons, but say that there is a fundamental right to do so.
The basic social and political assumptions between these two groups are so different, each position is almost incomprehensible to the other. It's a good lesson for writing--sometimes people (or cultures) differ so greatly, and in such fundamental ways, that they literally cannot understand each other.
posted
Geography is probably part of it. (Among a bazillion other things). Colorado, for instance, is twice the size of England. The US has so much rural land by comparison that hunting is more of a viable option. Hunting = guns. But guns for self-defense--I'm not a big fan of that, then again, I'm not a 100 lb woman living alone or riding the subway.
posted
This is hardly a new thing. The number of times Europeans (including inhabitants of the UK) have expressed amazement at the way things are done in the United States are virtually infinite---with the only constant being that the way Europeans do things is always the better way.
The United States is loaded with the descendents of people who didn't think so and didn't want to do things the way they were done back in the old country---wherever that happened to be. Those still in the old countries should keep that in mind.
I'd discuss the Second Amendment issue, but it veers even more closely to politics than the above---but if it comes up, I'll contribute before things get shut down, if I make it back here before then.
[edited to remove an extraneous "s"]
[This message has been edited by Robert Nowall (edited July 03, 2008).]
posted
Let me clarify, before the inevitable descent / KD intervention / shutdown--that the purpose of the thread is the discussion of the ways in which cultures misunderstand each other--specifically the ways in which differing fundamental assumptions prevent comprehension. The Second Amendment case is merely a good example of the phenomenon.
Posts: 683 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
My father is from a small town in the Appalachias, my mother from Richmond. When my uncles came down, he went hunting with them. She hated that. It was a point of contention growing up. He said he did it to get out in the woods and spend time with his brothers. Of course, why he couldn't do that without killing, I didn't quite get.
At times, he seemed to have little compassion for animals, almost as if they had no thoughts or feeling. Me, I've only gone fishing with him a handful of times. I never liked making the fish suffer, nor did I care for the taste of fish. I refused to go hunting with him, but he did hand me a shotgun once for target practice. I gave it a try. It never enamored me to weapons.
Five months ago, I decided to go vegetarian, or at least try for a time. It's been much easier than I thought.
Guns are among those rights I don't even want, along with smoking, drinking, gambling, ect... while essential things, such as a right to not have ones job opportunities outsourced isn't in the cards.
Yes, it is I, She Who Must Be Obeyed! I am descending to see what the heck is going on here, brandishing my sword (or scythe or whatever it is you all think I brandish) and glaring with my evil eye at anyone who wants to try to disagree.
Okay, now that I've gotten that out of my system, and before any of this gets too political, I'd like to say that I honestly believe that this discussion can be about cultural differences without offending anyone or hurting anyone's feelings.
All I ask is that people try to couch their statements in such expressions as "in my experience" and "I've heard, but I don't know that" and "what about people who say/think/believe" and avoid expressions (or implications even) that sound like "well, only idiots think that" and "people who are pig-headed or don't know any better should keep their mouths shut" or whatever else insulting you can think of because you don't like what someone else has said.
If you can't make your point without bringing politics or nationalism or name-calling or anger or disgust or frustration into your post, then PLEASE, don't post.
posted
Jumping into a Chariot of Fire, I cackle and say to myself, "There's more than one way to shut down a topic," and up, up, up into the intelligentisphere I go.
Posts: 8826 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
As someone said, there are zillions of factors to why things are different in any of the new countries, compared to old countries. Most old countries are tradition driven. One follows the old ways as they have to be the best way to do it. The new countries are more market driven. "I am sure I can do better than him. Let me try this way instead." each person does something a little difference, sometimes better than anybody else before. Here in America, there is a joke "Tradition is the way you did things, before you found a better way to do it."
Understanding the reasons for the differences really makes a difference.
Traditional clothing is an example. Each society, until recently, developed the optimal clothing for their life style. Before glue, Velcro, plastics, cheep cloth, the traditional clothing that tourists look for was quite logical. there were no bobby pins, elastic bands, hair spray. Women wore ribbons and scarves to hold their hair in place. zippers did not exist so clothing had sashes and ties to hold them closed. Most clothing was utilitarian, worn at all times, out in the field or at a posh event.
In the Middle East, their clothing, is perfectly suited for the desert. The loose robes hold the heat away from the body, the air can circulate around it. the cloths down the back keeps the neck out of the sun.
The Greek and Roman robes had a similar effect, both for warm climates. The leggings and tight clothing of the "barbarians" from the north, fit better to the cold climate as the clothing trapped the heat close to the body, no circulation to steal heat away.
Until heat and air conditioning became cheep, the 1940s and 50s suit, was well designed for the American life style in the norther climates. The tie, suit, and hat were the rage. The tie covered the heat leaking button area of the shirt, assisting to keep you warm. The hat contained the heat that would normally bleed off from the head. Nowadays, American clothing is almost completely according to personal style.
In Europe, the governments have always been in charge, and it has always been the government's job to keep the piece, protect the people, and protect the interest of those in charge. Any weapon that put the population on par with the law enforcement was forbidden. The sword was not allowed in Japan unless one was a Samari. The people took to learning to use garden impliments for battle. In Europe, only the government was allowed to carry guns. For decades, Bobbies in England traveled around with only a night stick as their only weapon. No one else was armed.
In America, there was no government in charge in the beginning. People had to use their gun for food, and also for protection. It was almost a requirement to be fully capable with a weapon. Later, the very act of rebellion changed the nature of the country. They no longer trusted the government, any government. A large group of armed citizens would be a good challenge for any military. This last fact was why the second amendment was written. It gave the people the right to "change" governments when needed.
People are in charge if the government fears people. Governments are in charge when people fear the government.
Japan is extremely traditional. Father teaches son, who teaches his son. Family businesses are passed down for generations. In a woodworking magazine I read this year, some families never even heard of a wood turning tool commonly used in the United States. Other families use them all the time. The difference is what the originator of the family business knew. They will train, just sharpening tools, before they can even touch wood. In Europe, blacksmiths go through five years of training under a master, before they can become a journeyman to learn with other masters before they gain enough money and tools to go out on their own. In America, it was only three years.
Understanding the traditions, or lack of them, makes for an excellent effect for a story. Have a reason for everything. Style might be a starting point, but then make everything of the style logical, meaningful, utilitarian.
posted
I think the European perspective is fairly simple:
Wrongly used, machines designed for peaceful use can kill.
Thus, cars and drivers are licensed. So are airplanes and pilots. Why not guns and their pilots?
If you do the statistics, more guns = more gun-related deaths.
That said, we Europeans don't understand until we visit that in America guns are more useful than in most of Europe simply because we don't have killer animals like bears and snakes in our backyards.
Great Britain, if not Eurpope, also has the concept that if police do not carry guns, criminals are less likely to carry and kill with them. I've discussed it with Americans, cops included, and it's a totally alien concept; yet to us it's uttterly credible and we experience it for real every day--our cops are not armed routinely and our cities feel less dangerous as a consequence.
All the above is up for debate, and quite reasonably so. The right answer is probably neither and both and somewhere in between.
The really sad thing about the American debate is this: there isn't one.
There's no debate about whether gun control is a good idea now, today, in 2008. The debate is about what the Constitution meant when it was written hundreds of years ago.
The people who wrote the American Constitution were profoundly wise in my opinion. They did a better job than anything we have here in England. (Dammit, we don't even have two elected Houses.) But I don't think even they were capable of knowing what would be good for America now, today, when you can buy efficient guns at Sports Authority or a gun show. Any angst-ridden teenager can purchase the equivalent of an old-time battalion of fire power in a convenient automatic package that can be slung over a shoulder. I don't believe the writers of the Constitution intended that ordinary citizens should have the right to bear entire armories.
Since it has become constitutional (and should not have done; the constitution should have been about governance) the debate cannot be resolved democratically in either of the elected Houses. The debate has become a competition to influence the Supreme Court. The President tries to pack it with people who will agree with him on a few emotive issues like gun control and abortion, and democratic debate is no more.
This is far deeper than nations misunderstanding each other. It's about how to manage democracy.
In Europe, we don't manage democracy properly either, with our British House of (unelected) Lords, a Scottish Parliament yet no English Parliament, and a European government that the BBC doesn't even bother telling us about because, although they pass laws that govern us all, they avoid public dramatic conflict and thus are deemed not newsworthy. So we don't have democratic debate on the important issues either, dammit.
posted
There's a cultural difference right there, between the United States and Europe---democracy isn't something that should be "managed"---either the people have a say in how they're governed (as in the United States) or they don't (as in the evolving European Union).
Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In creating a society for our stories, the history of the government is important.
Nations develop on their own, choose kings who are good leaders. People are valuable and to be protected. One example is the "vikings" (I dislike the term but it fits for the three races that made them up their common society). They had clan leaders who were selected by their clans, and the clan leaders who showed real promise became in essence like kings, but held their power only as long as they were better than anybody else.
Nations that are conquered on the other hand, have leaders that were selected by others, for reasons other than ability, such as being the spawn of the general that conquered the land or of the family of a captain of the general. People are possessions, slaves, serving the local lord like cattle pulling plows. If there is a dispute between the lords and those demanding to be king, The lords, their soldiers, and their families might be granted passage to safety, but the people and their crops would be stripped from the land as revenge. The idea was to punish the lord for being on the wrong side of the challange for power. The people may later regain their freedom, their loyalty to the government, whatever their form, remains until a real upset happens.
Before the turn of the century, The constitution of the United States and the English Common law, was the law of the land. The idea of education was to be able to read them well enough to know your rights. The Constitution was, by the way, written strictly to dictate the limits of the government. If it was not enumerated in the constitution, the government could not do it. The federal government's only job was to settle disputes, between individuals, states, and other nations. It did not have the power to do "good". It depended totally on the approval of the people to exist. The armed population cold replace the government, or at least those who were in power, at any time. One forefather said that a periodic revolution is sometimes necessary for the good of the nation. After the twentieth Century started, the politicians in control at the time decided to make changes. Now, case law is supreme rather than English Common Law. The government now developed a fear of armed population and worked hard to remove the arms. An example of why government fears an armed population, was that after World War Two, a local county political organization was trying to fix the election of those in the county power. They had only one polling place opened, which was not enough for the population. Solders who returned from the war knew something about guns, so they gathered their home rifles and pistols and showed up in force. After a short gun exchange, the local sharrif and his deputies surrendered. The poling place was kept open until all the people voted. The local thuggish political machine was beaten in the polls. That is an example of why an armed population is to be feared by the government.
Also keep in note that all over the world, places where there are high population concentrations, biggest cities esepcially, the people love government in whatever form it is, and are very distasteful of weapons of any kind. Low population density areas, out in the "country" have a stronger distaste for government and tend to love weapons. The reason for this is that in the country, the people have to depend on themselves for everything. There is an independence mind set. In the cities, government provides streets, fuel, lighting, law enforcement. No one does everything for themselves, they are dependent on others for everything. They pay their taxes and reap the benefits of the efforts of others.
Another thing to consider. You will always have criminals. Crime tends to be an act of opportunity. An open gate, an open window, knowledge of the practices of the victims. The criminal will take the opportunity to make a gain at the expense of others. In a society where the criminal is not sure if their victim is armed and knows how to use it, they were be very cautious about committing their crimes as they could well be hurt or killed. In an unarmed society the criminal does not have to worry about being harmed as they know no one is armed. They will find a way to get weapons, and they will become bolder in their crimes. You hear stories of gunmen going crazy in some location. Usually, you will hear than they are stopped by someone else with a weapon, usually police. Consider, though, if these same situations happen when everybody on the street has the opportunity to carry weapons. The situations ends after a couple rounds. rather than a long drawn out affair. Yes, there might be a couple gun battles, but it won't take long for criminals to realize that they are not going to get away with such crimes and it will reduce in incidents. Gun laws only effect the law abiding. It never effects criminals. They are criminals for a reason.
Sorry it turned close to being a rant. I was mainly giving examples for why such mind sets exist and their effects.
As said above, choosing the history of the society will effect how the society now will look. Most fantasy stories happen where there is no "king" and resulting lords existing to clear out thief camps and protect the roads. Keep in mind that the lords traveled with small armies when they went visiting as they needed the protection of high numbers to deal with criminals in their territories. Anybody in these stories that travel will likely be armed in some way and know how to use it. Whatever weapon thet might be used.
posted
I agree that there is a cultural difference between European and American (as in US) attitudes to guns. I'm in England, and have travelled around a lot of Europe, but never to the US, so my experience is limited. I was a member of the Territorial Army for 3 years while I was at university (got paid for it, and got to do loads of stuff I probably never would have done) so am comfortable with guns in a way that most people here aren't. That said, If I were allowed to have a gun at home, I wouldn't. Though I do sleep with a cricket bat by my bed. How terribly English am I sounding? Someone once said to me that applications to own guns should have only one question: 'Would you like to have a gun?' If the answer was 'yes' then you were obviously unsuitable.
I can't say I know as much about it as other people who have posted so I'll keep my observations limited. The American right to bear arms (I forget which article/amaendment it is - sorry) seems to me to be born out of both the way the states gained independence and the fact that the country was not yet established, in terms of pioneerts still moving into territory not yet governed by the new government, while in Europe (though I'm probably referring to the UK more than anything) the governments were already established and able to control things much more. I'm not too sure what I exactly mean by that, but a normal person with a gun posed a threat to the status quo, rather than a means of protecting it.
I accept the point that criminals will always be able to get hold of guns, but I do think our cities are relatively safe. At least in terms of getting shot. Stabbings is another matter; the focus in the news is heavily on the amount of stabbings among teenagers, and I know that we are currently moving towards a culture where teenagers routinely carry knives, many of them using the justification 'its for my protection'. I've lived in some dodgy areas of Liverpool and London but never really felt in any real danger. But then as Jamie said, I'm not a 100lb woman.
posted
Being British, I think it's crazy to have a 'right' to carry firearms. I don't want to be offensive to anyone, but there's no point pretending about the way I feel. Some of the most highly publicised gang shootings in Britain have been round here, and a lot more that haven't hit the headlines; one was the son of a friend of my wife's. But most of the guns are either imitations or reactivated weapons. 'Real' ones are around, and are far too easy to get hold of, but I dread to think how many people would get shot if anyone could just go and buy one.
Namissa is from a very different culture, and I've been living with one foot in Britain and one in Africa for many years. The obvious things which people think are going to cause problems - skin colour, religious differences (I'm Methodist, she's Muslim) are precisely the things we've never had any reason to argue about. What can cause mixups, and often did in the first couple of years we were together, is different assumptions, and the way we use the same wortd to mean different things. So to me 'plenty' used to mean 'enough', while to her it meant 'far too much'. At one time it caused endless chaos over the amount of food I wanted on my plate.
quote:The obvious things which people think are going to cause problems - skin colour, religious differences (I'm Methodist, she's Muslim) are precisely the things we've never had any reason to argue about. What can cause mixups, and often did in the first couple of years we were together, is different assumptions, and the way we use the same wortd to mean different things. So to me 'plenty' used to mean 'enough', while to her it meant 'far too much'. At one time it caused endless chaos over the amount of food I wanted on my plate.
This is great. These kind of cultural mixups are what can really make a story interesting and can deepen characters. We all have things that we take for granted without even realizing it, and unless we run into someone who takes them for granted in an entirely different way, we never even know.
Could this topic focus on experiences we've had with the little misunderstandings that show us how different we are, instead of the big "national" things?
We could learn a lot from each other that could be a great help in characterization, if nothing else.
posted
I do intend to follow Kathleen's suggestion, truly, but at least want to add the perspective of the 100lb woman -- okay, 120lb.
Yes, it is 2008, but I still live in a very rural area, alone in my home many days and nights with my three young children. My right to own my little five acre corner of the earth goes indispensibly hand-in-hand with my right to defend myself on it. The U.S., more than anything else, is a country of LAND. Individual property rights don't mean much if I don't also have the right to protect myself and my family on that property. There ain' no cop gonna* come to my door in time to help me. There aren't enough of them to cover the territory! There's just too much vastness to much of America. Maybe this is something people can't imagine until they've travelled extensively in a place like the U.S.
Now, I don't have a gun in the house -- I probably should, given my stance, but I am protected in part by the fact that a "bad guy" thinks I COULD have one. A cricket bat isn't going to protect me, my arms are too scrawny and most perpetrators are male.
But the larger issue is really the more interesting one -- am I sensing that some of you who spoke up trust your government to protect you? That would be a very interesting cultural difference, since I suspect most Americans don't trust the government implicitly. We suspect it. Or maybe that's just the rebel in me!
What is it about a culture that leads it to have faith versus distrust in societies institutions... or is it cultural at all?
* okay, my mock-hick language may be a little over the top, but it's fun!
posted
I think you make a good point, though, mitchellworks. People who have only been in the western part of the US don't really understand what it's like to be able to travel through two or three states in one day as can be done in the eastern part of the US.
Conversely, people who have only been in Europe (where it's possible to travel through two or three countries in one day) as well as people who have only been in the eastern part of the US, don't realize how far apart things can be in the western part of the US.
It's a question of scope and what you are used to.
I have a brother who lives in a Chicago suburb (meaning it takes him over an hour to drive into Chicago). He grew up in Utah, so he knows about western spaces, but his attitude toward a one-hour drive is quite different from my attitude, because of where we live (this was even before gas prices went up as they have).
To my brother, a one-hour drive is "nothing," but it's pretty major for me. I find this rather ironic because I live in Utah with its "wide-open spaces," and he lives in Illinois which is in the eastern "half" of the US.
I think the difference may be partly because when you drive a long distance in the West, there's nothing to see (or what there is to see is all the same), and it can get REALLY boring. (Ever heard of white-line fever? It's a night-driving problem, but a similar thing can happen if you are driving during the day in the West.)
posted
Okay, here's a little difference to add to the trend -- when I first moved out from the city to the rural area, I was in constant "wow!" at the beauty. The huge, snowcapped mountains to the south, the pacific ocean to the north. The flat farmland in between, dotted with old farmhouses. I even thought the seagulls were beautiful. People who lived here kind of yawned when I went on about it. I thought I'd never tire of it.
But, here I am, twelve years later, and when friends come out to visit they go on about the beauty, and I'm the one that yawns. Good thing I didn't end up purchasing waterview land -- I'd probably never even notice it. Plus, the taxes!
That's a good reminder for fiction, that longtime members of your world may not appreciate it -- it may take a new member of the world to see it accurately.
posted
I doubt that we English trust our government any more than anyone else, but I think we trust our national institutions like the Police more than most. As children we were taught that you can always ask a policeman the time. In a town centre, then and now, they walk around, easy to approach. Sometimes as kids we'd ask the time, or for directions to somewhere, and get what we wanted with a smile and maybe a chat. The police knew, then and now, that they maintain public order because we let them, and that through many such little non-threatening interactions they build public trust. It doesn't seem to work so well these days with so much mutual misunderstanding between races and age groups, and with miscreants more likely to be carrying guns or knives.
When we go to vote, there might be a policeman around but he or she is trusted to be keeping the peace, more symbolic than expecting trouble. I cannot recall there ever being a case of the local police influencing an election. That might be because there's an arm's-length relationship between police and politicians. The police manage themselves according to a set of rules and there are no direct political appointees.
I don't know what it's like now, but when I visited America for the first time some twenty or thirty years ago the fire service at Cherry Hill, NJ was voluntary, and apparently typical of many in the US. Ours were and are entirely salaried.
One thing that varies in different countries is sandwiches. In England a sandwich will automatically have butter on the slices of bread. If you ask for mayonnaise you get it as well as the butter. It's pretty much the same all over Europe, I think, the only difference being the style of butter. In Germany and France, for example, butter can be rather sweeter, less salty than England.
But in the USA, butter on sandwiches is alien. You have to ask specifically for it, and sometimes it's just not possible because the sandwich bar doesn't have it. My favourite sport was to corrupt my American friends by teaching them to spread Lurpak butter on crackers, before adding the (English or French) cheese. (It's Danish, deliciously creamy and salty; you have to hunt up-market for it.)
In turn America taught me how sociable it can be to order a pitcher of ale and several glasses, serving each other until it runs out and calling cheerfully for more. It was dangerous to do this with one of my English friends who had a tendency to wave his arms about when making a point. He was calibrated for the height of a pint; when he got excited about whatever he was spouting about, we had to move the taller pitcher out of reach of his drunkenly flailing arms.
In Stuttgart, Germany, there's a wonderful pub where they have been making their own beer for decades. It comes in a little glass, about a third of a pint, and initially you wonder whether the waiters and waitresses will keep up with demand. Well they do. There are dozens of them, and as soon as your glass nears the end another fresh one is automatically sitting there beside it. You ask your host how they keep count (you will drink several, trust me) and you're told to mark your beermat for each glass. It's an honour system--only in Germany, where honesty is expected and more often than not, gotten. Late in the evening you wonder how to stop the glasses coming. Shaking your head or waving them away doesn't appear to work, the staff are too fast--or too determined to keep you drinking. Eventualy you realise that to stop them you must put your beermat on top of your glass. Finally, you hand your beermat over to the cashier at the exit, and try not to sway too much as she tallies the marks and takes your money.
Did you ever wonder why German beermugs have lids? No, neither did I until I was enjoying a glass in a garden in southern Germany's evening summer sunshine. Midges. Tiny flying insects, probably like American "no-see-em's" except they don't bite. They seem to like beer and if you let it sit in an open glass, after a while its beautiful creamy head is littered with little black specks. You either put the beermat on top of the glass while you're chatting, or use a tankard with a lid. Perhaps the silliest drinking custom is the English yard of ale, a glass about a yard long, quite narrow, with a bulb at its base. It's deceptively difficult to drink it in one go without making a complete wet mess of yourself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yard_(beer)
Once in Germany I turned up for work to find the place closed. I checked the list of national holidays they'd given me and it wasn't a holiday. Next day was business as usual.
"Where was everyone yesterday?" I asked.
"On holiday."
"It's not on the list."
"It was a Christian holiday. It's not on the list because everyone knows about it and takes it anyway. Don't they?"
posted
The whole idea of a yard of ale is to give drunken fools a chance to make an exhibition of themselves!
Posts: 185 | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Along the plenty/enough/too much line for food and drink -
We learned when we lived in the Philippines many years ago that it was a sign of politeness to leave a little food on your plate to indicate "Oh this food was so wonderful and satisfying I couldn't possibly eat it all."
This was quite a change from the typical American way of doing things - the "clean plate club."
I find that this cultural trend is something that I noticed and paid attention to, and it made me question that whole clean plate business such that I don't insist on that with my children at all ('course there could be other reasons I decided to do that, but this contributed.)
The logical quote; "punctuation goes outside when citing an excerpt". "Inside when it's part of the citation."
When it's not a citation, say, for dialogue or emphasis, it all goes inside.
The US typesetters' quotes for creative prose; "it all goes inside."
The British quote; 'it all goes outside', unless it's part of the citation. Note the preference is for single quotation marks in English speaking nations other than the US.
In German it's reversed guillemets; »words«
In French and Swiss and Italian and Spanish; it's regular guillemets; «words»
Em dashes bracket dialogue in Continental typesetting, — words — with thin spaces wrapping the phrase.
The reporter's quote; "small stuff goes inside." "The big stuff goes outside"! Unless it's part of the citation, then it all goes inside.
Dashed interruptions; typists' dash--reporters' dash -- nonce dash---typesetters' em dash—. The nonce dash is a special typists' dash for convenient search and replace.
[This message has been edited by extrinsic (edited July 06, 2008).]
posted
I remember seeing the weird British quotation marks custom---you know, a ( ' ) and then ( " ) when its a quote within a quote---when I first read Lord of the Rings. At first I thought it was a weird kind of typo---the edition of The Hobbit I read first didn't do that---but I got used to it within two or three chapters and only noticed it occasionally thereafter.
I've read any number of British-printed books since. What irritates me most is the way British books will change an American writer's choice of words to British spellings---something I've never seen the other way 'round, actually. If I ever got that far, it was something I intended to see to wasn't done with my stuff. (Step One: Get That Far.)
posted
Yes the right to Bear Arms or Arm Bears which ever.
I believe that EVERY MAN, WOMAN, CHILD, OLD PEOLE, ETC should own, know how to use affectively use and keep arms weather it is a rifle, shotgun, hand gun, crossbow, cannon, etc. It is a right every Human has to defend themselves from others. I think if everyone had a firearm there would be affectedly less violent murders, rapes, robberies, scandals, shooting, etc.
posted
Having a gun on them meakes people believe they can play god. That never went well. Playing god I think.
Who is able to have a weapon in their possession? Not people who drink alcohol. And certainly not those who enjoy killing for sport. Play computer games for a period of time and then they go: "Let's do this for real! Yeah!"
Question: why must Americans carry weapons? And why does America have the highest crime rate? Which of these is the cause and which is the consequence? Just wondering.
posted
No, America doses not have the highest crime rate. The 3rd world Muslim countries have the highest crime rate. In Afghanistan I saw connately those fools killing each other, village against village. In Africa there are people killing each other over food and water unlike the US. Now if you Europeans don’t understand, I will break this down easy.
We are the most powerful country in the world because we are aloud to own guns outside the military, police forces. Therefore we can outshoot another military. 98% of people who voluntary join the Army or the Marines already know basic weapon safety, and basic shooting skills.
Also what I don’t understand all these new regulations on getting a firearm. The bottom line is if someone who is unable to get a firearm legally will get it any way they can, such as steal it, have some one who can legally buy a firearm get it for them then pay them for it.
There is no way to truly stop gun violence unless you try to rid the world of ALL firearms. Which is impossible for there will be people such as myself who will hide them and stockpile them along with ammo for them. And then there will be no military or police force that will be armed with firearms so there fore there will be nothing but the “laws” that will be enforced by people like me who stashed firearms and ammo and will eventually overthrow any gun laws.
posted
THE NUMBER ONE DETERRENT FOR VIOLENT CRIMINALS IS A ARMED VICTIME….THUSE NOT A VICTIME As of a survey of jailed Violent Criminals from the early 1990 Posts: 856 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
I know I'm not going to make myself popular with this. Just for the record, my best friend has served in Iraq, and other friends have served in Afghanistan. My former regiment, Kings, have suffered heavy losses in both those countries. I think the action there is necessary, and I have nothing but the utmost respect for those who put their lives on the line to serve their country.
That said, I have to take issue with this:
quote: We are the most powerful country in the world because we are aloud to own guns outside the military, police forces. Therefore we can outshoot another military. 98% of people who voluntary join the Army or the Marines already know basic weapon safety, and basic shooting skills.
That's not the reason you're the most powerful country in the world at all. Simply put, you're the world's only current superpower due to the size of your economy. I don't think that the fact people are already know how to fire a gun before they join the army makes them better soldiers at all. In fact, I think there's something to be said for having to learn thing the army way first time around.
I'm not going to belabour the point. I know you've served in an environment I would run away screaming from, but I just think that you've made several points in that paragraph that I think are factually inaccurate.
the points you make in your last paragraph are undeniably logical. You can't put the contents of Pandora's box back in once you've opened it. What the US has, unlike most countries in 'the west', is widespread ownership of guns for reasons I've alluded to in previous posts. In the UK there was a massive clampdown on gun ownership after the Dunblane massacre 12? years ago. Admittedly there are still guns privately owned, but I think on the whole guns are much harder to get hold of illegally, and as they are very hard to get legally, if the police catch someone in possession of a firearm then they're obviously guilty of something.
posted
My real point may be best made in short… the rights enumerated in the “Bill of Rights” are NOT rights our government gave us…. They are God Given Rights… The second amendment limits government by succinctly stating “the RIGHT to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed”. This Right helps secure the other God Given rights our Founding Fathers were so wise to acknowledge and places a barrier to ”would be” Tyrants. The more Honest, Hard Working, Decent private citizens that carry firearms the better-off we will all be, because it also serves to help keep the criminals in fear rather than the honest citizen.
In the case of criminalizing gun ownership… First, a criminal willing to commit Murder, give not a rats $@*& about breaking a second degree felony. As for me, when they pass those crazy laws, the rule I must apply is ”I would rather be on trial before 12 than carried by 6”
Rommel Fenrir Wolf II
[This message has been edited by Rommel Fenrir Wolf II (edited July 06, 2008).]
This to me is nonsense. The second amendment, indeed the whole constitution, is created by man. They're rules under which a country is run. To see those as sacrosanct despite the fact they were created in L.P. Hartley's 'foreign country' ("The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there") seems alien to me. Though of course, I guess there are things I see as inalienable due to the fact they've been there for ages. Or rather, things I take for granted living in a 'free' country.
As an aside, and I think I'm right when I say this: English(and US - based on Law and Order...) law is based on precedent, i.e. once a case has been decided then it could be cited as a basis for the verdict in a future case, whereas most European - by which I mean continental - law is based upon a stipulated code, according to which all decisions must be made.
posted
I recommend that you reread the Declaration Independence and the Constitution acknowledge that the core of the constitution establishes a frame work for government …the bill of rights specific limitations on government and both are the fulfillment of that original contract, The Declaration, that established our government.
PS:
Who is the Creator that our founding fathers reference therein and why were they so frequently referring to him. Go figure, someone BIGGER THAN US.
posted
Ok, so the Constitution 'acknowledes that the core of the constitution establishes a frame work for government …the bill of rights specific limitations on government and both are the fulfillment of that original contract, The Declaration, that established our government.' Using your logic, why then is the right to bear arms an amendment. Why was it not enshrined in the original constitution?
quote:Who is the Creator that our founding fathers reference therein and why were they so frequently referring to him. Go figure, someone BIGGER THAN US.
Just because people believe in God doesn't make it a reality. The founders were religious men: the passengers on the Pilgrim were religious people. It doesn't make it relevant to everyone today. Again, to add some context, I'm head of Religious Studies at a comprehensive - High?- school in London. I teach it as a survey of religions, and making them thinking about themselves, morality, and what other people believe. I teach the students arguments for and against the existence of God/gods. We discuss morality. Personally, I was brought up a Catholic but would consider myself an agnostic. I would argue that the literal interpretation of Christianity across areas of society as a whole is a cultural difference, both within the US and comparing the US with other countries.
I'm getting dangerously political/religous now, so I'll stop.
[This message has been edited by Badger (edited July 06, 2008).]
posted
Hi dude…. Please read the debate surrounding the Bill of Rights. There was concern that once the enumeration of rights began, some future leaders may conclude that other rights did not exist. They concluded that should not be a concern with the 10Th amendment which makes things Clear. A limited federal government structure. Thanks for keeping me on my toes. Enjoyed the chat.
posted
I think this thread would be more valuable to us as writers if we sought to understand differences, not persuade each other that our way is right and others are wrong.
I once wrote a story that featured a rant against American gun attitudes and crits said that, because it was one-sided (my European side) it wasn't credible.
I've since written another and tried to put both sides in a manner true to their proponents. I did it by researching NRA and other websites. Crits said it was better because of the balance. In the process of revising it I've just bought a copy of Guns & Ammo in an attempt to better understand the topic.
It would be interesting if Romel and Badger could argue the opposing point of view, as an exercise in writing stories that feature strong views and present both sides authentically.
posted
There are "new" countries and geographically large new ones that don't share the US attitude that gun ownership is a universal necessity. (Countries with at least as much personal freedom) I don't think that explains this attitude in the US and its obvious vehemence.
My own guess is that it is simply a tradition and a strong, unifying tradition. And that any threat to that tradition deeply offends many people.
I feel more threatened by this tradition than protected by it and I think a quick read of this thread might show why. But I also understand the need of people to protect their traditions. And I think that can be an interesting theme in fiction, one that isn't often touched on.
Rommel, threats of violence do not win arguments. They do prove that you don't think you can win your argument with words.
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited July 06, 2008).]
posted
Words, terms, and definitions gone awry, given new life, become art.
Dingbat used to mean the decorative type objects printers included in publications to balance a page. Intaglio type, hot and cold lead, prints more evenly when the type bound in the chase is made up into a rectangle. Also, when made into a rectangle, the type is less likely to be worn down and rounded along the outside of the makeup by the pressure of the press. To an extent, decorative type objects are still called dingbats. Another definition is it's the paddle that that vapid toy with the elastic cord and rubber ball was batted with. Here abouts, a dingbat is the derogatory term for tourists. Like the ball on the cord, they don't stop long and always comes back for more. Anecdotally from master printers and several scholarly potters and traditional brickmakers, I've heard that a dingbat was a type of paddle historically used to shape wet clay for pressing into brick molds.
Chase, as in cut to the chase, modern movie buffs claim the meaning to be get to the chase scene. Printers of old, I mean really old, know that a chase is the frame that held the type in the press. Cut to the chase meant print the type as set; don't bother with a proof printing and proofreading before the production printing.
A picture is worth a thousand words. Hah! That one should be obvious, but the metaphor is taken as the origin. Few people today, besides a few printers, know its origins. In the days of old, an illustration in a publication paid as much as a thousand words of type.
posted
This has been a good demonstration of what I'm talking about. The pro-gun Americans here (among which I would count myself) and the anti-gunners (Eurpoean and otherwise) are talking past each other. Each understands the words the others write, but the fundamental concepts are so alien that when the the reader tries to interpret the writer from their own vastly different worldview it comes out nonsense, like someone who knows only engligh trying to read Russian.
An earlier post caught this--one of our European friends referring, in all seriousness, as democracy as something that needs to be "managed." To me, and most red-state Americans, that's like referring to beer as something that needs to be worn. It's on the verge of incoherent to me and mine.
Another earlier post pointed out that the Second Amendment does not grant any new rights, it merely enshrines a right the American founders believed to be God-given and inalienable--that is, a right no government could take away legitimately. The responding post (Eurpoean) called that idea "rubbish." It's a great example of ships in the night. To me, it's self-evident that a society without an armed citizenry must eventually lose its freedom--and I take Europe as exhibit 1. To our Euro friends, it's self-evident that a society chock-full of guns must be violent--they take American cities as exhibit 1 (ironically, most American cities had a firearm ban until last week).
The real question is how to convey people talking past each other on such a fundamental level without confusing the reader. It's a three way party. Character A has some assumptions about reality, Character B has some very different assumptions, and reader has his own assumptions. The question of art is how to make that three-way conversation work so that reader understands what A is saying, what B is saying, and that A and B can't understand each other.
posted
On managing democracy: that's what the American Constitution does. It sets out the rules that govern the Senate, Congress and the President, how they make laws and punishments, and how they change elements of the Constitution itself.
Over the years, because of the claim that gun ownership is a Constitutional right, the debate on gun law has shifted away from a democratic debate to law suits and attempts to influence the Supreme Court. Now, an American city cannot democratically ban guns because the Supreme Court won't let it.
It's not quite true that the Constitution clearly enshrines the individual right of Americans to possess a firearm. Almost half of the Supreme Court think it doesn't.
posted
I started to answer--typed out a lengthy one--but this has become a purely political debate and it's becoming too hard to remain civil. I hope Kathleen is watching this thread because for me the red-state American statement took it right over the line.
Edit: No, I'm not trying to stifle anyone else. I found several statements implying that Europeans don't understand or have democracy and that only "red-state" Americans do a bit offensive. If others continue fine, but I had to bite my tongue way too hard.
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited July 07, 2008).]
posted
What on earth have guns got to do with God? That would be a really good subtext for a novel; the way people co-opt God and try to claim that what they want is what God wants. Has anyone in all history ever claimed that God wanted or commanded anything they didn't want? If so, that would be a prophet worth following.
Posts: 185 | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with Jeanne T. This is getting a bit political. Not saying I haven't contributed to making it so, but I don't think I'm going to respond.
So, Rommell, I'm going to have to decline your kind offer of grass before breakfast.
Ah, Brits and Americans, eh. "You like potato and I like potato You like tomato and I like tomato. Potato, potato, Tomato, tomato. Let's call the whole thing off."
That song just isn't the same when you write the words down...
posted
I think it's more than potato / potatoe. I feel like I read a lot of books where the misunderstandings--even between very different cultures--are portrayed as "potato/potatoe," and once everyone takes 5 minutes to think about things, understanding is easily attained. I don't buy it. It's oversimple and unrealistic, and I want my writing to be better. The question at issue is: how?
Let's take Badger and Rommel as an example. Anyone want to volunteer writing a section with those two as characters that portrays their mutual misunderstanding?
p.s., Jeanne: please re-read my "red-state" comment more carefully. I merely set out the perspective in contrast to the opposing perspective, I don't pass judgment on which is correct. If you disagree, let's take it to email.
[This message has been edited by J (edited July 07, 2008).]
posted
Well, I think there are different levels of differences. There are simply mannerisms, customs, and traditions--these are the types that with a little tolerance and explanation they can be explained away and dealt with--oh, you say "potatoe"? Okay, well, I say "potato". but it's the same thing, right?
Then there are more fundamental, ideological differences. These are a bit tricker. There are hundreds of examples, and I think this gun control issue is one of them. Also religion, global climate change, socialism. vs. libertarianism, etc. These are the sorts of issues people can argue on just about for ever, each side spewing "the truth" and "the facts" but neither managing to convince the other. Each is equally sure beyond doubt that they are "right" and see the truth of the matter, while the other side is deluded by propaganda, ignorance, what have you. (Please note I'm not taking sides here!) For these differences, one side won't necessarily convince the other--rather, the two find a way to coexist. Through voting, for instance, or living apart, agreeing to disagree, etc.
On a deeper level than that are fundamental perspective differences. It's a bit hard for me to explain this because I'm only just beginning to understand this myself. But this goes beyond ideological convictions, and has more to do with how we are raised to understand the world. For example, I'll bring up Jung's take on Chinese philosophy. He states that there's a fundamental difference in Chinese philosophy that's almost inconceivable for someone raised in the Western tradition to grasp (I'm not saying he's necessarily right here, so let's not argue that--I'm only using this as an example to illustrate what I mean). He argues that in Chinese philosophy, an individual sees himself as part of the order of the world, not as an external observer. Therefore, the observing and the being cannot be separated--they are one and the same. The very act of observing changes what is being observed, changes the nature of the universe in that moment. One could argue this is the roots of why Chinese culture never took off, but advanced to a certain point and remained stagnant. In Western tradition, of course, is the birth of the scientific method as we know it--observe and record. The observer is separate from the events, an external force, and therefore can change things. So, the core of this example is a fundamental, epistemological difference.
posted
I don't think Rommell and myself have a misunderstanding. I think we have very different opinions on the subject, but I don't misunderstand his viewpoint. Similarly, I wouldn't assume just because Rommell hasn't changed his view, that he misunderstands me. He disagrees with me, as he's perfectly entitled to do so. What's the Voltaire: "Though I disapprove of what you say, I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Plus the potato/potatoe bit was a joke which I don't think yo ucan get. Now whether that was due to cultural differences, or because it wsn't very funny, who can say...
quote: The real question is how to convey people talking past each other on such a fundamental level without confusing the reader. It's a three way party. Character A has some assumptions about reality, Character B has some very different assumptions, and reader has his own assumptions. The question of art is how to make that three-way conversation work so that reader understands what A is saying, what B is saying, and that A and B can't understand each other.
I find this problematic as well -- the reader will tend to believe the point of view character (at least on a subject they don't have a preexisting opinion on). If the author's intent is to show that character A (POV) is no more right than character B, then how is that done? The obvious dialogue debate seems like an easy out to me. How is it shown more subtly?
It seems like OSC has this happen often in his works but how?
posted
Annepin, that last category is exactly what I'm talking about. How do we convey THAT clearly? We can't change the reader's basic assumptions about reality (probably). How do we frame a fundamentally different reference frame that still makes sense in the reference frame of the reader?
Posts: 683 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
May I recommend a book that dealt with similar misunderstandings to the ones J is trying to discuss here?
HELLSPARK by Janet Kagan is a story about a team of individuals from very different planets who are brought together and required to work toward a common goal which they are unable to do until they overcome their prejudices regarding each other.
The only thing I might quibble about in this book is that these various cultures were so different that I was almost finished reading the book before I realized that every last one of the characters was human. But maybe I missed where the author made that clear at the beginning.
posted
People have to learn to live with disagreements without threatening to shoot each other. Sometimes people are going to disagree, including on very fundamental issues. This doesn't mean they don't understand each other's positions. I understand that some people think Australia is going to become a totalitarian regime because they enacted gun control a few years ago. I disagree.
Discussing fundamental disagreements doesn't change them and is generally a waste of everyone's time and emotional energy.
Early in this thred there was some interesting discussion. I was interested in the concept that some people might have a different defenition of "plenty." But no one is going to change someone else's mind on gun control.
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited July 07, 2008).]
posted
And challenging anyone to a duel of any kind except a writing duel (13 lines each at 20 paces?) is hereby declared outside of the registration agreement:
quote:You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this BB to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law.
since duels are against the law in the US as well as in many other countries.
So, Rommel, you've got another strike against you. Please edit your post, or I will delete it.
Back in the arly 80s, I visited Isreal. I flew on the national airlines. The culture shock was when the first announcements were in Hebrew, and only after, in English.
Another, is that I have always lived in or near a city. South Florida cities are spread out, mostly strip malls everywhere that residential districts are not. What towers are in the center of town and one seldom have to go there. Anything you want is within a fifteen minute drive of anywhere. At the time, when we got a pizza, I would order one of my own, exactly the way I wanted it. I visted Wisconson with my mom and brother, as that was where she was from and her sister is there. They were having pizza. I was irritated that I could not order my own. It was only a bit later that it sunk in that they don't have delivery there. they had frozen pizza, not delivered. That was a real shock at the time.
Little things like this can really set a story apart.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
Someone once said to me that applications to own guns should have only one question: 'Would you like to have a gun?' If the answer was 'yes' then you were obviously unsuitable.
