Site Search:
 
TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International
Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Dark Knight Rises Massacre
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 28, 29, 30  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Fat_Elvis



Joined: 17 Aug 2006
Location: In the ghetto

PostPosted: Sat Jul 21, 2012 4:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

And as for those who see lax gun control laws as a bulwark against tyranny, how can you explain the existence of democracies throughout the world that have stayed free with strict gun control laws? Or countries such as South Korea that overthrew a military dictatorship in the 1980s with strict gun controls? How have lax gun control laws stopped the plutocracy that has emerged in the United States these days? Your arguments seem to be based on ideological assumptions rather than real life observations.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fat_Elvis



Joined: 17 Aug 2006
Location: In the ghetto

PostPosted: Sat Jul 21, 2012 4:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Titus wrote:
98% of all gun crime convictions in NYC (stat from City Journal) are poor people.


I fixed that for you.[/b]


Last edited by Fat_Elvis on Sat Jul 21, 2012 5:02 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fat_Elvis



Joined: 17 Aug 2006
Location: In the ghetto

PostPosted: Sat Jul 21, 2012 5:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kuros wrote:
Fat_Elvis wrote:
Homicides by firearm per 100,000 population

The United States 4.14 (2004-2006)
Canada 0.76 (1992)
Scotland 0.19 (1994)
England/Wales 0.07 (2002)
South Korea 0.04 (1994)

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate


I'm enjoying your comparison of Bush era United States homicide deaths with Kim Young Sam era South Korea homicide deaths. But what's the relevance?


One had gun control laws, one didn't. And this forum is on a Korean discussion forum, and some of us live in Korea.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sirius black



Joined: 04 Jun 2010

PostPosted: Sat Jul 21, 2012 5:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Titus wrote:
Fat_Elvis wrote:
Homicides by firearm per 100,000 population

The United States 4.14 (2004-2006)
Canada 0.76 (1992)
Scotland 0.19 (1994)
England/Wales 0.07 (2002)
South Korea 0.04 (1994)

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate


Control for demography. If we want to use stats to inform debate - and we should - we have to be adult and honest.

Toronto's gun problem, like Miami and NYC and Chicago is almost entirely a black thing. The USA has more blacks. Let's control for whites and for blacks. What is the rate of gun crime in Canada vs USA for white v white and black v black. And don't go all cultural marxist and start making apologies and meandering though post-modern creationism. The white guy shooting up a theater is an outlier. White people seem to go Lone Wolf Viking more frequently than others.

98% of all gun crime in NYC (stat from City Journal) is black or Hispanic. Hispanic in NYC means Dominicans and PR's who are mulatto. It doesn't mean Mexicans and Cubans. Toronto is similar.


I agree lets focus on demographics but I think you're focusing on the wrong demographics.

Crime has ALWAYS been a function of income and education levels. Poor people commit crimes.
The blacks that committ crimes in north America are generally poor and under educated.

Lets look at your NYC example. In the mid to late 1800s, the group that committed the overwhelming amount of violent crime in NYC were people of Irish descent. NYC had a fair number of blacks in those days but the Irish outdid everyone by a huge margin.

Why is that? The Irish were the poorest of the poor in NYC. After the Irish moved up in income levels their crime rate went down.

The Italians and Jews were the next large immigrants to NYC around the turn of the century. Lower East Side New York had a huge crime problem in the early 1900s and it was heavily Jewish. Gangsters such as Dutch Schultz, Meyer Lansky, Bugsy Siegel and others were Jewish and guess how they grew up? Poor as church mice. Same with the number of Italians and the rise of the mob. Everyone of them grew up poor.

Are Blacks committing the crimes in India or Iraq? Those countries have no sizeable black populations.

There was a study in Stanford University, Friedman I think his name was who found that if you removed ALL black crime in America, the white crime rate in America would still far exceed EVERY industrialized nation.

Cleveland has a crime rate that far exceeds the national average. It also has a large black population. Cleveland Heights, a middle class suburb with a fairly large black population has a far, far lower crime rate that hovers around the natinoal average. The blacks there are middle class.

If it was a black problem, middle class blacks would be committing crimes in the same number as their urban brethren but they don't. You DON'T see Will Smith, Denzel Washingtons or Michael Jordan's kids committing violent crime anywhere close to the same numbers as the blacks in south central.

As for your lone wolf white guy statement. Its simply not true. What about the whites in prison and there are lots of them. Yes, blacks and latinos make up the majority but there are still a large number of whites in prison. They are very very violent and NOT lone wolf. They have their own gangs, Aryan gangs and such. What do these whites as well as the blacks and latinos have in common? Almost all of them grew up poor, under educated and from dysfunctional homes.

Finally, look here in Korea. There are a few thousand black teachers. Why aren't they committing crimes in the same number as the other blacks back in America and Canada? Could it be they are all educated since they had to have a college degree to come here and an FBI background check? I would guess that a fair number of them came from disadvantaged backgrounds.

I think you need to re-think the reasons and demographics of crime.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kuros



Joined: 27 Apr 2004

PostPosted: Sat Jul 21, 2012 5:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fat_Elvis wrote:
Kuros wrote:
Fat_Elvis wrote:
Homicides by firearm per 100,000 population

The United States 4.14 (2004-2006)
Canada 0.76 (1992)
Scotland 0.19 (1994)
England/Wales 0.07 (2002)
South Korea 0.04 (1994)

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate


I'm enjoying your comparison of Bush era United States homicide deaths with Kim Young Sam era South Korea homicide deaths. But what's the relevance?


One had gun control laws, one didn't. And this forum is on a Korean discussion forum, and some of us live in Korea.


Its simply a lazy use of statistics. Typically, you don't compare one year of crime with crime somewhere else ten years later.

Anyway, I have no doubt lax gun laws/enforcement make shootings more prevalent here in the United States. But culture plays a role, too. Gun restrictions would not simply make guns disappear in the United States over night. There's a demand for it here that just isn't in Korea.

Compare the US v. Switzerland. Both are awash in guns and both have similarly lax gun control laws (although it is difficult to compare Switzerland with 50 States).

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

Quote:
In some 2001 statistics, it is noted that there are about 420,000 assault rifles stored at private homes, mostly SIG SG 550 types. Additionally, there are some 320,000 semi-auto rifles and military pistols exempted from military service in private possession, all selective-fire weapons having been converted to semi-automatic operation only. In addition, there are several hundred thousand other semi-automatic small arms classified as carbines. The total number of firearms in private homes is estimated minimally at 1.2 million to 3 million.


In 2004, the US had 3.2 firearms deaths for 100,000, in the same year Switzerland had only 0.8 such deaths for 100,000. (source)

So, could it be that it has to do with something more than lax gun restrictions?

No, no let's compare the U.S. with Korea from 15 years ago.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Fat_Elvis



Joined: 17 Aug 2006
Location: In the ghetto

PostPosted: Sat Jul 21, 2012 5:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kuros, for my edification, can you explain why we need to compare stats from the same year for localised activity such as firearm homicides?

BTW I agree with you that culture as well as gun control laws play a part. Wasn't that the message of Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine? No doubt other factors such as poverty come into play too - just look at the same stats I quoted and the countries with the highest firearm violence are developing or third world countries. To assume that simply one factor is the cause of violence is simplistic. I just don't see the need to have an armed population - in the USA's case the 'right to bear arms' seems an accident of history that was probably relevant when the Constitution was written but not now.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
comm



Joined: 22 Jun 2010

PostPosted: Sat Jul 21, 2012 6:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fat_Elvis wrote:
And as for those who see lax gun control laws as a bulwark against tyranny, how can you explain the existence of democracies throughout the world that have stayed free with strict gun control laws? Or countries such as South Korea that overthrew a military dictatorship in the 1980s with strict gun controls? How have lax gun control laws stopped the plutocracy that has emerged in the United States these days? Your arguments seem to be based on ideological assumptions rather than real life observations.

You can ignore history if you like, but barring that you have to recognize that every country endures oppression or invasion at some point. Sooner or later, it will come to my descendants... maybe in 50 years, maybe in 100 years, but some day it will return. So let's use your example of South Korea, shall we?

In the Gwangju Democratization Movement, which (according to wikipedia) "paved the way for later movements in the 1980s that eventually brought democracy to South Korea" and "has become a symbol of South Koreans' struggle against authoritarian regimes and their fight for democracy", relied on civilian use of firearms to stand against dictatorship.

These patriots were fortunate enough to locate insecure armories and police stations to raid for arms in their fight against dictatorship. But what if those locations were more secure and defended with lethal force? The movement may have ended there, a mere whimper for freedom.

If the citizens of Gwangju were already armed and trained, they would have had the power to say "give me liberty or give me death" and actually make it happen. Frankly I'm surprised so many people with minimal if any experience in shooting were so willing to take up arms. Surely if more people had experience, training, and their own rifle, more would have readily joined the cause. In the end, violent resistance gave them the choice to die on their feet rather than to live on their knees. Unarmed citizens have no such choice.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Leon



Joined: 31 May 2010

PostPosted: Sat Jul 21, 2012 7:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

comm wrote:
Fat_Elvis wrote:
And as for those who see lax gun control laws as a bulwark against tyranny, how can you explain the existence of democracies throughout the world that have stayed free with strict gun control laws? Or countries such as South Korea that overthrew a military dictatorship in the 1980s with strict gun controls? How have lax gun control laws stopped the plutocracy that has emerged in the United States these days? Your arguments seem to be based on ideological assumptions rather than real life observations.

You can ignore history if you like, but barring that you have to recognize that every country endures oppression or invasion at some point. Sooner or later, it will come to my descendants... maybe in 50 years, maybe in 100 years, but some day it will return. So let's use your example of South Korea, shall we?

In the Gwangju Democratization Movement, which (according to wikipedia) "paved the way for later movements in the 1980s that eventually brought democracy to South Korea" and "has become a symbol of South Koreans' struggle against authoritarian regimes and their fight for democracy", relied on civilian use of firearms to stand against dictatorship.

These patriots were fortunate enough to locate insecure armories and police stations to raid for arms in their fight against dictatorship. But what if those locations were more secure and defended with lethal force? The movement may have ended there, a mere whimper for freedom.

If the citizens of Gwangju were already armed and trained, they would have had the power to say "give me liberty or give me death" and actually make it happen. Frankly I'm surprised so many people with minimal if any experience in shooting were so willing to take up arms. Surely if more people had experience, training, and their own rifle, more would have readily joined the cause. In the end, violent resistance gave them the choice to die on their feet rather than to live on their knees. Unarmed citizens have no such choice.


You think firearms are going to do much against things like drones and what not? At this point the government has such an overwhelming superiority of force that local armed citizens wouldn't amount to much. The only groups that could matter are terrorist groups or organized crime that has the organizational structure, funds and experience. Not your ordinary citizens.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
visitorq



Joined: 11 Jan 2008

PostPosted: Sat Jul 21, 2012 7:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Leon wrote:
You think firearms are going to do much against things like drones and what not? At this point the government has such an overwhelming superiority of force that local armed citizens wouldn't amount to much. The only groups that could matter are terrorist groups or organized crime that has the organizational structure, funds and experience. Not your ordinary citizens.

This is false. It would be impossible for the US government to instigate hardcore tyranny against the armed US population (hundreds of millions of people), even if the regular army were willing to wage war against US civilians (pretty much inconceivable). This is why our liberties are taken away slowly and incrementally. The public can be inundated with propaganda and fear, but until it is disarmed there is no way for the government to fully take away all our rights by force. Having an armed population is absolutely key for preventing encroaching tyranny from someday taking over completely.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
visitorq



Joined: 11 Jan 2008

PostPosted: Sat Jul 21, 2012 7:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Moreover, for the gun-control apologist hypocrites on here, haven't you ever heard of the concept "innocent until proven guilty"? You would actually judge everybody to be guilty by default? The answer is obviously "yes", since you advocate criminalizing the mere possession of unlicensed firearms, even for people who are not criminals and wish to possess firearms only for self-defense. What an utterly despicable notion.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sirius black



Joined: 04 Jun 2010

PostPosted: Sat Jul 21, 2012 7:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Culture, poverty and other factors play a big role in crime. The pwiss example ip one. There are areas in america that have high gun ownership and reketively no aqime. Montana, idaho, many counties in the south and midwest, where its often a rite of passage for a 16yr old to get a .22 rifle foq his birthday.

As for the goverments overwhelming firepower its still people that have to do the heavy lifting. Just like we saw in the arab spring revolts. Manz soldiers will not fire on their own neighbors especially in a just cause and any armed revolt in america that involves the middle class and every day people rising up would almort by definition be a just cause.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
luckylady



Joined: 30 Jan 2012
Location: u.s. of occupied territories

PostPosted: Sun Jul 22, 2012 12:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

sirius black wrote:

Crime has ALWAYS been a function of income and education levels. Poor people commit crimes.


well you've got it just a bit confused. poor people are convicted of crimes - crimes that by definition have been created by the rich - in order to convict the underclasses

generally the upperclasses/wealthy get off with fines, rarely jail time or even plea bargain their way out alltogether to probation.

how many bankers ever go to jail anyway? that's why it's news when one does - because it's so rare.

sirius black wrote:

The blacks that committ crimes in north America are generally poor and under educated.


same error here. crack cocaine carried a higher penalty than powdered coke; guess which was the drug of choice for the yuppies and which was the street drug of the ghetto?

another ex: look at prostitution - the hookers get busted, rarely the johns

another ex: illegal immigrants get busted in many countries, not just the U.S. but the companies that hire them rarely, if ever, get shut down; who ever heard of an employer who hired illegals going to jail?


think about it - even theft - when did stealing money out of a bank become a life and death event? seriously? is money worth killing over? not that I'm saying it's ok, of course it isn't but I don't think people should die over it either. yet again, when bankers foreclose on the wrong home, no one goes to jail.

what's wrong with this picture? Surprised

taco bell, dunkin' donuts, pizza hut, etc., all are multi-national corps that make billions in profits but pay their workers minimum wages - not a living wage, but minimum. yet that's not a "crime" (I say it IS) - who says so?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fat_Elvis



Joined: 17 Aug 2006
Location: In the ghetto

PostPosted: Sun Jul 22, 2012 12:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

comm wrote:
Fat_Elvis wrote:
And as for those who see lax gun control laws as a bulwark against tyranny, how can you explain the existence of democracies throughout the world that have stayed free with strict gun control laws? Or countries such as South Korea that overthrew a military dictatorship in the 1980s with strict gun controls? How have lax gun control laws stopped the plutocracy that has emerged in the United States these days? Your arguments seem to be based on ideological assumptions rather than real life observations.

You can ignore history if you like, but barring that you have to recognize that every country endures oppression or invasion at some point. Sooner or later, it will come to my descendants... maybe in 50 years, maybe in 100 years, but some day it will return. So let's use your example of South Korea, shall we?

In the Gwangju Democratization Movement, which (according to wikipedia) "paved the way for later movements in the 1980s that eventually brought democracy to South Korea" and "has become a symbol of South Koreans' struggle against authoritarian regimes and their fight for democracy", relied on civilian use of firearms to stand against dictatorship.

These patriots were fortunate enough to locate insecure armories and police stations to raid for arms in their fight against dictatorship. But what if those locations were more secure and defended with lethal force? The movement may have ended there, a mere whimper for freedom.

If the citizens of Gwangju were already armed and trained, they would have had the power to say "give me liberty or give me death" and actually make it happen. Frankly I'm surprised so many people with minimal if any experience in shooting were so willing to take up arms. Surely if more people had experience, training, and their own rifle, more would have readily joined the cause. In the end, violent resistance gave them the choice to die on their feet rather than to live on their knees. Unarmed citizens have no such choice.


The Gwangju Uprising is not a terribly good example as it was crushed by the military. Plus it didn't serve as an example to others as information about it was stifled and relatively few knew about it inside Korea until after the fall of the military dictatorship, much as information about the Tiannanmen Square massacre is suppressed in China today. What brought the military dictatorship down was a combination of protests in Seoul coupled with pressure from the USA.

We can also see in your post the kinds of ideological assumptions and failure to refer to real life historic contexts that plague the thinking of the right. Apparently I have to recognise that every country faces tyranny and/or invasion at some point, and that of course and armed population can face that off. There were no stringent gun control laws in Poland before the Nazis took over - an armed population is no match for soldiers and tanks. And where are your historical precedents of an armed population fighting off tyranny? Your Gwangju example is flawed. There are also plenty of democracies that have strict gun control laws and have not succumbed to tyranny. Your arguments is based on fantasies and counterfactuals.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
visitorq



Joined: 11 Jan 2008

PostPosted: Sun Jul 22, 2012 1:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fat_Elvis wrote:
The Gwangju Uprising is not a terribly good example as it was crushed by the military. Plus it didn't serve as an example to others as information about it was stifled and relatively few knew about it inside Korea until after the fall of the military dictatorship, much as information about the Tiannanmen Square massacre is suppressed in China today. What brought the military dictatorship down was a combination of protests in Seoul coupled with pressure from the USA.

An armed population would have been much better off under the circumstances. This is always the case.

Quote:
We can also see in your post the kinds of ideological assumptions and failure to refer to real life historic contexts that plague the thinking of the right.

Plagues the thinking of the "right"? Laughing

Nobody here is even "right wing". I could certainly call you a leftist, as you fit the bill, but libertarians are pretty much the polar opposite of "the right". Socialists have far more in common with the right than libertarians. But when you see the world through a false dichotomy, I guess it's impossible to understand this clearly.

Quote:
Apparently I have to recognise that every country faces tyranny and/or invasion at some point, and that of course and armed population can face that off. There were no stringent gun control laws in Poland before the Nazis took over - an armed population is no match for soldiers and tanks.

Your logic is just absurdly flawed... First off, one of the first things the Nazis did after invading Poland was engage in gun confiscation. Especially against Jews (thousands of guns were confiscated), leaving them completely helpless when it came time for them to be rounded up and shipped off to death camps. Second, an armed population most certainly IS a match for soldiers and tanks. Perhaps not on the open battle field, but when it comes time to resist to occupiers through guerrilla warfare, guns are essential.

Quote:
And where are your historical precedents of an armed population fighting off tyranny?

The US? Switzerland?

Quote:
There are also plenty of democracies that have strict gun control laws and have not succumbed to tyranny.

Such as? Most countries are becoming less and less free as time goes on. Where is your free society that has strict gun laws?

Quote:
Your arguments is based on fantasies and counterfactuals.

And yours is non-existent.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
comm



Joined: 22 Jun 2010

PostPosted: Sun Jul 22, 2012 2:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fat_Elvis wrote:
The Gwangju Uprising is not a terribly good example as it was crushed by the military. Plus it didn't serve as an example to others as information about it was stifled and relatively few knew about it inside Korea until after the fall of the military dictatorship, much as information about the Tiannanmen Square massacre is suppressed in China today. What brought the military dictatorship down was a combination of protests in Seoul coupled with pressure from the USA.

Actually it's an excellent example for anyone with no pre-conceived notions about its efficacy. Again from Wikipedia:
Wikipedia wrote:
As the news of the Gwangju massacre spread, further protests against the government broke out in nearby regions including Hwasun, Naju, Haenam, Mokpo, Yeongam, Gangjin, and Muan. While protests ended peacefully in most regions, in Haenam there were gunfights between armed protesters and troops. By May 24, most of these protests had died down, except for Mokpo where protests continued until May 28.

It also highlights the fact that armed civilian forces don't have to achieve military victory in order to affect political change.

Fat_Elvis wrote:
There were no stringent gun control laws in Poland before the Nazis took over - an armed population is no match for soldiers and tanks. And where are your historical precedents of an armed population fighting off tyranny? Your Gwangju example is flawed. There are also plenty of democracies that have strict gun control laws and have not succumbed to tyranny. Your arguments is based on fantasies and counterfactuals.
As the above quote indicates, the Gwangju example is actually pretty good. People die fighting an oppressive regime, others are inspired to fight by their sacrifice in opposing insurmountable odds. But if you want more examples, take any resistance movement. If you like WWII, check out post-invasion France. Armed groups (some with military training, but minimal equipment) opposed a massive standing army in such a way as to damage morale, disable infrastructure, and create havoc for the enemy. So try not to get too hung up on the idea that armed civilian forces would have to fight drones and tanks. Such silliness simply isn't necessary to win political victory.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 28, 29, 30  Next
Page 3 of 30

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2013 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International