Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Poemer]

SteveMcgarret said: "Gee, thanks for clarifying the obvious. I was referring to the sense of entitlement associated with an extreme allegiance to and insistence upon individualism, which ontheway notes above and which is anathema to collectivist cultures, which includes Korea and most of the developing world (Muslim suicide bombers being a notable exception, though they'd argue they're serving God)."

Maybe you have a point Steve. Are you talking about the same sense of entitlement that makes people feel that its appropriate to act out, unprovoked, through snide comments like the above bolded that are meant to belittle others who are attempting to engage in a mature, adult discussion of important issues?

[Poemer]

Some interesting numbers to bear in mind for perspective. These are quoted from an article I found online. I'll post a link when I can find the article again.

"In 2000, the most common actual causes of death in the United States were tobacco (435,000), poor diet and physical inactivity (400,000), alcohol consumption (85,000), microbial agents (e.g., influenza and pneumonia, 75,000), toxic agents (e.g., pollutants and asbestos, 55,000), motor vehicle accidents (43,000), firearms (29,000), sexual behavior (20,000) and illicit use of drugs (17,000).

Actual causes of death are defined as lifestyle and behavioral such as smoking and physical inactivity that contribute to this nation's leading killers including heart disease, cancer, and stroke."

As we can see, the number of firearms deaths pale in comparison to less sexy, dramatic ways (from a newscasting perspective) of dying. I've clearly outlined in my posts above why I think the ability to own guns is, considering the possibility for governements to lapse into despotism, important.

I think it is a grave error to remove from people any sense of responsibility for their own safety and freedom and make them, essentially, wards of the state.

There are other much more damaging threats facing people's lives in the US that also need addressing. Tackling these problems is not easy, just as determining and dealing with the root causes of why some people behave in antisocial and violent ways is not easy.

If society can accept these other problems, considering the greater cost of life they exact, then how is it justifiable to to focus so much intense effort (or to call for such effort) into taking guns away from people and infringing on their constitutional rights when the damage done by guns, significant as it may be, is still far less significant in the number of lives lost to other causes on the list.

Gun violence may be dramatic and scary, it may sell news stories by playing on people's fears and prejudices, but the degree to which it is actually a defining part of life in America is at the same time exagerated and exacerbated by those who cannot take a measured look at firearms and their historical significance to the very existence of the United States, by those who respond to truly horrible images of violence with the simple answer, "take guns away from the people." People need to be educated, not frightened.

We certainly need to look at a whole range of social issues in the US in light of events such as the Virginia shooting. Getting rid of guns won't make those problems go away though. Getting rid of guns will undermine the will of the founding fathers that the American people have some form of defense against foreign powers, and their own government should it ever cease to serve the common good and general welfare of the nation.

I reiterate what I've said previously, if there are guns AT ALL, then there must be guns FOR ALL. Guns for only a few means tyrrany for many.

[igotthisguitar]

[Poemer]

So, how do we disarm the American government so that we can make a moral, rational decision to disarm the citizens who live under its rule?

[mack4289]

After the American government is disarmed, maybe whoever takes over America (and the other countries that depend on it for security) can disarm America's citizens.

That's an exaggeration, but the free world should be terrified of the prospect of America being disarmed.

[Poemer]

Well then, how do we disarm the rest of the world as well?

[mack4289]

We could use all of America's weapons against the rest of the world (nuclear included). Since America will have used up all its weapons, it'd be disarmed, and since America has a sh*tload of weapons, the rest of the world will be obliterated and therefore disarmed. Ah, peace at last.

This is not just cynicism for the sake of cynicism. Conflict is inevitable and I think increased strength discourages it more than it encourages it.

[igotthisguitar]

While i FULLY support AmeriKans' right to OWN a firearm (think self-defense), packing them around in public, concealed or otherwise, ought to be "permitted" only with the proper paperwork.

i.e. Keep your guns at home

How's this for spin?

Pro-Gun Lobby Strengthened Following US Campus Shooting
by Stephanie Griffith
Sun Apr 22, 3:59 PM ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The powerful US gun lobby, far from being weakened by last week's tragic college campus shooting, actually has emerged stronger, gun advocates said, stepping up calls Sunday for a better-armed US citizenry to "prevent" future attacks.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070422/ts_alt_afp/uscrimeshootingguns (ETC)
PROBLEM, REACTION ... SOLUTION!

[demi]

[Poemer]

Demi, your well-reasoned mature response has convinced me. Bravo.

You might want to read the postings above where your specific "points" have been discussed and then make a response that takes those opinions into account, and counters them.

You also might want to read the post you are referring to again, or maybe I am misunderstanding what I wrote. I don't believe I ever said that those deaths are not important, quite the opposite actually. The manner in which people propose dealing with the problem is my complaint.

[demi]

ok....so you feel it's a freedom thing? "We have the right cause that's what our founding fathers wanted" kinda thing?

You act like America would be in danger if civilians didn't have guns. Who are you kidding? How comes most of the developed world can get by without. Give us a clear and logical reason why guns should not be prohibited in light of the fact that firearms cause soooo many deaths in the States?

Cause China might invade so civilians have to protect their land? Boll@cks! If things ever got to that stage we'd have nuclear war. Civilians would be running for the hills! Armed or not!

[igotthisguitar]

DEMI:

Firearms e.g. serve as a counter-force deterrent to state tyranny & occult criminal corruption

[cosmo]

Videos of above mentioned weapons in action...

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=fd6_1176184478
M82 .50 Cal

Barret M107 .50 Cal
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWJp14tkBlU

[Poemer]

[kimchi story]