|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
 Posted: Thu May 29, 2014 6:39 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| KimchiNinja wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| KimchiNinja wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
So you believe the guns shot themselves? |
You are not able to comprehend so there's no point is discussing. |
Yup. And you're not motivated by concern for the deaths of innocents, but are instead more interested in condescending to Americans. |
Nope. |
Your posting history says otherwise. |
| KimchiNinja wrote: |
| edwardcatflap wrote: |
Why do so many US documentaries look like they've been made for the idiot demographic?
|
The most obvious explanation would be that people in the USA are idiots. The avg IQ there is 98 now, as opposed to 100 in the UK. Research suggests that genotipic intelligence in the USA is actually decreasing. One explanation for this offered by the researchers -- low intelligence people have unplanned births while high intelligence people choose not to have births at all (essentially the "Idiocracy" effect). Thru time the low intelligence breeders genetically swallow the intelligence non-breeders. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ttompatz
Joined: 05 Sep 2005
Location: Kwangju, South Korea
|
| Posted: Thu May 29, 2014 7:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| ttompatz wrote: |
It won't stop because:
a) the political will to make it stop doesn't exist and
b) the American people don't have enough faith in their own governments, state or federal, (rightly or wrongly so) to makes the changes that are necessary.
. |
B is wrong. I don't think I've heard the latter being said by an American. Yes, many Americans don't have enough faith in their government, but not the way you state. They just don't think government can do anything right, so less government the better. Perhaps that's what you meant? |
So:
"They just don't think government can do anything right, so less government the better. "
is somehow different than:
"they don't have faith in their own government to make the necessary changes" ?
You may describe the why they have no faith ... but your statement simply reconfirms the original statement.
. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KimchiNinja
Joined: 01 May 2012
Location: Gangnam
|
| Posted: Thu May 29, 2014 7:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Wow, you guys way over-intellectualize. The statistics on decreasing American IQ could explain why they can't solve the equation.
Less guns, less deaths, done. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Cosmic Hum
Joined: 09 May 2003
Location: Sonic Space
|
| Posted: Thu May 29, 2014 8:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| KimchiNinja wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
So you believe the guns shot themselves? |
You are not able to comprehend so there's no point is discussing. |
Yup. And you're not motivated by concern for the deaths of innocents, but are instead more interested in condescending to Americans. |
Speaking of condescending to Americans
| Kuros wrote: |
Maybe I should dumb it down and American it up for you next time and do a sports analogy: |
You just can't make this stuff up....lol |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KimchiNinja
Joined: 01 May 2012
Location: Gangnam
|
| Posted: Fri May 30, 2014 12:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The Cosmic Hum wrote: |
You just can't make this stuff up....lol |
Nice one, Dave's is a good time. 
Friday!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CentralCali
Joined: 17 May 2007
|
| Posted: Fri May 30, 2014 8:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
Oops!  Yeah, I missed that one. Thanks for pointing it out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri May 30, 2014 12:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Cosmic Hum wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| KimchiNinja wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
So you believe the guns shot themselves? |
You are not able to comprehend so there's no point is discussing. |
Yup. And you're not motivated by concern for the deaths of innocents, but are instead more interested in condescending to Americans. |
Speaking of condescending to Americans
| Kuros wrote: |
Maybe I should dumb it down and American it up for you next time and do a sports analogy: |
You just can't make this stuff up....lol |
Thanks for showing us all you missed the joke. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Fri May 30, 2014 3:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| KimchiNinja wrote: |
Wow, you guys way over-intellectualize. The statistics on decreasing American IQ could explain why they can't solve the equation.
Less guns, less deaths, done. |
While this is true, the problem is getting there. Getting rid of guns isn't some sort of magic wand solution. This isn't wholly a supply-side question. It is also a question of demand. Addressing one factor without addressing the other will result in failed policy that does not solve the problem and may in fact exacerbate it. Think the war on drugs (lets leave aside all the Hearst publishing and Reefer Madness stuff). Drugs kill people and cause dangers. The answer in our simplistic minds was to cut off the supply of drugs by making them illegal. However, this did nothing to address the demand for drugs. The consequences? An ongoing drug war that has devastated countries, countries turned into narco-states, skyrocketing drug demand, and an increasingly militarized police force and corrupt judiciary.
I don't see demand for guns decreasing in large sectors of America where guns are a problem, especially considering the fact that you still have that War on Drugs! That in large part fuels the demand. If they can get drugs, how hard do you think it would be to get a 9mm?
Not to mention, there are still wide swaths of America that are rural and agricultural. Those people often NEED guns, not just want them, for the sake of their livelihood. You certainly won't be able to outlaw guns for them. So, in the end there will still be guns out there and because there will be demand, inevitably some of those guns will get into the wrong hands. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KimchiNinja
Joined: 01 May 2012
Location: Gangnam
|
| Posted: Fri May 30, 2014 5:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| KimchiNinja wrote: |
Less guns, less deaths, done. |
While this is true, the problem is getting there. Getting rid of guns isn't some sort of magic wand solution. This isn't wholly a supply-side question. It is also a question of demand. |
That's for the rational post. Actually I don't think getting there is hard, Amerika is just dysfunctional.
Address supply and demand simultaneously, 1) pass laws making it illegal to own a gun, 2) cap production or shut down gun factories. Easy, done.
Bam, overnight it is illegal to own a gun. This results in an initial massive decrease in the amount of guns in circulation, many people decide they are not interested in breaking the law. Already a win. Some single-mom teacher thinks she still needs her AK-47, 3yrs later her son gets mad and reports her to get even, she gets a $10,000 fine and has her gun taken. Each year more people are caught with a gun, receive their $10K fine, and their gun leaves circulation. By 10 years many of the guns are gone, and since the factories are shut down/capped there are few entering the market.
What the knuckleheads always say is "yeah but that does work", except that it does. The object is never for every person to obey the law, the object is to decrease the number of guns. For example we have not eliminated speeding, but most people do stick within the range we want.
The knuckleheads always say "but that didn't work with drugs and alcohol". Irrelevant, you can't make a gun in your bathtub with some fermentation.
The knuckleheads also always say "but the criminals don't follow the law", except we don't care about criminals who form international smuggling or mob connections and get a gun. We are talking about high school students who get emotional, walk into mom's closet and get her AK-47, and kill everyone same day. Except now the AK-47 is not there. The crime never happens. People are lazy, if the guns take more effort to get, many don't go thru the trouble.
Koreans could get a gun, it's just too much effort and most don't bother, hence less deaths.
| Steelrails wrote: |
Not to mention, there are still wide swaths of America that are rural and agricultural. Those people often NEED guns, not just want them, for the sake of their livelihood. You certainly won't be able to outlaw guns for them. So, in the end there will still be guns out there and because there will be demand, inevitably some of those guns will get into the wrong hands. |
See Korea. Your gun resides at the police station. When you want to go hunting you pick it up, go hunting, then check it back into the police station. If it "falls into the wrong hands" police know that very day. And you are in big trouble and can never check a gun again. Problem solved.
The nations who don't have a gun-death problem hold the blueprint. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri May 30, 2014 5:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The biggest obstacle to effective gun control in the future will probably be 3d printing. It will only get better and cheaper, and preventing people from printing guns will be more or less impossible. Probably better to crack down on ammunition. I imagine it is and will remain much harder to produce high-quality bullets at home. Citizens with some legitimate use for ammunition (for example, hunting) could be issued it in extremely limited quantities. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri May 30, 2014 6:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| KimchiNinja wrote: |
Address supply and demand simultaneously, 1) pass laws making it illegal to own a gun, 2) cap production or shut down gun factories. Easy, done.
Bam, overnight it is illegal to own a gun. |
Just like America did with narcotics and liquor!
I wish you luck, Elliot Ness. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Fri May 30, 2014 7:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
TLDR points in bold...
| Quote: |
| 1) pass laws making it illegal to own a gun |
Not very easy. Would require a Constitutional Amendment. That means 2/3rds in the House and Senate and 3/4ths of states would have to approve it. That is a TALL order. But let's for the sake of argument, assume that it was politically possible.
| Quote: |
| This results in an initial massive decrease in the amount of guns in circulation, many people decide they are not interested in breaking the law. |
There would likely be a period of time where people would have to get rid of their guns before it would become illegal. Given the value of guns and the demand for them from criminal/revolutionary enterprises, it is unlikely that the government or even the private sector (scrap metal) could offer a competitive price. Front corporations from around the world and domestically as well would buy them up en masse.
The cultural and political significance of essentially overturning one Amendment in the Bill of Rights would have PROFOUND ramifications. It would not be an enterprise to be entered into lightly. In my opinion, such an act should carefully be considered and entered into as an option only as a very last resort in extreme times. In practical terms, to effectively outlaw guns, in addition to repealing the 2nd Amendment, you would likely need to go after the 4th Amendment as well.
| Quote: |
| Some single-mom teacher thinks she still needs her AK-47, 3yrs later her son gets mad and reports her to get even, she gets a $10,000 fine and has her gun taken |
I don't think such a scenario would come to pass often enough to create a serious dent in gun numbers. I could see some things going wrong with ratting out an armed family member to the police.
| Quote: |
| By 10 years many of the guns are gone, and since the factories are shut down/capped there are few entering the market. |
Unfortunately this ignores the international arms trade. Would we be trading American made .223s and 9mms for Russian/Chinese AK knock offs and Tokarevs? Obviously an illegal product existing overseas is not without means of entering the US, as billions of dollars worth of drugs do every year. If truckloads, airplanes, and even cartel-made submarines can infiltrate America filled with drugs, surely they can do so with guns.
| Quote: |
| For example we have not eliminated speeding, but most people do stick within the range we want |
If your rates of gun ownership after making illegal reflect the rates of Americans who choose to speed while driving, you haven't made much of a dent in gun ownership.
| Quote: |
| The knuckleheads also always say "but the criminals don't follow the law", except we don't care about criminals who form international smuggling or mob connections and get a gun. We are talking about high school students who get emotional, walk into mom's closet and get her AK-47 |
While that is a valid area of concern, the vast majority of gun murders in America are the result of drug and gang violence, something like 80%. Stopping crazed killers should be an area of focus, however it is not going to do much statistically to impact America's gun murder rate.
| Quote: |
| Koreans could get a gun, it's just too much effort and most don't bother, hence less deaths. |
Again, you are focusing on supply and not demand. You are ignoring the fact that the Korean public has little demand for guns and perhaps more importantly, has little demand for drugs (though they love their booze and to pop their 'scrips). Korean gangs largely function as part of organized crime rackets which tend to have rules about killing people and usually don't need guns to get business done. However if you saw rampant increase in demand for drugs and every other ajosshi in the hills brewing up meth, you might start to see some guns come into play.
Making something illegal has historically been shown to have a poor impact on demand. Has making it illegal seriously affected demand for alcohol, drugs, gambling, prostitution, stolen goods, pirated music and movies, bootleg luxury items, or any other number of things?
| Quote: |
See Korea. Your gun resides at the police station. When you want to go hunting you pick it up, go hunting, then check it back into the police station. If it "falls into the wrong hands" police know that very day. And you are in big trouble and can never check a gun again. Problem solved.
|
American ranching and farming is far different than Korean cattle ranching and farming. For one thing, Korean farmers don't deal with near the level of predators and varmints as American ones do. What, are you going to tell those coyotes to sit tight for 30 minutes so you can shoot them while you drive down to the sheriff's office? A lot of it has to do with varmint control. Whenever you spot one, you need to be able to kill it as they are rather slippery. Pop quiz- what's the most dangerous animal on a farm?
As far as hunting, the vast majority of Americans hunt as sport, not as need. But those that do hunt as need often get many of their kills as targets of opportunity. Growing up there were multiple times where deer, rabbits, and even a wild turkey would be not 15 meters from the front porch. A golden opportunity. Should someone who is wholly or partially dependent on hunting have to forfeit such chances?
| Quote: |
| The nations who don't have a gun-death problem hold the blueprint. |
While I think very-long term, such a blueprint might have some effect, I think it is an oversimplification to take what they had and simply apply it to the United States. It would make as much sense as saying the rest of the world holds the blueprint for democracy in Iraq or Afghanistan. To create the institutions and political, legal, and cultural acceptance necessary for a gun ban would take generations of work. It would be a very slow process.
Now that I've said all of that, something must be done about gun crimes. The status quo is unacceptable and this does mean that gun restrictions should certainly be on the table. To reflexively cling to a broad interpretation of the 2nd Amendment because one is afraid that if they give an inch, they'll end up giving a mile will prevent any action from taking place. However, this is not helped by the proposition of magic wand solutions that ignore the factors behind gun crime.
In the end we'd be far better off addressing demand, rather than supply. Laws are not the best method for affecting demand. We need something else. I'd start by looking at the Drug War and then also look at education, the economy, and upward mobility. I think if you make major reforms there, you would do more to address gun crime and the demand for guns than any bill outlawing pistol grips, magazines above 10 rounds, and any other moronic cosmetic regulation that gun control advocates pass. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Sat May 31, 2014 3:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| KimchiNinja wrote: |
Address supply and demand simultaneously, 1) pass laws making it illegal to own a gun, 2) cap production or shut down gun factories. Easy, done.
Bam, overnight it is illegal to own a gun. |
Just like America did with narcotics and liquor!
I wish you luck, Elliot Ness. |
This isn't a good analogy. You can't effectively make a gun and ammunition by yourself. It needs a factory, whereas drugs and booze are relatively easy to make. Where it would run into issues is the huge already existing supply.
I am curious how America would react if guns were banned or taken away. I wonder how many people would make good on their "from my cold dead fingers" stuff. The whole need to protect from tyranny argument is so false, an armed insurrection against D.C. would almost certainly fail. A non-violent revolution that has mass popular support and is well organized would have a much better chance of success, but then you can't shoot people and play with your toys and act out on silly fantasies. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sat May 31, 2014 4:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
I am curious how America would react if guns were banned or taken away. |
The government just had to back down over the threatened violence that resulted from a law-breaker's cows being taken away. I think it's safe to say that the level of threatened violence in response to an actual attempt to seize everyone's guns would be immensely higher. Sure, the government wouldn't be overthrown, but people would die, and not a few. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Sat May 31, 2014 4:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
I am curious how America would react if guns were banned or taken away. |
The government just had to back down over the threatened violence that resulted from a law-breaker's cows being taken away. I think it's safe to say that the level of threatened violence in response to an actual attempt to seize everyone's guns would be immensely higher. Sure, the government wouldn't be overthrown, but people would die, and not a few. |
That's a good point, I forgot about Bundy. This whole thing is a deep seated fear for a lot of people. In the book, The Turner Diaries (Tim McViegh and other right wing terrorist groups favorite book) the whole fictional revolution starts with gun confiscation. There is a lot of fetishization of guns. With the already vast number of guns in America, and given how long they could last- the only realistic thing that could be accomplished is stopping incompetent people from getting them, which can be worthwhile, or maybe decreasing the supply of bullets.
Gun companies have turned marketing into a pavlovian response. If more gun control legislation is attempted, even though it will likely be unsuccessful, the demand will jump, and people with 3-4 guns will go buy another. That's quite an impressive business model. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
