Nice roundup on recent trends running our way on the gun control debate in USA Today.
Democrats, who believe that their calls for gun controls might have cost them the White House in 2000, are less willing to take on the gun lobby. Polls suggest that public fears about terrorism have helped mute the debate.
Meanwhile, the gun industry is racking up legislative wins. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, says there are not enough votes in the House to renew Congress’ 1994 ban on certain assault weapons when it expires next year.
And now, gun rights supporters are closing in on what probably would be their most enduring victory.
The Senate is close to passing a bill that would shield firearms manufacturers and dealers from civil lawsuits brought by victims of gun crimes. The measure, which the House passed 285-140 as 63 Democrats voted with the GOP majority, is an effort to shield the gun industry from the type of lawsuits that have been successful against tobacco and asbestos companies.
Perhaps more important than the pure politics, though, is some evidence of a deeper shift:
On the same day last month, five factory workers in Mississippi were shot and killed by a co-worker and five people in a family in Bakersfield, Calif., were killed by gunfire.
Not too long ago, dramatic slayings such as these would have created a new chapter in the national debate over gun control. There would have been angry speeches in Congress and new proposals to crack down on firearms.
I have a nice long day at the range planned on Sunday – the hunting rifles (all four) need to be tweaked out for the coming seasons, and the springs in my high-capacity handgun magazines need to be exercised. I feel bad for my brethren in England, that you are denied the simple pleasure of making things go bang.
an effort to shield the gun industry from the type of lawsuits that have been successful against tobacco and asbestos companies.
Huh. That’s a sly comparison for USA Today to use. The similarities to the tobacco shakedown are important to point out, but asbestos is less apt. You have to wonder if they just wanted to put guns in the same bin as two other scary health menaces.
The McDonald’s spilled-coffee lawsuit is closer – using the courts to shake down a big company with deep pockets whose product performed exactly as advertised.
Better still, I think we should sue General Motors because old people like to drive honking huge Buicks as they mistake the gas for the brake and mow down pedestrians. Think how many lives we’d save if the elderly drove sub-compacts!
Using Precision Paper-Punching Equipment that also makes very satisfying loud percussive noises in a non-threatening manner, perfecting one’s techniques, is SUCH FUN!
“…you are denied the simple pleasure of making things go bang.”
Somewhere in a parallel universe…
You know nuffin mate. Gun control in UK is a load of bollox. Me and me mates is all tooled up ready to go and do the post office. We got the guns from the bloke wot sells us the crack. He got loads as he says he needs bodyguards for his work. You wanna gun – come and work for us. We’re gettin some big shooters in when we take on the Chink firm what does the smack trade. We ain’t avin no foreigners on our turf. You wanna see fings “go bang” came down the estate next Saturday. Know what I mean?
And now normal service will be resumed from a “gun free” Britain…
Yes we have guns the the UK, alright. It is just a question of whether you have a licence or not.
I would imagine that it is much less likely that a citizen of the UK will spend a day at the range with a wide range of, er, Precision Paper-Punching Equipment, than a citizen of the US. Or even of Switzerland.
RC Dean is probably quite right.
Even when people could own handguns, the numbers who actually did were very low.
I’ve been to the range when I’ve been on business in the US but I can’t say that I could imagine spending hours there – 50 rounds is more than enough for me.
S. Weasel wrote:
‘The McDonald’s spilled-coffee lawsuit is closer – using the courts to shake down a big company with deep pockets whose product performed exactly as advertised.’
That’s a poor comparison. Better to say “using the courts to sue a big company whose product had casued numerous identical injuries in the past, and who resolutely refused, for motives of pure profit and nothing else, to take any steps to reduce the inherent risk of their product and the way they sold it.”
Here’s some seldom-heard facts about the ‘McDonalds hot coffee’ lawsuit.
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
Doesn’t seem like quite such a hot comparison now, does it?
Dave O’Neill wrote:
‘I’ve been to the range when I’ve been on business in the US but I can’t say that I could imagine spending hours there – 50 rounds is more than enough for me.’
Silly – that’s why they make clay pigeons!
llater,
llamas
Doesn’t seem like quite such a hot comparison now, does it?
Oh, please.
Coffee can only properly be made with boiling water. Water boils at 212° F. McDonald’s does not violate the laws of physics when it makes its coffee. Therefore, the fresher the coffee, the closer it’s going to be to that temperature.
Providing a link that proves that spilling liquid at at 180° F on yourself will damage your skin, that hundreds of people were clumsy enough to do this and blame someone else, or that trial lawyers don’t believe this was a junk suit isn’t proof of anything but how extraordinarily venal and silly people can be.
“I feel bad for my brethren in England, that you are denied the simple pleasure of making things go bang.”
That you feel bad makes me feel a whole lot better 🙂
Then again, there’s always air rifles…
The link Dave O’Neill provides is interesting only to the extent that makes the whole case even more laughable. Their customers demand hot coffee but, according to the trial lawyers, they don’t realise that it will burn them if they spill it on themselves and therefore eeeeeevil profiteering McDonalds should be punished.
Of course, should McDonalds decide to reduce the temperature of their coffee, Dave will be at the forefront of outraged ‘consumer advocates’ demanding government action to stop the eeeeevil profiteering McDonalds from ripping-off their customers with cold coffee.
There is no such thing as a slow day in the grievance business.
I didn’t say anything about the MacDonald’s case. I try to avoid going anywhere near the place unless it is absolutely necessary.
However, my view, as in most things is caveat emptor. In the case of coffee, in particular, firstly buying it at MacDonalds is a crime in and of itself, secondly, coffee is hot. Where I do see the role for the state is where the average person is not going to be able to make an informed decision.
Of course, if we have got to point that people can’t make an informed decision about Coffee then maybe it is time to move off planet.
Clay pigeon shooting is very popular around the UK, I haven’t been but my brother-in-law insists that we should.
S. Weasel wrote:
‘Oh, please.
Coffee can only properly be made with boiling water. Water boils at 212° F. McDonald’s does not violate the laws of physics when it makes its coffee. Therefore, the fresher the coffee, the closer it’s going to be to that temperature.
Providing a link that proves that spilling liquid at at 180° F on yourself will damage your skin, that hundreds of people were clumsy enough to do this and blame someone else, or that trial lawyers don’t believe this was a junk suit isn’t proof of anything but how extraordinarily venal and silly people can be.’
You miss the point entirely.
McDonalds knew that the way they made and served their coffee caused people to be injured.
If you know that what you do and the way that you do it causes large numbers of people to be injured, and you don’t warn them of the dangers or do anything to try and prevent them, then you are negligent when you continue to do it. It’s no defence to say ‘well, they shouldn’t be so clumsy!’ In the particular case, McDonalds served coffee to its customers in ways that they knew (from many past incidents) was likely to cause them injury.
At what temperature coffee is best made has nothing to do with it – it’s the temperature at which it is served that is the issue. Hotter coffee is not necessarily ‘fresher’ when it is kept heated after being made. You can’t safely drink coffee served at 180°F – it will burn the gullet, just like it burns the skin. The only reason that McDonalds served it that way was to maximise their profit, as the trial testimony clearly showed.
When you serve dinner to your guests, I’ve no doubt that you warn them – watch this plate – it’s very hot! If you did not, and someone burned themselves, what would you tell them – ‘well, you shouldn’t have touched it! You ought to know that dinner plates are hot!’
There’s little doubt that the US is the home of the frivolous and venal lawsuit, but the ‘McDonalds hot coffee’ suit is a poor example of the species, hyped up by tort-reformers because of its everyday familiarity.
llater,
llamas
I don’t buy MacDonalds coffee, but one of my pet hates are cardboard cups for large soft drinks that they give you at multiplexes.
They simply do not have the necessary structural strength to support the quantity of liquid they sell you. On the plus side I’ve never had an issue getting compensation from a cinema manager.
Er, Dave, you posted a link to an article on the McDonalds case but now you claim but now you claim that you ‘didn’t say anything about it’? What was that link for then? Please knock it off.
Are you an average person, Dave? You seem to realise that ‘coffee is hot’. You want information? How’s this for information: next time you buy a cup of coffee from any vendor, take care not to spill it all over yourself.
Consider youself duly informed. End of story.
McDonalds knew that the way they made and served their coffee caused people to be injured.
Of course they knew! They had to know. Who doesn’t know coffee is hot, and hot will burn skin?
There really isn’t any amount of squirming and parsing that will make a restaurant wicked for serving hot coffee.
Dave, “Llamas” posted the link, not I. He’s the one making the argument about the case, not I.
I think that it was a pretty pointless lawsuit, but as I said, if I want coffee I’ll go somewhere where they’ll make it for me fresh.
FYI:
FROM ABOVE…
—cut—-
Here’s some seldom-heard facts about the ‘McDonalds hot coffee’ lawsuit.
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
llater,
llamas
Posted by llamas at August 8, 2003 03:24 PM
—end cut—
Oh my God. Two Daves, how is that possible. No wait, three Daves! Christ on a bike, this is a complex discussion.
Hang on a minute… how do we know Mr Llamas is called Dave? His Tag line sez “Johan”.
As for McDonalds selling coffee. Well they say they sell “food” so why not claim to sell “coffee”. I ate one of their hamburgers once. Probably explains a lot.
David Carr wrote:
‘The link Dave O’Neill provides is interesting only to the extent that makes the whole case even more laughable. Their customers demand hot coffee but, according to the trial lawyers, they don’t realise that it will burn them if they spill it on themselves and therefore eeeeeevil profiteering McDonalds should be punished.
Of course, should McDonalds decide to reduce the temperature of their coffee, Dave will be at the forefront of outraged ‘consumer advocates’ demanding government action to stop the eeeeevil profiteering McDonalds from ripping-off their customers with cold coffee.’
I may be wrong, but I think these obligin’ observations were addressed at me.
Firstly, of course, the government was completely uninvolved in this matter, and I have no idea where you get the idea that I would ever suggest that they should be.
If McDonalds insists on selling a product to customers in ways that they know (note, not suspect) will injure them, then yes, they should be punished. They have a duty of care to their customers, which should be based on their past experience and knowledge. If they continue to do it, in the light of that knowledge, then they should be held to account when an injury which they could foresee does actually occur.
As to your second comment, heaven forbid that the government get involved in telling McDonalds how to sell coffee. That’s between McDonalds and their customers. If McDonalds chooses to sell coffee to their customers in ways that they know will injure them, then there’s a free-market solution for that – it’s called a lawsuit. Oh, look – that’s how this free-market problem got solved!
I don’t buy McDonalds coffee, either.
llater,
llamas
Dave,
Oops, sorry. You are quite right. It was llamas. Apologies.
(However my advice on hot coffee stands 🙂
Mcdonalds? Coffee?
The title says “Good news on Guns”. I know it’s hot today but try to stay focused group…
And I agree that thousands of “Her Majesties loyal subjects” enjoy blasting away at clay pidgeons, plastic hares, springing teal and even a few plates every weekend. A sport enjoyed by rich and poor in sun and rain.
After they have done that, the rich go on to shoot live pheasants on acres of wide open moors. While the less rich don balaclavas and do the less wide open post office.
And if you really have gun withdrawal symptoms there’s always the army. Ours or several others. They don’t have it so bad in blighty.
The other point being that, having talked to a good few of them, I have come to the conclusion that the Brits in general don’t seem to feel a need to spend hours on the range with a gun. For example I and most of my friends can get the sights zero’d in with just a few shots.
Most of the Brits I haven’t talked to don’t seem to want a gun anyway. Are they mad or what?
S. Weasel wrote:
‘There really isn’t any amount of squirming and parsing that will make a restaurant wicked for serving hot coffee.’
Noone’s saying thet they are ‘wicked’. What they are is [i]responible for injuries caused by serving hot coffee when they know from past experience that they way that they do that is very likely to cause injury[/i].
Once again, if you know that what you do is likely to injure another, and you keep on doing it anyway, you are liable for injuries you cause. You do not get to make up your own definitions of how clumsy, or ignorant, or foolish, the injured party was, in order to disclaim responsibility – your responsibility has already been defined for you by your past knowledge and experience.
If the Liebeck case was the first time that anyone anywhere had ever been burned by McDonalds coffee, you might have a valid point. But it wasn’t, and you don’t.
llater,
llamas
If McDonalds chooses to sell coffee to their customers in ways that they know will injure them, then there’s a free-market solution for that – it’s called a lawsuit.
Jumping Jesus Christ! You think the courts are part of the free market, and are not an arm of the government?!
Whew, you’ve got bigger problems than not knowing coffee will burn you.
I too have met lots of Brits who claim to zero their rifles with “just a few shots”. It really depends what you’re doing and how much accuracy interests you. Thorough examination of a load and how it performs requires lots of groups to be fired, and the load experimented with – so sometimes I might indeed spend most of a day at the range, with handloading kit undercover plus a chrono, having a damn good time and putting rather more than 50 rounds downrange, Dave…
Yes indeed US cousins incl RCD, we might be oppressed but we’re not entirely bereft of things that go bang. Tomorrow I’ll be at the range myself in fact, with my young son, though since the club range is only 25 yds we’ll just be shooting rimfire rifles and long-barrelled revolvers – the latter are by some strange process (perhaps not totally divorced from superstition) considered less likely than short-barrelled ones to turn somebody into a rampaging psycho, so they may still be owned. Tonight we might get out for some long-range bunny-busting with my walk-around varminter, McMillan stocked 223…
As for all this shit about Macdonalds & coffee, I’m baffled: have they been sued, by innocents who managed to get through life without realising that freshly-made coffee tends to be uncomfortably hot, or something? I speak as someone who only visited Macdonalds once, and that was because the rest of Exeter was closed by 10.30pm. I find the smell of hot grease offputting.
S. Weasel wrote:
‘Jumping Jesus Christ! You think the courts are part of the free market, and are not an arm of the government?!
Whew, you’ve got bigger problems than not knowing coffee will burn you.’
Yes, I actually do think that.
The courts provide a supposedly-impartial venue to decide matters between individuals. We’re talking about civil matters here, not criminal.
What better free-market solution do you have to suggest to provide redress for an injury committed by one private party upon another?
(This should be good!)
llater,
llamas
The budget deficet is actually 38 billion. Not to mention the 5 year contracts the that has the state paying 70 dollars for 1 dollar’s worth of electricity. Man I love living in California!
Derek
llamas
What about the reasonable man standard? If people can sue McDonalds because the coffee is hot and they burn themselves, why can they not sue shower makers if they get in the shower in their cloths and ruin them. The shower maker didn’t warn them that water is wet.
We’re talking about civil matters here, not criminal.
It’s the judicial branch of government nonetheless.
What better free-market solution do you have to suggest to provide redress for an injury committed by one private party upon another?
Eh?
Steph wrote:
‘What about the reasonable man standard? If people can sue McDonalds because the coffee is hot and they burn themselves, why can they not sue shower makers if they get in the shower in their cloths and ruin them. The shower maker didn’t warn them that water is wet.’
That’s a good question. In another thread, not so very far away, we’ve already had lots of good fun with the ‘reasonable man’ standard.
My point would be that it cuts both ways. I’d suggest that a reasonable man knows that what he is doing causes injury to others – not just on an isolated occasion, but repeatedly – then he would take steps to reduce or eliminate the danger of injury.
The ‘reasonable man’ standard actually did come into play in the McDonalds hot coffee lawsuit – Ms Liebeck was found to be 20% at fault for her injuries, in the basis that a ‘reasonable’ person would have some knowledge that coffee is hot and might burn, and her damages were reduced in that proportion.
llater,
llamas
who actually used to ride the Clapham omnibus, every day.
S. Weasel wrote:
‘What better free-market solution do you have to suggest to provide redress for an injury committed by one private party upon another?
Eh?’
Come, now. It’s a perfectly simple question. You went off like a roman candle when I suggested that a lawsuit is a good free-market remedy for these situations – in fact, I think it’s the best there is.
I merely asked you to suggest a better one. If your best answer is
‘Eh?’
then perhaps you should reconsider getting into discussions where you so easily get out of your depth.
llater,
llamas
llamas writes:
“Come, now. It’s a perfectly simple question. You went off like a roman candle when I suggested that a lawsuit is a good free-market remedy for these situations – in fact, I think it’s the best there is.”
Not to mince words – bollocks.
How can it be a ‘free market’ solution when the laws under which a case are fought are drawn-up by a government and judgement comes from a state-appointed judge?
If you’re going to start bandying around insults about people getting out of their intellectual depth you could at least do us the courtesy of switching your brain on beforehand.
Come, now. It’s a perfectly simple question.
A perfectly simple incoherent question. Calling civil courts a “free market” solution because customers can sue suppliers is like calling them a medical procedure because patients can sue doctors.
I merely asked you to suggest a better one.
Even stranger. Whether or not I have a better suggestion doesn’t change the definition of the thing under discussion.
Very nifty wordsmything, Mr Weasel! Do you give lessons?
G.Cooper writes:
‘How can it be a ‘free market’ solution when the laws under which a case are fought are drawn-up by a government and judgement comes from a state-appointed judge?’
And other stuff besides, but I won’t repeat that language.
Let’s be clear – we’re talking about civil matters here – one person suing another for a redress of injuries. Not criminal matters.
Kindly describe what ‘laws drawn up by government’ define the outcome of such a case?
You can’t, because there are none. What there are are rules of procedure – which try and make sure that everyone gets a fair shot to set out their case. But a civil court is not bound by any statute law beyond the rules of procedure. If it is bound by anything, it is bound by precedent – how previous grievances have been settled.
To be sure, the court and its officers are appointed by the government, or elected, and paid for out of taxes. But to that, I would say – what better solution do you have to suggest?
In a civil case, the plaintiff alleges a wrongdoing – in this case, a tort – and then sets out to prove to the judge (and jury, if appropriate) that a wrong was actually done, an injury was actually sustained, and that the defendant was to blame. The judge gets to decide (based on precedent) on each of these issues. There’s really no statute law involved for the most part, except for matters of process, so that witnesses can be compelled to attend and so forth.
Now, would you like to switch on your brain and reconsider your post?
Really, I’m quite surprised at the level of ignorance being put on display here.
llater,
llamas
S. Weasel wrote:
‘Come, now. It’s a perfectly simple question.
A perfectly simple incoherent question. Calling civil courts a “free market” solution because customers can sue suppliers is like calling them a medical procedure because patients can sue doctors.
I merely asked you to suggest a better one.
Even stranger. Whether or not I have a better suggestion doesn’t change the definition of the thing under discussion.’
So, no answer, then? I didn’t think so.
Your screen name is well-chosen.
llater,
llamas
So, no answer, then?
Answer an irrelevant question? No, thanks.
Unless you’d care to how explain how my refusal to describe an alternative to civil court proves that the freedom to sue a restaurant when you dump scalding coffee in your own lap is a triumph of the free market…?
Just out of my own morbid curiosity and a yes or no will surfice.
Do you think there is a credible alternative to courts which can provide an arbitration service in this sort of case?
Still no answer, then? I thought not.
Look, sunshine, you raised the issue – not me. You raised the hot-coffee lawsuit, claiming it was an example of a shakedown of an innocent but deep-pocketed defendant – I called you on it because it’s actually a poor example of that, and rather a good example of a free-market resolution of injury to one party caused by the negligence of another.
I called the lawsuit in that case a good example of a free-market solution at work, and you went off at the deep end. How could I possibly see a civil court, run by the government, those evil curs, as being any sort of a free-market instrument, you cried?
Well, the fact is that I can, because it is. I invited you to suggest an alternative, maybe to point out why what I said is not so.
Now you’ve got the sulks. You won’t answer the question because you say it is ‘irrelevant’. It wasn’t irrelevant when you yelled at me for saying what I said – it’s only irrelevant when you’re called upon to defnd what you said.
Yeah, okay. Teenager much?
Like I said – might want to reconsider getting into discussion that get over your head so quick. Those one-size-fits-all libertarian positions actyually don’t fit very much of anything – as you are finding out.
llater,
llamas
Let’s try and drag this one back on the rails.
I’m frankly surprised to see a ‘libertarian’ website speaking approvingly of something like the litigation-shield law that’s presently before the Congress, which would deny individual, private litigants certain causes of action against other, private entities (the gun manufacturers).
I would have thought that a law which prevents private parties from seeking redress against other private parties would be a bad thing – not a good thing – according to libertarian thinking. Or is government intervention by fiat a good thing when it seems (on its face) to advance a cherished libertarian principle?
I thought that government intervention into the private decisions of individuals was a bad thing? Maybe I was wrong – maybe all government interventions are bad, but some are less bad than others?
Me, I’m off to shoot some skeet. Discuss.
llater,
llamas
I called the lawsuit in that case a good example of a free-market solution at work
Yes, and I’m still trying to work out how a civil court is a free market.
“I would imagine that it is much less likely that a citizen of the UK will spend a day at the range with a wide range of, er, Precision Paper-Punching Equipment, than a citizen of the US. Or even of Switzerland.”
Correct about the Brits (although it is still possible to go target shooting with rifles). But you underestimate the Swiss – in percentage terms, far more of them own and use firearms than Americans, and gun ownership is perhaps even more a part of their culture than it is across the pond (go to Switzerland when they are having one of their shooting festivals – you’ll see parents walking round in public with rifles slung over their shoulders, complete with young children in tow. Quite amusing watching the tourists get a shock from the whole thing!). Switzerland has had the most heavily armed citizen militia of any country in the world for a long time, one of the major reasons it was not invaded during WWI or II. The Alpine country is also a good example to bring up when people claim that guns lead to high murder rates.
On a related note, I shall be in Florida later this month, and fancy some target practice. Anyone know a good shooting range near Miami?
“I’m frankly surprised to see a ‘libertarian’ website speaking approvingly of something like the litigation-shield law that’s presently before the Congress, which would deny individual, private litigants certain causes of action against other, private entities (the gun manufacturers).”
Why?
“I would have thought that a law which prevents private parties from seeking redress against other private parties would be a bad thing – not a good thing – according to libertarian thinking.”
What makes you think the law is preventing redress? Redress implies some wrongdoing, after all, which in libertarian thought requires some infringement of rights. Whose rights are infringed by exchanging an inanimate object for cash? If the law allows an innocent person to be robbed in the courts, then the law is wrong and needs changing.
“Or is government intervention by fiat a good thing when it seems (on its face) to advance a cherished libertarian principle?”
You expect libertarians to object to democratic votes that advance the cause of liberty? What planet are you on! A group of people who are prepared to use lethal force to defend their property in extremis, are hardly likely to object to the same goal being achieved in a peacable consensual manner through institutional law-making apparatus. Although they will, of course, object to the coercive way in which that apparatus is funded.
“I thought that government intervention into the private decisions of individuals was a bad thing?”
Why did you think that? I don’t know of a single libertarian who holds that view.
“Maybe I was wrong – maybe all government interventions are bad, but some are less bad than others?”
Oh boy – so you think that opposition to government *initiation of force* (against people who have infringed no ones rights), necessarily implies opposition to *all* use of force? My dear sir, that is possibly the most groundless leap of illogic since Aquinas tried to hoodwink us with the ontological proof of the existence of God!
I don’t care what anyone says about, “she should have known that coffee is hot”.
McDonald’s coffee is WAY TOO HOT! I bought a cup there once, took a tiny sip and scalded my tongue so bad it hurt for 2 days. It hurt so much when I did it, I jerked my head back involuntarily and yelled, “FUCK ME!” I have never had coffee that hot before or since.
When I make coffee at home or buy it at Starbuck’s it’s hot, sure, but I can comfortably take sips until it cools down a bit. I’ve spilled it on myself and not gotten deep-tissue burns.
I think McDonald’s deserved to pay every penny of that penalty, especially since they refused to settle her medical bills for $20,000 and they had had plenty of complaints of injury before that. It’s just irresponsible to sell napalm and call it coffee.
From this side of the pond what strikes a lot of people is that the Macdonalds/coffee thing is not so much an illustration of every red-blooded freedom-loving American’s right to sue for absolutely anything at all, but yet another egregious example of litigation frenzy. It does the cause of liberty no good at all if the foolish, irresponsible or greedy can instigate lawsuits on trivial grounds: it increases the cost of goods & services (including liability insurance of course), breeds suspicion & distrust, and brings the law still further into contempt. And yes, it does concern us, because the same unhealthy tendency is migrating here. Alcoholics blaming whisky distillers – fat people blaming food manufacturers – coffee drinkers blaming the boiling point of water: Christ, what next…
Dear Robert Clayton Dean (Wisconsin USA)
Why a title like “Self defence & security” ?
What about “Self destruction & insecurity” instead?
HOMICIDE RATE
Canada 18 per million inhabitants
USA 63 (3,5 times more)
GUN HOMICIDES
France = 200 >>> 3,3 per million inhabitants
Germany = 300 >>> 3,7
Canada = 165 >>> 5,5
UK = 68 >>> 1,1
Austria = 65 >>> 8,1
Japan = 39 >>> 0,3
USA = 11.000 >>> 39,3 (12 times more than France, 11 times more than Germany, 7 times more than Canada, 36 times more than the UK, 5 times more than Austria, 131 times more than Japan).
Significantly, the US is now successfully exporting its death culture to Iraq (at the daily cost of the US army). Beware of future reverse imports…
llamas,
You know you could be right.
Bathtubs are more dangerous than Mickey D. Where ae the warnings?
More kids die from drowning in buckets every year than die at McDs. Where is the outrage.
And why aren’t there warnings at the head of every set of stairs?
And we have not even got to motor cars. With all the warning labels required they could do without paint jobs.
And how about the most dangerous of all: falling out of bed.
It is a wonder people are allowed access to knives and bats. Some one could get hurt.
Kodiak,
America could cut it’s gun death rate significantly by ending prohibition. We tend to produce very vicious smugglers here. Of course if you look at Flight 93 we produce some fairly vicious ordinary citizens.
The other thing to remember is that the violence is isolated to certain neighborhoods. Again correlated with smugglers dens.
In any case we know the price we pay but we still wish to pay it to prevent things like Germany 1933 – 45 or Rawanda, Cambodia, etc. to go down with out a fight.
Freedom is not free. Lest you think I am unable to FEEL the cost let me tell you that I lost my brother to a street homicide in 1974. I still favor guns in the hands of citizens. But, then again, I’m Jewish.
Cobden Bright wrote:
‘What makes you think the law is preventing redress? Redress implies some wrongdoing, after all, which in libertarian thought requires some infringement of rights. Whose rights are infringed by exchanging an inanimate object for cash? If the law allows an innocent person to be robbed in the courts, then the law is wrong and needs changing.’
Well, maybe I don’t understand the proposed law as I think I do, but what I think it does is shield gun manufacturers from civil suits brought by individuals who allege that they have been injured by some aspect of the gun or its use that they allege is the manufacturer’s responsibility. It has nothing to do with the purchase transaction, as you describe.
In other words, the right of the individual to seek redress is limited or eliminated. I see that as an ‘infringment of rights’, and would be interested to learn why you believe that it is not. It sounds awfully like you are saying that it is impossible for the gun manufacturers to be liable for any outcome connected with their product, no matter what they do, and I don’t think that’s what you mean to say.
In Miami, you will find most anything you need at the Tamiami complex – it’s a shop, it’s a range, it’s everything you need! It’s in the book.
S. Weasel wrote:
‘I called the lawsuit in that case a good example of a free-market solution at work
Yes, and I’m still trying to work out how a civil court is a free market.’
Yes, I know you are – that much is obvious. Perhaps if you actually considered the words I used – ‘free market solution’, not ‘free market’ – it might become a little clearer for you. Come up for air, soon.
Today – Pistol! What a wonderful society we live in . . . .
llater,
llamas
llamas,
litigation shields – the gun suits are an effort to drive gun mfgrs out of business by infininte suits.
Rather than loser pays which would change significantly our system (for good or ill) you get shield laws. Because we do not have loser pays in our system (generally) it encourages even the poor to seek redress. OTOH you get a lot of nutty suits. Another case where no set of rules is going to work perfectly. Justice can only be obtained (imperfectly) by judging.
The question is – is the right to sue in this case worth it for its practical effect of eliminating the right to keep and bear arms? Or put arms out of reach of the ordinary citizen because of price.
This gets back to what I keep saying about practical libertarianism. Trade offs must be made or you get injustice in some cases.
In real life (as opposed to utopia) there are trade offs to be made.
In real life the rules are always going to be violated for some reason or another. Always. This is where the love of liberty of the average citizen. To hold accountable those involved IF IT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO.
Jefferson sincerely thought he did not have the power as President to make the Louisiana purchace. When the people who he thought most likely to complain didn’t (these were people who normally stood on principle but in this case prefered results) and on further reflection and the opinion of some lawyers he decided what he did was OK.
No set of rules can cover all situations. And even if they could you will have to institute their application gradually or by unanimous consent to get acceptance.
asm wrote:
‘I don’t care what anyone says about, “she should have known that coffee is hot”.
McDonald’s coffee is WAY TOO HOT! I bought a cup there once, took a tiny sip and scalded my tongue so bad it hurt for 2 days. It hurt so much when I did it, I jerked my head back involuntarily and yelled, “FUCK ME!” I have never had coffee that hot before or since.
When I make coffee at home or buy it at Starbuck’s it’s hot, sure, but I can comfortably take sips until it cools down a bit. I’ve spilled it on myself and not gotten deep-tissue burns.
I think McDonald’s deserved to pay every penny of that penalty, especially since they refused to settle her medical bills for $20,000 and they had had plenty of complaints of injury before that. It’s just irresponsible to sell napalm and call it coffee.’
Bingo! We have a winner. Well-written.
The key word is ‘irresponsible’. If you behave irresponsibly, you should expect to suffer the consequences of your actions.
llater,
llamas
LLAMAS
McDo’s sock’s juice ISN’T coffee. It’s a beverage for Unitedstatish people.
******
M. SIMON
Sorry: I don’t know what Flight 93 is.
“The other thing to remember is that the violence is isolated to certain neighborhoods” >>> the other thing to remember is that the “certain neighbourhoods” are disseminated everywhere in the US.
“In any case we know the price we pay but we still wish to pay it to prevent things like Germany 1933 (…)” >>> does the “we” include all the buried people who don’t stand a single chance to have a say in the debate?
As for your religion or ethnicity, I really don’t see the point. Guns kill. Guns combined with stupidity is the best guarantee for slaughter >>> the US reality.
Coffee cannot possibly be hotter than boiling water. Everyone who’s ever taken a whistling kettle off the stove and poured water from it over a teabag has handled a liquid hotter than McDonald’s coffee. Most of us do this daily, yet somehow we aren’t scarred for life.
Thousands of products are inherently dangerous and can cause injury if mishandled. How do you child-proof a lawn mower? A drain cleaner? A 30′ ladder? A car? Not only must many things, of necessity, be dangerous, but most have been subjected to lawsuits from cretins.
Thus, we all pay higher prices to keep our manufacturers well supplied with lawyers, all our stuff bears absurd warning labels and eminintly defeatable ‘safety’ features, and life goes merrily on being dangerous for cretins. And it always will.
Free market, my butt.
S. Weasel,
Yes life will always be dangerous for cretins (US gun-obsessed citizens vs US paranoid citizens).
In addition to that refreshing axiom, it is unfortunately deplorable that any US cretins render the planet dangerous for their contemporaneous fellows.
Kodiak: Excellent example of the cherry picking of data to match the conclusion which you had already decided on. Try including Israel, Switzerland, Brazil, and Russia in your data before deciding that gun availability is a causal factor in the increase in homocide rate. Try comparing the violent crime rates of specific areas before and after the tightening of gun restrictions. Or, better yet, try reading any of the several analyses done on the impact of concealed carry laws on crime rates starting with John Lott’s More Guns, Less Crime. And before you start throwing out the traditional anti-Lott ad hominems, remember that every one of his conclusions has been replicated by other researchers, and that while he has made his data and methodology open to public scrutiny, it has not once been debunked with any degree of success.
Serious question for gun advocates.
Given that the idea is that an armed citizenry is better able to defend its other rights against the state, I want to ask something specific.
Will keeping and bearing arms help Americans to resist the imposition of compulsory government ID cards and/or biometric data tracking? I’m not being sarcastic – I can imagine gun-owning could stiffen resolve to resist the government or whatever – but I’m really curious what people here think on this.
Fish,
Are you allergic to figures?
Sadly, no, mark, I don’t think an armed citizenry is much hedge against the encroaching state. I suppose there’s some level at which those who administer a land of armed loonies keep civil tongues in their heads, but any threat to government is symbolic, not actual.
Of course, symbolism is important and gun ownership is evocative in a land where the government is founded on the principle of distrust of government. The concept that this is a place where one can be armed is far more important than actually being armed.
Against ID cards, though…? Brrrr…I hope there’s enough bloody-mindedness left in the land that we even object to the idea in sufficient numbers.
I’m allergic specifically to those figures that are selected with the express intent of making a certain position look good, and doubly allergic to those which deliberately leave out anything inconveinent to them.
I repeat: Israel, Switzerland, Russia, Brazil, for starters.
Oh and if you want to get really fancy with the numbers, go look some time at what happens to the US murder rate if you remove all black-on-black violence.
Bingo, it drops to the same range as other first world countries.
One’s explaination for this will of course vary by ideology.
Fish,
Please advance your figures about Israel (at war), Switzerland, Russia (at war) & Brazil.
******
David Mercer,
Quoting you: “Oh and if you want to get really fancy with the numbers, go look some time at what happens to the US murder rate if you remove all black-on-black violence”.
That sentence is revolting. Blacks are not Unitedstatish citizens? Your conception of nation is curious. Perhaps perfidious?
If one only removes all homicides, regardless of color, from all gun deaths; i.e., accidental vs. purposeful deaths, the number drops greatly.
As to the McDonald’s coffee suit, does anyone remember where that ditzy lady had placed said cup of HOT COFFEE?! Between her legs whilst driving!
I like this thread. Its quite libertarian and you can change subject without pissing off the author. :0)
Cobden – maybe I wasn’t clear, but my reference to the Swiss above was a recognition of the vigorous gun culture there. The rather isolated comments in this thread that were on-topic have brought to light a rather more vigorous gun culture in England than I had expected. I hadn’t really looked at the gun scene in England in quite some time, and was going off a rather foggy recollection that it was very difficult to impossible for private citizens to own and shoot guns there – I think I was generalizing from handguns to all guns.
A few rounds checking your zero does not an accurate rifleman make – like most martial arts, proficiency in shooting is obtained only through a great deal of repetition.
Kodiak – back out a handful of inner-city neighborhoods, and the US murder rate is quite, well, European. There has never been a correlation demonstrated across countries between gun ownership and homicide rates – examples can be multiplied on both sides of the fence. As others have observed above.
I believe an armed citizenry is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a free nation. Maybe I’ll post on that later, but that sums up my position on that particular angle of this topic.
Hey Kodiak, you might not like it, but the problem in the US isn’t white, asian or hispanic people killing each other.
You can thank the Drug War in large part for all the black violence, but you can’t dodge the fact that that is the reality of why our murder rate is so high.
That and AA telling blacks they’re not capable of success without a ‘hand up’.
It’s ugly, but it’s the truth.
1) The trouble with the simple pleasure of making things go bang is in having ten times the murder rate of one’s neigbors.
2) Surely anyone who enjoys a gunnery range of any sort is new to it.
Swiss system is the solution. Militias. Draconian violations of civil rights to disarm the ghetto. You want to carry a weapon and you like ranges? All it takes is the occasional weekend with Sgt. Dayok.
Ready on the right?
R C DEAN
” (…) back out a handful of inner-city neighborhoods, and the US murder rate is quite, well, European”
Can you prove it?
******
DAVID MERCER
” (…) you might not like it, but the problem in the US isn’t white, asian or hispanic people killing each other”
This quote combined with this one: “Oh and if you want to get really fancy with the numbers, go look some time at what happens to the US murder rate if you remove all black-on-black violence”, is, I repeat, revolting.
First you didn’t prove anything.
Second, even so, this WOULD be just a factual observation with no valid account for WHY it WOULD be so.
If you’re telling me that the rich kill each other less frequently than the poor do, I won’t be surprised. The question would be why poverty is confined to Black people, now being FORMALLY recognised as full US citizen for less than 40 years.
T. P. – “1) The trouble with the simple pleasure of making things go bang is in having ten times the murder rate of one’s neigbors.”
I contribute exactly nothing to the murder rate, having never murdered anyone, so I fail to see any connection between my time at the range and any crime rate. If anything, the fact that every house in my township can be expected to have at least one firearm (it is a rural township with lots of deer huners) probably has a lot to do with the fact that there has never been a murder here. Ever.
“2) Surely anyone who enjoys a gunnery range of any sort is new to it.”
That’s odd. I consistently run into the same group of regulars – a mix of reloaders tweaking out their formulae and competitive shooters.
Kodiak –
Here is a nice summary of recent homicide data. The racial data is summarized as follows:
“Blacks were 6 times more likely to be homicide victims and 7 times more likely than whites to commit homicides in 2000.
Eighty-six percent of white murder victims were killed by whites, and 94% of black victims were killed by blacks.”
Since black people consist of around 13% of the US population, a little math will show that about half the murders are black-on black crimes. This means that the other half of the murders are spread over the other 87% of the populace, giving you a murder rate for the non-black populace that is quite comparable to that in Canada and elsewhere in the Western world.
As for urban murder rates, try this. You will note that urban violent crime rates are multiples higher than in rural and even suburban areas. The reason that both urban and black-on-black crime rates are so much higher has to do with the pathology of certain inner-city communities that are sinkholes of crime.
Anyone who follows the news in a major city knows that the vast majority of violent crime is black on black and emanates from a few dysfunctional areas. This is reflected in the statistics above.
If you think there is a different pattern underlying American crime, please clue us in on what it might be.
R C Dean,
Thanx for the statistics.
An off-topic (?) remark. It’s horrifying that the US census bureau still continues to use statistical criteria as “race”, even if the questionees are invited to define themselves as members of a “race” (“white”, “black”, “latino”, “hispanic”, “asian”…) or members of no “race”. This kind of method is absolutely contrary to the very notion of Republic or Nation. In a country like France, such a questionaire would immediately lead its instigators to jail with a huge fine. The only “race” known on Earth is the Human Race, isn’t it?
You’re telling me 50 % or so of murders perpetrated on the US soil is due to “monorace” specificity. So if this “monorace” were to be excluded, the US performance in terms of murders would be comparable to the one of the Western world. But the fact is that the statistical peculiarity of the singled-out “monorace” CANNOT be excluded for the “monorace” in question is made up of US citizens, unless of course there is two-tier US citizenship.
In a previous thread dating back to July 2003 I was firmly told by a regular US Samizdater that there is NO problem with the US citizens of African descent as opposed to the remaining ones. I confess I get a bit confused with the Black question and its perception within the borders of the USA…
I understand that urban areas (heavily populated)are more likely to be concerned by murders than rural areas (low density). This phenomenon is common to any countries.
Finally, as I asked David Mercer previously, can the above-mentioned figures involving “race” be linked with the political status that people of African descent living on the soil of the USA were granted lately (~ 40 years ago) and consequently be linked with their economical level?
Mommabear wrote:
‘As to the McDonald’s coffee suit, does anyone remember where that ditzy lady had placed said cup of HOT COFFEE?! Between her legs whilst driving!’
Not so. She was not the driver of the vehicle, and it was parked when the incident occurred. See the fact link which I provided, waaaay back up the page. No offence, but your post typifies what ‘everybody knows’ about this case, and which forms many people’s opinions, and yet just is not so.
I tried to get this back on the rails, but I see it’s gone off on another tangent, and I’m not going there.
Just as an aside – Kodiak, are you the same Kodiak who used to be a regular on Randi’s discussion forum? If so, nice to see you again – if not, nice to see you anyway.
llater,
llamas
Just a comment about murder rates.
If you can recall the famous Red and Blue America map after the 2000 presidential election, there is a telling statistic, where the murder rate per 100,000 population is compared (also for 2000):
In Blue (Gore) counties: 11
In Red (Bush) counties: 2
And about poverty:
Kodiak, in fact there are numerically more poor White people in America than Black people — the INCIDENCE is higher among Blacks, though.
As for guns:
50 rounds is about what I do in warm-up (depending on which gun I’m shooting).
Certainly, 50 rounds (one box) for a handgun (.45 ACP) is about half a typical range session. If it’s a .22 pistol, I’ll shoot over 200 rounds. If it’s .44 Magnum, 18 (three cylinders, which is about all my hand will take).
If I’m practicing with the AK-47, about 120 will suffice (three 40-round mags).
But if I’m zeroing in a hunting rifle, I don’t need to shoot much more than 20 (the barrel gets really hot, which is why I typically take 5 or 6 rifles with me when I go to the 100-yard outdoor range).
If I’m airing out the old military rifles (German Mauser, Spanish Mauser, Swedish Mauser or the Lee-Enfields), about 20 each will suffice.
But all bets are off if I’m shooting the M1 Carbine — I can blow through 200 in a session quite easily, which is why I buy .30 carbine ammo by the case load.
The shotguns seldom get the trigger pulled more than a dozen times per session.
So an “average” shooting session depends really on what I take to the range that day.
Kim du Toit,
” (…) in fact there are numerically more poor White people in America than Black people — the INCIDENCE is higher among Blacks, though”
Please refer to the 2nd post above addressed to R C Dean.
Kodiak, you don’t know jack about America.
All that is required to reap the benefits of being an American is to BE an American.
That involves walking, talking, thinking and acting like one. Countless waves of immigrants have come here because of that. We don’t give a shit what tribe you come from, or what continent it’s on.
Income, crime, academic results and class mobility all correlate very strongly with the extent a group has assimilated. You get to keep your subcultural flavor: we WANT to grab what’s best in your culture, assimilation is a two way street.
Unassimilated Mexican and black ghettos are always going to do poorly. Aculturated Hispanic and black citizens do just as well as any flavor of caucasians or asians have.
Black America needs to get over it’s victimhood status and realize that only by acting American (which is derided as being ‘too white’) will they gain all of the benefits thereof. My white ancestors oppressed my Cherokee ones, my European ancestors oppressed my Jewish forbears, and hell, my Scots bloodlines have been kicked in the face by the English and the Romans before them for HOW LONG? Not to mention the English ones having oppressed each other based on who had the ‘wrong’ religion when.
So yes, 400 years of slavery for your ancestors sucked, but that doesn’t make you special, it just makes you human. Now do you want to be Americans or not?
David,
It’s too easy to say you’re not from the US so you’re irrelevant. Still, figures are stubborn. History, too, is.
“Black America needs to (…) realize that only by acting American (…) will they gain all of the benefits thereof”
Strange. And so unlibertarian… What’s “acting American” ? And that ever existed, why should free individuals conform to a norm to the detriment of their own aspirations?
And a last thing about “races” used by the census bureau. Is this “racist” approach that surprising from a country, the USA, who hasn’t even a proper noun to name its citizens? “American” refers to a continent, not to the USA. Why don’t you do like Hispanophones & Francophones do: Estadounidense and Etats-unien (Unitedstatishman, Unitedstater, Unitedstatish) ?
I’m not sure why Kodiak is so opposed to the analysis of global statistics by breaking them down into more meaningful segments, like showing how the US gun-homicide rates are skewed so extraordinarily by black-on-black urban killings. The global figure on its own is meaningless after all, and is of course used by anti-gun advocates all the time to preach about the wickedness of American gun culture ad infinitum.
I’ve known for a long time that armed crime figures in places where access to firearms is easy, such as the Dakotas, New Hampshire, Vermont and so on, are quite comparable with those in Europe, in stark contrast to places with strict gun controls like Washington DC, Chicago etc. In fact Kodiak, you should bear in mind that until legitimately owned handguns in Britain were mostly confiscated in 1997, it was in many ways easier for the law-abiding to own a handgun in Britain that it had been for citizens of NYC since the Sullivan Act of 1911…
Another British example: my area of rural South West England has one of the highest firearm ownership rates in the country, coupled with generally very low rates of armed crime. We suffer the same degree of over-regulation as everyone else in the country, even though something like 80% of all armed robbery takes place in London. Do you not think it is useful to examine the efficacy of laws & policies in the light of regional (or racial) differences? Or perhaps you cling to the French love of dirigiste central planning, blanket laws for everyone in all circumstances, the despotic tradition inherited from the Bourbons, from Napoleon, and every subsequent Republic – ? Our central planners are bad, but yours…
Tony H,
I’m not opposed to breakdown figures according to geography, age, income, sex etc. I think “race”-based ventilation is twice stupid: 1/ there’s no “race” – 2/ even if you take arbitrarily defined groups (religion, pseudo-ethnicity, skin coulour) you avoid main issues (welfare, education, prevention) & promote exclusion (seggregation, ostracism, populism).
“The global figure on its own is meaningless after all (…)” >>> No, it isn’t. The global figure states the reality all Unitedstatish citizens are confrontated with & determines how non US people do consider Unitedstaters as a nation.
“(…) my area of rural South West England has one of the highest firearm ownership rates in the country, coupled with generally very low rates of armed crime” >>> Eureka! You found the philosophal stone. Don’t you know that in any country rural area are inhabited by people who hunt & that the only murders you can find is cuckolds husbands shooting at the lover of their wives & angry peasants shooting at chicken swindlers? Nothing comparable with big cities…
“Do you not think it is useful to examine the efficacy of laws & policies in the light of regional (or racial) differences? ” >>> Why not regional indeed? But certainly not “racial”. Unless the next step is to eradicate Black population because they’re bad for US figures…
Last but not least: “Or perhaps you cling to the French love of dirigiste central planning, blanket laws for everyone in all circumstances, the despotic tradition inherited from the Bourbons, from Napoleon, and every subsequent Republic – ? Our central planners are bad, but yours…”
>>> Oh thanx very much indeed, Tony H. I was so anxious you could miss the best bit of your argument…
Kodiak says
“Strange. And so unlibertarian… What’s “acting American” ? And that ever existed, why should free individuals conform to a norm to the detriment of their own aspirations?”
No, no, no, no….PAY ATTENTION.
“Acting American” IS ACHIEVING YOUR OWN ASPIRATIONS. What the inner city black culture has been doing for YEARS, among each other person-to-person, is conforming to a norm — that of underachieving and engaging in tribal-type violence. Gangs shoot rival members, engage in selling drugs, et cetera; killings continue for reasons of revenge, ad nauseam. That is not a problem of guns; they would do it with knives if they were prevented from having guns, and often do use knives anyway. It is this culture that provides this low norm that these young people conform to, instead of acting like Americans, like the rest of Americans do — ACHIEVING THEIR ASPIRATIONS. Achieving aspirations is what Americans do. That’s what America allows; that is why people come here.
Think carefully and repeat after me. I will define the term previously used: VICTIM MENTALITY. A victim mentality is that attitude held by a person or persons in which they decide that they are Deserving Of More, whatever that might be. Rather than working for what they want, they sit back and complain until someone hands it to them, and until that time, act out like spoiled children. I choose those words ‘spoiled children’ because that is what they are. Many of them have been on welfare for their entire lives and don’t feel they need jobs; indeed, their parents were on welfare before them, and now they have come to believe that they are entitled to it. Thus we come to a new term: ENTITLEMENT.
The conclusion here is that welfare itself has become part of the problem by feeding this victim mentality. NOT GUNS. Guns allow those of us who are prey of these spoiled people to defend ourselves against them. This is why our Constitution says, in so many words, “THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.”
One more note about the victim mentality. I know that you, as a French person, are not fully informed of this; but the people in the victim culture feed off people like you who claim that minorities are oppressed. They are, of course, not; they could get jobs and better themselves at any time; their color is not a factor, nor is the number of years during which their race has been allowed to vote. People who continue to bring up the subject of The Poor Persecuted Minorities are promoting the very thing they claim to be trying to end: people of a darker skin color being unable to increase their fortunes. It isn’t people like me, who say those of another color are as good as anyone else and expect them to do as well, who are keeping certain minorities in positions of poverty. This is America. All they have to do is get to work. If they don’t do that, it’s their own fault.
Kodiak, Some of your remarks really are contentious, and contrast in a striking way with the rational thinking you demonstrate elsewhere. To assert that global figures represent any kind of “reality” is bizarre: they are crude averages that actually tell us very little. What is evident (or apparently so) on the surface has to be qualified by an examination of associated and underlying facts; for example I might point out that although the French railway system (of which I am a user and an admirer) works extremely well, it does so at the cost of an enormous state-incurred debt. Similarly the French figures for cirrhosis of the liver, and alcohol-related road traffic accidents, in themselves do not indicate to any rational person a general moral delinquency among the French, and these figures themselves are only truly informative when broken down by region, social class etc.
Neither do I understand your sensitivity about race. It is naive to pretend that the different racial groups that consitute the USA (and France…) do not correlate with different cultural attitudes, some of which manifest themselves in violence.
Please don’t pretend that I was trying to claim any sort of major discovery about crime and rural areas: you know very well that I was making a point about the unfairness and irrelevance of drawing conclusions about people’s behaviour over large geographical areas when in fact their behavious varies extremely – between, for example, the country and the city. I might add that we do not get many murderous cuckolds here, nor peasants shooting “chicken swindlers” – but perhaps things are different where you are.
As to my closing remarks earlier, perhaps this was slightly naughty, but I suggest that any dispassionate observer would agree that the French state is even more centralist and, yes, dirigiste, than the British one. And it certainly wasn’t the most important point I was trying to make.
Addendum to the previous comment. The feeling of entitlement is the reason why these young people (yes, mostly black young people as an unfortunate result of the demographics of these inner city neighborhoods) feel that they can rob, rape, kill, and generally be bad citizens: THEY FEEL ENTITLED. Why do they feel entitled? Because they have spent their whole lives hearing that they deserve it. Alternatively, they have been told their whole lives, at the same time, that Whitey is Keeping the Black Man Down. They bought into that load of horseshit, of course, because they don’t know anything else.
Is there person to person prejudice? Of course. But I fail to see why that is any more severe than ordinary run-of-the-mill plain old hatred, and everybody on this earth has been hated by someone. Is that a reason not to get a job, sit on your ass and sell drugs and shoot people? Large numbers of inner city residents think so — because it’s a cultural norm, a cultural imperative, that they do so. Black kids who leave the slums and go to college (on scholarships or by the sweat of their own brow) are most often told, when they come back, that they are “acting white.” Of course they aren’t; they are acting like every other mainstream citizen of America, be they white, Indian, Asian, or Mexican. The difference is the cultural imperative, Kodiak, NOT the race. Race in modern day American public life is largely immaterial; it is not part of legislated policy that any minority is at any kind of disadvantage. Indeed, in many cases, whites are now falling under legislative discrimination (affirmative action in college admissions, for example).
Please, PLEASE, stop whining about past history. We’ve learned from it, and you are making yourself sound ignorant.
Shana,
For God’s sake! Have you guys all forgotten what happened in Europe between 1933 & 1945 ? Singling out a race (or an ethnic group or whatever approaching) & stigmatising it for APPARENTLY “good” reasons can lead to an apocalyptic tragedy. When Hitler started to shout that the Jews were infesting banking & finance & held them responsible for all evil that fell on Germany, he was cunningly mixing facts & fantasies to catch the attention of the desperate living in disarray. What being a Jew meant in prewar Germany? Most of the Jews weren’t even going to the synagogue & they were doing bar-mitzvahs just by tradition just like present-day Catholics with baptism. Some Jews didn’t even know they were Jews. Some other were immigrants coming from Eastern Europe with bizarre habits & clothing for the Germans (Christians & Jews alike) of the time. Hitler took the opportunity to mix the strangeness of those migrants with the “greediness” of a tiny urban élite who were working in banking or finance: he created something that wasn’t existing and later said (in Mein Kampf) that his creation was a montsruous virus polluting German blood etc. Step by step, all that crap led to gas chambers.
Now you’re saying the inner city Blacks are stroke by forged victimisation (victim mentality), they demand what they don’t bother to sweat to get it. You are caricaturing a group because you (un?)consciously ostracise this group thanx to patterns (like gangs, laziness, big mouth, maffia…) that makes you feel better. On top of that, you accuse anyone interested in their condition of being either stabbing the lily-white Unitedstatish in the back (same old song) or lacking elementary knowledge of the US situation (same old tune).
Don’t you know that being deprived anyone of any viable prospect can lead this person to rebellion, crime & bitterness? I’m not trying to vindicate criminals: a crime is a crime & the perpetrator MUST be punished. But if the State were to mean something in the US, such a violence could easily be avoided. Why don’t the French Blacks kill each other 24 hours a day? Because they’re better than the US ones? No. Because they probably found their place.
Don’t you think that the fact the US was the only place on Earth with South Africa where apartheid (after slavery) was considered legal and desirable has a role in the current situation? Do you seriously think any poor Black is a gang member? Do you think there’s no racism in the US towards low-class Blacks, even good-intentioned?
The fact ALONE that the US State is still using race criteria is a huge shame. If it were using race to depict foreigners, I could admit it, à la rigueur. But the US State uses race to make a difference between its OWN citizens !!!
We were speaking about making NO difference between citizens belonging to the same country and you answer with this: “THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”. Yes, I admit I have absolutely no knowledge on the US conception of what a nation is. Having the right to posess a gun is more important than making sure all members of the nation can get a decent life…
I sincerely hope one day you’ll overcome all that legalised hatred within the USA and stop exporting it abroad.
I saved the best for the end: “The conclusion here is that welfare itself has become part of the problem by feeding this victim mentality”.
You’re a very knowlegeable person, Shana. According to you, the only tiny bit (the minuscule US “Welfare”) that’s left to link those people going adrift from the Society should be removed to help them come back. Very smart.
Shana: flat apologies for having put your name on my post above. I’m sorry.
Kodiak, you have no idea what you’re talking about.
You do not live in America. I do. I live in Boston, a city in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. More specifcally, I live the Boston neighborhood of Mattapan.
LOTS of black people live here. So many, that, as a white man, I am a definite minority. (as to why I live here. The rents are cheap.)
So perhaps I just might have a trifle more insight into the contemporary American black urban culture, living right in the middle of it, as it were, than might yourself.
If you were to ask any randomlu selected black teenager locally about Mae Jemison, Ronald McNair or Helen Lane, you’d get a blank stare. Of course, if it was Black History Month, you just might get an “Oh, yeah. I think I heard of them someplace” as an answer. Don’t bet on it though.
Ask that same teen about Tupac and you’ll get chapter and verse about his life and times.
Come with me to the Forest Hills subway stop, a major terminus a few miles from my home and you’ll see both the Boston police and the Transit police in full force there, as the majority black teen students depart for school in the morning and return from school in the afternoon. Thise are the times you are most likely to be shot in that subway station. The rest of the time, there are maybe two transit police in the station.
Likewise, observe the local Mattapan trolley station/Bus stop at those same times. Massive police presence morning and afternoon during the school year. It was two years ago, while waiting for a bus, that I witnessed one group of black youths threatening another group of black youths. Knives were MUCH in evidence and seconds later, here come the Transit police with drawn guns, chasing down the knife wielders.
Several local politicians have made comfortable sinecures for themselves, simply by periodically remionding their black constituants that they are being oppressed by The Man, but “I’m fighting for you, tooth and nail, against the racists!” Yet, Mattapan and Roxbury, the other majorly black neighborhood, still remain at the bottom of the list when it comes to basic metropolitan services like street cleaning, infrastructure repair and maintainence, school construction, etc.
But I digress. At the Mattapan trolly station, gang related grafitti is everywhere, as is casual vandalism, the occasional used condom and periodic armed robbery and rape. And this is an open, above ground transit station. It’s not whites robbing and raping blacks, it’s black on black crime.
I have a radio scanner here. It’s programmed with the radio frequency channels used by the Boston police and Transit police. Here in Mattapan and in Roxbury, when a criminal suspect’s description is broadcast for locally committed crime, it almost always starts, “Wanted, a black male…”
It was a former New York City commissioner of police, a black man, who got into some trouble with the black community in New York by stating, “The dirty little secret of the black community in New York is that 50% of all crime in New York City is committed by black males between the ages of 15 and 30” (quoted from memory, a bit of googling could probably find the actual quote)
The fact of the matter is that when you factor out black on black crime, the U.S. homicide rates drop dramatically.
That’s a fact, and all your Viewing With Alarm at US statistical methods will not change that fact.
“Its quite libertarian and you can change subject without pissing off the author.”
That’s because the author (a) has been on the road and checking in only sporadically (b) sees no practical way to police what topics are raised on this thread and (c) really couldn’t be bothered anyway.
Much of the benefit of these discussions comes in the “off-topic” free association diversions anyway. I now know more than I ever wanted to about the damn McD’s coffee case, but whatever, dude.
Kodiak
If you doubt my facts, go to inner city Los Angeles after dark. Without a gun. In a new car. I hope you survive.
For you to take a statement about parsing statistics and turn it into the equivalent of Hitler singling out Jews for destruction through the manufacture of facts is so patently ridiculous I’m disgusted. I had more respect for you than that. I refer you to Chris Tucker’s post.
Got news for you, brother. I’m on welfare. Yeah, me. Why? Because my WHITE husband thought he could treat me like …. well. Just say violence figured large in the past 10 years.
It isn’t welfare itself that’s the problem, nor the people who use it as a whole. The problem is the mentality of the people who use it — their intentions, their culture, what they teach their children. It’s NOT a racial problem; it’s a PERSONAL and CULTURAL problem. Which I know I made quite clear in my previous two posts. The fact that most of the people who are members of this entitlement culture are of darker skin is an artifact of an out of date mode of living. It’s a physical necessity that my skin is light, since my ancestors were light skinned; but my views and the value I place on people of whatever race are my own, and whatever views my ancestors held died with them. Similarly it’s a function of genetics that their skin is dark; but if they want out of that violent, abusive culture, all they have to do is WANT OUT. America lets them leave.
Are you interested in their condition? If you are, why do you ignore the testimonies of people who live amidst it? Please go back and carefully read Chris Tucker’s post. I am also quite interested in their condition — and removing responsibility from their own shoulders will only lengthen the amount of time they spend in it. As I said before: If they want out, they have to work for it, like everyone else. Tell me something, Kodiak — what qualifies them for special treatment? The melanin content of their skin? Is there some reason you don’t think black people are as competent to help themselves as the rest of America?
Well, let’s see now. For ten years I have been deprived of, in succession, 1) personal safety 2) self respect 3) my chosen associates 4) financial security, all by the man who promised to “love, cherish and protect” me. Now by your logic, I would naturally take my GUN and shoot him in his sleep. However, I argue that I have the choice to divorce him instead and work to get a better life, with the temporary assistance of the welfare program, and keep my GUN for self defense in the event that he decides I don’t have the right to take control of my own life. Now, if I have been deprived of viable prospects but have chosen to find a way out of my situation by USING the American process rather than COMPLAINING about it, can’t they do the same? Whatever color they are? (Anyone else here see the parallels between my future ex-husband and an overbearing state?)
Exactly. Precisely my point. They found their place. So have millions of American blacks, who have NOT been removed from the homicide calculations as they are not residents of inner cities. Ask Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice. (Statistical science isn’t refined enough to know the thoughts & intentions of those inner city blacks who don’t participate in the victim culture and are working to change it. We’re sorry but life ain’t perfect.) The point behind the original mention of removing inner-city blacks from the homicide statistics had to do with an aberrational separate culture — something that is separated from American culture and is hostile to it. Thus, those involved in this gang culture use any lethal weapon (including their hands and feet) to kill not only those who are involved in their own gang culture, but those of their own color who are NOT involved in it and are trying to achieve the dream people come to America for.
I do not. However I do think that the refusal of organizations like the NAACP to let the issue die a peaceful death IS partially responsible for the current situation, by giving those who are given to complaining some legitimization for doing so.
I defy you to find a place in any of my posts where I claimed such a thing.
Absolutely I think there is — of which your own good intentioned posts are a prime example. Do I think it is legislated and institutionalized? Exactly the opposite.
I agree, that sucks. But, first of all, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (note that they use a word in their own name that, had a white Congressman used it, they themselves would instantly call for his resignation) won’t let those race distinctions be removed from public life. There is at present a black man in California who is campaigning to have all classifications of race removed from college applications. Guess what? Many of his fellow blacks are calling HIM a racist.
Having a right to possess a gun is INTEGRAL to making sure all members of the nation can get a decent life. Why? It allows us to defend ourselves against violent fellow citizens. The police can obviously not be everywhere. If my husband broke into my house tonight, the cops could not get here in time if he decided to bust my skull open against the doorframe. I don’t know about you, but that is a daily concern for me. I have a 12 inch short sword under my bed with which to castrate his bastard ass if he tries it. My capacity to use violence, and the legal right for me to do so, is right now one of the only guarantees I have that I will be able to provide myself a decent life. I have the right to keep and bear arms; that provides me SO MUCH more security than any state program or promise. Surely even you can see that.
Remove my own support? That would indeed be stupid.
Seeing as how I was referring to the quicksand-like culture of the people who use welfare as an ongoing means of defrauding the state while they spend their days stripping cars and selling crack, and not as a means to come back as I am doing, this is an utterly ridiculous thing for you to say. Do control yourself.
Chris Tucker,
I’m glad to learn you’re living in a US provincial city.
I live in a world capital called Paris & have also spent some time in many States of your country.
The part of Paris I’m living in is not just truffled with French & English-speaking Blacks, it’s also famous for its integrist Islamic activity, integrist Judaic activity, Chinese maffia, Russian maffia & French maffia, not to mention numerous Anglo-Saxon “tourists”.
I’m positive your Bostonian environment is a loveable joke compared to the place I’m in.
As a typical Frog white, I can tell you your lengthy digression is just gross populism and not convincing at all.
Come to France and maybe you’ll end up having a break at staring at your own navel.
It was nice trying anyway.
Shana,
I refuse to read your logorrhea. Maybe I will tomorrow after all (English is not my native language & thinking as US people do gives me pimples).
Please do like Chris Tucker: be concise & percussive. Thank you.
Shana,
Sorry: I’ve been rude to you.
I’m gonna read your stuff and we’ll continue talking.
Again: excuse my rudeness, even if I’ve got no excuse except it’s so hot today in Paris.
Mr Dean
I am in complete accord with your opinions on the subject mentioned recently above…
Shana,
First of all I want to apologise for the bitter remarks I posted above: it was stupid & I regret it.
Make no mistake: I didn’t say that the US is in a kind of Weimar republic situation. I just think that (apparently) universal contempt towards some Blacks (for whatever reasons) combined with State-supported “racism” (in statistics at least) is dangerous. It’s always the same story: recriminate, identify a scapegoat, vilify, take legal or police action, then move further. You can find instances of that in each & every country in any period of time. The problem is as old as Humanity. And unfortunately the US is no exception to that, is it?
Even if LA south central is a dreadful place, even if this place may be majoritarily occupied by Blacks living in gangs, the US criminality can’t be reduced to such patterns.
Obviously Welfare is not reserved for “lazy Black gangsters who spit on the face of the idiots financing it with their taxes”. Normal people too benefit from Welfare & that’s absolutely expectable & desirable: it’s a link the US society makes available to anyone in need. That’s a human value that’s shared on both sides of the Atlantic.
Now, except the people you know or have heard of, how can you tell about the “intentions” of people benefiting from Welfare? No doubt there surely must be undignified, shameless parasites taking each & every advantage they can from the system while scorning at everybody. Is it a reason to reconstruct an hypothetical class of greedy scroungers? Aren’t any people dependent upon State help sentenced to be judged this way by Mr X or Ms Y? It’s a prejudice fuelled by blatant examples. Certainly not something widespread otherwise the whole system would collapse at once.
I understand you’re speaking about something you do experience & have an insider look at, which, naturally, entitles you to tell at once when some remarks are irrelevant or too general or overtly inaccurate to pass the acid-test of reality. Moreover the fact is when I spoke about the Welfare Blacks after mentioning the Black Gangsters, I implied that because they are Black they live in gangs or depend upon the State. It’s not what I think though. What I mean is the failure of some US citizens (whatever “ethnicity”) to join the mainstream model may be linked with the modest size of the State or, more precisely, to the non-intervention of the State in areas like tackling deep-rooted poverty & social exclusion by implementing voluntarist long-term projects regarding housing, education, training, social mixity etc. Look at what Roosevelt did with the TWA before WW2. Was it stupid because it had a statist flavour? No, it wasn’t: it helped prevent & cure social instability & provide businesses with new solvent customers. Is a new TWA-like project intended to ameliorate social exclusion more stupid than voting tax cuts for already successful people? Now it is known to everybody that, in spite numerous counterexamples of success stories, there still remains a problem with a significant number of Black US citizens. Not because of their melanin; but perhaps due to a malfunction affecting the “melting-pot” tracing back to former political segregation & persistent inability or unwillingness to make the integration machine work at full régime. This isn’t upside down racism (“Is there some reason you don’t think black people are as competent to help themselves as the rest of America?”). This is merely acknowledging the historical specificity of African presence in the USA.
When I was evoking rebellion affecting desperate people, I meant that a group as a whole, with objective or subjective self-recognition, will be self-destructive or aggressive when stroke by ostracism. Of course individuals may follow different histories.
We do agree on one thing (the French Blacks, Powell & Rice): finding one’s place is the key to social exclusion solving. If I understand well, you think finding one’s place is all up to individuals, whereas I think State intervention helps decisively & accelerates the process for the benefit of the greatest number possible. You mentioned “aberrational separate culture”; I couldn’t agree with you more! Where State (= all the US citizens, not an horrible socialist monster) is lacking, the door is wide ajar for ad-hoc organisations as NAACP to thrive on the fertile compost which is particularism, and general interest. And yes the situation gets more & more radical because there’s nothing that could link the separated element to the set it has been drifting away. Is it really surprising that NAACP is aping the State & is overbidding on race separation whereas all US citizens should be treated or referred to as members of the same nation, not as Hispanic or Whites or Native Indians or any such despicable & inaccurate “race” or “ethnicity” labelling?
As for the guns, I confess I don’t understand you all with this obsession of having one, or two, or two dozens. I never had one in my life, even in the US where I had problems. Maybe I was lucky not to be shot dead. Or maybe life is still possible without guns.
“Chris Tucker,
I’m glad to learn you’re living in a US provincial city.
The local tourist board will be shattered to hear of the status of Boston as a provincial city. The mass suicides will soon commence.
I live in a world capital called Paris & have also spent some time in many States of your country.”
Arrogant and condescending? The French? What a base canard!
Sorry to break it to you, but Paris hasn’t been a world capital since just slightly after the Germans rolled in the first time.
The part of Paris I’m living in is not just truffled with French & English-speaking Blacks, it’s also famous for its integrist Islamic activity, integrist Judaic activity,
Much to the distress of Mr LePen and his followers, I’m sure.
Chinese maffia, Russian maffia & French maffia, not to mention numerous Anglo-Saxon “tourists”.
The U.S. perfers to oppress the Mafia and other organized crime as much as possible. France should try it it sometime. Save for not being Paris , you just described Boston. Make up your mind. Is it a “provincial city” or a cosmopolitan destination?
I’m positive your Bostonian environment is a loveable joke compared to the place I’m in.
A rude Frenchman? Isn’t that some manner of mythical being? At least Boston’s not full of Frenchmen. Far too many Hibernians, unencumbered by green cards, however. Hearing an undocumented Irishman telling a native born black American to, “Go back where you came from!” is the height of irony.
As a typical Frog white, I can tell you your lengthy digression is just gross populism and not convincing at all.
And as a Left/Liberal white American, I notice the lack of ANY refutation whatsoever in my little list of facts.
Come to France and maybe you’ll end up having a break at staring at your own navel.
No thanks. If I make the journey to Europe. I’m staying in the U.K. I understand that Indian food is as common over there as Chinese is here in the U.S.! Sounds like Paradise to me.
It was nice trying anyway.”
Yes, you and your ilk are VERY trying.
Chris,
How susceptible you are! A little pinch will have you shout…
“Sorry to break it to you, but Paris hasn’t been a world capital since just slightly after the Germans rolled in the first time” >>> that for sure wasn’t condescending.
Like it or not, Paris is just slightly more famous, visited & appreciated than Boston-upon-Charles or Boston-upon-Mystic…
“The U.S. perfers to oppress the Mafia and other organized crime as much as possible”
It’s a joke. Right?
“And as a Left/Liberal white American (…)” >>> what a relief! I thought there were just Bushists or Schwarzenggeristas in the US.
Now seriously, I’m glad people like you managed to survive undamaged in that ocean of Bushist idiocy.
llamas – thanks for the Miami info
RC Dean – I misunderstood your point about the Swiss. The UK scene is not quite kaput but it’s pretty near, and IMO only a matter of time before they ban rifles & shotguns too (either actually, or practically by the police refusing firearms permits).
Mark asks – “Will keeping and bearing arms help Americans to resist the imposition of compulsory government ID cards and/or biometric data tracking? I’m not being sarcastic – I can imagine gun-owning could stiffen resolve to resist the government or whatever – but I’m really curious what people here think on this. ”
It will only help if Americans are prepared to use them, or the threat of them, to resist compulsory ID tagging. A gun is useless in defending something if you are not prepared to use it.
Regarding the debate with US gun statistics – there are countries with liberal gun laws but far less violent crime (Switzerland), and others with much stricter gun laws and far more crime (Brazil, Africa, a lot of Latin America). Using the example of just one country to prove a point is twisting the facts.
And even within the US, areas with strict gun control tend to have significantly higher rates of gun crime than areas without such controls.
In countries that have banned or heavily restricted guns for self-defence, violent crime has usually increased compared to the pre-ban period (e.g. the UK). I am not aware of a country that has banned guns, and then experienced a large reduction in violent crime.
Finally, disarmament of the people was the precursor to every major genocide of the 20th century. The number of lives allegedly saved by gun control laws pales in comparison to the tens of millions killed in these disasters. Future genocide avoidance is ample justification for recognising gun ownership as an inviolable human right, regardless of whether this causes a few more people to die each year or not. As the saying goes, the 2nd amendment is there in case they ignore all the others.
Kodiak wrote – “As for the guns, I confess I don’t understand you all with this obsession of having one, or two, or two dozens. I never had one in my life, even in the US where I had problems. Maybe I was lucky not to be shot dead. Or maybe life is still possible without guns. ”
As for insurance policies, I confess I don’t understand you all with this obsession with having one, or two, or two dozens. I never had one in my life, even in France where I had problems. Maybe I was lucky not to have an accident. Or maybe life is still possible without insurance.
S Weasel,
Common law of the sort exercised in civil cases is the principle foundation of American capitalism. See The Uncle Eric Books by Richard J. Maybury for a fun and very readable discussion of why that is.
The short version is that enforceable contracts are essential to a free market system. Product liability (both McDonald’s coffee and firearms) is an important part of this. Would you prefer to read and sign a two-hundred page contract every time you buy a cup of coffee? The existence of a body of product liablity law derived from legal precedence and legislative action enable you to buy products in relative safety without a large amount of paperwork.
The success of American and British capitalism is a direct result of our dependence on common law and the courts.
(llamas — might this honey suffice where vinegar did not?)
Yours,
Wince
Arrgh! I see I am too late and the thread is probably dead!