Greg Goodknight (GG) posted Dec 19, 2012 4:55 AM: > > Golly, GS, from a chart I found at the Guardian, the > murder rates in the > US and India, 5.9 vs 5.5 per 100,000 population, > doesn't seem to give > India a wide latitude to gloat. What about your > culture of violence? > > - -G > Golly, GG, the culture of violence is quite horrific in India - I'm surprised to find the murder rate is rather lower here than in the USA: I would have thought it to be significantly higher.
(On another tack, I have been collecting data for a thread in which I want to discuss an especially awful incident here - and more particularly the 'societal culture in India' that goes with such incidents, which is surely nothing to be proud about: it does have much to do with our 'educational and other societal systems', which are my primary interest. I have been rather busy otherwise but shall now seriously try to find some time to do the needed data collection and to write up the commentary).
However, on the issue of 'gun control': we do at least have highly restrictive gun control laws in place (which are alas rather ineffectively implemented as are most laws in India). My point on 'gun control' is contained in the following:
1. Second Amendment or no 2nd Amendment, guns are definitely not needed for self-protection, or hunting - or for whatever other reasons are trotted out. (Not today, well into the 21st Century). There have been many amendments to the US Constitution, wonderful ruling document though it is. It should surely be constitutionally possible to bring out a further amendment that would place the US on the side of other civilized nations in the world. There are quite a number of these; in particular the other Anglophone countries I understand have brought about quite effective gun control - to their great benefit. I observe, further, that the 2nd Amendment dates back to the late 1700s: surely the US has developed a bit since then?
2. Armed protection of self and property is properly speaking a task best left to appropriate civic authorities, generally the police. It's every citizen's civic duty to help improve and ensure effective police and other social protection of people against marauders, etc. When we become 'civilized', we would surely be able to put in place appropriate civic structures to protect life and property. Lately, some idiots have apparently come out with the utterly ridiculous argument that the Newtown shooting would have been properly prevented if those elementary school teachers had been appropriately armed (in line with the 'Second')!
3. In regard to hunting, I believe no one has a right to hunt animals. It should be TOTALLY prohibited. (Except for killing a wild animal in self-defence we need to do away with this uncivilized behaviour. Even against tigers and such, we do not need to kill, if we learn not to intrude into their privacy). Now THAT would be 'civilized'. If people do HAVE to demonstrate their macho maleness or strength or courage or whatever, let them go out with their hands and teeth and take out a 'wild animal'. Such might be regarded, though only remotely, as 'sporting'. I recall, from long, LONG ago, that my younger brother was once a lover of 'hunting'. He had killed a huge panther, which surely was a deed that must have taken some skill and courage for a fifteen-year old. I told him that I might have applauded his guts if he had taken the panther out with a knife (or at most using a bow and arrow); the shooting of an animal at a distance with a gun, I told him, is surely the mark of a coward.
I am pleased to observe that he later gave up hunting totally - and never went on to shoot a tiger: indeed, he has become a conservationist of sorts. He now makes regular visits to Africa - to shoot lions and elephants and rhinos and things with a camera.
Yes, 'hunting' animals with a gun is surely the special mark of cowards. I challenge every hunter to properly demonstrate his courage in the way I have suggested. (This challenge goes out to women hunters as well, if there are any such idiot creatures).
4. And, good golly, GG, I'm afraid you have TOTALLY missed the point of the articles I had linked to. (I have kept those links on, below my signature, for further ready reference if 'getting the point' is of interest to you or anyone else).
GSC ("Still Shoveling Away!") > On 12/18/2012 09:33 AM, GS Chandy wrote: > > My post dt. Dec 18, 2012 11:50 AM, provided some > links to some useful articles in the New Yorker. I > believe the New Yorker has provided by and large the > most thoughtful coverage I've found. Here are links > to some more worthwhile pieces in that magazine: > > > > - -- "Guns and the Limits of Shame" - > http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/12 > /guns-and-the-limits-of-shame.html > > ("What does it take for a society to be sickened by > its own behavior and to change its attitudes?" Good > question) > > > > - -- "Making Gun Control Happen" - > http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/12 > /making-gun-control-happen.html > > ("Do you feel that? That's your sense of moral > outrage dissipating"). > > > > - -- "America's Culture of Violence" - > http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/12 > /americas-culture-of-violence.html > > ("A troubled young man in Connecticut lays his > hands on the kinds of guns that no civilian should > ever have and does something that no civilization > should ever see"). > > > > - -- "America's Shame: Words and Tears Aren't > Enough" - > http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2012 > /12/after-the-newtown-shooting-americas-gun-shame.html > > ("It's America, you know. That sort of thing > happens [here].") > > > > In particular, I'm interested to find out whether > US citizens would be interested to get together > effectively (with their government) to remove this > taint on the USA. If not, I guess we would have to > conclude that even this horror has not been enough to > "be sickened by its own behavior and to change its > attitudes". > > > > GSC > > ("Still Shoveling Away!")