And what are these slanted viewpoints that are widely accepted in the academia without much debate?

How do you define "assault rifles"? Some people would consider my M1 Carbine (semi) an assault rifle.

I am curious as to where you personally draw the line.


Also here is a website with a more official definiton, everyone seems to have an opinion on it tho

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcassaul.html

Also a little piece from that website.

"Assault weapons are not the weapons of choice among drug dealers, gang members or criminals in general. Assault weapons are used in about one-fifth of one percent (.20%) of all violent crimes and about one percent in gun crimes. It is estimated that from one to seven percent of all homicides are committed with assault weapons (rifles of any type are involved in three to four percent of all homicides).

there are close to 4 million assault weapons in the U.S., which amounts to roughly 1.7% of the total gun stock."

As opposed to what, talking about something that confirms your views, or that of someone else? Objectivity in history as I assume you are defining it is not something that I've personally seen anywhere, especially when it comes to school classrooms. Everything is tailored to make one into a good, obedient citizen/drone.

But anyway, I'll be a good sport and entertain contrary examples from anyone who wants to offer one up, but I don't like the trade offs of any of the societal systems that are brought up as counterpoints on this issue. Until then, I'll just agreeably disagree.



From the gun issue in particular, the notion that gun control is in line with a civil society, something that is easily disproved with a reference to Maoist China, Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany and what not, though some are a little uncomfortable with the notion that America's government could behave in such a way so they regard such talk as fear mongering. (I am not singling out PhantomOTO on this, this is the same reaction I always get when this is brought to the attention of someone who is pro gun control, although I didn't specifically get Phantom's view on this so I'll speak for the others and not for him specifically).

But if you want a more detailed list of gripes I have about academia at large, I'll lay a few out.

1. That Nuking 2 Japanese cities saved lives.
2. That FDR was a great president.
3. That Abraham Lincoln wasn't a racist.
4. That the Federal Reserve Bank is a good and constitutional entity.
5. That American military intervention in other nations is justified.
6. That America's graduated income tax actually penalizes the wealthy.
7. That the Civil War was necessary to end slavery.
8. That WW2 cured the Great Depression in any way aside from depopulating the large unemployed population through compulsory military service.

Even among alleged radical leftist free thinkers like Noam Chomsky, most of these absurd viewpoints are maintained, especially when it comes time to vote for someone who offers a counterpoint view in the realm of politics.

Total objectivity is impossible, naturally, but the way history is studied is nothing like you described. You shouldn't treat academic history as a monolith.

And you have never been a "good sport". You're one of the most dishonest people this board has ever seen and assume bad faith, even if you claim otherwise.

You have, in the same sentence gone from a radical unsubstantiated claim that most of history is not objective to a much more reasonable statement regarding what is written in school textbooks. I hope you realize the two are enormously different and the latter does not say anything about the former.

Every book I've read on history has interjected viewpoints by the author, that was the point I was making there. What aspects of history get written down and published is also largely subject to the opinions of who holds power. If what I have said suggests to you that I think that actual historical events are not objective, that was not my intention, but more how they are presented to the reader in a given book.

For example, I believe that many European countries were at war with each other during the 30 years war; but who was in the right, how the policies of governments during that era affected the people and other things of that nature are highly subjective, and depending on who writes on the subject you will get a different spin, if only in a subtle way. This is particularly an issue with me in regards to mainstream views on 20th century history.

The part about school textbooks is an obvious example of history tilted towards a specific agenda, but it is not the lone example of it.

Of course that's the case that authors have their own views in their works! It's ridiculous to think this is some trade secret. If those views are unsupported by evidence, they are rejected or judgment is reserved until a more authoritative work can be published.

Of course elites influence the way people understand history, but this only really applies to pop history. Attempting to argue otherwise is more or less absurd.

It's abundantly clear that you haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about.

It's not a trade secret, but it is something that people take for granted until it gets brought up. As you've stated yourself, true objectivity doesn't exist in any particular person, so what is our basis for a standard of authoritative work? Something can be factually correct and misleading/manipulative, and that is precisely how I see all of these self-congratulatory stooges in academia with such a high regard for warmongering tyrants like FDR, for example.

An elite with a particular view on something who also has a lot of money giving grants to universities looks like influence to me, and I think that assuming that such things don't come with strings attached is far more absurd than questioning whether our education system is sticking only to facts as you suggest it would be.

From the gun issue in particular, the notion that gun control is in line with a civil society, something that is easily disproved with a reference to Maoist China, Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany and what not, though some are a little uncomfortable with the notion that America's government could behave in such a way so they regard such talk as fear mongering.[/quote]

Yes, I also do think it is quite is stretch to compare the current US Government with any of those brutal regimes you have mentioned. United States has been a democracy for all its history and even those instances and occasions when it has failed to protect basic rights of its citizens (a) the number of victims have been far less than in any of the countries you have listed (b) the treatment they faced was more humane than their counterparts in Kampuchea or Russia. Also, why is there any reason to believe that there are conditions currently in the US that strongly resemble those that existed in these countries that made it conducive for violently abusive leaders to come to power. (Please note that I do NOT extend the same argument to US treatment of enemy nations and prisoners)

I just looked up wikipedia to find out if this was something that was unquestioningly accepted by historians and here we go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_ove ... Opposition

Forget maverick historians and historical revisionists, I recently watched "Presidents" documentary on History channel (cannot get more mainstream than that ) and I came across several less than flattering statements about FDR and his Presidency. And oh, they did feature some historians too.

What exactly is unconstitutional about it? Besides, it has its fair share of critics.

Please...

Worse still.....

Obviously, I have not countered all your points and you are correct if you are thinking that I don't have good answers for them. That however has nothing to say about how historians in US universities view it. I am quite sure that I can disprove those as well if I spent sufficient time surfing the net and learn about the disagreements and disputes on these issues but I don't think that I necessary.
If someone with a very limited knowledge of history and its methods can show the fallacy in your claims, then I am sure a better understanding would definitely be able to annull them completely.

An authoritative work is something judged by consensus to thoroughly defend its thesis with the documentation presented by the author. Your thoughts on FDR are laughable, too, and your perceptions of academic opinions of him are just as uninformed as any of the crap you've spouted in this thread. You should be embarrassed, really, at how utterly idiotic you are.

I never made any claims such as you've attributed to me. Of course someone giving a grant will give it to someone whose thesis pleases the granter. This does not mean that the work will find acceptance in the academic community if it does not prove its merits. And the academic community is not a monolith accepting the views you've attributed to it. You really just have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. It's like watching a car wreck. I pity you.

Your views on history, interpretations of it, and "thoughts" (I use this in the loosest sense of the word) on the academic community are specious and unfounded bullshit. You're a fucking joke. It's amazing anyone on this forum regards you with anything but a mixture of pity for your stupidity and self-delusions and contempt for your terrible myopic attitude.

d
Yes, we are all aware of maxims like "history is written by winners" and to an extent sensible people attach importance to them and examine historical claims cautiously. But that is far from saying that the subject pursued as an academic discipline (in US) is devoid of necessary objectivity and neutrality to make it an honest endeavor in knowledge.
It is indeed very true that authors sometimes color historical events with their own perspective and this is important because history is not hard science like Physics where you strictly depend only on quantitative evidence. In history, just as in sociology, there are gaps in understanding and one way to give a more complete presentation is to give a little of your own opinion on the matter. However your claim that those opinions are not disputed is what I strongly disagree with. You say there is an unanimity in
outlook while I say there are unending fiercely-disputed issues.

I consider all fully automatic weapons to fall in the 'assault' category. That said, there are some types of semi-automatic guns that I think could easily be put in there, like the Tec 9.

I wouldn't consider the M1 carbine to be an assault rifle, personally. It adapts well to hunting as I understand.

Well I have a good friend I went to highschool with whose dad goes turkey hunting with a full auto Ak-47

All the same I know what you mean.

The M1 was my grandfathers, My first gun purchase I am going to make on my own (hopefully by x-mas) I think is going to be an AR-15. And the first thing I am going to buy for it will be this

http://www.90rounder.com/Merchant2/merc ... WG-223-90A

After I get a new rifle I think the carbine shall be retired to shooting at critters in the field.

I've still yet to see you make a valid point on why there should be a ban on assault weapons. The only argument you've put forward is the lack of reason for why civilians should have them, which is where I came in with the talk of living beyond ones means. If banning assault weapons will serve little to no purpose in abating crime in the United States, what grounds do you stand on to call for their removal? I would like an answer to the question instead of this running around in circles bullshit.

They are military grade weapons whose sole purpose is to kill other people and don't need to be privately owned for the same reason you can't buy a tank. It baffle me that people are able to buy things like rocket launchers in the US under the guise of the "right to bear arms."

Learn to read, because you quoted me saying nearly this exact same thing.

There is a lot of talk of 'assault weapons', which these days, at least in the media, is a blanket term for whatever-the-Hell they want it to be. I've noticed that in most cases, the weapons shown in news clips (gun shows, gun shops, private homes) that are labeled as AK47s and M16s are in fact 'semi-automatic rifles'. Here are two of the most common examples:

This is not an M16, and an AK47, respectively. They are not automatic. They are semi-automatic civilian owned rifles.
Furthermore, (and I am not sure if any Americans here actually know this or not), it is VERY difficult to LEGALLY obtain automatic 'assault weapons'. It requires all kinds of Government Vetting, legal paperwork, Tax-Stamps, and last but surely not least, a LOT of money.
An M16 will cost you $15,000+ to buy. That is after all the legal hoops you have to jump through. I will quote this:

http://www.atf.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/nfa.htm
^The National Firearms Act of 1934^

Similar laws and regulations applies to SBR/S (short-barreled rifles/shotguns), anti-tank, exlosive, and exceptionally large-bore weapons. For the most part, these items are either covered in the regulation for 'Destructive Devices', or are not available at all. Again, there are a huge amount of hoops to jump through to get them, and only if you have:
A) An approved seller from which to obtain said items.
B) The $ needed for such items.

Scream all you want, gun nuts, but I'm definitely pro-control. The comparitive ease by which a fellow can go buy a gun in the US is unsettling. Here, it's possible to get guns, but it's not easy. And yet, we're not overrun with violent criminals. In fact, there are less murders here, gun-related or otherwise.

It's no coincidence that the US is the nation known for school shooting sprees. People like Cho of V-Tech got their guns legally. In Australia, where gun control is pretty tight, there hasn't been a massacre since Port Arthur.

I'm going to repost a segment of an older post of mine from M-A:

In America:

As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse. - SOURCE: Kleck and Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime," at 185.

Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606). - SOURCE: Kleck, Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America, (1991):111-116, 148.

And readers of Newsweek learned that "only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high." - SOURCE: George F. Will, "Are We 'a Nation of Cowards'?," Newsweek (15 November 1993):93.

Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day.1 This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.2 - SOURCE: 1 Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense With a Gun," 86 The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, 1 (Fall 1995):164.
Dr. Kleck is a professor in the school of criminology and criminal justice at Florida State University in Tallahassee. He has researched extensively and published several essays on the gun control issue. His book, Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America, has become a widely cited source in the gun control debate. In fact, this book earned Dr. Kleck the prestigious American Society of Criminology Michael J. Hindelang award for 1993. This award is given for the book published in the past two to three years that makes the most outstanding contribution to criminology.
Even those who don't like the conclusions Dr. Kleck reaches, cannot argue with his impeccable research and methodology. In "A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed," Marvin E. Wolfgang writes that, "What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator.... I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research. Can it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a gun was used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected. We do not have contrary evidence." Wolfgang, "A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed," The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, at 188.
Wolfgang says there is no "contrary evidence." Indeed, there are more than a dozen national polls -- one of which was conducted by The Los Angeles Times -- that have found figures comparable to the Kleck-Gertz study. Even the Clinton Justice Department (through the National Institute of Justice) found there were as many as 1.5 million defensive users of firearms every year. See National Institute of Justice, "Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms," Research in Brief (May 1997).
As for Dr. Kleck, readers of his materials may be interested to know that he is a member of the ACLU, Amnesty International USA, and Common Cause. He is not and has never been a member of or contributor to any advocacy group on either side of the gun control debate.
2 According to the National Safety Council, the total number of gun deaths (by accidents, suicides and homicides) account for less than 30,000 deaths per year. See Injury Facts, published yearly by the National Safety Council, Itasca, Illinois.

Justice Department study:

* 3/5 of felons polled agreed that "a criminal is not going to mess around with a victim he knows is armed with a gun."

* 74% of felons polled agreed that "one reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot during the crime."

* 57% of felons polled agreed that "criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police."

- SOURCE: U.S., Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, "The Armed Criminal in America: A Survey of Incarcerated Felons," Research Report (July 1985): 27

N.B

A good portion of this post used material from http://www.gunowners.org/sk0802.htm , so I thought it would be nice to adknowledge them.

My post taken from the thread knife control in Scotland .

be careful...same logic that says that Bush protected us from another 9/11 with liberty infringements


overall, I think this thread has the highest percentage of logical fallacies I have ever seen!

Perhaps.

All I'm saying is that we've got strict gun control down here, and it seems to be working just fine.

What are the acts of crime that are counted here? Specifically, are all of them violent aggressions where the gun was absolutely necessary for self-defence, eg murder, rape, kidnapping . As opposed to just being stalked or threatened. Secondly, it is impossible to know those cases where the aggressor was emboldened to carry out the attack because he possessed a gun himself.
[/quote]

I am sure it is, and that also brings me to another point. It is 'troublesome' to try to directly compare different countries and cultures, when it comes to laws, regulations, and commonly held ideals. There are a great many cultural divides to deal with. The U.S.A, despite the similarities between it and other 'western' countries, is still different. I don't believe what works for one country, will work just as well for another. For example, I personally believe that if the U.K were to one year allow the citizens (subjects I should say ) to obtain the same firearms as U.S citizens, it would not turn out so well. At least not for the first decade or so. Despite the shootings and violence, the U.S.A, on the whole is a pretty good example of proper civilian use and ownership of firearms. Firearms are part of the countries history, and ingrained in the culture. For the same reason, I felt much safer holidaying in the U.S around police, which are basically ALL armed, than the few armed cops in the U.K. Firearms are something U.S cops deal with everyday, while only a select few in the U.K can say the same. Granted, part of this is down to the fact that gun cops in the U.K are usually only in airports, or about when some knob is waving a replica about (i.e when there is a high risk of something bad going down), but I still felt safer around U.S cops, who are al trained in the safe use of firearms.

/mini-wall-o-text

Not sure, but 200,000 sexual assaults stopped a year is one figure mentioned.
Sure, perhaps. This can only be solved however if the magic man in the sky 'disappeared' all firearms, seeing as how gun control laws don't stop criminals obtaining weapons. Even if it were impossible to legally own such weapons, the criminals get them. Criminals don't obey laws. There are cases over here of crooked soldiers smuggling weapons, as well as gangs smuggling them in. Then there are the crudely assembled ones that can be made in any workshop.

just what is your Black and Hispanic population Down Under?
You guys have a 92% White population - we haven't seen that since pre-WW2.

Somehow I saw that one coming.

That alone is no justification for its retention. But aside from that you have made an excellent point that what applies to one state, let alone to the entire nation, need not apply to another.

You have now drifted from cold facts and statistics to "feelings" . Nothing wrong with them per se, but since these are subjective it varies from individual to individual. I too am fine with cops carrying guns but I'd scared of traveling around some place where everyone has easy access to firearms, including mentally unstable ones and those seeking vengeance against society. That is how I feel.

Granted. I don't expect the part about my feelings being considered valid in any debate.

I'm not suggesting guns be banned, they don't even ban them here, in fact I am looking at an old 12-g shotgun right now, on my wall, an heirloom from my great-grandfather.

In theory, a properly enforced gun control system would do a lot to prevent violence. It may not be possible to enforce the perfect system, to simply magic away all guns, but a bit tighter control would be preferable.

In other words, the military and the crooked politicians that control them have full right to higher tech. weaponry to kill people enmass while those who may or may not be keeping these weapons to counter the possible threat that this implies are prohibited by law. This is the essence of double standards, particularly considering some of the sick/corrupt people that get into the military and politics.

And you've yet to show us why there shouldn't be other than, It's in my rights and fuck the government if they try to take 'em.

Quite true, but we are talking about numbers here and we need to consider is the percentage of criminals who would refrain from taking the risk/reduce attacks if access to guns was made very difficult. There are always going to be hardened desperate ones as well as those who are part of a wider crime syndicate but these do not account for all crimes committed.

Out of curiousity Flashman, what is it about a government that makes them more trustworthy with automatic weapons? If you take into account all deaths connected to gun use, the body count that the world's various governments have racked up via both military and police far exceeds the crimes of individual people.

The fact still stands true "assault rifles" are highly controlled and the majority of murders by firearm are handgun related.

I would also wager if a criminal was going to commit a crime with an assault weapon he would not be applying for one through the ATF but would get it on the black market.

Again from my previous post

"Assault weapons are not the weapons of choice among drug dealers, gang members or criminals in general. Assault weapons are used in about one-fifth of one percent (.20%) of all violent crimes and about one percent in gun crimes. "

And I wonder how many of that % obtained the weapon illegally?




"It's in my rights" once more is really all there is to it.

We already discussed this earlier tho with the leisure shooting,protecting liberty, collecting, etc.

Honestly I am starting to think people must just be intimidated by the word "assault".

We picked the government to protect us, and if you don't want government at all then go live somewhere where there isn't any. The government needs the weapons to fight other armies that are going to have those weapons. It doesn't mean we need them. Even if there was a crackdown on liberties a large amount of the forces assigned in the taking of these guns would simply refuse, because they are citizens too.

Completely dodged the question.

There is a lot of that in this thread


edit:

In particular I am still waiting on comments from the assault rifle crime stats I posted above.

EVERYBODY DO THE PALIN!

Some of us didn't pick the particular government we live under, speaking for myself, I'm fine with having a militia based military system where military men can have automatic weapons, in fact I'd support mandatory gun training for every citizen electing to own a gun, which would imply a licensing system, although I'd want an actual representative government rather than the Oligarchical cronyism that most Western nations have, to speak nothing for the governments of 3rd world nations of course.

However, what you are describing is an army that is more useful for wars of aggression in line with good old President Bush. Arms races are self-fulfilling conflicts that are not in line with a civilized country as far as I'm concerned, especially when it comes to nuclear weapons technology. Tanks and high powered explosives have one purpose and that is aggression, not defense. Saying that we need one because someone else has them is very comparable to saying that "Al Qaeda is coming after us, so let's conquer a bunch of countries in that region and install puppet governments".

P.S. - Insofar as military people not participating in civil liberties abuses, a good education in the dangers of people with extreme political philosophies such as people who support the Constitution and criticize our blessed government can fool many a person into violating civil liberties, hence all of the guys dressed in Darth Vader outfits pepper-spraying and tazering protesters at the two political party conventions this past year, something which can be observed on youtube.

And to go a bit further, I believe they should have a type of Marksman's Ed in public schools as an elective to really help the immaturity factor that some have regarding weapons of all kinds(which would also include licensing). See, I can imagine a better utopia than all of you will ever be able to.


You're not a specious and unfounded bullshit spewing idiot after all.

In my third year JROTC (highschool) We did this. Apart from learning about fire arms (and getting to clean M1's in class ) We took pellet guns out on the football field and set up targets against a big dirt mound.

They taught us different firing positions, breath control and so on.

Was great fun for something during school hours