The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The dark face of absolute liberty > Comments

The dark face of absolute liberty : Comments

By Bill Calcutt, published 24/4/2013

Many more deaths occur in the US due to gun ownership than terrorism, but all the resources are directed at terrorists.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All
The central premise of this argument is false.

There is no US policy of pre-emptive international military action in support of its own self-defence. If there was, Iran and North Korea would be toast by now.

There are also no higher levels of "interpersonal violence, political polarisation, social alienation and economic inequity" in the US than in many other countries, including Australia. Indeed, with the exception of certain drug-related crime, the US is far safer the the UK and Australia and has a far stronger sense of national identity.

If you want to rant against America, at least get your facts straight.
Posted by DavidL, Wednesday, 24 April 2013 10:57:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I wanted to point out a couple of facts that many in our community appear to have forgotten. The current concensus and claims, mainly offered by the US authorities and the US MSM is that the Boston bombers “were accepted into the US but were allegedly turned into terrorists by the teachings of extreme Muslim clerics”

The link to 'terrorism' has yet to be clearly defined.

Due to a complicit media and governments throwing around this ‘terrorism’ word, many have forgotten terrorism, in its classical interpretation, is an act of violence in order to advance a political cause within or against a state (National) actor.

If there is no political motive or objective, then it is an act of violence against individuals, and is thus a human security issue, not a national security issue.

In this most recent case I would suggest there is no perceived challenge or threat to the state. So, in the strictest literal sense, the Boston attacks were certainly terrifying, but until the true motive is ascertained, they should not be considered terrorism.

We now have the FBI charging the surviving bomber with using ‘weapons of mass destruction’, it seems a little odd to me because so many other acts of violence in the US in recent times (the killing of ten’s of people in a school and another case in a cinema) did not result in the words terrorism or weapons of mass destruction.

I would surmise the paranoid US government is dressing up this most recent event with more fervour due to the fact that the ‘bombers’ are of Muslim decent, despite the surviving brother showing little or no interest in radical Islamic teachings. I guess it assists their (US) hegemonic aspirations. Stay tuned, I am sure this story has a long way to go before any final outcome can be determined
Posted by Geoff of Perth, Wednesday, 24 April 2013 11:44:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bill,

I must caution your closing remarks on guns in the US.

There are more than 2000 laws regulating the purchase, possession and use of firearms in the US. Some have relatively little impact, others considerable, yet more have no great effect. Why?

Statistical information is scant in respect of these things, however two points are generally ignored.

Firstly, there is no distinction made in places outside the US between death by firearm in association with other criminal activity; eg Drug dealers shooting each other and death by firearm not associated with other criminal activity, eg mass shootings in public places. Even within the US this information is rarely available.

Secondly little or no information is available in regard to the inspiration for death by firearm not associated with other criminal activity, specifically mass shootings.

In Australia a clear link was made between the largest such event and a television report. This link was identified after the capture of the murderer. In the US, capture of mass murders is relatively uncommon so information is also difficult to extract, however in a world where the media congratulates itself over how it reports suicide so as to reduce copy cats, there remains a frantic desire to brand anybody involved, any place involved, any object involved, indeed anything at all.

An example of this is the proclamation, made within hours of the terrible events in Boston last week, that the NRA may have been responsible.

For an explanation of why this branding I so detrimental, refer to your 2009 article; The inhumanity of branding people.
Posted by The Mild Colonial Boy, Wednesday, 24 April 2013 12:09:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A few facts on the subject of guns would be appropriate.

Firstly the number of mass killings is greater in Europe (with its stringent gun laws) than in the US. Those who disagree should remember the gentleman in Norway who potted off quite a few.

Secondly the political phoniness on this subject defies belief. If the Obama administration wishes to increase gun control they should begin by moving to repeal the second amendment to the US Constitution, (which guarantees the right to keep and bear arms) otherwise any laws they make will be unconstitutional. Of course with the activist lawyers currently promoted to the US Supreme Court any twisting of the Constitution is possible, and this is just another illustration of this all-pervading phoniness.

Thirdly the proponents of more gun control conveniently ignore the situation in Switzerland, where a rifle is stored in almost every house, and yet mass killings are unheard of.

Of course we know the reason for the phoniness, which is that if the politicians consulted the people the proposals would be rejected out of hand.

Americans are not as fortunate as us, as their Constitution can be amended by the politicians, whereas here it can only be amended by the people. Of course the verdicts of the High Court which defy rational analysis, and the discovery of implied clauses in the Constitution (which have never been approved by the people), are the response of the establishment to this situation.

The experience of 112 years of referendums here indicated that the only ones which would be approved would be those that reduced the power of the Commonwealth Government or cut politicians' salaries and expenses.

Always remember that all power tends to corrupt, that all government is a necessary evil, and that all politicians will do almost anything to stay in power.
Posted by plerdsus, Wednesday, 24 April 2013 12:23:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
About 500 people have died in mass shootings in the U.S.A since 1976, in 2012 about 500 died as a result of shootings in Chicago alone as a result of the endemic violence in the poorer, majority Negro suburbs.
I think the point is that "Enlightenment" values are White/European values, in majority White areas of the U.S.A the gun homicide rate is no different to any other majority White society and the rule of law is a reality. It's impossible even to use the term "American" when talking about gun violence, there are three distinct nations who make up 90% of the population in that geographic area and it's been broken down further into eleven indigenous ethnic groups split across those nations.
Outsiders have to start looking at these nations, broadly White, Negro and Mestizo as separate entities, it's the only way "America" and it's crime problems can be rendered comprehensible.
What the author is suggesting is that "Enlightenment" ie White/European values should be used to solve the problems within all three nations, well sir, you look old enough to remember "separate development" in South Africa. Whites tried to enforce their will and their values upon two separate nations of Blacks as well as "coloured" and Muslim nations and look how that turned out.
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Wednesday, 24 April 2013 12:40:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Interesting article.

"However the dogmatic assertion of the inviolate rights of individuals may have adverse consequences for the level of commitment to a peaceful, harmonious, just and compassionate society." Perhaps.

Americans are prepared to suffer the occasional massacre of innocents for the "right to bear arms", it seems anachronistic but it's their culture. So, as long as they murder each other, and not defenceless inhabitants of Third World countries, it's their business.

DavidL

"There is no US policy of pre-emptive international military action in support of its own self-defence. If there was, Iran and North Korea would be toast by now."

That is circular reasoning. Propaganda aside we have no evidence that the US really sees either of those states as a threat, I'm sure the regimes in power in both those nations regard the US as a threat and Iran would have a justified fear of US sponsored Israeli aggression. If there's any discernible principle in US foreign policy it's unprovoked aggression against defenceless countries. Would the Americans have attacked Iraq if they really believed that the regime possessed WMD?

The US has a relatively high Gini coefficient compared to other OECD countries, so by that measure it has a higher level of inequity than Australia. There are obvious difficulties in comparing crime statistics even between Western countries--I'd like to see your sources.
Posted by mac, Wednesday, 24 April 2013 1:41:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy