Pedantic question about standardisation

[BrianShaw]

... but, pedantically speaking, that may mostly be a function of the citiy in which I currently reside.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

There is no way I would want to live in a country where ordinary citizens are allowed to have guns.


Steve.

We're not ordinary citizens. We're gun owners.:confused: If you don't believe me, just read some of the propaganda put out by the far left.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

... but, pedantically speaking, that may mostly be a function of the citiy in which I currently reside.

No, it's many locales....even the town of 3000 where I live....22 cops for 3000 people.:confused:

 

[Diapositivo]

A pedantic note of history.
The problem the US is facing now (too many people around with a weapon killing themselves for futile reasons, burst of fury or private resentments) was faced all around Italy more or less at the end of the XVI century.

In Rome the Pope Sixtus V Peretti was elected in year 1585. He had not yet been "crowned" that he immediately issued a law forbidding the carry of knives, under death penalty.

A few days later a bunch of young people from the countryside was arrested in Rome for the carry of knives. They were all accordingly sentenced to death.

The day of the execution coincided with the day of the coronation ceremony. The people in charge of the ceremonial suggested pope Peretti to postpone the execution to the day after the ceremony.
"Where's the problem?" replied the old man. "First the execution, and then the coronation!".
So that day, in Rome, there was a multiple capital punishment first, and a pope coronation immediately after. Certainly a unique case.

The pope wanted to send a signal. If you begin being lenient with people, then this law will never be abided and it all will begin going on as ever. When you try to enforce such laws, you have to be very energetic. And in general, the pope wanted to make clear that he meant business, which he showed during all his papacy, meriting the nickname "er papa tosto", "the hard pope".

All this happened in Rome in year 1585.
(When is the US going to realise they have the same problem?)

Fabrizio
EDIT: I don't know if it is OT. About standardisation it is not, but pedantic, sure!
EDIT again: pope Peretti was elected in 1585 not 1580. I went by memory.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

A pedantic note of history.
The problem the US is facing now (too many people around with a weapon killing themselves for futile reasons, burst of fury or private resentments) was faced all around Italy more or less at the end of the XVI century.

In Rome the Pope Sixtus V Peretti was elected in year 1580. He had not yet been "crowned" that he immediately issued a law forbidding the carry of knives, under death penalty.

A few days later a bunch of young people from the countryside was arrested in Rome for the carry of knives. They were all accordingly sentenced to death.

The day of the execution coincided with the day of the coronation ceremony. The people in charge of the ceremonial suggested pope Peretti to postpone the execution to the day after the ceremony.
"Where's the problem?" replied the old man. "First the execution, and then the coronation!".
So that day, in Rome, there was a multiple capital punishment first, and a pope coronation immediately after. Certainly a unique case.

The pope wanted to send a signal. If you begin being lenient with people, then this law will never be abided and it all will begin going on as ever. When you try to enforce such laws, you have to be very energetic. And in general, the pope wanted to make clear that he meant business, which he showed during all his papacy, meriting the nickname "er papa tosto", "the hard pope".

All this happened in Rome in year 1580.
(When is the US going to realise they have the same problem?)

Probably never.

If you want to teach people contempt for the law:
a) Make too many laws.
b) Don't enforce them - or worse, don't enforce them cosistently.

 

[blansky]

I actually agree with you. I haven't a clue what to do about it except move to Canada... and that's a bit too cold for my liking.

I hear ya. That's why I left.

 

[cliveh]

I absolutely respect your creed.

But America right or wrong is an outdated slogan.

Foreign policy dictated and sold to the public by war hawks who usually are draft dodgers from the Viet Nam era or for corporate interests is a dangerous concept.

58,000 dead and untold thousands physically and mentally maimed in Viet Nam in a war that meant nothing.

A few thousand dead and untold thousands physically and mentally maimed in the Middle East that may end up meaning nothing is a high price to pay.

These numbers are just for our side. Multiply by at least 20 for the other side and innocent bystanders.

War is an outdated concept.

Like Steve, I also would not wish to live in a country where people carry guns. In terms of waging wars, many years ago Margaret Thatcher made the point, that as far as she was aware no democracy had ever declared war on another democracy. I don’t know if that is true, but sounds hopeful as increased communication is eradicating more despots.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Like Steve, I also would not wish to live in a country where people carry guns. In terms of waging wars, many years ago Margaret Thatcher made the point, that as far as she was aware no democracy had ever declared war on another democracy. I don’t know if that is true, but sounds hopeful as increased communication is eradicating more despots.

You need to distiguish between carrying and owning guns.

 

[Steve Smith]

You need to distiguish between carrying and owning guns.

No we don't.

From the 1937 Firearms Act:

the Home Secretary ruled that self-defence was no longer a suitable reason for applying for a firearm certificate, and directed police to refuse such applications on the grounds that "firearms cannot be regarded as a suitable means of protection and may be a source of danger"

Steve.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

You can safely say that if people did not carry or own guns, there would be no shootings. That's all I know. The rest is up for debate by those who think they know better.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

No we don't.

From the 1937 Firearms Act:




Steve.

Yes, you do, if you want any kind of accurate comprehension of the firearms problem in America.

 

[Steve Smith]

Yes, you do, if you want any kind of accurate comprehension of the firearms problem in America.

Surely the problem is that people who shouldn't be allowed to have guns manage to get them.


Steve.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

In the UK it's No. or more correctly, the o is over a line. No is as close as you can get without a special character.

Curiously the russians use the same notation even though the letter N does not exist in the cyrillic alphabet.

 

[Diapositivo]

Like Steve, I also would not wish to live in a country where people carry guns. In terms of waging wars, many years ago Margaret Thatcher made the point, that as far as she was aware no democracy had ever declared war on another democracy. I don’t know if that is true, but sounds hopeful as increased communication is eradicating more despots.

It depends on what we mean for democracy. If we take into account ancient democracies (such as Rome, the Etruscan city-states, the Greek city-states) that doesn't hold true.
If we take into account old "democracies", such as Britain with a parliamentary system during the XVII century let's say, they did wage more than one war against Holland which at the time - I go by memory - was a Republic. But those were not really "democracies" at least not England.

So if for "democracy" we mean states where there is the universal suffrage, which are not communist neither fascists, that leaves a very short list of "democracies" before WWII: France, Britain, some small European states which would not cultivate war thoughts, and let's say Australia, Canada and New Zealand.

If we include racist countries with proper racial laws into the concept of democracies, which is a daring exercise to say the least, then we can also include the US among democracies. Not very many countries to make a war likely.

After WWII the number of democracies increased, and the number of plain declared wars greatly diminished, so that fact that democracies did not "declare wars" does not make much sense. In Europe all "democracies" belonged to the same defensive treaty so they were not likely to wage wars between them. In any case, India and Pakistan, two democracies, were at war possibly several times. In South America, at the very least Chile and Peru were at war for the Atacama desert (and coast) at the end of the XIX century and they were certainly more democratic than the US at the time.

The Swiss confederation is certainly the best example of democracy ever and they had a furious civil war although they never declared war to some state outside the confederation. That democracies are not a guarantee of not having a civil war is actually quite plain if the US are considered, or India. But Meggie never said anything about civil wars to be true.

So what Ms Thatcher statement leaves us with? That if a democracy wages war to a non-democracy (which happened) then it is a liberty crusade and is not a war any more. Which entails that democracies never make wars, they just spread freedom (she would certainly cite Iraq and Afghanistan as two valid cases in point).

Regarding the dictatorial regime in Viet-Nam, one wonders if the mission of democracies is to defend dictators.

Certain democracies are also known for toppling democracies and installing dictators: think about the role of the US in reversing Mossadek in Iran, in the golpe in Chile, and who knows how many other examples can be made.

 

[BrianShaw]

You can safely say that if people did not carry or own guns, there would be no shootings. That's all I know. The rest is up for debate by those who think they know better.

Actually this is a photo forum and I'd rather be chatting about shooting film, but I seem to recall the exact opposite being true in Rhodesia.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Surely the problem is that people who shouldn't be allowed to have guns manage to get them.


Steve.

Yes, that's it in a nutshell. However, the huge majority of gun owners do not carry them, in fact do not even own concealable firearms. Due to a lot of stupid laws, it's easier for most people to come by a pistol illegally, than to go through the background checks and paperwork to get the firearm legally.

But the real, basic problem is that American society has some very ill segments.

 

[BrianShaw]

But the real, basic problem is that American society has some very ill segments.

Amen.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Actually this is a photo forum and I'd rather be chatting about shooting film, but I seem to recall the exact opposite being true in Rhodesia.

How can there be shootings if nobody carries firearms?

 

[BrianShaw]

Why would there be shootings if everybody carried a firearm? That was the Rhodesian philosophy and it was reported to work. I have not scrubbed that data personally so...

 

[BrianShaw]

... and I suppose the photographic analogy would be, "If everybody carried a Leica then nobody would take pictures."

 

[E. von Hoegh]

How can there be shootings if nobody carries firearms?

Yes, there'll just be the police who go about armed.......

 

[Steve Smith]

Further to the Harry Enfield clips I posted yesterday, this is how we deal with self defence:

[video=youtube;08BqaSuEE_w]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08BqaSuEE_w[/video]


Steve.

 

[Photo Engineer]

How easily we forget. Many long guns in the UK came from America in the late 30s and early 40s. The UK had no guns and wanted the ownership to expand in the countryside to help defend the islands against possible German intervention.

We happily donated rifles to be sent to the UK for home defense.

Of course there are bad and good wars regardless of the governments of the countries involved! However, it is often difficult to tell what kind of war you are about to start (or about to enter). If the US had hesitated in entering WWI or WWII any longer than we did, or if we had pondered the "rightfulness" of one side or another, this discussion would not be about the English language.

PE

 

[Steve Smith]

Yes, there'll just be the police who go about armed.......

Not here!


Steve.

 

[lxdude]

No, it's many locales....even the town of 3000 where I live....22 cops for 3000 people.:confused:

Dang.