fpb | (no subject)

Yikes, totally agree with this,but don't classify Americans as some mindless collectivity...though perhaps this could sometimes be true. :)

No, of course. Let us just say that I am more familiar with our own brands of insanity. We have many criminals and many lunatics - in fact, I often suspect that our political classes are composed largely of both - but the American obsession with weapons is alien to us, and when it rears its ugly head in such an ugly manner, I am afraid that it is impossible not to label it not just ugly but American.

Re the second person: snap. The combination of eleven-year-olds (of either gender) and weapons is so wrong on so many levels that I don't even know where to begin.

As for the test of citizenship... yeah, so clever. Nobody with a physical disability that limits the use of their hands could possibly be considered a responsible citizen and trustworthy around a ballot paper, right? I feel physically queasy when something like that shows up on my friends page.

I'm glad you understand.

The problem of constructing a test so that it will test only for the exact quality you're trying to measure and not some ancillary quality that you've unconsciously presupposed is a truly difficult one.

I first became aware of the problem when I was taking a foreign-language test with a section that supposedly tested our listening comprehension, but in fact was testing our ability to effectively chunk the incoming material in order to keep from overflowing the seven registers of short-term memory. However, we got no practice during class in that skill, so most of us ended up struggling with overflows because the sentence we were supposed to listen to and translate mentally was too long for our short-term memory when handled as single words. At first we'd have the later words force the first words out, but when we tried to solve it by concentrating on hanging onto the first words, we'd lose the last part of the sentence because it had no room to go into. So no matter which "solution" we used, we'd be asking the instructor to repeat the sentence multiple times, and they'd assume it was a lack of comprehension on our part rather than issues of short-term memory management. They didn't even realize there was a problem because they had developed their ability to chunk the incoming information until they did it unconsciously, without even realizing that a skill was involved.

And that's a problem in developing a test to measure a relatively objective quality. Trying to develop a test that will measure something so elusive as the qualities that make a responsible citizen may well be impossible.

And that is why we acknowledge citizenship in all people born in the country or applying honestly to be part of it.

(Incidentally, in Italy it is unconstitutional to deprive anyone of citizenship. While I can see the point for natives, I think the provision ought to be altered for foreign-born citizens - what, for instance, about enemy spies getting citizenship under false pretences?)

That second one makes me think of this photo. [Warning: graphic shot of shot, dying caribou "posing" with Sarah Palin and her young daughter.]

Isn't she the cutest? Her first kill! (Yes, I am being facetious.)

Don't be silly. An AK-47 is not a hunting gun. And children from rural communities throughout the world are taught to hunt by their elders. It is exactly the same in Europe, and I could introduce to several hunting families in both Italy and Britain.

I know what an AK-47 is. I used to play video games. :)

And just because things are done doesn't make them automatically okay to do to this vegan.

Whatever your tastes in food, hunting is not the same as killing people, and an AK-47 is designed for the latter function and not for the former. If you find killing a caribou on the same level as killing a human being, then I am afraid that there is a certain difference in our outlooks.

Thank you. I grew up with lots of hunters in the family, and ate venison stew and 'deerburger'. I am all for people owning hunting rifles, but I completely agree with the ban on fully automatic weapons. No one needs to own them except the military or law enforcement.

One of my friends' husband is a big game hunter (seriously--he packed up into the Ural mountains to hunt bear and went on safari in Africa) and his rifles are not automatic weapons.

General Kalashnikov, who designed the gun - and who is, so far as I know, still alive and healthy - said it quite clearly: its purpose is to defend the country. He also regretted that it found its way in the hands of terrorists and bandits.

I don't know if you're aware of this, but in rural regions of America, it's actually not that uncommon for a minor (sometimes even as young as 11) to own a gun. Not a fully-automatic military rifle, obviously, but rather a small-caliber bolt-action hunting rifle. I'm not sure why the 11-year-old with the AK-47 shocked you so much.

I know for a fact that you aren't aware of this, but in the rural regions of Europe it's actually not that uncommon for a minor (sometimes even as young as 11) to own a gun. Not a fully-automatic military rifle, obviously, but rather a small-caliber bolt-action hunting rifle. The idea, however, that a child would look cute playing irresponsibly with an implement designed to kill people in plural numbers, as well as the idea that the possession and care of such an implement should be a precondition for citizenship, seems to me both uncivilized and immature. It is also rather stupid. If being able to kill people is a test of citizenship, I can do it with two hands. Just get your neck over here, I'll show you.

The idea, however, that a child would look cute playing irresponsibly with an implement designed to kill people in plural numbers, as well as the idea that the possession and care of such an implement should be a precondition for citizenship, seems to me both uncivilized and immature.

I didn't actually see the video. As to the "gun ownership a citizenship requirement," there is a country which makes that de facto for male adults. A very "uncivilized and immature" country, famous for mountains, banking, and cuckoo clocks.

It is also rather stupid. If being able to kill people is a test of citizenship, I can do it with two hands. Just get your neck over here, I'll show you.

My neck's thicker than you think, and if you're unarmed and I had a military rifle, you'd be at rather the disadvantage ...

The point is not advantage or disadvantage, the point is the sick notion that murder is a part of citizenship. That was intended for sarcasm. However, if I ever set out to annihilate someone, I would do it rather better. And I would still not need a rifle - not even the one I learned to shoot in the Italian Army.

... the point is the sick notion that murder is a part of citizenship.

I think the idea is that the ability to fight in defense of one's rights is a part of citizenship. Though I don't totally agree with the idea (what about the handicapped?), I do understand it, and as more than just "murder."

No, no, no, no, no. To be a member of your country's army; to have taken an oath to defend the constitution and the country; to be willing to be recalled to arms if your government needs you - that is part of citizenship. To rejoice in the irresponsible control of implements to kill people - that is not.

Incidentally, forgetting for a minute that it is not wise to praise the Swiss in front of an Italian (we know far too much) you seem to be slightly confused between the notion of belonging to a militia army and the notion of owning a gun with no control and no particular command structure. You see, I have been a soldier. I hope that 11-year-old kid has not.

Incidentally, forgetting for a minute that it is not wise to praise the Swiss in front of an Italian (we know far too much) ...

Heh, good point :)

... you seem to be slightly confused between the notion of belonging to a militia army and the notion of owning a gun with no control and no particular command structure.

You have a point there.

Again, I'm not agreeing with the video. I'm just saying you're going a bit far by de-friending people for posting it.

This has been coming for a while. The video was the last straw. Anyway, what is so strange? You post a video meant to shock the bourgeois, and the bourgeois are duly shocked.

That's the end of your LJ friendship? After all your disagreements? Aw. That's kinda anticlimactic. :( I hope you will think better of it; both of you have written some great things inspired by your disagreements.

I thought the girl was very cute. Mostly because of her joyful expression at the end, which is the exact same joyful expression seen in 11-year-old girls who win a prize ribbon for their rabbit or beat their older brother at chess for the first time. The incongruity of this being inspired by a gun... well, I actually found it charming. I wouldn't have found it so charming if the girl had been firing the weapon, and perhaps the idea of treating such a weapon (even unloaded) as a toy is dangerous. I will think on it more.

Two points:

a) 11 year olds who are taught about guns from their parents are more likely to respect them, than if they learned about them from gang members

b) I took the voting/citizenship thing as a joke. He referenced Heinlein's "Starship Troopers". In the novel, you earn citizenship (particularly the right to vote) through military service. What he actually said was a logical extension of that: "If Robert Heinlein were still around, maybe he could write a story about the future where anyone who can field strip and function check his piece in 60 or less gets a vote; otherwise, not."

There is nothing strange about military service being a feature of citizenship. For most male adults in Europe until recently, it was the nature of things, and I have served in my country's army and even been fired on during guard duty. I am still legally a soldier and could be recalled to arms if my government ordered, and I have taken an oath to defend my country and its constitution. The point however is not the weapons, but the citizen's duty (which is written in the Italian Constitution) to defend his native soil. To make weapons good in themselves, rather than an ugly necessity in an ugly world, is sick. And to find a child playing with them while she is much too young for any kind of responsibility anything but a repulsive image is even sicker.

"eleven-year-old girl with an AK-47"
Not that it matters but it's an AR-15, the U.S. military's primary rifle.

"This has been coming for a while. The video was the last straw."
I have debated the same thing many times with John. He doesn't seem to know where the line of polite discussion is.

"to find a child playing with them while she is much too young for any kind of responsibility anything but a repulsive image is even sicker."

(disclaimer: I don't mean any of this as sarcastic, angry, etc. It is meant as calm, sincere discussion. My email and blogs writing is often misinterpreted)
I can understand your view. The video doesn't bother me really. I am not a gun nut at all like John. I don't currently own one. I would like to see sensible restraints on them here in the U.S. (like requiring people to report them lost or stolen). I do support the right to bear arms.
I do not see the video in the same context as you though. I think it is because I spent so many hours doing exactly the exercise she is doing (on the same weapon) as a soldier. It is an exercise to create competency.
From the comments above, I assume you have no problem with an 11 year old using a rifle for hunting. I assume also you have no problem with them being trained to use it (that just wouldn't make sense). So I have to assume the line here is that this weapon is for defense (or offense) against people.
I'm not sure I have a problem with 11 year olds being trained to defend the house. Where is the line? 13, 15, 18?
Or if you are ok with 11 year old being trained on a weapon, is it the 'glorification' of the act the issue?

As an aside, I think the line about citizenship is just a joke.

Is she just playing with it, or is this the one where she's field stripping it?

(no subject)

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Facetious, alas, does not exclude foolish

Re: Facetious, alas, does not exclude foolish

Re: Facetious, alas, does not exclude foolish

Re: Facetious, alas, does not exclude foolish

Re: Facetious, alas, does not exclude foolish

no subject

Someone is being rather ignorant here

Re: Someone is being rather ignorant here

Re: Someone is being rather ignorant here

Re: Someone is being rather ignorant here

Re: Someone is being rather ignorant here

Re: Someone is being rather ignorant here

Re: Someone is being rather ignorant here

Re: Someone is being rather ignorant here

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject