It's you goldanged Southerners causin' the gun problem ...

... at least according to this erudite piece of scholastic wisdom.

And I always thought them there crinimals was to blame ...

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>On Southern Violence, Herding and the Pre-Civilized Man

It has been noted that violence in America is most pronounced in the inner cities and in South.(sic) Understanding the roots of the southern phenomenon is of value because of what it helps us understand about the attitudes of one strain of pro-gun advocates throughout the rest of the country.

Sociologists and ethnologists argue that southern violence is based on a number of factors, including the history of slavery which brutalizes the slaver, the climate, poverty and, probably the most important factor, a "culture of honor."

The "culture of honor" is most represented by a Louisiana shooting in the 30's. (That seems really relevant to today's society.) Seems a man lived next to a gas station and the hangers-on at the station would tease him regularly. One day, he took his shotgun and opened fire, wounding two of the bystanders and killing one person who just happened by at the wrong time. Eleven jurors argued "He ain't guilty. He wouldn't have been much of a man if he hadn't shot them fellows." (reported by Hodding Carter -- who was the 12th jurist.)

Until the mid 1970's, Texas classified killing an unfaithful wife found in "a compromising position" justifiable homicide. Even after the law was changed the culture has not. Recently, in Texas, a man was sentenced to a total of 80 days in jail for shooting his wife repeatedly, until the gun jammed. He then left, un-jammed the gun, and returned to finish killing her.

While the transposition of this culture to the South is rooted in the arrival of the highland Scots, they also apply to Mediterranean herding cultures as well. In fact, the Persian and Arabic word used most for honor is izzat[/i] -- and applies most often to valor on the field of battle.

Sociologists have noted that herding societies tend to be more violent than farming ones. Since farmers set down roots and tend to retain the same neighbors, it is in the best interests of the neighbors to find non-violent means to resolve conlicts.

Herders, on the other hand, tend to be more nomadic and less in contact with any external authorities, so they tend to take the resolution of interpersonal conflicts into their own hands. ("If you steal my sheep, it isn't honorable for me merely to apply to some external authority for redress, to redeem my honor. I must avenge the loss myself.")

The matter of personal justice is far older than the reliance on society to correct the imbalance. Historians and religious scholars note that the Code of Hammurabi, followed by the Laws of Moses (The Torah, or first five books of the Bible) represent the earliest examples in western culture of the society assuming a responsibility for the administration of justice in inter-personal disputes. To John Locke, this is the transposition from a state of nature to a governed society.

Which is why the discussion is relevant to us today, even outside of the south.

Among a portion of the most vocal pro-gun advocates, even outside of the south, there exists this pre-civilized, herding culture mindset of personal justice that conflicts with the industrialized nation's view of the society. Randy Weaver is an excellent example. No matter what one thinks of the specific case, Weaver is lionized by a segment of his fans for handling matters on his own, rather than relying on the instruments of justice (i.e., society) to sort things out in the end. He is the presumed victim doing the only thing possible to defend his honor and, therefore, the deaths of his son and wife are totally removed from any action on his part -- and this anti-semite and racist becomes a drawing card at gun shows.

The United States is the youngster among industrialized nations and, therefore, has had a limited time to work towards becoming a civilized nation. For the first two thirds of our nation's history, we have also had the frontier to absorb those whose process of becoming civilized was more difficult than the majority of society's. We could romanticize the early Randy Weavers, because they were "out there" and not occupying or threatening the population centers. But the frontier has disappeared. Now the pre-civilized can no longer seek uncivilized areas in which they fit, so they become a "problem" for the civilization that has occurred.

But there is a second factor in the comparison of the herder and farmer that is relevant, as well -- the one of putting down roots. The herders (sic) propensity towards violence is rooted in his mobility. It is the mobility that brings him into conflict with others and allows the conflict absent a pre-existing social structure. It is the mobility that removes the value of attempting to establish cooperation rather than confrontation in a transient relationship. And it is the mobility that creates the reliance on self in lieu of community.
In our increasingly mobile society, this bodes ill, for it is no longer the herder, alone who is mobile. More and more of us are -- from farm laborer to corporate executive.[/quote]

I would fail a high school student who handed this tripe in to me!!

The website for "Sane Guns" is full of such gems.

They also have a brand discussion forum, much the same format as TFL. Not many entries there yet, but this one's a classic (on the 2nd Amendment)

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>1. The second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
2. The right of virtuous citizens to keep individual firearms for all lawful purposes, including but not limited to personal defense, shall not be abridged; however, nothing in this article shall be construed as to prevent United Sates government or any of the governments of the several states or their subordinate governments from passing such laws as are necessary and proper insure to domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, and promote the general welfare of the people of the United States.
3. The Congress of the United States and the legislatures of the various states and their subordinate governments shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.[/quote]


http://www.saneguns.org/commentary/index.html

B
 
Thanks for the post, Bruce. Dia'tripe' like this renews my faith that there are folks out there with less of a clue than the MMM.
 
Bruce I guess since I am Scotch/German I'm really prone to violence?

You ever see the book Guns, Germs and Steel? From the begining chapters that I read the author says that it was the agriculture (is that like the gun culture?) that put people down to one location and that was the cause of conflict. If you are a hunter gatherer you don't have the time to elect politicians and appoint kings and all the other bull that goes with "civilization"
 
I remember a case where a Texan shot some poor Scottish guy who was drunk and made the mistake of pissing in this guy's bushes. He never warned the guy, he just opened fire on him. His wife called 911, and you could hear her husband in the background firing at the "intruder" and the guy outside screaming "Don't shoot, don't shoot!!!!". The scary part was that, from what I've heard, the homeowner was using a tube fed gun, and fired over 40 shots, meaning he had to reload it many times.

Now, in any sane state they would have put this guy in prison for the rest of his life for the murder he obviously commited, but in Texas they didn't even arrest him, nor did anyone criticize him for it.

This kind of crap gives gun owners a bad rep among the semi-logical, and even some of the more logical people of this country. It shows gun owners as people who will literally kill someone for pissing on a plant that happens to be in their yard.

We here at TFL know better than that. We know that it is not the gun that makes a person evil or stupid, but without reprecussions we all know that a gun can make them more deadly. I think it is our absolute duty to fight this kind of ignorance and help people understand that most of us here respect life and believe that the law should be clear on what to do if such things happen. What gun grabbers completely fail to understand is that what they need to be fighting is misuse of guns, not gun owners. We would be their biggest allies if they would just think for a change instead of citing people like this Texan and assuming that is what we are all like.

In places where guns are banned, usually their excuse is, "we don't want gunfights in the streets", but instead they end up with murders in the street, and then when the police show up, they get a gunfight too. If they would just pass laws to make sure people who abuse their right to bear arms ae punished for their transgressions(such as killing someone for a very stupid reason, even if in "self defense" (like the "he was lookin at me funny" excuse), than the problems we have would be much less. Clearly that guy in Texas murdered that Scottish fella, and clearly a lot of murders take place and are considered legal, both by LEOs and citizens. We gun owners have a lot of work to do to not only fight the redneck perception, but to fight the rednecks themselves, and get to a point where the rednecks come to realize if they step over the line they are criminals themselves.

------------------
I twist the facts until they tell the truth. -Some intellectual sadist

The Bill of Rights is a document of brilliance, a document of wisdom, and it is the ultimate law, spoken or not, for the very concept of a society that holds liberty above the desire for ever greater power. -Me
 
"The United States is the youngster among industrialized nations and, therefore, has had a limited time to work towards becoming a civilized nation."

I always wondered why China, Russia, England, Iraq, etc., etc., were so very far ahead of us on the civilization ladder. Now I know.
 
Dangus, I feel it is imperative that I correct a rather large error in your Scottish shooting story.

The Scott was stoned drunk, banging on this mans door at 2AM. The homeowner warned him to stop, leave - and that he was armed. When the Scott continued to beat on the door the homeowner shot.

This happened here in Houston. A good friend of mine was on the HPD Civilian Review Board so he get's good info on things like this. The DA had no problem ruling this as a justifiable shooting.

CMOS :)

------------------
NRA? Good. Now join the GOA!

The NRA is our shield, the GOA will be our sword.
 
Kind of depends on how one defines "youngster". We've had the same form of government for better than 200 years.

Many of the other industrialized nations can't claim that.

------------------
Jim Fox
 
Dangus:

I don't know the specifics of the case; but I'll tell you this. Part of the problem is that the fault for this is put on the shooter. Okay, he killed somebody but did he initiate it? He wasn't out looking for trouble, the perp was. The deceased initiated it the problem.

Texas' self-defense laws are biased against the initiator of a problem. E.g. your self-defense case falls down if you STARTED OUT by insulting someone from whom you subsequently "Defended" yourself you are seen as the initiator - and are in a lot more trouble.

I don't see the problem with this. The guy was pi**ing on a bush, or banging on his door drunk - don't go looking for trouble! Don't attack people, don't insult people, don't vandalize their stuff, don't go around trying to scare them - it's not hard to "avoid" such things - and stay within the protection of Texas law.


Battler.
 
OberKommando, I started on Guns, Germs and Steel awhile back and got sidetracked onto other things. I'll try to get back to it soon now that I have someone with whom to discuss it!

Indeed, this guy makes little or no sense. Look at the numbers this century--it's his "authorities" of "civilization" that have committed the worst and most murder. The Soviet starving of tens of millions of Ukrainians was deliberate murder on the part of those "authorities." The Nazi genocide against Jews, gypsies, gays, etc. was genocide by those authorities, not "pre-civilized" people. It represented the lowest ebb of society, sure, but it had at least the tacit blessing of the society at the time! Likewise, slavery WAS a feature of an agricultural society of farmers who stayed in one place for generations.

Finally, as Oleg points out, Detroit, Chicago, New York, Boston, and L.A. are NOT "Southern." The author admits this in a backhand way by including "and inner cities" in his opening statement but never goes back to address it.
 
Ok so I'm a barbarian.

Case in point, I'm sitting in my yearly review, being told about how great and wonderful I am and how happy the company is to have me. When My bosses boss starts to tell me about "The company's enviroment." and "How you need to have integrity, and someone with out it could not succeed." So next thing you know I'm coming up out of the chair going "Has anyone questioned my integrity?" He goes "No, No of course not," and then goes back to talking about how people need to trust me. I finaly had to stop him and go, "Are people saying this about me or are you just giving me a speech?". Turns out this was just his standard speech that he gives to everyone and was highly offended that I would take it personal and interupt him.
This is when I learned that I was apart of the "culture of honor" and even if I cared about people's perception of me and my integrety. It doesn't matter because other's will think I'm just acting like that outta greed.
Another time a Salesperson had a big deal going through and needed me to work late. Gave me the big Ooorah speech about being on the team and listed all the people who were "Pitching in", And "Could he count on me?"
I said "You know all those people you just mentioned work on commision and I'm on salary, But I have a reputation as a miracle worker to protect." Big pause on his part. "So is that a yes or a no?"
Personal Honor and reputaion means Two things nowadays Jack and Sh$%, And Jack just left town. People who will do anything to "Get the Deal Done". The bastard who talked infront you in the movie. The little punk who acts out, when 50 years ago he would've gotten thumped and tossed out in the street, now has his buddy the lawyer to cover his butt when he mouths off. And so with that in mind;

TFL Bill 123

1)Whereas, there is a plethora of Mean, Crass, Boorish and Rude people.

2)And Whereas, the cornerstone of society is politeness.

3) The High and Sacred Institution of the Duel is hereby reestablished as an American Right.

4)Duels shall be conducted with Gun, Blade, or Fists.

5)Duels shall be either, "First Blood" or to the Death.

6) All duels shall be proceeded by a "Notice of Intent to Duel" Recorded with the County Recorder of the County the Duel is to take place in, no less than 24 hrs before the Duel.

7)All participents shall not be held Criminaly or Civily libel for any injury or death they may arise out of said Duel.

8) All Duels shall be held a a location, designated by the controling authority, and subject to the orders of the "Master of the Lists."




------------------
Go Ugly Early.

AD HOMINEM; Helping Morons argue since 1549!!!
 
Dangus,
Sorry, but I believe CMOS's version is much closer to truth of the shooting you spoke of. I live in Houston, and remember the story, though it has been a while.

Ober & Don,
I read Guns,Germs & Steal a few months ago. VERY enlightening! Yes, it was the agricultural societies, with thier excess crops and ability to store them that led to them being able to afford to have standing armies to a) protect their territories b) conquer new lands. It's an excellent book, and when y'all get done with it let's start a thread. Lot's to discuss, and I don't know anyone who has read it.

As for the article, just more BS propaganda. People without honor cannot have any concept of why someone would fight, kill, or die to defend it. It makes me wonder what he thinks himself worth if he doesn't believe his honor is worth fighting for. puzzles me.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Meiji_man:
1)Whereas, there is a plethora of Mean, Crass, Boorish and Rude people.
[/quote]


I have long advocated a return to dueling as the only logical way to restore civility to this nation.

The Marine Corps's Guidebook for officers used to contain (my edition is '76, who knows if this story is still in it) a nice article from the early days of the republic. A Marine lieutenant was stationed on board a Navy vessel and was subordinate to a Navy officer who disliked Marines. This officer never failed to mention his dislike of Marines in general and the lieutenant in particular. The lieutenant held his temper in check until they docked in a Southern port (I would guess either Savannah or New Orleans). At that point he called the officer out to the field of honor. After the exchange of shots the lieutenant was unhurt and the Navy officer wounded slighty. He recovered but never again was rude to the Marines on board the ship. The article concluded with the finding of the official board of inquiry that the officers had acted within the law, and that "politeness was restored".

Now, the "official" point of this article was that the lieutenant had waited until the proper time and place to settle his differences. I've always thought that the other point of the article was the phrase "politeness was restored".

As the old saying goes, Southerners are polite until the point of violence.

Ken Strayhorn (won't be reconstructed and I don't give a damn)
Hillsborough NC
 
There's a technical term used in rhetoric and debating. It describes an adversary who is not capable of understanding the terms being used in the debate. This is called being "invincibly ignorant". This applies to the author of that drivel that started this thread. Trying to describe matters of honor and integrity to someone without it is like trying to describe colors to a blind person. The don't and CAN'T truly comprehend what we're talking about.

As a (by the grace of God) Southerner, I find this man's babbling about the effects of flock herding vs. farming to be pure bullpoop. It hearkens back to the worst of the eugenics arguments, that Aryans are noble, Jews are crafty, Poles are dimwitted, etc. It's bullpoop no matter who's agenda is being advanced by it.

His premise is incorrect and his supporting arguments are without merit. He would be hooted down as a racist if the people being derided were anything other than WASP Southerners.
 
My guns don't have problems. And I was born in Virginia and I live in Richmond and my momma's a red-headed Scot/Irish woman. John
 
The BIG offense of this article is that it describes individualism as somehow wrong and abhorrent, and collectivism (and consequently communism) is so great.

Battler.
 
Well the sheeple fall for what the media says so often I can be excused for it now and then :P

The version I saw I saw on NBC a while back.

Despite the difference now in the story, that is still absolutely rediculous. I know that the reporters talking about the story had some facts wrong, but I remember the 911 call quite well. I remember the guy outside screaming for him not to shoot and the guy just kept shooting, and I know he reloaded the gun quite a few times. This goes way beyond overkill for the situation. This is just as bad as cops murdering a guy becuase he shot their police dog. The feel threatened, but their reaction just goes way over the line. If we gun owners want to survive we can't promote murder. That situation with the Scottish guy is exactly the kind of situation that someone could call the LEOs and they could come and arrest him, no harm done. I don't blame him for having his gun ready, but he simply wasn't doing the right thing by shooting that guy. I tell you this, and keep in mind I'm the kind of guy that has my own home defense plan, and I always answer the door armed. I do this to be ready for threats, not ready to kill idiots that are intoxicated and wandering stupidly.

How many of you have gone and done something stupid when drunk? Would you have prefered that someone has shot you, or would you like to change your opinion on this?

------------------
I twist the facts until they tell the truth. -Some intellectual sadist

The Bill of Rights is a document of brilliance, a document of wisdom, and it is the ultimate law, spoken or not, for the very concept of a society that holds liberty above the desire for ever greater power. -Me
 
Dangus:
I don't know about wanting somebody to shoot me when I was drunk, but there's been more than one morning after that I'd have welcomed it..
 
Back
Top