The real reason U2 isn't releasing any of this material

[dan_smee]

Well, to over simplify , violence begets violence, fear breads more fear... and on and on it goes.
Generally speaking I believe owning a gun for self "protection" only attracks the thing that you are afraid the most. So many times we hear stories of how the gun used during a crime was the victims own gun..used against them.

Also, one of my dearest friends lost her fiance to an accidental gun shot a week before the wedding.
I detest even looking at them. They are made for one thing and one thing only... to KILL other human beings and living creatures.

That's really horrible. I'm really sorry to hear about your friend.

The point you make is bang on the money, they are DESIGNED to kill. If you want to protect yourself, get an alarm system. There wouldn't be any issues on the sreets if others didn't have guns.

 

[Irvine511]

I was looking for intelligible reason. All I want is for soeone to give me a simple answer on why a distinction was made between (for example) guns and heroin. They both give people pleasure, enjoyment and they both kill a disproprtionately high number of people. Why is it dismissed as a personal freedom to own a gun, but a person who wants to take heroin is legislated against and demonised?

the answer would be that a gun may serve a variety of purposes, from recreation to collection to hunting to self defense against bears and moose. this was a country that fought a violent revolution where ordinary citizen-soldiers organized into militias that cast off an occupying empire, and then the 19th century was a massive push westward through dangerous western territory. also, the Constitution explicitly states "right to bear arms" whereas there's nothing about heroin.

you also have a very entrenched, organic culture around hunting that i have no part of, but i have to acknowledge is very much there and is very educated about gun safety and responsible gun ownership. is there such a thing as responsible heroin use? does heroin have any demonstrable benefits?

obviously, all this can be argued, and i could argue with it point by point, but this is the best non-NRA, non-ideological argument i can come up with on the fly at the end of a long work day.

 

[Jeannieco]

That's really horrible. I'm really sorry to hear about your friend.

The point you make is bang on the money, they are DESIGNED to kill. If you want to protect yourself, get an alarm system. There wouldn't be any issues on the sreets if others didn't have guns.

Thanks Dan!

 

[Niceman]

Can I ask a question to our American friends:

Supposedly, the only argument I have heard for the domestic use of any sort of gun is in the constitution based on a vague and tenuous sentence about 'the right to bear arms' when forming or participating in an 'urban militia'. This seems to me to have more of a 'war time' connotation, rather than some fucked up teenager taking a rifle to school and killing his teachers and classmates.

Now, it seems that the pro-gun community has taken this concept and derived something about their right to bear arms as a key element of their freedoms. Given the weight of evidence that suggests that domestic gun ownership causes far more deaths than it prevents, can the same not be said for heroin use? What about anthrax? Can it be an American's right to use heroin as a fundamental aspect of their freedoms?

Can someone explain this difference to me.

I'm no fan of guns. I don't own one and probably never will.

But I support the right to bare arms. I support it because of the citizens' right to revolution. We should have a right and a chance to try to overthrow the government if they turn out to be evil.

Oh, and I'm deathly afraid of zombies......

Here's the text of the second amendment:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

 

[dan_smee]

the answer would be that a gun may serve a variety of purposes, from recreation to collection to hunting to self defense against bears and moose. this was a country that fought a violent revolution where ordinary citizen-soldiers organized into militias that cast off an occupying empire, and then the 19th century was a massive push westward through dangerous western territory. also, the Constitution explicitly states "right to bear arms" whereas there's nothing about heroin.

taken out of context. the right to bear arms as part of an organised militia.

you also have a very entrenched, organic culture around hunting that i have no part of, but i have to acknowledge is very much there and is very educated about gun safety and responsible gun ownership. is there such a thing as responsible heroin use? does heroin have any demonstrable benefits?

Heroin injecting rooms in europe have proven extremely effective in reducing side-effects and harm. It does have a number of demonstrable benefits for the terminally ill/those in acute pain.

obviously, all this can be argued, and i could argue with it point by point, but this is the best non-NRA, non-ideological argument i can come up with on the fly at the end of a long work day.

Fair enough. I am trying to argue this point from the perspective of a Liberatarian (who seem to be those ideologically disposed to using the 'freedom' defence.) Heroin use is prohibited for obvious reasons. But those reasons are based on outcomes almost identical (and on a much smaller scale) to gun use.

 

[dan_smee]

I'm no fan of guns. I don't own one and probably never will.

But I support the right to bare arms. I support it because of the citizens' right to revolution. We should have a right and a chance to try to overthrow the government if they turn out to be evil.

Oh, and I'm deathly afraid of zombies......

Here's the text of the second amendment:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

a) Do you need guns to overthrow a Government? I would think that the size of an army required to storm the White House would probably have enough force as it was. That arguement sanctifies the power of the gun to being a mystical and magical instrument that has the ability to create social and political change. It is just a weapon. A dangerous, murderous weapon that causes far greater harm than it does good.

b) How is domestic individual use of a hand-gun (or rifle, semi-automatic weapon etc) being used as part of a well regulated Militia?

 

[ozeeko]

I never understood the fascination with guns.

That being said, I don't think banning all guns will solve the violence problem in the US. Criminals will always find a way to get a gun. It's the same with drugs being illegal.

And if some lunatic wants to kill someone and can't get a gun, I'm sure he'll settle for some other weapon. Maybe a carving knife? If you ban all carving knives, the lunatic might have to use his own hands and strangle someone. If you ban hands...well, now I'm getting silly.

 

[dan_smee]

^ No it won't solve all the problems. It will however go a along way to preventing a large rpoportion of the incidents. If it was illegal to carry a firearm in certain areas, police would have the power to detain people/confiscate firarms. The less of them thereare, the less crime there will be related to handgun use.

The point you make about knives is 100% correct. The question is based around a reasonable restriction. Knives have far more legitimate uses, and cause far less damage/instances of violent crimes

 

[dan_smee]

Thanks Dan!

No worries at all Jeannieco! The worst part in all of this is that there is never any justice. Not that it would be much consolation, but if in that situation his example could show the dangers and evoke some real change the families grief might be lessened some. Gun-toting morons would never listen to those arguments and it makes the whole situation far more senseless than to needs to be.

 

[lemonfly]

There's nothing you can do about lunatics, but a lunatic going into a school with a carving knife will probably kill a lot less people than if they had a semi-automatic.

 

[gvox]

But I support the right to bare arms.

I believe in the right to bare arms too. Especially for women. Tank-tops, even.

I support it because of the citizens' right to revolution. We should have a right and a chance to try to overthrow the government if they turn out to be evil.

On a more serious note, bullshit.

1. Noone is overthrowing the US government with their stupid home-made militia. They would be massacred in any attempt.

2. Noone needs a .50 cal M2 machine gun or assault rifle for protection or hunting.

3. Egypt. Thank you.

 

[gvox]

There's nothing you can do about lunatics, but a lunatic going into a school with a carving knife will probably kill a lot less people than if they had a semi-automatic.

Exactamundo.

 

[Jeannieco]

No worries at all Jeannieco! The worst part in all of this is that there is never any justice. Not that it would be much consolation, but if in that situation his example could show the dangers and evoke some real change the families grief might be lessened some. Gun-toting morons would never listen to those arguments and it makes the whole situation far more senseless than to needs to be.

Yes, like James Brady ( Reagan's press secretary that was shot along side him) and the Brady Bill banning assault weapons.

The sad part about that story about my friend is that he shot himself accidentally so there isn't any justice to seek at all. It's very ironic in fact because he was a responsible guy who loved to hunt and thought he was being perfectly safe. That's the horrifying part. He came home with his gun after hunting and the gun went off in his hands while he was standing in his own living room. The safety slipped.
Another example from my years of growing up in the Panama in the Canal Zone, after Manuel Noriega was overthrown the US civilian population down there ran for their guns to protect themselves against the lawlessness that was rampant in the days following. They were targets. (We had moved back to the states just before this happened)
There was no protection or police of any kind if you weren't on a US military base.
Close family friends of ours had their house broken in to and the father tried to protect the family by pulling out his own gun to use against the intruders but they overtook him and used his own gun on HIM, and shot him dead.
So, after all that rambling of the people I know/knew with guns, the argument that guns are there to protect is pretty lame

 

[Niceman]

a) Do you need guns to overthrow a Government? I would think that the size of an army required to storm the White House would probably have enough force as it was. That arguement sanctifies the power of the gun to being a mystical and magical instrument that has the ability to create social and political change. It is just a weapon. A dangerous, murderous weapon that causes far greater harm than it does good.

b) How is domestic individual use of a hand-gun (or rifle, semi-automatic weapon etc) being used as part of a well regulated Militia?

A) It's not how I would go about it. But many revolutions against tyrants have certainly used them historically.

B) You are interpreting the wording of the second amendment in a perfectly respectable way, a perfectly respectable way which is at odds with the way it has been interpreted by the last 200+ years of U.S. law.

 

[Niceman]

I believe in the right to bare arms too. Especially for women. Tank-tops, even.




On a more serious note, bullshit.

1. Noone is overthrowing the US government with their stupid home-made militia. They would be massacred in any attempt.

2. Noone needs a .50 cal M2 machine gun or assault rifle for protection or hunting.

3. Egypt. Thank you.

1. I'm NOT, I repeat ABSOLUTELY NOT suggesting that at any time in recent past or near future has this been nor will this be a likely scenario. However, the U.S. has been around a while and no one knows what the future may hold.

2. I didn't suggest either. Neither does the second amendment.

3. I'm not a violent guy. If I were going to start a revolution it would be with words.

 

[dan_smee]

Yes, like James Brady ( Reagan's press secretary that was shot along side him) and the Brady Bill banning assault weapons.

The sad part about that story about my friend is that he shot himself accidentally so there isn't any justice to seek at all. It's very ironic in fact because he was a responsible guy who loved to hunt and thought he was being perfectly safe. That's the horrifying part. He came home with his gun after hunting and the gun went off in his hands while he was standing in his own living room. The safety slipped.
Another example from my years of growing up in the Panama in the Canal Zone, after Manuel Noriega was overthrown the US civilian population down there ran for their guns to protect themselves against the lawlessness that was rampant in the days following. They were targets. (We had moved back to the states just before this happened)
There was no protection or police of any kind if you weren't on a US military base.
Close family friends of ours had their house broken in to and the father tried to protect the family by pulling out his own gun to use against the intruders but they overtook him and used his own gun on HIM, and shot him dead.
So, after all that rambling of the people I know/knew with guns, the argument that guns are there to protect is pretty lame

That is really awful. I find it even more astounding that people would still hold those type of beliefs after hearing a story like that.

 

[dan_smee]

I really wonder what kind of incredible music John lennon would have made over the last 30 years.

 

[gvox]

1. I'm NOT, I repeat ABSOLUTELY NOT suggesting that at any time in recent past or near future has this been nor will this be a likely scenario. However, the U.S. has been around a while and no one knows what the future may hold.

2. I didn't suggest either. Neither does the second amendment.

3. I'm not a violent guy. If I were going to start a revolution it would be with words.

Ok so you basically don't agree with them but you agree with their right to do so?? What if you get shot by some nutbar in a Wendy's, are you going to die feeling good that their 2nd amendment rights trumped yours to exist on planet earth? This is where it all falls apart for me. Because while my analogy is extreme, more people die in fucked up incidents like that than will ever die in legitimate uprisings.

 

[dan_smee]

"676,000 will go down on the streets of America with a bullet in the next 20 years... 20 years, these bitter tears"

 

[Niceman]

Ok so you basically don't agree with them but you agree with their right to do so??

This is precisely right. I strongly believe in people having the right to do many things I disagree with. It's just like freedom of speech.

I do not believe that we can ever really make this world safe. I do not believe safety is the most important quality we should aspire to. It's like these silly people at the airport who take my bottle of Coke from me because its physically possible that I might destroy an airplane with a soda..... Maybe we are safer if no one has any soda, but that's not all that matters to me.

 

[gvox]

Your argument is patently ridiculous, sorry.

 

[Registered Dude]

Niceman, I get your point, it's frustrating to hear this reasoning though - given that certain freedoms are defended to the bitter end, while others are revoked.. it seems so willy nilly.

I can carry a gun that could potentially tear into someone's flesh and burst their vital organs.

But god help me if I try and grow a certain plant in my yard.

 

[dan_smee]

The freedom defence is really just an excuse because people like carrying guns. It pretty much boils down to the fact that people like what they like and will defend their right to like it by using this trumped up excuse of 'freedom'.

If we were all truly free, surely most people would walk around naked, some would commit murders/rape at their own whims etc.

I'm positive most humans on this earth would do things that would encroach on other people's freedoms, and therein lies the freedom paradox. True freedom doesn't exist, because to exercise your own true freedom will inhibit the true freedom of another.

Governments have to weigh up 'the greater good'. The balance is surely to find the answer that ensures that the most number of people can enjoy the most number of freedoms. Governments also need to prioritise those freedoms and target fixing basic freedoms, fundamentally the freedom of PERSONAL SAFETY. jeannieco has demonstrated just which argument holds the most weight when it comes to personal safety.

Guns are devices that are specifically designed to injure and kill. Can someone from the other side of this argument baldy say that they can distinguish between a semi-automatic weapon and any number of terror devices like WMD's, anthrax etc.

Essentially, I feel the difference between a bomb and an Uzi s very simple. A bomb will kill a large number of people in a short time. An Uzi can potentially kill an unlimited number of people over a longer time span.

I am about to tread on some massively dangerous ground here, but please believe me when I say that I mean no disrespect. On the contrary, I have the absolute highest respect for those who may feel the subject I am about to raise is too sensitive:

I see no ideological difference between the nutters who rant about their freedom to carry around a deadly weapon, or would protect themselves using firearms and those who hijack planes and crash them into buildings. Basically both (wrongly!) believe that their opinion is so right that it is worth potentially killing others for either directly (shooting them) or indirectly (enabling the existence of more guns).

This takes nothing away from that devastation: I think that is reaffirmed by the way I have been arguing all along in this discussion.

 

[Irvine511]

taken out of context. the right to bear arms as part of an organised militia.

there are many, many Constitutional scholars who would debate you on this point. this may be your opinion, but presenting it as fact ignores the enormous amount of debate and scholarship that has already happened on this issue.

i tend to agree with your opinion, but i've found that the best thing i can do, as an American, when being asked to "explain" aspects of the US to non-Americans, is to do my best to elucidate the complexities of issues over here that can get watered down and simplified when they cross over into other places. the US is on the news a whole lot, and a lot of people think they have an understanding of what goes on in the US (and in a way in which US citizens don't have an understanding of what goes on in other countries, because when you're the big kid on the block, why would you pay that much attention to anyone else), but the reality is that US domestic politics are as complex as any other country, if not more so given our size and diversity, and it's tough enough for citizens to truly grasp the complexities of these issues, let alone someone living in another country.

so the big point i'm trying to make is that it's always, always more complicated than you think.

again, i cautiously agree with many of your points, but you also can't get around the 2nd Amendment which explicitly refers to firearms.

 

[Zooropa man]

Ooooookkkaaaayyy... so what is the real reason U2 isn't releasing any of this material???

 

[corianderstem]

Because we're all insane-os here in the US.

Duh.

 

[Irvine511]

Because we're all insane-os here in the US.

Duh.

we all act exactly like you see on TV and in the movies.

 

[JamietheEdgefan]

Ooooookkkaaaayyy... so what is the real reason U2 isn't releasing any of this material???

Well, over on atu2 someone posted an interview Bono had with some irish magazine, and it seems to have some answers:
(he just wrote it from memory, no link, so i'll just copy and paste)

"1/ Bono says they wanted the album out before the end of the tour

2/ He speaks of Songs of Ascent. He mentions songs called 'Mount Zion' 'Soon' 'Every Breaking Wave' 'North Star'

3/ He speaks about the club music with Red One, and a song called 'I'll believe her when she sings'

4/ He mentions the rock album they have started to make with Danger Mouse. He says they have 10 songs with him.

5/ Of Spiderman he says there is 18 songs and 20 pieces of music

6/ Finally he says 'I think next fall' for a new album. He goes onto say...'Why would anyone want another one? It just better be really great, and the reason we didnt put out Songs of Ascent was we felt that the next thing that people need to hear from u2 is not an art project, that it has a rock n roll heart, even if its not rock n roll music.' "

Bono's explanation seems to be what i had suspected - they just didn't have enough faith in a quick follow up to 'bounce back' from NLOTH's failings. They may have started out with the idea of just getting new material out as soon as possible, but i think their priority soon shifted to getting something spectacular (i.e. that they - not McGuiness - believe is full of hits) out, something which would really be a proper comeback - and that would require time.
So, it seems from what Bono said that they opted to take the time to make sure they have something 'special' rather than something quick, to come back from NLOTH. Makes sense to me, even if it is frustrating.

 

[gvox]

"I think next fall"

NEXT fall

Not THIS fall

 

[Niceman]

Your argument is patently ridiculous, sorry.

That's hardly a counter argument.