Rob's House Posted December 15, 2012 Posted December 15, 2012 Oh, people shooting people with guns. Does that clear things up? That's pretty broad. I'd want Then to know who "they" are, then do the analysis I described before. I'd want a breakdown of the gun violence to see what portion of it was coming from what areas & under what circumstances before proceeding with further policy analysis. Again, I'm not looking for an answer. Just thinking out loud...or in print, rather.
Gene Frenkle Posted December 15, 2012 Author Posted December 15, 2012 Goddamn I've been sucked back in by this mess. I've forgotten that posting here can be kinda therapeutic. Time to think about something else and maybe catch up on Homeland. Whatever your gun stance, this was some really, really f**cked up sh*t today. So, so very sad. Nice talking to many of you again.
Chef Jim Posted December 15, 2012 Posted December 15, 2012 (edited) Don't blame them - it's a function of the paranoid conservative mind to make everything black and white, good or bad, one thing or the other. It's genetic after all. This post gets my vote for top ten hypocritical posts of the year. Good job Gene. The response by the pro-gun folks is always the same after any such tragedy. VERY convenient... Keep going Gene, you might make the top 10 all Gene all the time. Edited December 15, 2012 by Chef Jim
GG Posted December 15, 2012 Posted December 15, 2012 Goddamn I've been sucked back in by this mess. I've forgotten that posting here can be kinda therapeutic. Time to think about something else and maybe catch up on Homeland. Whatever your gun stance, this was some really, really f**cked up sh*t today. So, so very sad. Nice talking to many of you again. Since you revel on dealing with facts only, why is it that gun ownership has been legal since this country has been founded, access to guns has been ready for those who qualify (if anything it's gotten harder over the last 40 years), semi-automatics and assault type weapons have been around for a century, yet the increase in gun violence and these insane school shootings are a one-two decade old phenomenon. Would an educated person try to reason through that correlation to see if the root cause is the gun, or something else in play? Shouldn't a closer inspection of culture & current societal and educational standard be judged compared to 50 years ago to see why people suddenly think it's ok to shoot up a bunch of innocents? It's easy to blame the gun because it's the simplest weapon of mass destruction. Yet you haven't offered any acknowledgement that people didn't do this garbage before even though guns were more widely available.
3rdnlng Posted December 15, 2012 Posted December 15, 2012 Since you revel on dealing with facts only, why is it that gun ownership has been legal since this country has been founded, access to guns has been ready for those who qualify (if anything it's gotten harder over the last 40 years), semi-automatics and assault type weapons have been around for a century, yet the increase in gun violence and these insane school shootings are a one-two decade old phenomenon. Would an educated person try to reason through that correlation to see if the root cause is the gun, or something else in play? Shouldn't a closer inspection of culture & current societal and educational standard be judged compared to 50 years ago to see why people suddenly think it's ok to shoot up a bunch of innocents? It's easy to blame the gun because it's the simplest weapon of mass destruction. Yet you haven't offered any acknowledgement that people didn't do this garbage before even though guns were more widely available. In order to understand what is going on we must see what has changed over the years. I'm not just addressing school shootings but gun violence in general. Until we are able to face up to some ugly demographic facts and call things as they are, we will never have an honest discussion. The link and excerpt below may make it sound as if I'm putting this all on a single race. Absolutely not! This is a good deal of the over all gun violence but does not address the massacres at schools that as far as I know, have all been perpetrated by whites. http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles2/silveira83lw.html "Is gun control really about guns? Sounds like an odd question on the surface, but it's really right on target. In fact, the answer is: No, gun control is not really about guns. It's about failed social programs, the destruction of the black family in America, and the rotten politicians who are responsible. The "welfare handouts in exchange for votes" schemes began in the 1930s with Roosevelt's New Deal, and they coincided with the beginning of the dissolution of the American black family. Although discriminated against back then, blacks had about the same percentage of intact family units as white families, and as a race black crime was about the same as white crime. Today, thanks to decades of accelerating "welfare for votes" social engineering, the black family unit in the ghetto is history (welfare checks have replaced fathers) and the black crime rate is manyfold that of whites. The welfare checks not only destroyed the black head of household in the ghetto, but also the black family's self respect and its ability to be self-reliant. As it does with most poor, dependent, fractured families, it lead to an increase in crime. But rather than admit their horrible mistakes in making people dependent on handouts rather than on themselves, the politicians have claimed that guns are responsible for the high crime rate in America. The test is put to that lie by simply subtracting out minority crime statistics in America, and America is left with a crime rate that is lower than most Western European countries. This despite the fact that gun ownership among American whites is the highest in the world. The low rate of violent crimes is not just a white phenomenon either; gun crimes among middle and upper-class blacks is comparable to that of whites. But politicians don't want to admit they have cynically destroyed a race to take advantage of their votes, so they (and you know the politicians I'm talking about) perpetuate the myth that guns cause crime."
GG Posted December 15, 2012 Posted December 15, 2012 Don't even go there, because there's no correlation to the school shootings. This has nothing to do with race or entitlement society. Nearly all mass shooters came from affluent non-minority homes.
Rob's House Posted December 15, 2012 Posted December 15, 2012 Don't even go there, because there's no correlation to the school shootings. This has nothing to do with race or entitlement society. Nearly all mass shooters came from affluent non-minority homes. The problem is it's pretty damn hard to make a cogent anti-gun argument based on the relatively low number of total fatalaties resulting from these types of shootings.
3rdnlng Posted December 15, 2012 Posted December 15, 2012 Don't even go there, because there's no correlation to the school shootings. This has nothing to do with race or entitlement society. Nearly all mass shooters came from affluent non-minority homes. I agree with you that this has no correlation to the school shootings. I stated that in my post. This thread originally was about "pop guns" vs. tanks, etc. I wouldn't have posted this link or excerpt in the main thread about the massacre. This is a subject that people shy away from addressing, not only here but in general. At some point in time it would be nice to be able to have this discussion without people throwing out the "DaveinElma" card or pissing their pants just thinking about getting into this discussion.
GG Posted December 15, 2012 Posted December 15, 2012 The problem is it's pretty damn hard to make a cogent anti-gun argument based on the relatively low number of total fatalaties resulting from these types of shootings. The profiles of mass school shooters are very similar - bipolar/mental disorders, social outcasts. It's not a gun control issue but a mental health issue and the fine line that is not crossed between institutionalizing everyone who may fit that pattern or accept occasional tragedies. There have been countless Adam Lanzas before, and the question that needs to be answered is why didn't they resort to shooting up a school 30 years ago, even though they had the resources to do so? What has changed in our society that the mentally ill cross that line, even though there's much more treatment and attention devoted to the sick?
Rob's House Posted December 15, 2012 Posted December 15, 2012 The profiles of mass school shooters are very similar - bipolar/mental disorders, social outcasts. It's not a gun control issue but a mental health issue and the fine line that is not crossed between institutionalizing everyone who may fit that pattern or accept occasional tragedies. There have been countless Adam Lanzas before, and the question that needs to be answered is why didn't they resort to shooting up a school 30 years ago, even though they had the resources to do so? What has changed in our society that the mentally ill cross that line, even though there's much more treatment and attention devoted to the sick? I agree completely. If I had to guess I'd say it's somehow a product of the culture, but I'm just speculating.
Just Jack Posted December 15, 2012 Posted December 15, 2012 A friend of mine said this afternoon that there should be armed guards at schools. That won't fix the problem either. Only a matter of the till someone with issues got a job as an armed guard and shoots up a school as well. Te two sides need to stop arguing and start the dialogue. There is no easy fix, but if they put there heads together, they should at least be able to make it tougher for things like this to happen. Around here, we've got School Resource Officers from the Sheriff Dept in some schools. I do not know if they are armed while on duty in the school though. EDIT: Found this presentation online.... http://www.ocs.cnyri...ber 8, 2010.pdf Slides 7, 9, and 23 make it sound like they could be armed while on duty.
Nanker Posted December 15, 2012 Posted December 15, 2012 How about we start on the problem by taxing every movie production that shows gun violence? I'm in favor of a $1,000,000.00 tax for each bullet fired in a motion picture by an actor that is not portraying a police officer or a member of the military in a combat situation. Stop aggrandizing the illegal use of guns in these preposterous Hollywood extravaganzas. Violence on TV and in the movies has anesthetized our society to the horrific power that firearms have. The mentally weak are easily imprinted and influenced by unspeakable brutality that is rolling across movie theatre screens and television sets every day of the year.
Coach Tuesday Posted December 15, 2012 Posted December 15, 2012 How about we start on the problem by taxing every movie production that shows gun violence? I'm in favor of a $1,000,000.00 tax for each bullet fired in a motion picture by an actor that is not portraying a police officer or a member of the military in a combat situation. Stop aggrandizing the illegal use of guns in these preposterous Hollywood extravaganzas. Violence on TV and in the movies has anesthetized our society to the horrific power that firearms have. The mentally weak are easily imprinted and influenced by unspeakable brutality that is rolling across movie theatre screens and television sets every day of the year. That would definitely violate the First Amendment. You can't penalize a specific message. You at least need to be content-neutral.
GG Posted December 15, 2012 Posted December 15, 2012 That would definitely violate the First Amendment. You can't penalize a specific message. You at least need to be content-neutral. Uhm, Notice anything inconsistent with your arguments?
Coach Tuesday Posted December 15, 2012 Posted December 15, 2012 (edited) The profiles of mass school shooters are very similar - bipolar/mental disorders, social outcasts. It's not a gun control issue but a mental health issue and the fine line that is not crossed between institutionalizing everyone who may fit that pattern or accept occasional tragedies. There have been countless Adam Lanzas before, and the question that needs to be answered is why didn't they resort to shooting up a school 30 years ago, even though they had the resources to do so? What has changed in our society that the mentally ill cross that line, even though there's much more treatment and attention devoted to the sick? I have a theory in response to your question, which is this: over the past century, and particularly since the 1950s, the traditional authority structures have largely dissolved. Human freedom has increased. With that freedom brings a paranoia that is unique to modern existence. It used to be that the king would f- you, and you hated his guts, but at least you knew who was f-ing you and who to hate and revolt against. In modern times, it's never clear who is behind the curtain, because it's no one person or group - instead, we're bounded by a tightly-woven and intricate web of power relationships, where no one has the upper hand completely. This provokes a unique kind of madness; the result is rage in desperate search of a target. I personally don't see any difference between Dylan Kleebold and Muhammed Atta - I doubt either really believed in God or the worthiness of his cause. My theory is that both of them had overflowing rage, were unstable, and/or just liked killing people; each went in search of a moral sanction to justify their desires, found some screwy ideal to latch onto, and pulled the trigger. Put it another way, people are freer than ever but have less control over their lives than ever. It's the paradox of modernity and it drives rage and mental anguish. Just my theory. Uhm, Notice anything inconsistent with your arguments? Not at all. I am in favor of repealing the Second Amendment, not violating it. I am not in favor of repealing the First Amendment. I don't think there is anything inconsistent about that. Edited December 16, 2012 by Coach Tuesday
GG Posted December 15, 2012 Posted December 15, 2012 Not at all. I am in favor of repealing the Second Amendment, not violating it. I am not in favor of repealing the First Amendment. I don't think there is anything inconsistent about that. Can't have the pudding if you don't eat your meat. The two go hand in hand. One backs up the freedom the other provides.
Coach Tuesday Posted December 16, 2012 Posted December 16, 2012 Can't have the pudding if you don't eat your meat. The two go hand in hand. One backs up the freedom the other provides. Not true at all. You don't need private citizens owning weapons in order to back up free speech.
GG Posted December 16, 2012 Posted December 16, 2012 Not true at all. You don't need private citizens owning weapons in order to back up free speech. Whether it's hokey or not an armed citizenry has been a check on government's impulse to control things. Just like in your example above, if you continue to dilute central authority, you leave more people vulnerable. Funny that you bring up Atta. Should we outlaw airplanes? Do the security checkpoints at airports make you feel more secure?
Coach Tuesday Posted December 16, 2012 Posted December 16, 2012 Whether it's hokey or not an armed citizenry has been a check on government's impulse to control things. Just like in your example above, if you continue to dilute central authority, you leave more people vulnerable. Funny that you bring up Atta. Should we outlaw airplanes? Do the security checkpoints at airports make you feel more secure? No, because the benefits of air travel outweigh the social costs of occasional tragedies. Personally I don't see the benefits of guns, at all. I really do not accept the premise that private gun ownership is a check on government. I think it's a compete fiction. As I said earlier, democratic countries with strict gun control don't experience massacres by their governments against unarmed citizens.
Rob's House Posted December 16, 2012 Posted December 16, 2012 I have a theory in response to your question, which is this: over the past century, and particularly since the 1950s, the traditional authority structures have largely dissolved. Human freedom has increased. With that freedom brings a paranoia that is unique to modern existence. It used to be that the king would f- you, and you hated his guts, but at least you knew who was f-ing you and who to hate and revolt against. In modern times, it's never clear who is behind the curtain, because it's no one person or group - instead, we're bounded by a tightly-woven and intricate web of power relationships, where no one has the upper hand completely. This provokes a unique kind of madness; the result is rage in desperate search of a target. I personally don't see any difference between Dylan Kleebold and Muhammed Atta - I doubt either really believed in God or the worthiness of his cause. My theory is that both of them had overflowing rage, were unstable, and/or just liked killing people; each went in search of a moral sanction to justify their desires, found some screwy ideal to latch onto, and pulled the trigger. Put it another way, people are freer than ever but have less control over their lives than ever. It's the paradox of modernity and it drives rage and mental anguish. Just my theory. Not at all. I am in favor of repealing the Second Amendment, not violating it. I am not in favor of repealing the First Amendment. I don't think there is anything inconsistent about that. So can you, even in a broad general sense, explain how gun prohibition would be implemented? No, because the benefits of air travel outweigh the social costs of occasional tragedies. Personally I don't see the benefits of guns, at all. I really do not accept the premise that private gun ownership is a check on government. I think it's a compete fiction. As I said earlier, democratic countries with strict gun control don't experience massacres by their governments against unarmed citizens. Home defense?
Recommended Posts