http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/14/15907407-many-children-reportedly-shot-at-connecticut-school-alleged-gunman-is-dead?lite
I can't even look at the picture of the kids crying. Holy. Fuck...
They're saying about 18 children are dead, including kindergartners.
I just...I feel fucking sick.
Local news has uncomfirmed reports of two shooters
http://www.courant.com/news/breaking/hc-police-responding-to-incident-in-newtown-20121214,0,3969911.story
QuoteA person believed to be a shooter is dead. Earlier reports of a second shooter are unconfirmed.
I feel fucking sick.
jesus...
so, reports say the gunman was 20 years old and was the father of a student at the elementary school? presumably 5-6 years old if the kid's in K?
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on December 14, 2012, 06:17:11 PM
jesus...
so, reports say the gunman was 20 years old and was the father of a student at the elementary school? presumably 5-6 years old if the kid's in K?
18 kids dead.
Kids dead.
KIDS.
Quote from: Suu on December 14, 2012, 06:21:33 PM
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on December 14, 2012, 06:17:11 PM
jesus...
so, reports say the gunman was 20 years old and was the father of a student at the elementary school? presumably 5-6 years old if the kid's in K?
18 kids dead.
Kids dead.
KIDS.
yes.... kids dead.
:?
i didn't mean to say anything inappropriate if that's how it came across.
I know...it's just...LITTLE FUCKING KIDS! I'm flabbergasted.
They're also saying the shooter was carrying 4 guns and wearing a bulletproof vest. So it wasn't just a sick fuck, it was a sick fuck with a plan.
it really is incomprehensible to think that someone could think it out in their tiny little head, "i'm going to go into an elementary school, and shoot a bunch of children"
it's monstrous when some scumbag murders a kid in pursuit of his selfish goals, but for killing a bunch of kids to be the goal?
totally alien.
God damn it god damn it god DAMN it
With assault rifles.
FUCKING ASSAULT RIFLES.
WHY ARE PEOPLE ALLOWED TO HAVE THOSE?! PISTOLS, OKAY, SHOTGUNS, SURE...BUT ASSAULT RIFLES?! COME ON.
Although, if this had happened in the NWFP, they'd be calling that school a "terrorist madrassa" and declaring all the dead are "confirmed militant combatants".
Just saying.
Quote from: Cain on December 14, 2012, 06:47:25 PM
Although, if this had happened in the NWFP, they'd be calling that school a "terrorist madrassa" and declaring all the dead are "confirmed militant combatants".
Just saying.
So our psychotic spree-murderers are producing largely the same results as our War Against Terror, but with different press.
I hate everything.
Suu,
assault rifle?
perhaps you mean 'scary rifle'?
Quote from: Suu on December 14, 2012, 06:44:25 PM
With assault rifles.
FUCKING ASSAULT RIFLES.
WHY ARE PEOPLE ALLOWED TO HAVE THOSE?! PISTOLS, OKAY, SHOTGUNS, SURE...BUT ASSAULT RIFLES?! COME ON.
assault rifles are just rifles with a pistol grip.
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on December 14, 2012, 06:59:55 PM
Suu,
assault rifle?
perhaps you mean 'scary rifle'?
to my understanding the military adopted the term BECAUSE it sounds menacing.
the term is vague at best, and is useful only in media sensation to induce hoplophobia.
the fact is, a crazy and/or evil person just killed a bunch of kids. period.
Quote from: H0list on December 14, 2012, 07:02:41 PM
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on December 14, 2012, 06:59:55 PM
Suu,
assault rifle?
perhaps you mean 'scary rifle'?
to my understanding the military adopted the term BECAUSE it sounds menacing.
it's just kind of a translation of sturmghewer (sp?) which transliterates as storm rifle indicating the military tactics being employed.
the main feature was simply a smaller round than a battle rifle.
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on December 14, 2012, 07:07:25 PM
Quote from: H0list on December 14, 2012, 07:02:41 PM
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on December 14, 2012, 06:59:55 PM
Suu,
assault rifle?
perhaps you mean 'scary rifle'?
to my understanding the military adopted the term BECAUSE it sounds menacing.
it's just kind of a translation of sturmghewer (sp?) which transliterates as storm rifle indicating the military tactics being employed.
the main feature was simply a smaller round than a battle rifle.
I'll buy that.
You know what we call an assault rifle in the army?
a rifle or a weapon or by the military designation.
Relevant, maybe. http://www.alternet.org/story/24796/a_brief_history_of_rage,_murder_and_rebellion
Possible, but unlikely. Ames case studies for school shootings were ones where the students themselves were involved, which does not appear to be the case here.
Quote from: H0list on December 14, 2012, 07:01:19 PM
Quote from: Suu on December 14, 2012, 06:44:25 PM
With assault rifles.
FUCKING ASSAULT RIFLES.
WHY ARE PEOPLE ALLOWED TO HAVE THOSE?! PISTOLS, OKAY, SHOTGUNS, SURE...BUT ASSAULT RIFLES?! COME ON.
assault rifles are just rifles with a pistol grip.
Semantics. Kids are dead.
Quote from: Suu on December 14, 2012, 07:20:38 PM
Quote from: H0list on December 14, 2012, 07:01:19 PM
Quote from: Suu on December 14, 2012, 06:44:25 PM
With assault rifles.
FUCKING ASSAULT RIFLES.
WHY ARE PEOPLE ALLOWED TO HAVE THOSE?! PISTOLS, OKAY, SHOTGUNS, SURE...BUT ASSAULT RIFLES?! COME ON.
assault rifles are just rifles with a pistol grip.
Semantics. Kids are dead.
those kids would still be dead of he had used a semiautomatic hunting rifle.
dead is dead.
This is awful.
Quote from: Suu on December 14, 2012, 07:20:38 PM
Quote from: H0list on December 14, 2012, 07:01:19 PM
Quote from: Suu on December 14, 2012, 06:44:25 PM
With assault rifles.
FUCKING ASSAULT RIFLES.
WHY ARE PEOPLE ALLOWED TO HAVE THOSE?! PISTOLS, OKAY, SHOTGUNS, SURE...BUT ASSAULT RIFLES?! COME ON.
assault rifles are just rifles with a pistol grip.
Semantics. Kids are dead.
wait. so what's your position here? it now sounds like you're saying that what was used is not the point, however in the previous post, you were indicating that if we only had the assault weapon ban in place, this would have been avoided.
Quote from: Cain on December 14, 2012, 07:19:49 PM
Possible, but unlikely. Ames case studies for school shootings were ones where the students themselves were involved, which does not appear to be the case here.
True.
Was thinking "the cognitive dissonance suddenly strikes on a very personal level, and you realize that you've been screwed hard by your own dominant ideology" could have been a thing that happened to dad.
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on December 14, 2012, 07:30:13 PM
Quote from: Suu on December 14, 2012, 07:20:38 PM
Quote from: H0list on December 14, 2012, 07:01:19 PM
Quote from: Suu on December 14, 2012, 06:44:25 PM
With assault rifles.
U
FUCKING ASSAULT RIFLES.
WHY ARE PEOPLE ALLOWED TO HAVE THOSE?! PISTOLS, OKAY, SHOTGUNS, SURE...BUT ASSAULT RIFLES?! COME ON.
assault rifles are just rifles with a pistol grip.
Semantics. Kids are dead.
wait. so what's your position here? it now sounds like you're saying that what was used is not the point, however in the previous post, you were indicating that if we only had the assault weapon ban in place, this would have been avoided.
X
Well, since you clarified my stupidity involving military grade weaponry, I guess it doesnr fuxkong matter, does it?
Kids are dead. Regardless of what was used. Savvy?
Perhaps it could be shown that since assault rifles have a greater number of positions available for an accurate shot, fewer children may have been injured/killed if the rifle had a standard, rather than pistol, grip?
Wow. Humans are really good at avoiding emotions.
<olive branch>
i think we are kicking each other in the pattellas.
sorry, Suu.
It's all good, was a misunderstanding. Also Amtrak WiFi is ass on my phone.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on December 14, 2012, 07:31:03 PM
Quote from: Cain on December 14, 2012, 07:19:49 PM
Possible, but unlikely. Ames case studies for school shootings were ones where the students themselves were involved, which does not appear to be the case here.
True.
Was thinking "the cognitive dissonance suddenly strikes on a very personal level, and you realize that you've been screwed hard by your own dominant ideology" could have been a thing that happened to dad.
Possibly.
Ames makes the case that usually, such "random" shootings aren't at all random, either. In school shootings by students and workplace shootings, people usually go for authority figures, supervisors, teachers etc who are seen as being complicit in the acts which have enraged the shooter, along with other tormentors.
Now, why would someone want to shoot kids? My guess is percieved grudges against the parents of said kids. I can think of a number of scenarios, an abusive parent reported by parents of kids at that school who had their kids taken from their custody...the parallel "I'll take their kids from them" is obvious.
Assuming we're using the right model to judge this case by, which is not immediately apparent.
Suu,
my kiddo in kindergarten just had a project where he had to make a 3d model of some transportation. He chose a bullet train.
so we did our research and he saw the Amtrack Acela Express and decided to make that one since it's here in the states.
(it's the bestest model any 5 year old evar made by themselves, no shit)
Have you had a chance to ride this train? he'd love to hear the word from someone that's actually been on it.
Cain, that's the only thing that makes sense to me. it's sick to think about killing the kids to get back at the parents, but is more sensible than killing the kids as an end unto itself. or even just notoriety seeking.
Yeah, it makes sense, based on the data we have. But it's pretty incomplete at the moment, so I'm not saying for certain I think that was the way things went down.
For instance, spree killers are not a very well understood phenomenon, and this could have been the first stage of an intended spree killing.
It could even be a terrorist attack, or psychotic break.
All unlikely, but possible, until forthcoming evidence rules them out.
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on December 14, 2012, 08:01:20 PM
Suu,
my kiddo in kindergarten just had a project where he had to make a 3d model of some transportation. He chose a bullet train.
so we did our research and he saw the Amtrack Acela Express and decided to make that one since it's here in the states.
(it's the bestest model any 5 year old evar made by themselves, no shit)
Have you had a chance to ride this train? he'd love to hear the word from someone that's actually been on it.
I have! Expensive, but it made me feel like a fighter pilot. Zooooom!
I've seen mentioned that the shooter's mother was a teacher at the school and a dead body at the parents' home (presumably the father). So psychotic break seems likely.
It looks like a family squabble gone to hell.
NBC is reporting that the teacher of the classroom that was shot up was the gunman's mother. And she is among the dead.
ETA, yeah what Sita said.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 14, 2012, 08:21:56 PM
It looks like a family squabble gone to hell.
NBC is reporting that the teacher of the classroom that was shot up was the gunman's mother. And she is among the dead.
Was just coming here to post this.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/8084565/27-dead-in-Connecticut-school-shooting
The guy had a bulletproof vest on too, so I don't think it was random, looks definitely to be pre-meditated, though undoubtedly there have to be mental health issues at play. It's just not something a "normal" person does.
Cain, I really appreciate your rationality when it comes to stuff like this. Everyone else around me is freaking the fuck out, but that ultimately doesn't really answer, or help, the situation.
psychotic break seems more likely, if he went there to shoot his mother, and then went on to kill a bunch of random kids, no?
This whole thing sucks fucking ass.
Also I doubt the President's sincerity up there...I guess he's upset because it's NOT children in Pakistan?
Nm, this shit...i'm posting emotionally...pardon me, Internets.
All people at my work want to talk about is the shooting. Except the one who wants to call the news station to correct their statistics and gloat because she knows more about this kind of thing than they do.
:(
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on December 14, 2012, 07:30:13 PM
Quote from: Suu on December 14, 2012, 07:20:38 PM
Quote from: H0list on December 14, 2012, 07:01:19 PM
Quote from: Suu on December 14, 2012, 06:44:25 PM
With assault rifles.
FUCKING ASSAULT RIFLES.
WHY ARE PEOPLE ALLOWED TO HAVE THOSE?! PISTOLS, OKAY, SHOTGUNS, SURE...BUT ASSAULT RIFLES?! COME ON.
assault rifles are just rifles with a pistol grip.
Semantics. Kids are dead.
wait. so what's your position here? it now sounds like you're saying that what was used is not the point, however in the previous post, you were indicating that if we only had the assault weapon ban in place, this would have been avoided.
Oh my god, shut your fucking pedantic head, now is not the time to play "make people feel stupid because they don't know about guns".
Idiots on Facebook are blaming Mass Effect for the shooting, because the brother of the alleged shooter liked the game on Facebook.
Now, I'm all for giving EA a good kicking, but that's for game design and employment issues, not their supposed inspiration of mass murder by proxy.
http://mashable.com/2012/12/14/mass-effect-facebook-shooting/
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 14, 2012, 08:36:01 PM
Cain, I really appreciate your rationality when it comes to stuff like this. Everyone else around me is freaking the fuck out, but that ultimately doesn't really answer, or help, the situation.
What's really impressive is I'm being this rational on four hours of sleep.
Just imagine how good I'd be if I actually could think straight
They're always wanting to blame some kind of media (games, music, movies) for these things. It's a bit irritating.
Just proves that people suck at understanding reality. I mean, fuck, how many people play that game and DON'T go around shooting little kids? Yeah, like everyone except this asshole.
No, the common denominator without a doubt is a woefully inadequate mental health system in America.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 15, 2012, 01:30:52 AM
Just proves that people suck at understanding reality. I mean, fuck, how many people play that game and DON'T go around shooting little kids? Yeah, like everyone except this asshole.
No, the common denominator without a doubt is a woefully inadequate mental health system in America.
I think an interesting article i'm X-posting from FB outlines some of these points I've never considered before. (Thanks, poster!)
http://freethoughtblogs.com/ashleymiller/2012/12/14/when-you-tie-shootings-to-mental-illness/
RWHN, is the author here riding the same thoughts you had about that?
Quote from: Bu☆ns on December 15, 2012, 03:05:45 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 15, 2012, 01:30:52 AM
Just proves that people suck at understanding reality. I mean, fuck, how many people play that game and DON'T go around shooting little kids? Yeah, like everyone except this asshole.
No, the common denominator without a doubt is a woefully inadequate mental health system in America.
I think an interesting article i'm X-posting from FB outlines some of these points I've never considered before. (Thanks, poster!)
http://freethoughtblogs.com/ashleymiller/2012/12/14/when-you-tie-shootings-to-mental-illness/
RWHN, is the author here riding the same thoughts you had about that?
I certainly have a shit ton of opinions about that blog. First of all, it begs us to normalize antisocial, pathological, violent behavior, which is already far too normalized. It asks us to accept the premise that by saying that a person in a normal healthy state of mind would not open fire on a school full of small children, we are stigmatizing the mentally ill.
That is bullshit.
The author asks us to suspend disbelief so far as to accept as the default assumption that the shooter was mentally healthy. As the
rational default assumption. They ask us to accept that there is an absence of evidence, in the face of the fact that 20 schoolchildren are dead for no apparent reason.
Sorry, man. Can't hang with that.
Not all forms of mental illness are the same. I think that the general public actually does understand that. I also think that asking the general public to understand that murdering 20 little kids for no reason is the act of a perfectly psychologically healthy person is asking way, way too much.
Quote from: hølist on December 15, 2012, 03:28:22 AM
Quote from: Bu☆ns on December 15, 2012, 03:05:45 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 15, 2012, 01:30:52 AM
Just proves that people suck at understanding reality. I mean, fuck, how many people play that game and DON'T go around shooting little kids? Yeah, like everyone except this asshole.
No, the common denominator without a doubt is a woefully inadequate mental health system in America.
I think an interesting article i'm X-posting from FB outlines some of these points I've never considered before. (Thanks, poster!)
http://freethoughtblogs.com/ashleymiller/2012/12/14/when-you-tie-shootings-to-mental-illness/
RWHN, is the author here riding the same thoughts you had about that?
I certainly have a shit ton of opinions about that blog. First of all, it begs us to normalize antisocial, pathological, violent behavior, which is already far too normalized. It asks us to accept the premise that by saying that a person in a normal healthy state of mind would not open fire on a school full of small children, we are stigmatizing the mentally ill.
That is bullshit.
The author asks us to suspend disbelief so far as to accept as the default assumption that the shooter was mentally healthy. As the rational default assumption. They ask us to accept that there is an absence of evidence, in the face of the fact that 20 schoolchildren are dead for no apparent reason.
Sorry, man. Can't hang with that.
Not all forms of mental illness are the same. I think that the general public actually does understand that. I also think that asking the general public to understand that murdering 20 little kids for no reason is the act of a perfectly psychologically healthy person is asking way, way too much.
That's interesting. I agree with all of those points - what I took away from the article was the consideration of other factors in addition to "HE'S A FUCKING NUTCASE!"
Which he clearly was.
I was asking RWHN to elaborate because I was curious as to what reforms are needed in our mental healthcare...which the blog author was trying to get at. I'm wondering if there is, perhaps, a better way to make to make her point?
ETA: Are there any reforms that could have prevented this tragedy?
Quote from: Bu☆ns on December 15, 2012, 03:36:31 AM
Quote from: hølist on December 15, 2012, 03:28:22 AM
Quote from: Bu☆ns on December 15, 2012, 03:05:45 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 15, 2012, 01:30:52 AM
Just proves that people suck at understanding reality. I mean, fuck, how many people play that game and DON'T go around shooting little kids? Yeah, like everyone except this asshole.
No, the common denominator without a doubt is a woefully inadequate mental health system in America.
I think an interesting article i'm X-posting from FB outlines some of these points I've never considered before. (Thanks, poster!)
http://freethoughtblogs.com/ashleymiller/2012/12/14/when-you-tie-shootings-to-mental-illness/
RWHN, is the author here riding the same thoughts you had about that?
I certainly have a shit ton of opinions about that blog. First of all, it begs us to normalize antisocial, pathological, violent behavior, which is already far too normalized. It asks us to accept the premise that by saying that a person in a normal healthy state of mind would not open fire on a school full of small children, we are stigmatizing the mentally ill.
That is bullshit.
The author asks us to suspend disbelief so far as to accept as the default assumption that the shooter was mentally healthy. As the rational default assumption. They ask us to accept that there is an absence of evidence, in the face of the fact that 20 schoolchildren are dead for no apparent reason.
Sorry, man. Can't hang with that.
Not all forms of mental illness are the same. I think that the general public actually does understand that. I also think that asking the general public to understand that murdering 20 little kids for no reason is the act of a perfectly psychologically healthy person is asking way, way too much.
That's interesting. I agree with all of those points - what I took away from the article was the consideration of other factors in addition to "HE'S A FUCKING NUTCASE!"
Which he clearly was.
I was asking RWHN to elaborate because I was curious as to what reforms are needed in our mental healthcare...which the blog author was trying to get at. I'm wondering if there is, perhaps, a better way to make to make her point?
ETA: Are there any reforms that could have prevented this tragedy?
I don't know enough about the shooter to have an opinion. I can say that psychological stress (which can be caused by any number of environmental factors) can drive people to do extraordinary things, including terrible things. If there was extreme psychological stress at play here, then yes, there probably were things that could have been done (or prevented, or stopped) that could have prevented this.
Unfortunately, our society is not really structured or oriented toward prevention. It's structured and oriented toward punishment.
I agree with RWHN that mental health care is desperately inadequate in this country... but that is just one of the many support systems that is woefully lacking. In my opinion, mental and physical healthcare should be free and accessible to everyone, regardless of their socioeconomic status.
Quote from: Bu☆ns on December 15, 2012, 03:05:45 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 15, 2012, 01:30:52 AM
Just proves that people suck at understanding reality. I mean, fuck, how many people play that game and DON'T go around shooting little kids? Yeah, like everyone except this asshole.
No, the common denominator without a doubt is a woefully inadequate mental health system in America.
I think an interesting article i'm X-posting from FB outlines some of these points I've never considered before. (Thanks, poster!)
http://freethoughtblogs.com/ashleymiller/2012/12/14/when-you-tie-shootings-to-mental-illness/ (http://freethoughtblogs.com/ashleymiller/2012/12/14/when-you-tie-shootings-to-mental-illness/)
RWHN, is the author here riding the same thoughts you had about that?
Mmm, not really. I wouldn't suggest, at all, that the reason we need mental health reforms is because everyone with a mental illness has the potential to become a mass murderer, because clearly many in our society go undiagnosed and they aren't all out shooting people. That isn't the point.
We need reforms, period, to help individuals. In this specific case, if the shooter had been diagnosed and was receiving proper care, he may have been set on a different life trajectory, that would lead him towards wellness, and oh yeah, he might have not so easily decided killing 5 year olds was a good idea.
Stigma is a huge part of the issue when it comes to mental health, and so I do get part of what the author is trying to say, which is that goong to mental health in this case is stigmatizing those withmental health issues. But I'm clearly not saying that at all. And she is spot on that we must also look at the other contributing factors, like gun laws.
But we do need to invest more in prevention, not just to reduce the chances of things like this happening, but just so we can help more people find a path to wellness, which would have the benefit of likely reducing the chances of things like this happening. But we need a better system where, when someone says "oh yeah he's had. mental problems for a long time" that person is getting screened and assessed, instead of just letting it linger.
Idiots on facebooks are also blaming the shooter's autism and personality disorders.
If your kid has a diagnosis, prepare to have him witch hunted. Might want to consider homeschool if you can afford it.
Agree that brain glitches were probably a contributing factor...but most of these people never kill anybody.
It's almost endearing how positive a view of human nature these people have.
As if people need to have mental defects to go out and kill other people who do not pose a threat to them.
Far better than to face the potential for murder is one most people are born with, and the perhaps hidden fear not of that potential for murder but that potential when unhinged from authority and a chain of command. Blame it on mental illness, or media, or "ancient hatreds". But never, ever admit a mentally stable personality can methodically plan and execute multiple murders, despite all the evidence to the contrary.
What a surprise - Gawker are responsible for the incorrect naming of Ryan Lanza as the school shooter, which was then seen by CNN and FOX researchers.
Interesting to note when an internet mob is formed, Gawker is frequently in the thick of the action.
I'd also like to say, regardless of where you may stand on the issue: stringent gun control in the USA is untenable.
Any attempts to seriously regulate gun access would inevitably set off the hardcore nativist ideological types, who frequently have some kind of paramilitary training, top end guns and lots and lots of ammo.
You see where this is going? Martial Law, in some parts of the USA at least. Ruby Ridge and Waco redux. And can you imagine the shitstorm that would follow martial law being imposed and agreed to from the White House, or to enforce what would have to be a White House sponsored law? Obama is already considered a gun-grabber by vast swathes of the right, despite all evidence to the contrary.
true. and besides that, it seems to be a pretty dead on arrival issue, politically.
i came to this conclusion after the Aurora shootings and the media pundits and politicians didn't erupt in support of gun control legislation. hell, it was hardly mentioned.
so, while i'll still blather about gun control law if it comes up, i no longer have any fear that "they're comin' for mah guuuuns".
Relevant comic. (http://thismodernworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/TMW2011-01-12acolorlowres-copy-2.jpg)
Quote from: Cain on December 15, 2012, 04:00:42 PM
I'd also like to say, regardless of where you may stand on the issue: stringent gun control in the USA is untenable.
Any attempts to seriously regulate gun access would inevitably set off the hardcore nativist ideological types, who frequently have some kind of paramilitary training, top end guns and lots and lots of ammo.
You see where this is going? Martial Law, in some parts of the USA at least. Ruby Ridge and Waco redux. And can you imagine the shitstorm that would follow martial law being imposed and agreed to from the White House, or to enforce what would have to be a White House sponsored law? Obama is already considered a gun-grabber by vast swathes of the right, despite all evidence to the contrary.
much of the right likes to demonize obama, but the truth is that even though he campaigned in 2008 with gun control as part of his platform, he effectively has done nothing to implement any increased gun control. Positive measures on gun control are political suicide in the USA, and Obama is nothing if not politically savvy. Huffington post is hardly authoritative, but here's an interesting article on the subject:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/25/obama-gun-control-democrats_n_1112979.html
I expect an increased polarization on Gun control, and demands for increased security for public schools, and a decreased level of compassion towards problems caused by mental illness.
and people will be amazed when they see worse problems crop up as a result of unintended consequences.
I never got the sense that Obama had any intentions at all to do anything about gun control. I'm pretty sure on a few occassions he more or less telegraphed that he wasn't going to touch it with a ten foot poll. I mean really, the first black president coming after the TeaBaggers guns with a Republican Congress? Yeah, that shit is dead on arrival, and still is.
Am I a total bastard for thinking that the only reason most people care about this is because it could have happened to them? It could have been any elementary school, it could have been the one that you went to, it may as well have been.
Little kids die HORRIFICALLY of stupid, wholly preventable ways every day. But those ways do not upset our day. Those ways are business as usual. This, meanwhile, fills up Facebook with outrage and shock and deep sadness.
Do any of those deaths lessen these? Absolutely not.
Is the shock and horror in people's hearts going to compel them to look at the way we've all been living in an effort to prevent these things from happening? I highly doubt it.
In fact, most people will have forgotten this in about six months, leaving, as ever, the families to grieve alone.
ETA: Ah, nevermind. I fear this subject has scope beyond my ability to take in all the angles and I don't want to shit on people for being emotional.
Well, it IS the second largest mass murder of students in American history, I mean, that's not insignificant. And yes Alty, that is why people are upset. When you live in a sleepy little town, not unlike Newton, and you have kids in elementary schools, not unlike this one, and you see this shit unfold, yes, it IS a bit jarring. In a school which the biggest concern probably centered around collecting enough box tops for the new slide, this is a bit of a to do Alty.
20 little kids were gunned down in a quiet little school, a place they have always been safe. How the fuck do you NOT get moved by that?
And let's not forget about the kids who didn't die, and will have to go back to that hell hole. I have one child in that age range, and yeah, I have put myself in those parents shoes, to think about how awful it would be to lose my daughter that young, or if she survived, to think about what she'd go through, having to go back to that school. It's empathy. When you have kids, it's something that just happens, though, not all of us take it to Facebook and keep it to ourselves or within our circles offline.
After some consideration, and the things posted here and elsewhere, I have come to the determination that I have absolutely no problem with the way people are reacting here.
I just wish they would do it more often.
It would be a truly cold and heartless person who would not be upset about the murder of a child, regardless of where they are in the world. Most humans simply don't have the capacity to have that level of awareness.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 15, 2012, 08:13:01 PM
It would be a truly cold and heartless person who would not be upset about the murder of a child, regardless of where they are in the world. Most humans simply don't have the capacity to have that level of awareness.
Perhaps you're right, and have given me things to consider.
But I don't have to like it.
It's outside of their monkeysphere?
It's biological imperative. If a human has kids, it isn't, biologically, in their best interests to divert resources to things that don't immediately impact them. Now, that's not the same thing as not caring, it's just "I have to worry about my little Johnny making it to 18". So I think an incident like this, especially with the media coverage, trips that. It tripped it for me. Because, I know my kid's school and I know if some evil piece of shit like that decided they wanted into her school and start shooting kids, they could.
Because you know this wasn't on any of the radar's of those Newton parents. They were worried about getting that Transformer in time for Christmas. About getting Suzy to gymnastics. Make sure you have the shovels out for the winter storm. A gunman going apeshit in that little school? Nope, not even a glint of a thought. Now, holy fuck what exactly IS this world I'm living in? My kid didn't die today but jeezus can I ever let him leave the house?
I mean, my stupid divorce feels very trivial right now compared to what these families are going through, and will be going through for a very long time.
Quote from: Cain on December 15, 2012, 04:00:42 PM
I'd also like to say, regardless of where you may stand on the issue: stringent gun control in the USA is untenable.
Any attempts to seriously regulate gun access would inevitably set off the hardcore nativist ideological types, who frequently have some kind of paramilitary training, top end guns and lots and lots of ammo.
You see where this is going? Martial Law, in some parts of the USA at least. Ruby Ridge and Waco redux. And can you imagine the shitstorm that would follow martial law being imposed and agreed to from the White House, or to enforce what would have to be a White House sponsored law? Obama is already considered a gun-grabber by vast swathes of the right, despite all evidence to the contrary.
Not only that, but you can't unring the bell. The guns are already out there, and as long as we have a society which promotes criminal behavior, there will continue to be a huge criminal black market in illegal guns regardless of how stringent the gun laws become.
Quote from: insideout on December 15, 2012, 04:35:38 PM
Quote from: Cain on December 15, 2012, 04:00:42 PM
I'd also like to say, regardless of where you may stand on the issue: stringent gun control in the USA is untenable.
Any attempts to seriously regulate gun access would inevitably set off the hardcore nativist ideological types, who frequently have some kind of paramilitary training, top end guns and lots and lots of ammo.
You see where this is going? Martial Law, in some parts of the USA at least. Ruby Ridge and Waco redux. And can you imagine the shitstorm that would follow martial law being imposed and agreed to from the White House, or to enforce what would have to be a White House sponsored law? Obama is already considered a gun-grabber by vast swathes of the right, despite all evidence to the contrary.
much of the right likes to demonize obama, but the truth is that even though he campaigned in 2008 with gun control as part of his platform, he effectively has done nothing to implement any increased gun control. Positive measures on gun control are political suicide in the USA, and Obama is nothing if not politically savvy. Huffington post is hardly authoritative, but here's an interesting article on the subject:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/25/obama-gun-control-democrats_n_1112979.html
I expect an increased polarization on Gun control, and demands for increased security for public schools, and a decreased level of compassion towards problems caused by mental illness.
and people will be amazed when they see worse problems crop up as a result of unintended consequences.
Yep. Agree with all of this.
:x In other news...
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/14/world/asia/china-knife-attack/index.html
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 15, 2012, 08:13:01 PM
It would be a truly cold and heartless person who would not be upset about the murder of a child, regardless of where they are in the world. Most humans simply don't have the capacity to have that level of awareness.
I hate kids, I don't like being in the same room with elementary age children and I consider it an omen that I can't have any...
...I cried like a bitch yesterday.
I didn't cry, nor fap (maybe a little), but I did take note that of all the "solutions" to fixing human tragedy put on the board (especially on the usual blather machines), I noticed a whole lot of "Lets make it so only criminals and deranged people can acquire guns" and not a whole lot of "lets fund therapy and mental wellness clinics that would help people get the help they need before they shoot up a school full of kids".
Definitely not a good idea to do that, might fix the system by giving more gifts to the freeloaders. If people that are mentally ill want to get ahead in the world they can pick themselves up by their own bootstraps like the rest of us... lazy bastards.
The only real positive I've seen from this goddamned horror unfolding is a sort of conscious push-back by a lot of people about acknowledging the terrible nature of it all while still trying to hold to the premise that, overall, humanity is in a much better place than at many points in history. The "oh fuck this, the world is beyond redemption" mentality that follows any huge crisis is an understandable reaction, but for the first time I've seen, it's being followed by "no, fuck that/those horrible person/people to death and support the thousands of quiet good acts a day that go utterly unacknowledged".
Perspective. We can try to move forward in a manner that trumpets responsibility and numerous small acts of altruism, or focus with cognitive bias on the relatively few, but more emotionally impacting, crises and set up the groundwork for more draconian bullshit.
That said...still doesn't change the fact that this entire setup is fucked. My people who were in Clackamas Town Center are losing their shit PTSD style, too.
Quote from: Bu☆ns on December 15, 2012, 11:31:45 PM
:x In other news...
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/14/world/asia/china-knife-attack/index.html
That needs to be shown to every single person that keeps saying that it never would've happened if he didn't have a gun.
Quote from: Sita on December 16, 2012, 12:19:33 PM
Quote from: Bu☆ns on December 15, 2012, 11:31:45 PM
:x In other news...
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/14/world/asia/china-knife-attack/index.html
That needs to be shown to every single person that keeps saying that it never would've happened if he didn't have a gun.
:roll: while the word never is in err it would have greatly reduced the chances of it happening, it's the ease that it can be performed, guns are the rascal scooters of rampages.
Yeah, I think it is far less likely he would have been able to kill as many as he did with a knife. It just would have taken more time and given one of the adults a better shot at stopping the guy.
Sounds now like the Mom wasn't an employee at the school, but that she was a gun enthusiast so the kid was clearly brought up in a gun culture. Of course, most kids brought up in that kind of culture don't go on killing sprees (well, not of humans anyway) but it is kind of chilling to hear how well armed this home was.
Quote from: Faust on December 16, 2012, 01:19:09 PM
Quote from: Sita on December 16, 2012, 12:19:33 PM
Quote from: Bu☆ns on December 15, 2012, 11:31:45 PM
:x In other news...
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/14/world/asia/china-knife-attack/index.html
That needs to be shown to every single person that keeps saying that it never would've happened if he didn't have a gun.
:roll: while the word never is in err it would have greatly reduced the chances of it happening, it's the ease that it can be performed, guns are the rascal scooters of rampages.
I have talked with people who honestly believe that no one would have been hurt if he didn't have a gun. As in if his only choice of weapon was a knife or such he wouldn't have gone to kill anyone.
Quote from: Sita on December 16, 2012, 01:42:22 PM
Quote from: Faust on December 16, 2012, 01:19:09 PM
Quote from: Sita on December 16, 2012, 12:19:33 PM
Quote from: Bu☆ns on December 15, 2012, 11:31:45 PM
:x In other news...
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/14/world/asia/china-knife-attack/index.html
That needs to be shown to every single person that keeps saying that it never would've happened if he didn't have a gun.
:roll: while the word never is in err it would have greatly reduced the chances of it happening, it's the ease that it can be performed, guns are the rascal scooters of rampages.
I have talked with people who honestly believe that no one would have been hurt if he didn't have a gun. As in if his only choice of weapon was a knife or such he wouldn't have gone to kill anyone.
I honestly believe if he did not have access to guns he would have killed
less people. I also believe he would have reconsidered going through with it if it wasn't such an easy method. in fact though it is a miserable thought I think he may well have chickened out of an attack at all but thats just ifs.
the fact is America loves its little rat-a-tat toys and these children's lives were just the price paid for the privilege of having them.
Well, it COULD be true. If he was acting out some fantasy in his head that involved mowing down people with guns, he would not have been satisfied until he had a gun, he probably would not have done it with a knife. Of course, that just means he would not have done it until he had the guns. And indeed it sounds like he was turned down at a Dick's Sporting Goods where he tried to buy a gun, because of the state's gun laws. Which goes to show that gun laws do work, just not very well. As they are now they are just a delay.
I'm guessing when buying the gun didn't work, he said, "Oh yeah, Mom's got LOADS of guns", and when Mom said "Fuck No!" shot her in the face, loaded up, and yeah we know the rest.
There is a psychological aspect to the weapons chosen.
Guns make it far easier to kill, simply because one is further from the target, and because of the relative/percieved lack of blood in comparison to knife attacks, where blood is everywhere, and one has to commit the visceral act of shoving the knife into the body.
It doesn't necessarily apply in this case, and there are plenty of caveats but in general someone with a gun is more liable to use it than someone with a knife. However, someone who is actually willing to use a knife is probably more dangerous than a reluctant person with a gun, because it means they likely enjoy the visceral aspect of the weapon.
The psychology of weapons used in murder is a very interesting one, and seems to have some evidence backing it up.
Quote from: Cain on December 16, 2012, 02:04:19 PM
There is a psychological aspect to the weapons chosen.
Guns make it far easier to kill, simply because one is further from the target, and because of the relative/percieved lack of blood in comparison to knife attacks, where blood is everywhere, and one has to commit the visceral act of shoving the knife into the body.
It doesn't necessarily apply in this case, and there are plenty of caveats but in general someone with a gun is more liable to use it than someone with a knife. However, someone who is actually willing to use a knife is probably more dangerous than a reluctant person with a gun, because it means they likely enjoy the visceral aspect of the weapon.
The psychology of weapons used in murder is a very interesting one, and seems to have some evidence backing it up.
The way my brain works is that if you are gonna kill someone it doesn't matter what you use.
The fact that someone might feel less reluctant to the kill because it's a gun instead of a knife is something I've never thought of.
From what I've read about this guy, he never would have used a knife because it is a much more up-close-and-personal weapon. As Cain mentions, someone would probably have a certain bloodlust to want to use that kind of weapon, and probably also someone who feels very comfortable and adept at using it. This kid sounds like your typical socially detached aloof-egghead who probably started sweating bullets anytime anyone ever talked to him. So a gun (well guns, plural) in his way of thinking, would have been the only way to do this. Although, it sounds like some of the kids were killed at fairly close range, which really makes me think there are some kind of psychological issues at play. I just can't imagine how someone can have it within themselves to shoot a 6 year old, multiple times, at close range. It really sounds like something really really went wrong with this guy.
I'm sure someone here has an answer to this one, but I don't: Why have there been no school shootings in Switzerland?
Evidently, Switzerland has an avid country-wide gun culture. the following article discusses this:
http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/articles/guns-crime-swiss.html
My hypothesis(really just a guess, but whatever) is that part of the issue in the United States of America is that there are pockets of gun culture and pockets of anti-gun culture. I think that if the whole country were anti-gun, much like Japan, that we would have fewer problems with gun violence, and also that if the whole country were more like Switzerland with high level of consensus in its gun culture, that we would have less violence. I think we create a situation that makes gun crime more doable by having a mix.
Of course there are a huge number of societal factors that this naive little comparison doesn't take into account, but still I wonder how much having pockets of gun culture and anti-gun culture mixed together in the same larger society contributes to the overall level of gun crime.
Quote from: insideout on December 16, 2012, 02:55:54 PM
I'm sure someone here has an answer to this one, but I don't: Why have there been no school shootings in Switzerland?
Evidently, Switzerland has an avid country-wide gun culture. the following article discusses this:
http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/articles/guns-crime-swiss.html
My hypothesis(really just a guess, but whatever) is that part of the issue in the United States of America is that there are pockets of gun culture and pockets of anti-gun culture. I think that if the whole country were anti-gun, much like Japan, that we would have fewer problems with gun violence, and also that if the whole country were more like Switzerland with high level of consensus in its gun culture, that we would have less violence. I think we create a situation that makes gun crime more doable by having a mix.
Of course there are a huge number of societal factors that this naive little comparison doesn't take into account, but still I wonder how much having pockets of gun culture and anti-gun culture mixed together in the same larger society contributes to the overall level of gun crime.
those differences can be summed up quite quickly. Switzerland is a first world country. the U.S. is not.
Switzerland has a very different gun culture.
I worked there for a while, and one aspect of it is that every Swiss male citizen has to undergo military training. Secondly, apart from the major cities, which are virtually independent city-states, most Swiss live in villages or small mountain towns. It's much harder to kill most people if you know them pretty well and cannot abstract them in some way. And finally, Switzerland plays out political and social issues at a very local level. Swiss citizens feel if they are having problems, they can actually do something about it, via the official municipal channels, not that they are subject to vast bureacracies they cannot control (they are...but in their case it is Credit Suisse, and not government departments).
Quote from: Faust on December 16, 2012, 03:21:15 PM
Quote from: insideout on December 16, 2012, 02:55:54 PM
I'm sure someone here has an answer to this one, but I don't: Why have there been no school shootings in Switzerland?
Evidently, Switzerland has an avid country-wide gun culture. the following article discusses this:
http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/articles/guns-crime-swiss.html
My hypothesis(really just a guess, but whatever) is that part of the issue in the United States of America is that there are pockets of gun culture and pockets of anti-gun culture. I think that if the whole country were anti-gun, much like Japan, that we would have fewer problems with gun violence, and also that if the whole country were more like Switzerland with high level of consensus in its gun culture, that we would have less violence. I think we create a situation that makes gun crime more doable by having a mix.
Of course there are a huge number of societal factors that this naive little comparison doesn't take into account, but still I wonder how much having pockets of gun culture and anti-gun culture mixed together in the same larger society contributes to the overall level of gun crime.
those differences can be summed up quite quickly. Switzerland is a first world country. the U.S. is not.
Pretty much this.
It has fuck-all to do with "gun culture" and "anti-gun culture" and everything to do with a healthy society with adequate mental and physical healthcare and a very, very different relationship with both work and poverty.
Frankly, I think that America's heavily individualist ethic is an elixir that has turned into a poison. Every man for himself may have worked well enough in a frontier country (depending on your definition of "worked), but it's been a long, long time since this was a frontier country.
Wait...mom was a gun nut with a house full of guns and it was her gun?
And the guy had a diagnosis?
So this was a case of mom dropping the ball a la Andrea Yates husband? "It'll be fine..."
And everybody's trying to use a bunch of dead kids as leverage to push legislation when what should have happened was SOMEBODY NOT BEING A FUCKING MORON?
Am I understanding this correctly?
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on December 16, 2012, 08:33:08 PM
Wait...mom was a gun nut with a house full of guns and it was her gun?
And the guy had a diagnosis?
So this was a case of mom dropping the ball a la Andrea Yates husband? "It'll be fine..."
And everybody's trying to use a bunch of dead kids as leverage to push legislation when what should have happened was SOMEBODY NOT BEING A FUCKING MORON?
Am I understanding this correctly?
I happen to think you are.
I even toy with the idea of these killing sprees somehow being indirectly encouraged or at least negligently being allowed to happen by an administration/law-enforcement community that would like to see the population disarmed. I realise that this kind of thinking borders on paranoia... I realise that the statistics tell a different story (comparisons with socio-economically very similar but unarmed cities), but still...
Reminds me (rather remotely) of Krokodil in Russia. Activists are calling for codeine to be made a prescription drug or to be banned in Russia. (Like calling for stricter gun laws, or prohibition.) Only the authorities in Russia are adopting a different tactic: they are not doing anything. This is "solving" their heroin problem.
Of course, ultimately, the solution is not prohibition. It's having a society that doesn't fuck up the majority of its inhabitants.
Quote from: holist on December 16, 2012, 08:52:25 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on December 16, 2012, 08:33:08 PM
Wait...mom was a gun nut with a house full of guns and it was her gun?
And the guy had a diagnosis?
So this was a case of mom dropping the ball a la Andrea Yates husband? "It'll be fine..."
And everybody's trying to use a bunch of dead kids as leverage to push legislation when what should have happened was SOMEBODY NOT BEING A FUCKING MORON?
Am I understanding this correctly?
I happen to think you are.
I even toy with the idea of these killing sprees somehow being indirectly encouraged or at least negligently being allowed to happen by an administration/law-enforcement community that would like to see the population disarmed. I realise that this kind of thinking borders on paranoia... I realise that the statistics tell a different story (comparisons with socio-economically very similar but unarmed cities), but still...
Reminds me (rather remotely) of Krokodil in Russia. Activists are calling for codeine to be made a prescription drug or to be banned in Russia. (Like calling for stricter gun laws, or prohibition.) Only the authorities in Russia are adopting a different tactic: they are not doing anything. This is "solving" their heroin problem.
Of course, ultimately, the solution is not prohibition. It's having a society that doesn't fuck up the majority of its inhabitants.
I am hølist, and I approve this post.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on December 16, 2012, 08:33:08 PM
Wait...mom was a gun nut with a house full of guns and it was her gun?
And the guy had a diagnosis?
So this was a case of mom dropping the ball a la Andrea Yates husband? "It'll be fine..."
And everybody's trying to use a bunch of dead kids as leverage to push legislation when what should have happened was SOMEBODY NOT BEING A FUCKING MORON?
Am I understanding this correctly?
A moron with her legally purchased guns let another moron have access to these guns go on a shooting spree yes, as long as it's legal morons will get guns. To Push legislation that separates morons from guns doesn't seem like a bad thing to me.
There is also the argument that the proliferation of guns now makes that kind of legislation irrelevant, if so I would suggest the US military be used to carpet bomb the worst effected regions if they are such a lost cause that trying to reverse the problem is not an option.
Quote from: Faust on December 16, 2012, 09:34:13 PM
To Push legislation that separates morons from guns doesn't seem like a bad thing to me.
At a superficial level, it seems entirely rational and not a bad thing.
Think a little deeper (use your Thinking Spade
TM for this), and I think you'll realise that doing this makes you an active supporter of the notion that pushing for legislation (
any legislation) is a viable way of improving the increasingly global, increasingly cancerous post-industrial society. It is not. This is sad and sometimes desperately depressing, hard to face, but it is a fact. In my opinion. :)
Quote from: holist on December 16, 2012, 09:42:41 PM
Quote from: Faust on December 16, 2012, 09:34:13 PM
To Push legislation that separates morons from guns doesn't seem like a bad thing to me.
At a superficial level, it seems entirely rational and not a bad thing.
Think a little deeper (use your Thinking SpadeTM for this), and I think you'll realise that doing this makes you an active supporter of the notion that pushing for legislation (any legislation) is a viable way of improving the increasingly global, increasingly cancerous post-industrial society. It is not. This is sad and sometimes desperately depressing, hard to face, but it is a fact. In my opinion. :)
Ok holist. I'm currently pushing for abortion legislation to be brought into Ireland. I am an active support that legislation is a viable way of improving
some aspects of society.
But I realise I have just wasted my time responding to you on this and I won't be making that mistake again.
Quote from: Faust on December 16, 2012, 09:34:13 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on December 16, 2012, 08:33:08 PM
Wait...mom was a gun nut with a house full of guns and it was her gun?
And the guy had a diagnosis?
So this was a case of mom dropping the ball a la Andrea Yates husband? "It'll be fine..."
And everybody's trying to use a bunch of dead kids as leverage to push legislation when what should have happened was SOMEBODY NOT BEING A FUCKING MORON?
Am I understanding this correctly?
A moron with her legally purchased guns let another moron have access to these guns go on a shooting spree yes, as long as it's legal morons will get guns. To Push legislation that separates morons from guns doesn't seem like a bad thing to me.
A lot of morons get them illegally.
Maybe the legislation needs to target the moron side of this and not the gun side. :lol:
I know, I know, not doable...
Quote
There is also the argument that the proliferation of guns now makes that kind of legislation irrelevant, if so I would suggest the US military be used to carpet bomb the worst effected regions if they are such a lost cause that trying to reverse the problem is not an option.
TEXAS!!!!! YEEEE HAWWWWWWW! :fap:
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on December 16, 2012, 09:55:42 PM
Quote from: Faust on December 16, 2012, 09:34:13 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on December 16, 2012, 08:33:08 PM
Wait...mom was a gun nut with a house full of guns and it was her gun?
And the guy had a diagnosis?
So this was a case of mom dropping the ball a la Andrea Yates husband? "It'll be fine..."
And everybody's trying to use a bunch of dead kids as leverage to push legislation when what should have happened was SOMEBODY NOT BEING A FUCKING MORON?
Am I understanding this correctly?
A moron with her legally purchased guns let another moron have access to these guns go on a shooting spree yes, as long as it's legal morons will get guns. To Push legislation that separates morons from guns doesn't seem like a bad thing to me.
A lot of morons get them illegally.
Maybe the legislation needs to target the moron side of this and not the gun side. :lol:
I know, I know, not doable...
"The Gun side"
Why the fuck is there any kind of legitimate gun side? overthrown many tyrants lately, shot many redcoats lately? I agree though both the legal purchase of guns and the illegally acquired weapons should be dealt with equally in effort to stop each.
This was a really interesting post that I think cuts right to the heart of things: http://gawker.com/5968818/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother
Quote from: hølist on December 16, 2012, 10:30:36 PM
This was a really interesting post that I think cuts right to the heart of things: http://gawker.com/5968818/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother
And the comments are quite a look into the mental illness stigma.
Quote from: hølist on December 16, 2012, 10:30:36 PM
This was a really interesting post that I think cuts right to the heart of things: http://gawker.com/5968818/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother
And it takes us right back to the school to prison pipeline.
Whether their wiring is funny or not.
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on December 16, 2012, 10:45:42 PM
Quote from: hølist on December 16, 2012, 10:30:36 PM
This was a really interesting post that I think cuts right to the heart of things: http://gawker.com/5968818/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother
And the comments are quite a look into the mental illness stigma.
I only read a few of them, and they all raised points that were valid in different ways... even the one that said (in less pretty terms) that if you have a child you believe is capable of mass murder, you should take any measure available to prevent it, however extreme. I don't think that's the solution; I think that a more supportive, less toxic culture is the solution. But until we live in such a culture, we only have the options that are available to us.
Which comments did you have in mind, specifically?
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on December 16, 2012, 10:51:32 PM
Quote from: hølist on December 16, 2012, 10:30:36 PM
This was a really interesting post that I think cuts right to the heart of things: http://gawker.com/5968818/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother
And it takes us right back to the school to prison pipeline.
Whether their wiring is funny or not.
Yep.
Using the legal system to punish people for being mentally ill is the exact opposite of a solution.
Quote from: hølist on December 16, 2012, 10:53:42 PM
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on December 16, 2012, 10:45:42 PM
Quote from: hølist on December 16, 2012, 10:30:36 PM
This was a really interesting post that I think cuts right to the heart of things: http://gawker.com/5968818/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother
And the comments are quite a look into the mental illness stigma.
I only read a few of them, and they all raised points that were valid in different ways... even the one that said (in less pretty terms) that if you have a child you believe is capable of mass murder, you should take any measure available to prevent it, however extreme. I don't think that's the solution; I think that a more supportive, less toxic culture is the solution. But until we live in such a culture, we only have the options that are available to us.
Which comments did you have in mind, specifically?
Quote"You're a stupid bitch. I can wear whatever pants I want to. This is America. I have rights!"
Growing up, if those words had escaped my big mouth, I would be sore all over for a week. Back then, child services didn't scare anybody. The line was; "Spare the rod, spoil the kid".
Quite a few of them stemming from the conversation starting with that comment, the idea that an individual with mental illness is just a solid spanking away from perfectly good health and it's the parents, not society, that failed them.
(http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTYyMTQxNDA4OF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTYwMjQ3NDk2._V1._SX475_SY668_.jpg)
Quote from: Pæs on December 16, 2012, 11:55:40 PM
(http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTYyMTQxNDA4OF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTYwMjQ3NDk2._V1._SX475_SY668_.jpg)
(http://0.static.wix.com/media/3cf760d6b4b7da5b26c6b1067f5040d5.wix_mp_256)
Westboro announced they were going to picket the funerals, and Anonymous just went on the offensive against them.
Quote from: Suu on December 17, 2012, 01:10:45 AM
Westboro announced they were going to picket the funerals, and Anonymous just went on the offensive against them.
From what I've seen on it, they're planning to protest at the school, not specifically the funerals. Why just traumatize the families, when you can make so many, many more innocent kids suffer past what they've already had to endure? The ongoing debate is to whether they'll follow through, or if this is finally the time that people snap and put a few in traction.
Well I just saw on Facebook (though not yet confirmed) that Anon has successfully filed a death certficate for a woman with the WBC, and now her SSN is blocked, all of her credit, accounts, etc. POOF, frozen.
Quote from: Suu on December 17, 2012, 01:10:45 AM
Westboro announced they were going to picket the funerals, and Anonymous just went on the offensive against them.
I played Phelps in a production of "The Laramie Project." I researched the fuck out of him. I have this stubborn streak that doesn't allow me to do caricatures of any character's I play, especially real ones. I developed this weird sort of empathy for him during that process...this, though...just...gah.
It holds with the picture that I formed, with the added aspect now that I think he may be jealous when someone is seen as more of a monster than he is. I think he may have crossed the line of feeling significant by being hated for "righteousness" to feeling anything by simply being hated. I don't know. Speculation. Nauseating.
Quote from: Suu on December 17, 2012, 02:13:48 AM
Well I just saw on Facebook (though not yet confirmed) that Anon has successfully filed a death certficate for a woman with the WBC, and now her SSN is blocked, all of her credit, accounts, etc. POOF, frozen.
https://twitter.com/YourAnonNews/status/280385713667710976
Quote from: Suu on December 14, 2012, 06:44:25 PM
With assault rifles.
FUCKING ASSAULT RIFLES.
WHY ARE PEOPLE ALLOWED TO HAVE THOSE?! PISTOLS, OKAY, SHOTGUNS, SURE...BUT ASSAULT RIFLES?! COME ON.
There would have been no difference in the number of kids killed.
Quote from: Faust on December 16, 2012, 10:04:43 PM
Why the fuck is there any kind of legitimate gun side?
Because it's how we do things.
Quote from: Faust on December 16, 2012, 09:46:41 PM
Quote from: holist on December 16, 2012, 09:42:41 PM
Quote from: Faust on December 16, 2012, 09:34:13 PM
To Push legislation that separates morons from guns doesn't seem like a bad thing to me.
At a superficial level, it seems entirely rational and not a bad thing.
Think a little deeper (use your Thinking SpadeTM for this), and I think you'll realise that doing this makes you an active supporter of the notion that pushing for legislation (any legislation) is a viable way of improving the increasingly global, increasingly cancerous post-industrial society. It is not. This is sad and sometimes desperately depressing, hard to face, but it is a fact. In my opinion. :)
Ok holist. I'm currently pushing for abortion legislation to be brought into Ireland. I am an active support that legislation is a viable way of improving some aspects of society.
But I realise I have just wasted my time responding to you on this and I won't be making that mistake again.
I don't get how people don't understand holist. It's a thread about dead kids. He must attention-whore.
What's so fucking hard, here?
Quote from: hølist on December 17, 2012, 12:06:32 AM
Quote from: Pæs on December 16, 2012, 11:55:40 PM
(http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTYyMTQxNDA4OF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTYwMjQ3NDk2._V1._SX475_SY668_.jpg)
(http://0.static.wix.com/media/3cf760d6b4b7da5b26c6b1067f5040d5.wix_mp_256)
It didn't work before. Just sayin.
Quote from: Faust on December 16, 2012, 09:46:41 PM
Quote from: holist on December 16, 2012, 09:42:41 PM
Quote from: Faust on December 16, 2012, 09:34:13 PM
To Push legislation that separates morons from guns doesn't seem like a bad thing to me.
At a superficial level, it seems entirely rational and not a bad thing.
Think a little deeper (use your Thinking SpadeTM for this), and I think you'll realise that doing this makes you an active supporter of the notion that pushing for legislation (any legislation) is a viable way of improving the increasingly global, increasingly cancerous post-industrial society. It is not. This is sad and sometimes desperately depressing, hard to face, but it is a fact. In my opinion. :)
Ok holist. I'm currently pushing for abortion legislation to be brought into Ireland. I am an active support that legislation is a viable way of improving some aspects of society.
But I realise I have just wasted my time responding to you on this and I won't be making that mistake again.
You see, Faust, although time is essentially impossible to waste (human life is perfectly possible to waste, both one's own and, much more distressingly, that of others), your post, and forgive me for saying this, is rather pointless. The new syllogism recently introduced to PD ("If holist says I'm wrong, I am right") is actually false. Not because of silly old me: it would be wrong with any name substituted for mine. It would also be wrong with "right" substituted for "wrong".
The argument I made (obliquely, because I prefer oblique to rigorous) was that when one balances the benefit of achieving minor advantages by buying into the "political lobbying is a viable means of improving humanity's lot" (pushing for legislation) game against the detrimental effect that this has on having a realistic outlook (on life and human society in general), it is clear that it's not worth it. You stated that you disagree. Now state why you disagree!
Here's an example: my country has definitely the harshest drug laws in the EU. It may seem worthwhile to push for a change of legislation: it is heartbreaking to see teenagers go down for years and have their lives ruined for smoking or sharing a little dope. But what you end up doing is engage with the model that keeps most of our fellows in bondage: perverting your goodwill to grease the machine. So I think it is much better (qualitatively, and not simply be degree) to spread anonymous information among those kids about how to avoid contact with the law altogether.
How would this carry over to the guns and shootings scenario? Instead of pushing for legislation (i.e. engaging with people who are very clearly in the business of keeping the huddled masses down for their own personal benefit, and let's not forget that), produce viral propaganda to popularise the idea that isolated, depressed or antisocial kids are not nuisances but unfortunate and unavoidable products of our society and that talking to them, getting to know them, providing emotional support for them is a good thing.
Harder? Yes. Less glory in it? Yes. But still.
Quote from: holist on December 17, 2012, 05:31:58 AM
Quote from: Faust on December 16, 2012, 09:46:41 PM
Quote from: holist on December 16, 2012, 09:42:41 PM
Quote from: Faust on December 16, 2012, 09:34:13 PM
To Push legislation that separates morons from guns doesn't seem like a bad thing to me.
At a superficial level, it seems entirely rational and not a bad thing.
Think a little deeper (use your Thinking SpadeTM for this), and I think you'll realise that doing this makes you an active supporter of the notion that pushing for legislation (any legislation) is a viable way of improving the increasingly global, increasingly cancerous post-industrial society. It is not. This is sad and sometimes desperately depressing, hard to face, but it is a fact. In my opinion. :)
Ok holist. I'm currently pushing for abortion legislation to be brought into Ireland. I am an active support that legislation is a viable way of improving some aspects of society.
But I realise I have just wasted my time responding to you on this and I won't be making that mistake again.
You see, Faust, although time is essentially impossible to waste (human life is perfectly possible to waste, both one's own and, much more distressingly, that of others), your post, and forgive me for saying this, is rather pointless. The new syllogism recently introduced to PD ("If holist says I'm wrong, I am right") is actually false.
How do you cope with the cognitive dissonance your belief in the existence of this syllogism generates when people agree with you?
Quote from: Patron Saint on December 17, 2012, 03:59:42 AM
Quote from: hølist on December 17, 2012, 12:06:32 AM
Quote from: Pæs on December 16, 2012, 11:55:40 PM
(http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTYyMTQxNDA4OF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTYwMjQ3NDk2._V1._SX475_SY668_.jpg)
(http://0.static.wix.com/media/3cf760d6b4b7da5b26c6b1067f5040d5.wix_mp_256)
It didn't work before. Just sayin.
PD.com... now with TWO holists!
Quote from: hølist on December 17, 2012, 06:49:59 AM
How do you cope with the cognitive dissonance your belief in the existence of this syllogism generates when people agree with you?
I don't have to, because there's no cognitive dissonance there. The new syllogism was introduced, but was not universally adopted. This is actually what usually happens. And rightly so.
Quote from: holist on December 17, 2012, 06:55:07 AM
Quote from: hølist on December 17, 2012, 06:49:59 AM
How do you cope with the cognitive dissonance your belief in the existence of this syllogism generates when people agree with you?
I don't have to, because there's no cognitive dissonance there. The new syllogism was introduced, but was not universally adopted. This is actually what usually happens. And rightly so.
Keep on telling yourself that, little champion.
Quote from: hølist on December 17, 2012, 06:50:34 AM
Quote from: Patron Saint on December 17, 2012, 03:59:42 AM
Quote from: hølist on December 17, 2012, 12:06:32 AM
Quote from: Pæs on December 16, 2012, 11:55:40 PM
(http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTYyMTQxNDA4OF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTYwMjQ3NDk2._V1._SX475_SY668_.jpg)
(http://0.static.wix.com/media/3cf760d6b4b7da5b26c6b1067f5040d5.wix_mp_256)
It didn't work before. Just sayin.
PD.com... now with TWO holists!
I proclaim maximum butt hurt ego. No one shall care harder than I!
moving right along...
Jesus fuck. Roger or whoever, it's not my thread but do you want to move the attention-whoring posts by holist and holist jr. to the holist attention whoring thread?
This writer has an interesting take on the psychology of mass murder:
http://www.rolereboot.org/culture-and-politics/details/2012-07-why-most-mass-murderers-are-privileged-white-men
Quote from: hølist on December 17, 2012, 07:02:03 AM
Quote from: holist on December 17, 2012, 06:55:07 AM
Quote from: hølist on December 17, 2012, 06:49:59 AM
How do you cope with the cognitive dissonance your belief in the existence of this syllogism generates when people agree with you?
I don't have to, because there's no cognitive dissonance there. The new syllogism was introduced, but was not universally adopted. This is actually what usually happens. And rightly so.
Keep on telling yourself that, little champion.
Okay.
It's a goddamned religion and the Second Amendment is its Scripture.
The Lord thy God WANTS his children to have Bushmasters, they NEED them. You never know when the Redcoats are gonna bust down their doors at night and steal their jobs and give them to the Mexicans.
This country is so fucking broken and full of ignorant broken people.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 17, 2012, 11:09:40 AM
It's a goddamned religion and the Second Amendment is its Scripture.
The Lord thy God WANTS his children to have Bushmasters, they NEED them. You never know when the Redcoats are gonna bust down their doors at night and steal their jobs and give them to the Mexicans.
This country is so fucking broken and full of ignorant broken people.
My experience is that there is less of them than I first thought, but the key problem is that a lot of them end up in DC with suits on and voting/filibusterer powers. It's cool though, demonstrating our leadership is completely inept and can't get anything done helps our global credit rating... right?
It's times like these where I want to become a believer... in the Illuminatti because then some of it would make sense. The only reason I can possibly see this much wankery being allowed to pass is because of some international conspiracy where the movers decided that it was best to take the US down yet another peg and put a bunch of retards in office and told them to fight about as much inane crap as possible to stall the government into meltdown, because anyone with sense would realize that this strategy is fucktarded.
Sadly...
The main thing that I learned about conspiracy theory is that conspiracy theorists actually believe in a conspiracy because that is more comforting. The truth of the world is that it is chaotic. The truth is, that it is not the Jewish banking conspiracy or the grey aliens or the 12 foot reptiloids from another dimension that are in control. The truth is more frightening, nobody is in control. The world is rudderless.
"The Mindscape of Alan Moore" (2003)
Quote from: Patron Saint on December 17, 2012, 11:17:06 AM
The main thing that I learned about conspiracy theory is that conspiracy theorists actually believe in a conspiracy because that is more comforting. The truth of the world is that it is chaotic. The truth is, that it is not the Jewish banking conspiracy or the grey aliens or the 12 foot reptiloids from another dimension that are in control. The truth is more frightening, nobody is in control. The world is rudderless.
"The Mindscape of Alan Moore" (2003)
That is entirely correct.
That's just it, there aren't that many of them, I think there is a healthy majority who would say, " Uh yeah, I don't think the Second Amendment meant 20 year olds packing automatic death machines". But, there are members of that minority in power, and they have successfully been able to use it as a cudgel against moderates and liberals.
Obama is talking tough now but by the end of the week he'll be walking that shit back. He won't do jack shit.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 17, 2012, 12:26:19 PM
That's just it, there aren't that many of them, I think there is a healthy majority who would say, " Uh yeah, I don't think the Second Amendment meant 20 year olds packing automatic death machines". But, there are members of that minority in power, and they have successfully been able to use it as a cudgel against moderates and liberals.
Obama is talking tough now but by the end of the week he'll be walking that shit back. He won't do jack shit.
Probably not. For any merits he has and achievements he has made, Obama is still a politician at heart, but then, aren't they all?
One of the funny and fucked up things about politics is that only those that don't want to rule are generally the least bit suited to because they profoundly understand the problems that come with authority, and generally the only people that run for office are of two kinds:
1) Naive and think they can change the world until they get chewed up and spit out by the second type when they get to DC.
2) Power hungry fucks that have no place trying to run anything.
I've said this once or twice before elsewhere... but beheading the royalty was probably the best choice for France. The ugly part is that things have to get that bad before shots are legitimately fired, and if that's the case, what is worth saving?
From what I'm to understand the seven generation legacy problem (leaders rise to power based on skill pass it to their heirs, but seven generations of hand over later the new leaders have none of the skills the leaders that were great did but instead have a skillset of maintaining power) creates the need for a reboot in a government about every 200 years and merka is a bit overdue.
I remember reading about the cops for hire in NYC during the occupy noise where your rich companies could hire someone to beat, arrest, and charge you and I was thinking to myself... Praetorian Guard much?
The problem is people are still too comfortable. Part of me wants the whole thing to go to hell, but then another part of me remembers that it's the fundamentalists that have all the guns, not the liberals (exceptions exist, but going for general assessment), which means guess who is writing the new lawbooks?
Win? Not likely.
If anything I'm still pushing my education over restriction philosophy, but it's not very popular, and is violently opposed by many in power.
One of my favorite moments recently was the accusation that Obama wanting to have executive authority to raise the debt ceiling meant he'd be able to barrow money without restraint, when in actuality it just means he'd be giving permission to pay back the debt. /suicide
I know it is wet
And the sun is not sunny.
But we can have
Lots of good fun that is funny! -Congress
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 17, 2012, 12:26:19 PM
That's just it, there aren't that many of them, I think there is a healthy majority who would say, " Uh yeah, I don't think the Second Amendment meant 20 year olds packing automatic death machines". But, there are members of that minority in power, and they have successfully been able to use it as a cudgel against moderates and liberals.
Obama is talking tough now but by the end of the week he'll be walking that shit back. He won't do jack shit.
He already has:
"no single law, no set of laws can eliminate evil from the world or prevent every senseless act of violence in our society,"
Translates as, "Too bad, shit happens, we want to keep our guns, fuck dead kids."
Quote from: Faust on December 17, 2012, 10:06:39 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 17, 2012, 03:20:55 AM
Quote from: Faust on December 16, 2012, 10:04:43 PM
Why the fuck is there any kind of legitimate gun side?
Because it's how we do things.
And that's just terrible.
Yes, yes it is. But we do a great many horrible things, both to ourselves and to other nations around us. And as far as the gun thing goes, get mad at the sun for rising. If we didn't have guns, we'd use a piece of lead pipe. The tool isn't the problem, the tool-using primates are the problem.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 17, 2012, 12:26:19 PM
That's just it, there aren't that many of them, I think there is a healthy majority who would say, " Uh yeah, I don't think the Second Amendment meant 20 year olds packing automatic death machines".
That's exactly what they meant, though.
Quote from: hølist on December 17, 2012, 07:05:56 AM
Jesus fuck. Roger or whoever, it's not my thread but do you want to move the attention-whoring posts by holist and holist jr. to the holist attention whoring thread?
Going to, as soon as I get time.
Quote from: Suu on December 17, 2012, 02:13:48 AM
Well I just saw on Facebook (though not yet confirmed) that Anon has successfully filed a death certficate for a woman with the WBC, and now her SSN is blocked, all of her credit, accounts, etc. POOF, frozen.
This is less than Gandhi-like, but it warms my cockles.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on December 17, 2012, 04:37:27 PM
Quote from: Suu on December 17, 2012, 02:13:48 AM
Well I just saw on Facebook (though not yet confirmed) that Anon has successfully filed a death certficate for a woman with the WBC, and now her SSN is blocked, all of her credit, accounts, etc. POOF, frozen.
This is less than Gandhi-like, but it warms my cockles.
I disapprove.
I don't want the government punishing people for what they say, so I certainly don't want faceless vigilantes doing it.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 17, 2012, 02:18:33 PM
Quote from: Faust on December 17, 2012, 10:06:39 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 17, 2012, 03:20:55 AM
Quote from: Faust on December 16, 2012, 10:04:43 PM
Why the fuck is there any kind of legitimate gun side?
Because it's how we do things.
And that's just terrible.
Yes, yes it is. But we do a great many horrible things, both to ourselves and to other nations around us. And as far as the gun thing goes, get mad at the sun for rising. If we didn't have guns, we'd use a piece of lead pipe. The tool isn't the problem, the tool-using primates are the problem.
Yep. Now they're using the logic that assault weapons are designed for hunting people, not meat, which is true.
But getting rid of them won't stop any of this.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 17, 2012, 04:39:14 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on December 17, 2012, 04:37:27 PM
Quote from: Suu on December 17, 2012, 02:13:48 AM
Well I just saw on Facebook (though not yet confirmed) that Anon has successfully filed a death certficate for a woman with the WBC, and now her SSN is blocked, all of her credit, accounts, etc. POOF, frozen.
This is less than Gandhi-like, but it warms my cockles.
I disapprove.
I don't want the government punishing people for what they say, so I certainly don't want faceless vigilantes doing it.
I know.
It's the small, mean part of my brain that just enjoys WBC schadenfreude.
Back to the frontal cortex...*sigh*
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on December 17, 2012, 04:48:41 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 17, 2012, 04:39:14 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on December 17, 2012, 04:37:27 PM
Quote from: Suu on December 17, 2012, 02:13:48 AM
Well I just saw on Facebook (though not yet confirmed) that Anon has successfully filed a death certficate for a woman with the WBC, and now her SSN is blocked, all of her credit, accounts, etc. POOF, frozen.
This is less than Gandhi-like, but it warms my cockles.
I disapprove.
I don't want the government punishing people for what they say, so I certainly don't want faceless vigilantes doing it.
I know.
It's the small, mean part of my brain that just enjoys WBC schadenfreude.
Back to the frontal cortex...*sigh*
Oh, yeah, there's definitely a part of my brain that is giggling. No shame there.
But the front part of my brain has serious issues with this sort of thing.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 17, 2012, 02:18:33 PM
Quote from: Faust on December 17, 2012, 10:06:39 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 17, 2012, 03:20:55 AM
Quote from: Faust on December 16, 2012, 10:04:43 PM
Why the fuck is there any kind of legitimate gun side?
Because it's how we do things.
And that's just terrible.
Yes, yes it is. But we do a great many horrible things, both to ourselves and to other nations around us. And as far as the gun thing goes, get mad at the sun for rising. If we didn't have guns, we'd use a piece of lead pipe. The tool isn't the problem, the tool-using primates are the problem.
I disagree, for the same reason your people wont get up to change the tv channel when they don't have the remote control, there would be less killings if they had to run a few laps to get good at swinging a lead pipe.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on December 17, 2012, 04:46:20 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 17, 2012, 02:18:33 PM
Quote from: Faust on December 17, 2012, 10:06:39 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 17, 2012, 03:20:55 AM
Quote from: Faust on December 16, 2012, 10:04:43 PM
Why the fuck is there any kind of legitimate gun side?
Because it's how we do things.
And that's just terrible.
Yes, yes it is. But we do a great many horrible things, both to ourselves and to other nations around us. And as far as the gun thing goes, get mad at the sun for rising. If we didn't have guns, we'd use a piece of lead pipe. The tool isn't the problem, the tool-using primates are the problem.
Yep. Now they're using the logic that assault weapons are designed for hunting people, not meat, which is true.
But getting rid of them won't stop any of this.
It wont stop any of this, getting rid of ALL guns will.
Quote from: Faust on December 17, 2012, 04:50:34 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 17, 2012, 02:18:33 PM
Quote from: Faust on December 17, 2012, 10:06:39 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 17, 2012, 03:20:55 AM
Quote from: Faust on December 16, 2012, 10:04:43 PM
Why the fuck is there any kind of legitimate gun side?
Because it's how we do things.
And that's just terrible.
Yes, yes it is. But we do a great many horrible things, both to ourselves and to other nations around us. And as far as the gun thing goes, get mad at the sun for rising. If we didn't have guns, we'd use a piece of lead pipe. The tool isn't the problem, the tool-using primates are the problem.
I disagree, for the same reason your people wont get up to change the tv channel when they don't have the remote control, there would be less killings if they had to run a few laps to get good at swinging a lead pipe.
Any fatass american with google can make a bomb.
Quote from: Faust on December 17, 2012, 04:50:34 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 17, 2012, 02:18:33 PM
Quote from: Faust on December 17, 2012, 10:06:39 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 17, 2012, 03:20:55 AM
Quote from: Faust on December 16, 2012, 10:04:43 PM
Why the fuck is there any kind of legitimate gun side?
Because it's how we do things.
And that's just terrible.
Yes, yes it is. But we do a great many horrible things, both to ourselves and to other nations around us. And as far as the gun thing goes, get mad at the sun for rising. If we didn't have guns, we'd use a piece of lead pipe. The tool isn't the problem, the tool-using primates are the problem.
I disagree, for the same reason your people wont get up to change the tv channel when they don't have the remote control, there would be less killings if they had to run a few laps to get good at swinging a lead pipe.
No, the type of person that would do something like this is what we Doktors like to call "an energetic lunatic". If they didn't have guns, they'd just drive through a crowded shopping mall or something.
Additionally, of what use is prohibiting firearms? Are there no guns in Ireland? Britain? Prohibiting them hits the law-abiding members of society, not the weirdos and criminals, who will somehow lay their hands on firearms under any circumstances.
Lastly, you have to remember the culture caused by the method used by America to come into existence: A revolution carried out by, more or less, amateurs. Contrast that with Canada, which left the British empire peacefully, and has no weird attachment to firearms whatsoever (and in fact moves to the other side of the bus from America whenever they think about this subject).
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on December 17, 2012, 04:46:20 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 17, 2012, 02:18:33 PM
Quote from: Faust on December 17, 2012, 10:06:39 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 17, 2012, 03:20:55 AM
Quote from: Faust on December 16, 2012, 10:04:43 PM
Why the fuck is there any kind of legitimate gun side?
Because it's how we do things.
And that's just terrible.
Yes, yes it is. But we do a great many horrible things, both to ourselves and to other nations around us. And as far as the gun thing goes, get mad at the sun for rising. If we didn't have guns, we'd use a piece of lead pipe. The tool isn't the problem, the tool-using primates are the problem.
Yep. Now they're using the logic that assault weapons are designed for hunting people, not meat, which is true.
But getting rid of them won't stop any of this.
it's also not true. i use a remington R 25 for hunting, and it falls squarely under the AWB definition. that is far from an outlier anecdote.
Quote from: Faust on December 17, 2012, 04:51:31 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on December 17, 2012, 04:46:20 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 17, 2012, 02:18:33 PM
Quote from: Faust on December 17, 2012, 10:06:39 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 17, 2012, 03:20:55 AM
Quote from: Faust on December 16, 2012, 10:04:43 PM
Why the fuck is there any kind of legitimate gun side?
Because it's how we do things.
And that's just terrible.
Yes, yes it is. But we do a great many horrible things, both to ourselves and to other nations around us. And as far as the gun thing goes, get mad at the sun for rising. If we didn't have guns, we'd use a piece of lead pipe. The tool isn't the problem, the tool-using primates are the problem.
Yep. Now they're using the logic that assault weapons are designed for hunting people, not meat, which is true.
But getting rid of them won't stop any of this.
It wont stop any of this, getting rid of ALL guns will.
1. Good luck with that, and
2. People will still find inventive ways to kill each other off.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on December 17, 2012, 04:46:20 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 17, 2012, 02:18:33 PM
Quote from: Faust on December 17, 2012, 10:06:39 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 17, 2012, 03:20:55 AM
Quote from: Faust on December 16, 2012, 10:04:43 PM
Why the fuck is there any kind of legitimate gun side?
Because it's how we do things.
And that's just terrible.
Yes, yes it is. But we do a great many horrible things, both to ourselves and to other nations around us. And as far as the gun thing goes, get mad at the sun for rising. If we didn't have guns, we'd use a piece of lead pipe. The tool isn't the problem, the tool-using primates are the problem.
Yep. Now they're using the logic that assault weapons are designed for hunting people, not meat, which is true.
But getting rid of them won't stop any of this.
All firearms are meant for killing people. Every last one of them.
And the 2nd amendment wasn't designed to allow hunting. It was specifically designed so that citizens could form militias (not the same as the national guard, which is a state-run enterprize).
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 17, 2012, 04:56:07 PM
Quote from: Faust on December 17, 2012, 04:51:31 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on December 17, 2012, 04:46:20 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 17, 2012, 02:18:33 PM
Quote from: Faust on December 17, 2012, 10:06:39 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 17, 2012, 03:20:55 AM
Quote from: Faust on December 16, 2012, 10:04:43 PM
Why the fuck is there any kind of legitimate gun side?
Because it's how we do things.
And that's just terrible.
Yes, yes it is. But we do a great many horrible things, both to ourselves and to other nations around us. And as far as the gun thing goes, get mad at the sun for rising. If we didn't have guns, we'd use a piece of lead pipe. The tool isn't the problem, the tool-using primates are the problem.
Yep. Now they're using the logic that assault weapons are designed for hunting people, not meat, which is true.
But getting rid of them won't stop any of this.
It wont stop any of this, getting rid of ALL guns will.
2. People will still find inventive ways to kill each other off.
less of them
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on December 17, 2012, 04:53:24 PM
Quote from: Faust on December 17, 2012, 04:50:34 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 17, 2012, 02:18:33 PM
Quote from: Faust on December 17, 2012, 10:06:39 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 17, 2012, 03:20:55 AM
Quote from: Faust on December 16, 2012, 10:04:43 PM
Why the fuck is there any kind of legitimate gun side?
Because it's how we do things.
And that's just terrible.
Yes, yes it is. But we do a great many horrible things, both to ourselves and to other nations around us. And as far as the gun thing goes, get mad at the sun for rising. If we didn't have guns, we'd use a piece of lead pipe. The tool isn't the problem, the tool-using primates are the problem.
I disagree, for the same reason your people wont get up to change the tv channel when they don't have the remote control, there would be less killings if they had to run a few laps to get good at swinging a lead pipe.
Any fatass american with google can make a bomb.
I'll believe it when I see it.
Thing is, many Europeans make the mistake of thinking of Americans as Europeans without monarchies, with a few dozen extra pounds.
This is a mistake.
The United States is nothing like Europe. The USA is basically batshit insane, and always has been. It's an indelible part of our national character, and with good reason.
Quote from: Faust on December 17, 2012, 04:59:33 PM
less of them
So tell me, Faust...How successful were the British at disarming Ireland in the past? And with whatever measures of success they may have had, how well did they curb violence?
QuoteI'll believe it when I see it.
There was this guy, see, named Timothy McVeigh...
Quote from: hølist on December 17, 2012, 07:57:59 AM
This writer has an interesting take on the psychology of mass murder:
http://www.rolereboot.org/culture-and-politics/details/2012-07-why-most-mass-murderers-are-privileged-white-men
Hmm...it seems like a stretch. The author seems to be saying that the reason that the killers choose public places is because of their entitled white male privilege to access anywhere they want. It feels like they're looking for and finding quarters.
QuoteFor white male murderers from "nice" families, the fact that they chose public spaces like schools, university campuses, or movie theaters as their targets suggests that they saw these places as legitimately theirs.
And the main idea of the article:
QuoteEvery killer makes his pain another's problem. But only those who've marinated in privilege can conclude that their private pain is the entire world's problem with which to deal. This is why, while men of all races and classes murder their intimate partners, it is privileged young white dudes who are by far the likeliest to shoot up schools and movie theaters.
I'm not saying this isn't the case but I don't think that the article necessarily does a good job to prove this. Is there something I'm missing here?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 17, 2012, 04:55:00 PM
No, the type of person that would do something like this is what we Doktors like to call "an energetic lunatic". If they didn't have guns, they'd just drive through a crowded shopping mall or something.
Let them, it would still be better then driving through a classroom.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 17, 2012, 04:55:00 PM
Additionally, of what use is prohibiting firearms? Are there no guns in Ireland? Britain? Prohibiting them hits the law-abiding members of society, not the weirdos and criminals, who will somehow lay their hands on firearms under any circumstances.
Lastly, you have to remember the culture caused by the method used by America to come into existence: A revolution carried out by, more or less, amateurs. Contrast that with Canada, which left the British empire peacefully, and has no weird attachment to firearms whatsoever (and in fact moves to the other side of the bus from America whenever they think about this subject).
Ireland allows ownership of shotguns. The last crime of which was commited back in 2007 by a farmer shooting someone stealing from his land. There is a problem with guns smuggled into the country but all the shootings barring one have invovled the same fifty people and it has always been drugs related.
Northern Ireland has a huge problem with kneecappings and the like and it comes exactly from what you describe above a revolution carried out by amateurs, all that remains of the active IRA and the UDA are the causes of those problems.
I have no idea about the UK.
I don't buy cultural heratige as a reason to have the right to a firearm, the russians aren't about to march in, the fact is that the majority of people who get killed by guns in the US are through accidents or violence in the home.
but if we are going to throw out comparisons: Yes Ireland has an intollerable gun crime problem that has to be fixed and we have ZERO domestic shootings and ZERO school shootings.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 17, 2012, 05:02:41 PM
Quote from: Faust on December 17, 2012, 04:59:33 PM
less of them
So tell me, Faust...How successful were the British at disarming Ireland in the past? And with whatever measures of success they may have had, how well did they curb violence?
QuoteI'll believe it when I see it.
There was this guy, see, named Timothy McVeigh...
The occupying brittish force were completely unsuccessful, the domestic government never had to deal with the problem. Timothy Mcvey was one over a decade ago.
What day was the last monthly school shooting I forget?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 17, 2012, 05:01:17 PM
Thing is, many Europeans make the mistake of thinking of Americans as Europeans without monarchies, with a few dozen extra pounds.
This is a mistake.
The United States is nothing like Europe. The USA is basically batshit insane, and always has been. It's an indelible part of our national character, and with good reason.
Agreed, It seems to be encouraged, a new reality tv show peraps, the winner racks up the most kills, peraps they could form teams for areas.
Faust,
how did it go down over there when guns were banned. did anyone resist? did they just grumble as the turned them in?
i'm curious to know how it went down compared to how it would likely go down if legislation were passed over here.
incidentally, how do you think it would go down over here?
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on December 17, 2012, 05:20:50 PM
Faust,
how did it go down over there when guns were banned. did anyone resist? did they just grumble as the turned them in?
i'm curious to know how it went down compared to how it would likely go down if legislation were passed over here.
incidentally, how do you think it would go down over here?
Gun proliferation was never prominent, there were caches that the IRA were armed from. There are still a lot of homes that might have some archaich rifle kicking around but they are museum pieces at this point.
It wasn't a smooth transition basically everything was concentrated in northern Ireland from then on, and there is still prominent nationalistic violence up there from both those that consider themselves Irish and those that consider themselves brittish. In the republic of Ireland however it was minimised. There is no eliminating gun crime but it can be minimised if caught early.
Its not a fair comparison to the US though because we never had a Gun Culture and that does seem to be where the majority of the problem stems from, we do have it easier and it would be a lot harder to roll back the clock for the US.
A lot of european countries have less shootings than the US. Hell, probably ALL of them have a lot less, and they actually seem shocked when it does happen.
But they're first world countries, aren't they? People have all kinds of nifty perks and benefits that will never happen here because US tards are brainwashed that SOME SMUDGEY PERSON MIGHT PLAY THE SYSTEM. Maybe the powers that be in europe don't give a fuck if the people live or die, but at least they PRETEND to.
People get along a lot better when there's enough to go around. They tend to snap a lot less, too. When all the austerity kicks in, we'll see how it goes over there. Guns or no guns.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on December 17, 2012, 05:32:14 PM
A lot of european countries have less shootings than the US. Hell, probably ALL of them have a lot less, and they actually seem shocked when it does happen.
But they're first world countries, aren't they? People have all kinds of nifty perks and benefits that will never happen here because US tards are brainwashed that SOME SMUDGEY PERSON MIGHT PLAY THE SYSTEM. Maybe the powers that be in europe don't give a fuck if the people live or die, but at least they PRETEND to.
People get along a lot better when there's enough to go around. They tend to snap a lot less, too. When all the austerity kicks in, we'll see how it goes over there. Guns or no guns.
It's not a European thing, or even an economic thing though I did joke about that earlier.
I don't buy that either. How many Guatomallan school shootings are there?
Its true it does shock me that this happens every other week and people still seem to cling to the belief that its justifiable and unaviodable.
Quote from: Faust on December 17, 2012, 05:35:55 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on December 17, 2012, 05:32:14 PM
A lot of european countries have less shootings than the US. Hell, probably ALL of them have a lot less, and they actually seem shocked when it does happen.
But they're first world countries, aren't they? People have all kinds of nifty perks and benefits that will never happen here because US tards are brainwashed that SOME SMUDGEY PERSON MIGHT PLAY THE SYSTEM. Maybe the powers that be in europe don't give a fuck if the people live or die, but at least they PRETEND to.
People get along a lot better when there's enough to go around. They tend to snap a lot less, too. When all the austerity kicks in, we'll see how it goes over there. Guns or no guns.
It's not a European thing, or even an economic thing though I did joke about that earlier.
I don't buy that either. How many Guatomallan school shootings are there?
Its true it does shock me that this happens every other week and people still seem to cling to the belief that its justifiable and unaviodable.
Wow, I can't really understand why you chose Guatemala for your comparison, but OK.
http://www.laht.com/article.asp?ArticleId=360166&CategoryId=23558
Not exactly big school shooting events, but Guatemala is a country still dealing with a lot of unrest and horrific levels of violence, as are many of the countries in Latin America.
Quote from: Faust on December 17, 2012, 05:07:43 PM
I don't buy cultural heratige as a reason to have the right to a firearm, the russians aren't about to march in, the fact is that the majority of people who get killed by guns in the US are through accidents or violence in the home.
Sure, but I'd like to bring up one further issue on the cultural level. Fact is, our constitution has a set of (supposedly) inalienable rights. These rights are already constantly being trampled...The last thing I want to do is restructure those rights, given that both sides of the political spectrum have a laundry list of rights they'd like to curtail.
The simplest way you'd deal with that would be an amendment to repeal the 2nd amendment. That isn't going to happen in today's political climate. It would have precisely zero chance of passing, no matter who is in office.
So to curtail that one right, you'd need either a constitutional convention, and then it's Katy bar the door on ALL rights (the religious right, for example, has been pushing for a convention since 1981), or to outright abrogate the constitution, which would have even worse results.
Quote from: Faust on December 17, 2012, 05:11:33 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 17, 2012, 05:02:41 PM
Quote from: Faust on December 17, 2012, 04:59:33 PM
less of them
So tell me, Faust...How successful were the British at disarming Ireland in the past? And with whatever measures of success they may have had, how well did they curb violence?
QuoteI'll believe it when I see it.
There was this guy, see, named Timothy McVeigh...
The occupying brittish force were completely unsuccessful, the domestic government never had to deal with the problem. Timothy Mcvey was one over a decade ago.
What day was the last monthly school shooting I forget?
I'd also like to bring up Theodore Kacszinksi (the Unabomber). The argument you made was that people can't build bombs with a bit of googling. They can. They have.
McViegh's bomb was made from nitrate fertilizer and diesel fuel. Both are readily available. In fact, another identical bomb was placed in front of an IRS office four years ago, but failed to go off due to a faulty fuse system.
Quote from: Faust on December 17, 2012, 05:13:55 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 17, 2012, 05:01:17 PM
Thing is, many Europeans make the mistake of thinking of Americans as Europeans without monarchies, with a few dozen extra pounds.
This is a mistake.
The United States is nothing like Europe. The USA is basically batshit insane, and always has been. It's an indelible part of our national character, and with good reason.
Agreed, It seems to be encouraged, a new reality tv show peraps, the winner racks up the most kills, peraps they could form teams for areas.
Don't laugh.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 17, 2012, 06:28:02 PM
Quote from: Faust on December 17, 2012, 05:11:33 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 17, 2012, 05:02:41 PM
Quote from: Faust on December 17, 2012, 04:59:33 PM
less of them
So tell me, Faust...How successful were the British at disarming Ireland in the past? And with whatever measures of success they may have had, how well did they curb violence?
QuoteI'll believe it when I see it.
There was this guy, see, named Timothy McVeigh...
The occupying brittish force were completely unsuccessful, the domestic government never had to deal with the problem. Timothy Mcvey was one over a decade ago.
What day was the last monthly school shooting I forget?
I'd also like to bring up Theodore Kacszinksi (the Unabomber). The argument you made was that people can't build bombs with a bit of googling. They can. They have.
McViegh's bomb was made from nitrate fertilizer and diesel fuel. Both are readily available. In fact, another identical bomb was placed in front of an IRS office four years ago, but failed to go off due to a faulty fuse system.
A successful bomb has a wider casualty list, I'm not disputing people can make them but to go back to the home remote it would still be the choice of less people then the gun spree crowd.
But that's only the spree crowd, then there is the domestic violence crowd, and I whisper this in fear of waking the ugly behemoth of the feminism threads but there is also the accidents and violence in the home against family members which generally speaking is the woman of the house as the target.
Arguably these are the more likely of the violent crimes that would occur even if the perpetrator did not have a firearm.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 17, 2012, 06:24:21 PM
Quote from: Faust on December 17, 2012, 05:07:43 PM
I don't buy cultural heratige as a reason to have the right to a firearm, the russians aren't about to march in, the fact is that the majority of people who get killed by guns in the US are through accidents or violence in the home.
Sure, but I'd like to bring up one further issue on the cultural level. Fact is, our constitution has a set of (supposedly) inalienable rights. These rights are already constantly being trampled...The last thing I want to do is restructure those rights, given that both sides of the political spectrum have a laundry list of rights they'd like to curtail.
The simplest way you'd deal with that would be an amendment to repeal the 2nd amendment. That isn't going to happen in today's political climate. It would have precisely zero chance of passing, no matter who is in office.
So to curtail that one right, you'd need either a constitutional convention, and then it's Katy bar the door on ALL rights (the religious right, for example, has been pushing for a convention since 1981), or to outright abrogate the constitution, which would have even worse results.
From what I have seen it is the only inalienable right that has not been circumvented or made a mockery of, the fact that it is the most repugnant and obsolete stands as testament of its failure.
But I agree and I believe if it it was to be rewritten there is
no hope that it could be replaced with something better.
Quote from: hølist on December 17, 2012, 06:14:32 PM
Quote from: Faust on December 17, 2012, 05:35:55 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on December 17, 2012, 05:32:14 PM
A lot of european countries have less shootings than the US. Hell, probably ALL of them have a lot less, and they actually seem shocked when it does happen.
But they're first world countries, aren't they? People have all kinds of nifty perks and benefits that will never happen here because US tards are brainwashed that SOME SMUDGEY PERSON MIGHT PLAY THE SYSTEM. Maybe the powers that be in europe don't give a fuck if the people live or die, but at least they PRETEND to.
People get along a lot better when there's enough to go around. They tend to snap a lot less, too. When all the austerity kicks in, we'll see how it goes over there. Guns or no guns.
It's not a European thing, or even an economic thing though I did joke about that earlier.
I don't buy that either. How many Guatomallan school shootings are there?
Its true it does shock me that this happens every other week and people still seem to cling to the belief that its justifiable and unaviodable.
Wow, I can't really understand why you chose Guatemala for your comparison, but OK.
http://www.laht.com/article.asp?ArticleId=360166&CategoryId=23558
Not exactly big school shooting events, but Guatemala is a country still dealing with a lot of unrest and horrific levels of violence, as are many of the countries in Latin America.
I chose Guatomala because exactly because of its heinous violence, it still has less school shootings. Targeting schools is a cultural thing.
Quote from: Faust on December 17, 2012, 11:09:39 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 17, 2012, 06:24:21 PM
Quote from: Faust on December 17, 2012, 05:07:43 PM
I don't buy cultural heratige as a reason to have the right to a firearm, the russians aren't about to march in, the fact is that the majority of people who get killed by guns in the US are through accidents or violence in the home.
Sure, but I'd like to bring up one further issue on the cultural level. Fact is, our constitution has a set of (supposedly) inalienable rights. These rights are already constantly being trampled...The last thing I want to do is restructure those rights, given that both sides of the political spectrum have a laundry list of rights they'd like to curtail.
The simplest way you'd deal with that would be an amendment to repeal the 2nd amendment. That isn't going to happen in today's political climate. It would have precisely zero chance of passing, no matter who is in office.
So to curtail that one right, you'd need either a constitutional convention, and then it's Katy bar the door on ALL rights (the religious right, for example, has been pushing for a convention since 1981), or to outright abrogate the constitution, which would have even worse results.
From what I have seen it is the only inalienable right that has not been circumvented or made a mockery of, the fact that it is the most repugnant and obsolete stands as testament of its failure.
But I agree and I believe if it it was to be rewritten there is no hope that it could be replaced with something better.
Well, we still have amendment III. Because there's no fat contracts in quartering troops in peoples' homes.
However, the fact that the 2nd amendment was put in place to protect the rest of the bill of rights has in fact become a sad joke.
Amendment's there, but everyone's too busy to defend the rest. :lulz:
Faust, I don't know how many military service members you know, but I know quite a few that would be more than willing to be good little storm troopers and go along with any kind of imposition of martial law. I know people that see nothing wrong with spraying military grade CS into the eyes of restrained citizens. This is in addition to the kinds of abuses that people are willing to go along with AND inflict on other citizens in the name of "public safety", or the fact that Roger and others have first hand witnessed or dealt with the corrupt horror that is civilian law enforcement.
It may just be that I am product of my culture, except growing up I was forbidden from playing with anything resembling a gun or from watching violent media or anything that glorified war, or gun use. It may be a product of 5 years in the US Army, except I discharge a firearm only once ever 6 months or so, and picked a support job in the Army. It might even be because I study and practice ancient ways of killing people for fun, but then again the most deadly weapon I own is a tomahawk, which is just a glorified camp axe. I don't even own a firearm.
I might just be defending my and fellow citizen's right to bear arms because it is a clause attached to an ancient piece of paper that has been systemically trampled on.
Maybe if it wasn't there, I wouldn't care, but then again, I know there are enough people in law enforcement and the military that would have problem imposing martial law on the common citizen "for their own good".
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 17, 2012, 11:35:49 PM
However, the fact that the 2nd amendment was put in place to protect the rest of the bill of rights has in fact become a sad joke.
Amendment's there, but everyone's too busy to defend the rest. :lulz:
It does seem like a lot of this is just smoke and mirrors to distract from all the other right's being violated.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 17, 2012, 11:34:38 PM
Quote from: Faust on December 17, 2012, 11:09:39 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 17, 2012, 06:24:21 PM
Quote from: Faust on December 17, 2012, 05:07:43 PM
I don't buy cultural heratige as a reason to have the right to a firearm, the russians aren't about to march in, the fact is that the majority of people who get killed by guns in the US are through accidents or violence in the home.
Sure, but I'd like to bring up one further issue on the cultural level. Fact is, our constitution has a set of (supposedly) inalienable rights. These rights are already constantly being trampled...The last thing I want to do is restructure those rights, given that both sides of the political spectrum have a laundry list of rights they'd like to curtail.
The simplest way you'd deal with that would be an amendment to repeal the 2nd amendment. That isn't going to happen in today's political climate. It would have precisely zero chance of passing, no matter who is in office.
So to curtail that one right, you'd need either a constitutional convention, and then it's Katy bar the door on ALL rights (the religious right, for example, has been pushing for a convention since 1981), or to outright abrogate the constitution, which would have even worse results.
From what I have seen it is the only inalienable right that has not been circumvented or made a mockery of, the fact that it is the most repugnant and obsolete stands as testament of its failure.
But I agree and I believe if it it was to be rewritten there is no hope that it could be replaced with something better.
Well, we still have amendment III. Because there's no fat contracts in quartering troops in peoples' homes.
I'm sure it will come, Anti terrorism Hotdesks for working on site at terror amber zones will be needed.
Quote from: H0list on December 17, 2012, 11:37:46 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 17, 2012, 11:35:49 PM
However, the fact that the 2nd amendment was put in place to protect the rest of the bill of rights has in fact become a sad joke.
Amendment's there, but everyone's too busy to defend the rest. :lulz:
It does seem like a lot of this is just smoke and mirrors to distract from all the other right's being violated.
Yep. We won't take your guns, but don't ask what's happening to your ass. :lulz:
Quote from: Faust on December 17, 2012, 11:12:03 PM
Quote from: hølist on December 17, 2012, 06:14:32 PM
Quote from: Faust on December 17, 2012, 05:35:55 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on December 17, 2012, 05:32:14 PM
A lot of european countries have less shootings than the US. Hell, probably ALL of them have a lot less, and they actually seem shocked when it does happen.
But they're first world countries, aren't they? People have all kinds of nifty perks and benefits that will never happen here because US tards are brainwashed that SOME SMUDGEY PERSON MIGHT PLAY THE SYSTEM. Maybe the powers that be in europe don't give a fuck if the people live or die, but at least they PRETEND to.
People get along a lot better when there's enough to go around. They tend to snap a lot less, too. When all the austerity kicks in, we'll see how it goes over there. Guns or no guns.
It's not a European thing, or even an economic thing though I did joke about that earlier.
I don't buy that either. How many Guatomallan school shootings are there?
Its true it does shock me that this happens every other week and people still seem to cling to the belief that its justifiable and unaviodable.
Wow, I can't really understand why you chose Guatemala for your comparison, but OK.
http://www.laht.com/article.asp?ArticleId=360166&CategoryId=23558
Not exactly big school shooting events, but Guatemala is a country still dealing with a lot of unrest and horrific levels of violence, as are many of the countries in Latin America.
I chose Guatomala because exactly because of its heinous violence, it still has less school shootings. Targeting schools is a cultural thing.
This is true... other countries seem to prefer bombing schools to shooting them.
Quote from: hølist on December 17, 2012, 11:39:21 PM
Quote from: Faust on December 17, 2012, 11:12:03 PM
Quote from: hølist on December 17, 2012, 06:14:32 PM
Quote from: Faust on December 17, 2012, 05:35:55 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on December 17, 2012, 05:32:14 PM
A lot of european countries have less shootings than the US. Hell, probably ALL of them have a lot less, and they actually seem shocked when it does happen.
But they're first world countries, aren't they? People have all kinds of nifty perks and benefits that will never happen here because US tards are brainwashed that SOME SMUDGEY PERSON MIGHT PLAY THE SYSTEM. Maybe the powers that be in europe don't give a fuck if the people live or die, but at least they PRETEND to.
People get along a lot better when there's enough to go around. They tend to snap a lot less, too. When all the austerity kicks in, we'll see how it goes over there. Guns or no guns.
It's not a European thing, or even an economic thing though I did joke about that earlier.
I don't buy that either. How many Guatomallan school shootings are there?
Its true it does shock me that this happens every other week and people still seem to cling to the belief that its justifiable and unaviodable.
Wow, I can't really understand why you chose Guatemala for your comparison, but OK.
http://www.laht.com/article.asp?ArticleId=360166&CategoryId=23558
Not exactly big school shooting events, but Guatemala is a country still dealing with a lot of unrest and horrific levels of violence, as are many of the countries in Latin America.
I chose Guatomala because exactly because of its heinous violence, it still has less school shootings. Targeting schools is a cultural thing.
This is true... other countries seem to prefer bombing schools to shooting them.
Like...Afghanistan?
Quote from: H0list on December 17, 2012, 11:37:05 PM
Faust, I don't know how many military service members you know, but I know quite a few that would be more than willing to be good little storm troopers and go along with any kind of imposition of martial law. I know people that see nothing wrong with spraying military grade CS into the eyes of restrained citizens. This is in addition to the kinds of abuses that people are willing to go along with AND inflict on other citizens in the name of "public safety", or the fact that Roger and others have first hand witnessed or dealt with the corrupt horror that is civilian law enforcement.
It may just be that I am product of my culture, except growing up I was forbidden from playing with anything resembling a gun or from watching violent media or anything that glorified war, or gun use. It may be a product of 5 years in the US Army, except I discharge a firearm only once ever 6 months or so, and picked a support job in the Army. It might even be because I study and practice ancient ways of killing people for fun, but then again the most deadly weapon I own is a tomahawk, which is just a glorified camp axe. I don't even own a firearm.
I might just be defending my and fellow citizen's right to bear arms because it is a clause attached to an ancient piece of paper that has been systemically trampled on.
Maybe if it wasn't there, I wouldn't care, but then again, I know there are enough people in law enforcement and the military that would have problem imposing martial law on the common citizen "for their own good".
Yeah, like Gabrielle Giffords, and other Redcoat oppressors. They don't need force to impose martial law, they already have your willing complacency.
Buy a gun = defend your rights, as opposed to you know, actually performing an action that defends your rights.
Those children wont be pepper spraying or tazing anyone any time soon.
Quote from: Faust on December 17, 2012, 11:46:00 PM
Those children wont be pepper spraying or tazing anyone any time soon.
Yeah, well, if you look at Arlington Cemetery from the air, the tombstones spell out "THERE'S MORE WHERE THEY CAME FROM".
Other kids will grow up to impose fucked up laws on us, just you wait and see.
Quote from: H0list on December 17, 2012, 11:40:07 PM
Quote from: hølist on December 17, 2012, 11:39:21 PM
Quote from: Faust on December 17, 2012, 11:12:03 PM
Quote from: hølist on December 17, 2012, 06:14:32 PM
Quote from: Faust on December 17, 2012, 05:35:55 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on December 17, 2012, 05:32:14 PM
A lot of european countries have less shootings than the US. Hell, probably ALL of them have a lot less, and they actually seem shocked when it does happen.
But they're first world countries, aren't they? People have all kinds of nifty perks and benefits that will never happen here because US tards are brainwashed that SOME SMUDGEY PERSON MIGHT PLAY THE SYSTEM. Maybe the powers that be in europe don't give a fuck if the people live or die, but at least they PRETEND to.
People get along a lot better when there's enough to go around. They tend to snap a lot less, too. When all the austerity kicks in, we'll see how it goes over there. Guns or no guns.
It's not a European thing, or even an economic thing though I did joke about that earlier.
I don't buy that either. How many Guatomallan school shootings are there?
Its true it does shock me that this happens every other week and people still seem to cling to the belief that its justifiable and unaviodable.
Wow, I can't really understand why you chose Guatemala for your comparison, but OK.
http://www.laht.com/article.asp?ArticleId=360166&CategoryId=23558
Not exactly big school shooting events, but Guatemala is a country still dealing with a lot of unrest and horrific levels of violence, as are many of the countries in Latin America.
I chose Guatomala because exactly because of its heinous violence, it still has less school shootings. Targeting schools is a cultural thing.
This is true... other countries seem to prefer bombing schools to shooting them.
Like...Afghanistan?
The 51st state never did get the cultural mannerisms down.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 17, 2012, 11:47:48 PM
Quote from: Faust on December 17, 2012, 11:46:00 PM
Those children wont be pepper spraying or tazing anyone any time soon.
Yeah, well, if you look at Arlington Cemetery from the air, the tombstones spell out "THERE'S MORE WHERE THEY CAME FROM".
Other kids will grow up to impose fucked up laws on us, just you wait and see.
Yeah what terrifying notion, one of the children who survived could have been warped beyond sense and reason, they could through their skewed and biased views hate Freedom and lobby against owning a gun *GASP*
Quote from: Faust on December 17, 2012, 11:52:46 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 17, 2012, 11:47:48 PM
Quote from: Faust on December 17, 2012, 11:46:00 PM
Those children wont be pepper spraying or tazing anyone any time soon.
Yeah, well, if you look at Arlington Cemetery from the air, the tombstones spell out "THERE'S MORE WHERE THEY CAME FROM".
Other kids will grow up to impose fucked up laws on us, just you wait and see.
Yeah what terrifying notion, one of the children who survived could have been warped beyond sense and reason, they could through their skewed and biased views, they could hate Freedom and lobby against owning a gun *GASP*
I was thinking more about them holding down their fellow citizens and waterboarding them, actually.
General Karpinski was a child once, too, remember. And we've essentially thrown away our principles. Imagine what our grandchildren will be like.
Looks like anyone who owns a gun is a bad person for owning a gun because if they support gun ownership and are against removal of that right, they cannot be fighting against the other rights being trampled in the US. Also everyone in the US is terrible because our government does horrible things to people, like build schools that get bombed by terrorists, that totally wouldn't be doing that if America hadn't stuck its dick in the Mid East.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 17, 2012, 11:55:17 PM
Quote from: Faust on December 17, 2012, 11:52:46 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 17, 2012, 11:47:48 PM
Quote from: Faust on December 17, 2012, 11:46:00 PM
Those children wont be pepper spraying or tazing anyone any time soon.
Yeah, well, if you look at Arlington Cemetery from the air, the tombstones spell out "THERE'S MORE WHERE THEY CAME FROM".
Other kids will grow up to impose fucked up laws on us, just you wait and see.
Yeah what terrifying notion, one of the children who survived could have been warped beyond sense and reason, they could through their skewed and biased views, they could hate Freedom and lobby against owning a gun *GASP*
I was thinking more about them holding down their fellow citizens and waterboarding them, actually.
General Karpinski was a child once, too, remember. And we've essentially thrown away our principles. Imagine what our grandchildren will be like.
Ah I see, so this guy was doing a service, well that's good. I was worried that it was a senseless act of violence..
Quote from: H0list on December 17, 2012, 11:56:09 PM
Looks like anyone who owns a gun is a bad person for owning a gun because if they support gun ownership and are against removal of that right, they cannot be fighting against the other rights being trampled in the US. Also everyone in the US is terrible because our government does horrible things to people, like build schools that get bombed by terrorists, that totally wouldn't be doing that if America hadn't stuck its dick in the Mid East.
What I think, is that you and Faust are yelling past each other.
I mean, America is a Terrible Place. It really is. It's not like we went to Afghanistan to build schools. Or Iraq, for that matter.
On the other hand, I am puzzled by Faust attempting to turn you and I into caricatures of NRA members.
Quote from: H0list on December 17, 2012, 11:56:09 PM
Looks like anyone who owns a gun is a bad person for owning a gun because if they support gun ownership and are against removal of that right, they cannot be fighting against the other rights being trampled in the US. Also everyone in the US is terrible because our government does horrible things to people, like build schools that get bombed by terrorists, that totally wouldn't be doing that if America hadn't stuck its dick in the Mid East.
That must sum it up Chumley.
Quote from: Faust on December 17, 2012, 11:58:43 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 17, 2012, 11:55:17 PM
Quote from: Faust on December 17, 2012, 11:52:46 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 17, 2012, 11:47:48 PM
Quote from: Faust on December 17, 2012, 11:46:00 PM
Those children wont be pepper spraying or tazing anyone any time soon.
Yeah, well, if you look at Arlington Cemetery from the air, the tombstones spell out "THERE'S MORE WHERE THEY CAME FROM".
Other kids will grow up to impose fucked up laws on us, just you wait and see.
Yeah what terrifying notion, one of the children who survived could have been warped beyond sense and reason, they could through their skewed and biased views, they could hate Freedom and lobby against owning a gun *GASP*
I was thinking more about them holding down their fellow citizens and waterboarding them, actually.
General Karpinski was a child once, too, remember. And we've essentially thrown away our principles. Imagine what our grandchildren will be like.
Ah I see, so this guy was doing a service, well that's good. I was worried that it was a senseless act of violence..
You know what, I'm just going to walk out of this thread and let you post for me, since that's what you're determined to do.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 17, 2012, 11:59:06 PM
On the other hand, I am puzzled by Faust attempting to turn you and I into caricatures of NRA members.
I haven't. I have no idea if you own a gun at all. I just haven't seen anything to shift my view that there is simply no reason to own a gun.
Quote from: Faust on December 18, 2012, 12:01:12 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 17, 2012, 11:59:06 PM
On the other hand, I am puzzled by Faust attempting to turn you and I into caricatures of NRA members.
I haven't. I have no idea if you own a gun at all. I just haven't seen anything to shift my view that there is simply no reason to own a gun.
We awful fucking Americans will take it into consideration.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 17, 2012, 11:59:47 PM
Quote from: Faust on December 17, 2012, 11:58:43 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 17, 2012, 11:55:17 PM
Quote from: Faust on December 17, 2012, 11:52:46 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 17, 2012, 11:47:48 PM
Quote from: Faust on December 17, 2012, 11:46:00 PM
Those children wont be pepper spraying or tazing anyone any time soon.
Yeah, well, if you look at Arlington Cemetery from the air, the tombstones spell out "THERE'S MORE WHERE THEY CAME FROM".
Other kids will grow up to impose fucked up laws on us, just you wait and see.
Yeah what terrifying notion, one of the children who survived could have been warped beyond sense and reason, they could through their skewed and biased views, they could hate Freedom and lobby against owning a gun *GASP*
I was thinking more about them holding down their fellow citizens and waterboarding them, actually.
General Karpinski was a child once, too, remember. And we've essentially thrown away our principles. Imagine what our grandchildren will be like.
Ah I see, so this guy was doing a service, well that's good. I was worried that it was a senseless act of violence..
You know what, I'm just going to walk out of this thread and let you post for me, since that's what you're determined to do.
That was a glib joke, I'm sorry I wasn't being snarky.
I AM THE MAN THAT STICK MY FINGER UP YOUR BUM TO FIND THE BOMBS.
I AM THE MAN THAT KEEPS YOU SAFE FROM THE TERRORIST THAT WANT TO BLOW UP THE PLANES.
I AM THE MAN THAT KILLS THE BROWN MAN FOR OIL.
I AM THE MAN THAT KILLS THE QUEER FOR HAVING THE WRONG VALUES.
I AM THE MAN PICKETING THE FUNERALS OF THE GODLESS SINNERS BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE WRONG VALUES.
I AM THE MAN THAT ORDERS THE ROBOTS TO KILL THE SCHOOL CHILDREN.
I AM THE MAN THAT PUTS THE POISON IN YOUR FOOD.
I AM THE MAN THAT STEALS YOUR MONEY TO MAKE MORE MONEY AND WON'T SHARE IT.
I AM THE MAN THAT CHOSE TO BE WHITE AND EDUCATED AND YOU ALL CHOSE POORLY.
I AM THE MAN WITH THE WAND AT THE GATE TO THE FAIR.
I AM THE MAN WITH THE TAZER AND CS SPRAY AND ZIP CUFFS THAT HOLD DOWN THE DANGEROUS GRANNIES OF THIS TERRIBLE CITY.
I AM THE MAN THAT STEALS THE LANDS FROM THE PEOPLE WHO WERE HERE FIRST AND IMPOSE THE LAWS THAT WILL ONE DAY STEAL THE REST OF THEIR LAND FROM THEM.
I AM THE MAN THAT SAYS YOU ARE LEGALLY BLACK.
I AM THE MAN THAT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE TERRIBLE THINGS IN THIS COUNTRY BECAUSE YOU ASKED ME TO DO IT.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 12:02:26 AM
Quote from: Faust on December 18, 2012, 12:01:12 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 17, 2012, 11:59:06 PM
On the other hand, I am puzzled by Faust attempting to turn you and I into caricatures of NRA members.
I haven't. I have no idea if you own a gun at all. I just haven't seen anything to shift my view that there is simply no reason to own a gun.
We awful fucking Americans will take it into consideration.
It's nothing to do with being American, the nation is more then just the laws that facilitate gun ownership or gun crime and its a fucking tragedy that that is what we hear about the most in the rest of the world.
I AM THE PERSON THAT DEMANDS THAT YOU SHOOT THE DEMONSTRATORS.
I AM THE PERSON THAT SHITS MY PANCE IN FEAR EVERYTIME I SEE A SMUDGY PERSON AT THE AIRPORT.
I AM THE CITIZEN THAT BELLYACHES ABOUT MY "FREEDOMS" BUT CERTAINLY CAN'T BE ARSED TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT.
I AM THE DOUCHEBAG THAT BUYS MORE GUNS WHILE HIS KIDS EAT RAMEN.
I AM THE ARSEBAG ON YOUR TELEVISION THAT SCARES YOU SHITLESS WITH SCHOOL SHOOTING STORIES.
I AM THE GOOD CITIZEN™ THAT SCREAMS FOR MORE BOMBS ON BROWN PEOPLE.
NOW SHUT THE FUCK UP AND GET ME SOME MORE GODDAMN MCDONALDS. IN A FEED BAG.
Quote from: Faust on December 18, 2012, 12:07:29 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 12:02:26 AM
Quote from: Faust on December 18, 2012, 12:01:12 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 17, 2012, 11:59:06 PM
On the other hand, I am puzzled by Faust attempting to turn you and I into caricatures of NRA members.
I haven't. I have no idea if you own a gun at all. I just haven't seen anything to shift my view that there is simply no reason to own a gun.
We awful fucking Americans will take it into consideration.
It's nothing to do with being American, the nation is more then just the laws that facilitate gun ownership or gun crime and its a fucking tragedy that that is what we hear about the most in the rest of the world.
Be glad you don't hear the rest. We've become a sordid little pile of shit since last you saw us, back in 1945. You wouldn't BELIEVE what we put up with. But at least we have our guns.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 12:02:26 AM
Quote from: Faust on December 18, 2012, 12:01:12 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 17, 2012, 11:59:06 PM
On the other hand, I am puzzled by Faust attempting to turn you and I into caricatures of NRA members.
I haven't. I have no idea if you own a gun at all. I just haven't seen anything to shift my view that there is simply no reason to own a gun.
We awful fucking Americans will take it into consideration.
I think I am going to have to step out of this thread because I don't need some fucking asshole doing his fucking best to equate me with the kind of fucked up people fucking up this country.
As if I don't feel enough fucking guilt for first joining the military, and still remaining so I can have some fucking health care that won't cost an arm and leg and finish my fucking education, because despite me being a white male and having the fucking deck stacked in my favor it still wasn't too fucking favorable for me.
So good fucking job Faust.
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 12:09:44 AM
As if I don't feel enough fucking guilt for first joining the military, and still remaining so I can have some fucking health care that won't cost an arm and leg and finish my fucking education, because despite me being a white male and having the fucking deck stacked in my favor it still wasn't too fucking favorable for me.
I think you're BOTH seeing what you want to see.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 12:11:06 AM
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 12:09:44 AM
As if I don't feel enough fucking guilt for first joining the military, and still remaining so I can have some fucking health care that won't cost an arm and leg and finish my fucking education, because despite me being a white male and having the fucking deck stacked in my favor it still wasn't too fucking favorable for me.
I think you're BOTH seeing what you want to see.
Well so far I got
Guns are terrible.
Get rid of guns and people will stop killing each other as much.
If you support gun ownership rights you are supporting all the other rights being trampled, because some how you can only support one thing at a time.
Also a lot of America is bad.
Oh and fucking quip about Afghanistan being the 51st state.
To me, it appears that Faust is equating anyone who supports gun rights to be a horrible person that wants the TSA sticking their fingers in your holes or hitting you with xrays. Or what ever other horrible things the government has been doing to erode our other rights.
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 12:09:44 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 12:02:26 AM
Quote from: Faust on December 18, 2012, 12:01:12 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 17, 2012, 11:59:06 PM
On the other hand, I am puzzled by Faust attempting to turn you and I into caricatures of NRA members.
I haven't. I have no idea if you own a gun at all. I just haven't seen anything to shift my view that there is simply no reason to own a gun.
We awful fucking Americans will take it into consideration.
I think I am going to have to step out of this thread because I don't need some fucking asshole doing his fucking best to equate me with the kind of fucked up people fucking up this country.
As if I don't feel enough fucking guilt for first joining the military, and still remaining so I can have some fucking health care that won't cost an arm and leg and finish my fucking education, because despite me being a white male and having the fucking deck stacked in my favor it still wasn't too fucking favorable for me.
So good fucking job Faust.
I'm not jibing at you, when I talked about Gabriel I was highlighting the fact that that guns don't exactly seem to be used for activism. I wasn't saying you personally with "your willing complacency" and I'm sorry, this isn't a personal attack or judgement.
It's simply something I feel passionately about, I cannot see any upside to gun ownership.
Nor should you justify/feel guilt/or anything your military career I wasn't commenting on it, It doesn't matter to me I don't know enough about it to understand it.
Sorry I can't hear you over Idol and the sounds of me eating my double extra whopper fries that came with the free gun.
Later on I am going to find some Muslim transexual queers and tie up to the back of my lifted pickup truck and drag them around the desert while I drink budweiser and shoot my assault rifle in the air listening to country music.
There certainly isn't any upside, or need really, for people to own hand held rapid fire death machines. Simly put, it this asshole didn't have an assault rifle, he would have killed less people. There is absolutely no need for someone to own that kind of weaponry.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 12:24:28 AM
There certainly isn't any upside, or need really, for people to own hand held rapid fire death machines. Simly put, it this asshole didn't have an assault rifle, he would have killed less people. There is absolutely no need for someone to own that kind of weaponry.
ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING?
AN ASSAULT RIFLE
ESPECIALLY THE KIND THAT WAS USED IS JUST A FUCKING SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLE WITH A PISTOL GRIP!!!
HUNTERS USE SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLES TO HUNT!!!!
THE ONLY REASON IT IS AN "ASSAULT" RIFLE IS THE PRESENCE OF A FUCKING PISTOL GRIP!!!!!
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 12:24:28 AM
There certainly isn't any upside, or need really, for people to own hand held rapid fire death machines. Simly put, it this asshole didn't have an assault rifle, he would have killed less people. There is absolutely no need for someone to own that kind of weaponry.
Yes, there is. I have a fine time blowing gigantic holes in shit up in the mountains.
OH MY FUCKING GOD!!!!
ASSAULT RIFLES ARE SCARY!!!!!!!!
There, as I fucking said early on this this fucking thread, no fucking practical, or functional difference between a hunting rifle or an assault rifle.
NO FUCKING DIFFERENCE!!!!
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 12:24:15 AM
Sorry I can't hear you over Idol and the sounds of me eating my double extra whopper fries that came with the free gun.
Later on I am going to find some Muslim transexual queers and tie up to the back of my lifted pickup truck and drag them around the desert while I drink budweiser and shoot my assault rifle in the air listening to country music.
Budge over, Bubba. I need to reach the Miller High Life.
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 12:19:16 AM
Guns are terrible.
Get rid of guns and people will stop killing each other as much.
If you support gun ownership rights you are supporting all the other rights being trampled, because some how you can only support one thing at a time.
Also a lot of America is bad.
Oh and fucking quip about Afghanistan being the 51st state.
To me, it appears that Faust is equating anyone who supports gun rights to be a horrible person that wants the TSA sticking their fingers in your holes or hitting you with xrays. Or what ever other horrible things the government has been doing to erode our other rights.
1) Guns are vulgar, people are terrible.
2)
Get rid of guns and people will stop killing each other as much. Reduce peoples access to weapons that make killing easier, reduce killing.
If you support gun ownership rights you are supporting all the other rights being trampled, because some how you can only support one thing at a time. No, but I see no reason to support gun ownership.
Also a lot of America is bad. Did I say that? I mean its true depending on what the lot you apply it to is, but I don't think I said that, I am keeping my scope to guns.
Oh and fucking quip about Afghanistan being the 51st state. It was used as an example of another place schools and children were targeted in acts of violence..
QuoteTo me, it appears that Faust is equating anyone who supports gun rights to be a horrible person that wants the TSA sticking their fingers in your holes or hitting you with xrays. Or what ever other horrible things the government has been doing to erode our other rights.
No that will happen either way, if you have guns or not, if you support gun ownership or not.
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 12:27:46 AM
OH MY FUCKING GOD!!!!
ASSAULT RIFLES ARE SCARY!!!!!!!!
There, as I fucking said early on this this fucking thread, no fucking practical, or functional difference between a hunting rifle or an assault rifle.
NO FUCKING DIFFERENCE!!!!
Now, now. RWHN is an expert on the subject. AR15s are fully automatic. Bet you didn't know that.
I only know about guns from watching movies and the news. And no one needs an assault rifle, because those are only for assaulting people. They shoot magical bullets that only hurt people, and can magically fire much faster than a hunting rifle, but I don't think people should have hunting rifles either, because hunting is wrong, and so is eating meat.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 12:29:01 AM
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 12:27:46 AM
OH MY FUCKING GOD!!!!
ASSAULT RIFLES ARE SCARY!!!!!!!!
There, as I fucking said early on this this fucking thread, no fucking practical, or functional difference between a hunting rifle or an assault rifle.
NO FUCKING DIFFERENCE!!!!
Now, now. RWHN is an expert on the subject. AR15s are fully automatic. Bet you didn't know that.
Especially Bushmasters, because as you all know, bushmasters are deadly snakes, and anything named after a deadly snake is super deadly.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 12:28:13 AM
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 12:24:15 AM
Sorry I can't hear you over Idol and the sounds of me eating my double extra whopper fries that came with the free gun.
Later on I am going to find some Muslim transexual queers and tie up to the back of my lifted pickup truck and drag them around the desert while I drink budweiser and shoot my assault rifle in the air listening to country music.
Budge over, Bubba. I need to reach the Miller High Life.
Oh no, thems shooting words Jimbo.
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 12:31:02 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 12:29:01 AM
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 12:27:46 AM
OH MY FUCKING GOD!!!!
ASSAULT RIFLES ARE SCARY!!!!!!!!
There, as I fucking said early on this this fucking thread, no fucking practical, or functional difference between a hunting rifle or an assault rifle.
NO FUCKING DIFFERENCE!!!!
Now, now. RWHN is an expert on the subject. AR15s are fully automatic. Bet you didn't know that.
Especially Bushmasters, because as you all know, bushmasters are deadly snakes, and anything named after a deadly snake is super deadly.
6000 rounds a minute. You can hit every
square inch in a football field innocent bystander in the city in 90 seconds.
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 12:31:58 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 12:28:13 AM
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 12:24:15 AM
Sorry I can't hear you over Idol and the sounds of me eating my double extra whopper fries that came with the free gun.
Later on I am going to find some Muslim transexual queers and tie up to the back of my lifted pickup truck and drag them around the desert while I drink budweiser and shoot my assault rifle in the air listening to country music.
Budge over, Bubba. I need to reach the Miller High Life.
Oh no, thems shooting words Jimbo.
Everything is shootin' words, pissant!
\
:mullet:
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 12:26:09 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 12:24:28 AM
There certainly isn't any upside, or need really, for people to own hand held rapid fire death machines. Simly put, it this asshole didn't have an assault rifle, he would have killed less people. There is absolutely no need for someone to own that kind of weaponry.
ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING?
AN ASSAULT RIFLE
ESPECIALLY THE KIND THAT WAS USED IS JUST A FUCKING SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLE WITH A PISTOL GRIP!!!
HUNTERS USE SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLES TO HUNT!!!!
THE ONLY REASON IT IS AN "ASSAULT" RIFLE IS THE PRESENCE OF A FUCKING PISTOL GRIP!!!!!
People don't need semi-automatic weapons.
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 12:27:46 AM
OH MY FUCKING GOD!!!!
ASSAULT RIFLES ARE SCARY!!!!!!!!
There, as I fucking said early on this this fucking thread, no fucking practical, or functional difference between a hunting rifle or an assault rifle.
NO FUCKING DIFFERENCE!!!!
Again I must say I am using the blanket catagory of all hand held devices that you point at a person and pull the trigger to set them to dead mode.
I think this guy could have killed the class with a slower gun, it doesn't reduce the chance much. I think if he was using a knife there would have been far less chance of him killing as many as he did and that and without the easy suicide option many of these nuts would reconsider doing it at all.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 12:33:35 AM
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 12:26:09 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 12:24:28 AM
There certainly isn't any upside, or need really, for people to own hand held rapid fire death machines. Simly put, it this asshole didn't have an assault rifle, he would have killed less people. There is absolutely no need for someone to own that kind of weaponry.
ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING?
AN ASSAULT RIFLE
ESPECIALLY THE KIND THAT WAS USED IS JUST A FUCKING SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLE WITH A PISTOL GRIP!!!
HUNTERS USE SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLES TO HUNT!!!!
THE ONLY REASON IT IS AN "ASSAULT" RIFLE IS THE PRESENCE OF A FUCKING PISTOL GRIP!!!!!
People don't need semi-automatic weapons.
You don't need an automobile. They kill way more people. Get your ass on the bus.
Quote from: Faust on December 18, 2012, 12:28:33 AM
1) Guns are vulgarscary, people are terrible I don't like them.
2) Get rid of guns and people will stop killing each other as much. Reduce peoples access to weapons that make killing easier, reduce killing. Without guns people would politely slap each other when they became cross with one another.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 12:33:20 AM
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 12:31:58 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 12:28:13 AM
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 12:24:15 AM
Sorry I can't hear you over Idol and the sounds of me eating my double extra whopper fries that came with the free gun.
Later on I am going to find some Muslim transexual queers and tie up to the back of my lifted pickup truck and drag them around the desert while I drink budweiser and shoot my assault rifle in the air listening to country music.
Budge over, Bubba. I need to reach the Miller High Life.
Oh no, thems shooting words Jimbo.
Everything is shootin' words, pissant!
\
:mullet:
Thems shootin words too. specailly that there big word "piss ant"
\
:redneck2:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 12:34:18 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 12:33:35 AM
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 12:26:09 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 12:24:28 AM
There certainly isn't any upside, or need really, for people to own hand held rapid fire death machines. Simly put, it this asshole didn't have an assault rifle, he would have killed less people. There is absolutely no need for someone to own that kind of weaponry.
ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING?
AN ASSAULT RIFLE
ESPECIALLY THE KIND THAT WAS USED IS JUST A FUCKING SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLE WITH A PISTOL GRIP!!!
HUNTERS USE SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLES TO HUNT!!!!
THE ONLY REASON IT IS AN "ASSAULT" RIFLE IS THE PRESENCE OF A FUCKING PISTOL GRIP!!!!!
People don't need semi-automatic weapons.
You don't need an automobile. They kill way more people. Get your ass on the bus.
There is no valid comparison between the utility of an automobile and the utility of a gun, for the average American. Yes, automobiles kill but that is not their purpose. The purpose of a gun is to kill.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 12:34:18 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 12:33:35 AM
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 12:26:09 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 12:24:28 AM
There certainly isn't any upside, or need really, for people to own hand held rapid fire death machines. Simly put, it this asshole didn't have an assault rifle, he would have killed less people. There is absolutely no need for someone to own that kind of weaponry.
ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING?
AN ASSAULT RIFLE
ESPECIALLY THE KIND THAT WAS USED IS JUST A FUCKING SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLE WITH A PISTOL GRIP!!!
HUNTERS USE SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLES TO HUNT!!!!
THE ONLY REASON IT IS AN "ASSAULT" RIFLE IS THE PRESENCE OF A FUCKING PISTOL GRIP!!!!!
People don't need semi-automatic weapons.
You don't need an automobile. They kill way more people. Get your ass on the bus.
But what if the TSA is there and they want to touch me looking for bombs?
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 12:35:15 AM
Quote from: Faust on December 18, 2012, 12:28:33 AM
1) Guns are vulgarscary, people are terrible I don't like them.
2) Get rid of guns and people will stop killing each other as much. Reduce peoples access to weapons that make killing easier, reduce killing. Without guns people would politely slap each other when they became cross with one another.
Yes, I don't like guns, I'm sorry if I gave an impression to the contrary (all the guns for Faust, none for anyone else all for me).
Without guns people would stab, punch or club, or bomb each other. Some of those result in less deaths because of the speed and ease, others more but require more preperation..
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 12:37:45 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 12:34:18 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 12:33:35 AM
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 12:26:09 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 12:24:28 AM
There certainly isn't any upside, or need really, for people to own hand held rapid fire death machines. Simly put, it this asshole didn't have an assault rifle, he would have killed less people. There is absolutely no need for someone to own that kind of weaponry.
ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING?
AN ASSAULT RIFLE
ESPECIALLY THE KIND THAT WAS USED IS JUST A FUCKING SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLE WITH A PISTOL GRIP!!!
HUNTERS USE SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLES TO HUNT!!!!
THE ONLY REASON IT IS AN "ASSAULT" RIFLE IS THE PRESENCE OF A FUCKING PISTOL GRIP!!!!!
People don't need semi-automatic weapons.
You don't need an automobile. They kill way more people. Get your ass on the bus.
There is no valid comparison between the utility of an automobile and the utility of a gun, for the average American. Yes, automobiles kill but that is not their purpose. The purpose of a gun is to kill.
I guess in magical land, the intent behind the device is divorce from the realities surrounding how that device functions in this world. A world that I should mention, in which automobiles kill people. A lot of people. More frequently.
But it is totally ok that people die because of cars, because cars aren't supposed to kill people.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 12:37:45 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 12:34:18 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 12:33:35 AM
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 12:26:09 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 12:24:28 AM
There certainly isn't any upside, or need really, for people to own hand held rapid fire death machines. Simly put, it this asshole didn't have an assault rifle, he would have killed less people. There is absolutely no need for someone to own that kind of weaponry.
ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING?
AN ASSAULT RIFLE
ESPECIALLY THE KIND THAT WAS USED IS JUST A FUCKING SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLE WITH A PISTOL GRIP!!!
HUNTERS USE SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLES TO HUNT!!!!
THE ONLY REASON IT IS AN "ASSAULT" RIFLE IS THE PRESENCE OF A FUCKING PISTOL GRIP!!!!!
People don't need semi-automatic weapons.
You don't need an automobile. They kill way more people. Get your ass on the bus.
There is no valid comparison between the utility of an automobile and the utility of a gun, for the average American. Yes, automobiles kill but that is not their purpose. The purpose of a gun is to kill.
Tell that to your average drunken driver. Or the dumbfuck texting while driving. Or better yet, explain it to the families of the victims.
And the purpose of a gun is to walk up into Reddington Pass and blow the hell out of a bag of tin cans. Or to enjoy the Santa Ritas without worrying about crazy fucking bears or even crazier javalina packs.
But what do I know?
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 12:37:45 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 12:34:18 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 12:33:35 AM
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 12:26:09 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 12:24:28 AM
There certainly isn't any upside, or need really, for people to own hand held rapid fire death machines. Simly put, it this asshole didn't have an assault rifle, he would have killed less people. There is absolutely no need for someone to own that kind of weaponry.
ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING?
AN ASSAULT RIFLE
ESPECIALLY THE KIND THAT WAS USED IS JUST A FUCKING SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLE WITH A PISTOL GRIP!!!
HUNTERS USE SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLES TO HUNT!!!!
THE ONLY REASON IT IS AN "ASSAULT" RIFLE IS THE PRESENCE OF A FUCKING PISTOL GRIP!!!!!
People don't need semi-automatic weapons.
You don't need an automobile. They kill way more people. Get your ass on the bus.
There is no valid comparison between the utility of an automobile and the utility of a gun, for the average American. Yes, automobiles kill but that is not their purpose. The purpose of a gun is to kill.
Now this is an interesting one, because automobile death is outrageously high and isn't going to improve because the only way to improve it is restrict the vehicles or make the drivers more responsible which of course will never happen.
What makes it more acceptable?... Not much. Only that modern civilisation has its transport integrally linked to automobiles, without guns it doesn't really bring anything to a standstill.
All automobile deaths in the USA, 2011: 34,485 (includes involvement by law enforcement)
All Firearm deaths in the USA, 2011: 31,347 (includes involvement by law enforcement)
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm
Quote from: Faust on December 18, 2012, 12:39:23 AM
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 12:35:15 AM
Quote from: Faust on December 18, 2012, 12:28:33 AM
1) Guns are vulgarscary, people are terrible I don't like them.
2) Get rid of guns and people will stop killing each other as much. Reduce peoples access to weapons that make killing easier, reduce killing. Without guns people would politely slap each other when they became cross with one another.
Yes, I don't like guns, I'm sorry if I gave an impression to the contrary (all the guns for Faust, none for anyone else all for me).
Without guns people would stab, punch or club, or bomb each other. Some of those result in less deaths because of the speed and ease, others more but require more preperation..
Oh no. It's rather apparent that you don't like guns, but to me that speaks of "stop liking what i don't like" or "that is scary and not fun for me, so you can't do it either"
Oh and guess in magical no guns land, there is no way to make explosives.
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 12:40:51 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 12:37:45 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 12:34:18 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 12:33:35 AM
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 12:26:09 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 12:24:28 AM
There certainly isn't any upside, or need really, for people to own hand held rapid fire death machines. Simly put, it this asshole didn't have an assault rifle, he would have killed less people. There is absolutely no need for someone to own that kind of weaponry.
ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING?
AN ASSAULT RIFLE
ESPECIALLY THE KIND THAT WAS USED IS JUST A FUCKING SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLE WITH A PISTOL GRIP!!!
HUNTERS USE SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLES TO HUNT!!!!
THE ONLY REASON IT IS AN "ASSAULT" RIFLE IS THE PRESENCE OF A FUCKING PISTOL GRIP!!!!!
People don't need semi-automatic weapons.
You don't need an automobile. They kill way more people. Get your ass on the bus.
There is no valid comparison between the utility of an automobile and the utility of a gun, for the average American. Yes, automobiles kill but that is not their purpose. The purpose of a gun is to kill.
I guess in magical land, the intent behind the device is divorce from the realities surrounding how that device functions in this world. A world that I should mention, in which automobiles kill people. A lot of people. More frequently.
But it is totally ok that people die because of cars, because cars aren't supposed to kill people.
It's not okay, but there would be far more damage to society if you outlawed motor vehicles, commerce, for example, kind of depends on it. Society would be far less damaged, and I hold improved, if citizens had markedly reduced access to guns, especially automatic weapons.
Quote from: Faust on December 18, 2012, 12:43:10 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 12:37:45 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 12:34:18 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 12:33:35 AM
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 12:26:09 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 12:24:28 AM
There certainly isn't any upside, or need really, for people to own hand held rapid fire death machines. Simly put, it this asshole didn't have an assault rifle, he would have killed less people. There is absolutely no need for someone to own that kind of weaponry.
ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING?
AN ASSAULT RIFLE
ESPECIALLY THE KIND THAT WAS USED IS JUST A FUCKING SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLE WITH A PISTOL GRIP!!!
HUNTERS USE SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLES TO HUNT!!!!
THE ONLY REASON IT IS AN "ASSAULT" RIFLE IS THE PRESENCE OF A FUCKING PISTOL GRIP!!!!!
People don't need semi-automatic weapons.
You don't need an automobile. They kill way more people. Get your ass on the bus.
There is no valid comparison between the utility of an automobile and the utility of a gun, for the average American. Yes, automobiles kill but that is not their purpose. The purpose of a gun is to kill.
Now this is an interesting one, because automobile death is outrageously high and isn't going to improve because the only way to improve it is restrict the vehicles or make the drivers more responsible which of course will never happen.
What makes it more acceptable?... Not much. Only that modern civilisation has its transport integrally linked to automobiles, without guns it doesn't really bring anything to a standstill.
Light rail.
Bus.
Urban transit in other forms.
Or better yet, go back to horses. Nobody needs a car.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 12:45:11 AM
It's not okay, but there would be far more damage to society if you outlawed motor vehicles, commerce, for example, kind of depends on it. Society would be far less damaged, and I hold improved, if citizens had markedly reduced access to guns, especially automatic weapons.
Guns aren't heating the planet up. But, hey, anything for convenience, right?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 12:45:30 AM
Quote from: Faust on December 18, 2012, 12:43:10 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 12:37:45 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 12:34:18 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 12:33:35 AM
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 12:26:09 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 12:24:28 AM
There certainly isn't any upside, or need really, for people to own hand held rapid fire death machines. Simly put, it this asshole didn't have an assault rifle, he would have killed less people. There is absolutely no need for someone to own that kind of weaponry.
ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING?
AN ASSAULT RIFLE
ESPECIALLY THE KIND THAT WAS USED IS JUST A FUCKING SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLE WITH A PISTOL GRIP!!!
HUNTERS USE SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLES TO HUNT!!!!
THE ONLY REASON IT IS AN "ASSAULT" RIFLE IS THE PRESENCE OF A FUCKING PISTOL GRIP!!!!!
People don't need semi-automatic weapons.
You don't need an automobile. They kill way more people. Get your ass on the bus.
There is no valid comparison between the utility of an automobile and the utility of a gun, for the average American. Yes, automobiles kill but that is not their purpose. The purpose of a gun is to kill.
Now this is an interesting one, because automobile death is outrageously high and isn't going to improve because the only way to improve it is restrict the vehicles or make the drivers more responsible which of course will never happen.
What makes it more acceptable?... Not much. Only that modern civilisation has its transport integrally linked to automobiles, without guns it doesn't really bring anything to a standstill.
Light rail.
Bus.
Urban transit in other forms.
Or better yet, go back to horses. Nobody needs a car.
That sounds awesome, I'm all for it. Lets do that.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 12:41:33 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 12:37:45 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 12:34:18 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 12:33:35 AM
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 12:26:09 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 12:24:28 AM
There certainly isn't any upside, or need really, for people to own hand held rapid fire death machines. Simly put, it this asshole didn't have an assault rifle, he would have killed less people. There is absolutely no need for someone to own that kind of weaponry.
ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING?
AN ASSAULT RIFLE
ESPECIALLY THE KIND THAT WAS USED IS JUST A FUCKING SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLE WITH A PISTOL GRIP!!!
HUNTERS USE SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLES TO HUNT!!!!
THE ONLY REASON IT IS AN "ASSAULT" RIFLE IS THE PRESENCE OF A FUCKING PISTOL GRIP!!!!!
People don't need semi-automatic weapons.
You don't need an automobile. They kill way more people. Get your ass on the bus.
There is no valid comparison between the utility of an automobile and the utility of a gun, for the average American. Yes, automobiles kill but that is not their purpose. The purpose of a gun is to kill.
Tell that to your average drunken driver. Or the dumbfuck texting while driving. Or better yet, explain it to the families of the victims.
And the purpose of a gun is to walk up into Reddington Pass and blow the hell out of a bag of tin cans. Or to enjoy the Santa Ritas without worrying about crazy fucking bears or even crazier javalina packs.
But what do I know?
That's your purpose, unfortunately there are those who use it to put 11 rounds in a 5 year old. Sorry if it makes me a bad person but I'm perfectly willing to restrict your access to automatic weapons if it means less dead 5 year olds.
Quote from: Faust on December 18, 2012, 12:46:44 AM
That sounds awesome, I'm all for it. Lets do that.
Sure, I'll just write my congressman, we'll have it fixed at the same time we outlaw guns.
Which would be the week after never. Enjoy your superheated planet.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 12:46:19 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 12:45:11 AM
It's not okay, but there would be far more damage to society if you outlawed motor vehicles, commerce, for example, kind of depends on it. Society would be far less damaged, and I hold improved, if citizens had markedly reduced access to guns, especially automatic weapons.
Guns aren't heating the planet up. But, hey, anything for convenience, right?
So we make better cars that don't do that.
Quote from: Faust on December 18, 2012, 12:46:44 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 12:45:30 AM
Quote from: Faust on December 18, 2012, 12:43:10 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 12:37:45 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 12:34:18 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 12:33:35 AM
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 12:26:09 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 12:24:28 AM
There certainly isn't any upside, or need really, for people to own hand held rapid fire death machines. Simly put, it this asshole didn't have an assault rifle, he would have killed less people. There is absolutely no need for someone to own that kind of weaponry.
ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING?
AN ASSAULT RIFLE
ESPECIALLY THE KIND THAT WAS USED IS JUST A FUCKING SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLE WITH A PISTOL GRIP!!!
HUNTERS USE SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLES TO HUNT!!!!
THE ONLY REASON IT IS AN "ASSAULT" RIFLE IS THE PRESENCE OF A FUCKING PISTOL GRIP!!!!!
People don't need semi-automatic weapons.
You don't need an automobile. They kill way more people. Get your ass on the bus.
There is no valid comparison between the utility of an automobile and the utility of a gun, for the average American. Yes, automobiles kill but that is not their purpose. The purpose of a gun is to kill.
Now this is an interesting one, because automobile death is outrageously high and isn't going to improve because the only way to improve it is restrict the vehicles or make the drivers more responsible which of course will never happen.
What makes it more acceptable?... Not much. Only that modern civilisation has its transport integrally linked to automobiles, without guns it doesn't really bring anything to a standstill.
Light rail.
Bus.
Urban transit in other forms.
Or better yet, go back to horses. Nobody needs a car.
That sounds awesome, I'm all for it. Lets do that.
Sounds good to me too.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 12:47:20 AM
That's your purpose, unfortunately there are those who use it to put 11 rounds in a 5 year old. Sorry if it makes me a bad person but I'm perfectly willing to restrict your access to automatic weapons if it means less dead 5 year olds.
Sure. Come take a walk with me in the Santa Ritas or the Catalinas. Or hell, on the South end. We can carry breech-loaders. When a pack of javalinas decide they don't like our faces, we can shoot them really slowly.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 12:48:48 AM
Quote from: Faust on December 18, 2012, 12:46:44 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 12:45:30 AM
Quote from: Faust on December 18, 2012, 12:43:10 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 12:37:45 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 12:34:18 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 12:33:35 AM
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 12:26:09 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 12:24:28 AM
There certainly isn't any upside, or need really, for people to own hand held rapid fire death machines. Simly put, it this asshole didn't have an assault rifle, he would have killed less people. There is absolutely no need for someone to own that kind of weaponry.
ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING?
AN ASSAULT RIFLE
ESPECIALLY THE KIND THAT WAS USED IS JUST A FUCKING SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLE WITH A PISTOL GRIP!!!
HUNTERS USE SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLES TO HUNT!!!!
THE ONLY REASON IT IS AN "ASSAULT" RIFLE IS THE PRESENCE OF A FUCKING PISTOL GRIP!!!!!
People don't need semi-automatic weapons.
You don't need an automobile. They kill way more people. Get your ass on the bus.
There is no valid comparison between the utility of an automobile and the utility of a gun, for the average American. Yes, automobiles kill but that is not their purpose. The purpose of a gun is to kill.
Now this is an interesting one, because automobile death is outrageously high and isn't going to improve because the only way to improve it is restrict the vehicles or make the drivers more responsible which of course will never happen.
What makes it more acceptable?... Not much. Only that modern civilisation has its transport integrally linked to automobiles, without guns it doesn't really bring anything to a standstill.
Light rail.
Bus.
Urban transit in other forms.
Or better yet, go back to horses. Nobody needs a car.
That sounds awesome, I'm all for it. Lets do that.
Sounds good to me too.
So, you'll be leading by example, then?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 12:44:30 AM
All automobile deaths in the USA, 2011: 34,485 (includes involvement by law enforcement)
All Firearm deaths in the USA, 2011: 31,347 (includes involvement by law enforcement)
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm
To be honest, that's a hell of a lot closer than I thought it would be.
For non-Americans, for comparison, the 2008 road death toll in the UK was 2538.
The UK has a population of 60 million, the USA, 311 million.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 12:45:30 AM
Quote from: Faust on December 18, 2012, 12:43:10 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 12:37:45 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 12:34:18 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 12:33:35 AM
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 12:26:09 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 12:24:28 AM
There certainly isn't any upside, or need really, for people to own hand held rapid fire death machines. Simly put, it this asshole didn't have an assault rifle, he would have killed less people. There is absolutely no need for someone to own that kind of weaponry.
ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING?
AN ASSAULT RIFLE
ESPECIALLY THE KIND THAT WAS USED IS JUST A FUCKING SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLE WITH A PISTOL GRIP!!!
HUNTERS USE SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLES TO HUNT!!!!
THE ONLY REASON IT IS AN "ASSAULT" RIFLE IS THE PRESENCE OF A FUCKING PISTOL GRIP!!!!!
People don't need semi-automatic weapons.
You don't need an automobile. They kill way more people. Get your ass on the bus.
There is no valid comparison between the utility of an automobile and the utility of a gun, for the average American. Yes, automobiles kill but that is not their purpose. The purpose of a gun is to kill.
Now this is an interesting one, because automobile death is outrageously high and isn't going to improve because the only way to improve it is restrict the vehicles or make the drivers more responsible which of course will never happen.
What makes it more acceptable?... Not much. Only that modern civilisation has its transport integrally linked to automobiles, without guns it doesn't really bring anything to a standstill.
Light rail.
Bus.
Urban transit in other forms.
Or better yet, go back to horses. Nobody needs a car.
I suspect that things might be greatly improved if people did not have cars. We could use more of the land in cities that is wasted on streets. There would be less urban air pollution. People would not be dumping oil and other fluids into the storm drains that drain out into the ocean. Children could play in the streets more freely.
Also RWHN, automatic.
You keep using that word.
I do not think it means what you think it means.
To wit, an automatic firearm is one that will continuously discharge while the trigger is held down. Which is not what is commonly available to the citizens of the US, nor is it the type that that majority of "assault" rifles are. This includes military rifles.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 12:47:20 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 12:41:33 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 12:37:45 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 12:34:18 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 12:33:35 AM
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 12:26:09 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 12:24:28 AM
There certainly isn't any upside, or need really, for people to own hand held rapid fire death machines. Simly put, it this asshole didn't have an assault rifle, he would have killed less people. There is absolutely no need for someone to own that kind of weaponry.
ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING?
AN ASSAULT RIFLE
ESPECIALLY THE KIND THAT WAS USED IS JUST A FUCKING SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLE WITH A PISTOL GRIP!!!
HUNTERS USE SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLES TO HUNT!!!!
THE ONLY REASON IT IS AN "ASSAULT" RIFLE IS THE PRESENCE OF A FUCKING PISTOL GRIP!!!!!
People don't need semi-automatic weapons.
You don't need an automobile. They kill way more people. Get your ass on the bus.
There is no valid comparison between the utility of an automobile and the utility of a gun, for the average American. Yes, automobiles kill but that is not their purpose. The purpose of a gun is to kill.
Tell that to your average drunken driver. Or the dumbfuck texting while driving. Or better yet, explain it to the families of the victims.
And the purpose of a gun is to walk up into Reddington Pass and blow the hell out of a bag of tin cans. Or to enjoy the Santa Ritas without worrying about crazy fucking bears or even crazier javalina packs.
But what do I know?
That's your purpose, unfortunately there are those who use it to put 11 rounds in a 5 year old. Sorry if it makes me a bad person but I'm perfectly willing to restrict your access to automatic weapons if it means less dead 5 year olds.
So we make better guns that don't do that.
Quote from: Cain on December 18, 2012, 12:50:34 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 12:44:30 AM
All automobile deaths in the USA, 2011: 34,485 (includes involvement by law enforcement)
All Firearm deaths in the USA, 2011: 31,347 (includes involvement by law enforcement)
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm
To be honest, that's a hell of a lot closer than I thought it would be.
For non-Americans, for comparison, the 2008 road death toll in the UK was 2538.
The UK has a population of 60 million, the USA, 311 million.
Cars beat guns, despite the oft-repeated assertion here that the only use of guns is to shoot 5 year olds.
And we're really shitty drivers. Comes from each of us thinking we own the road.
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 12:44:43 AM
Quote from: Faust on December 18, 2012, 12:39:23 AM
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 12:35:15 AM
Quote from: Faust on December 18, 2012, 12:28:33 AM
1) Guns are vulgarscary, people are terrible I don't like them.
2) Get rid of guns and people will stop killing each other as much. Reduce peoples access to weapons that make killing easier, reduce killing. Without guns people would politely slap each other when they became cross with one another.
Yes, I don't like guns, I'm sorry if I gave an impression to the contrary (all the guns for Faust, none for anyone else all for me).
Without guns people would stab, punch or club, or bomb each other. Some of those result in less deaths because of the speed and ease, others more but require more preperation..
Oh no. It's rather apparent that you don't like guns, but to me that speaks of "stop liking what i don't like" or "that is scary and not fun for me, so you can't do it either"
Oh and guess in magical no guns land, there is no way to make explosives.
I don't like guns but that's not why I don't support the law allowing sale of them but if you are going to insult me that way that is fair enough, I can appreciate you took insult with my earlier response to you and I am sorry about that. But I would not support any legislation needlessly.
I don't support legal sale of them because I see no necessity of use for them, and believe the few cases such as hunting and the like do not outweigh the deaths caused by them.
I already addressed the explosives comment in the post you quoted. Though a real and genuine risk it one I feel eliminates action on impulsion.
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 12:50:45 AM
Also RWHN, automatic.
You keep using that word.
I do not think it means what you think it means.
To wit, an automatic firearm is one that will continuously discharge while the trigger is held down. Which is not what is commonly available to the citizens of the US, nor is it the type that that majority of "assault" rifles are. This includes military rifles.
Shoosh. He's an expert on this. Fully automatic, semi automatic, what's the difference?
Quote from: Faust on December 18, 2012, 12:52:45 AM
I don't support legal sale of them because I see no necessity of use for them, and believe the few cases such as hunting and the like do not outweigh the deaths caused by them.
By that standard, we should outlaw ladders, too.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 12:47:20 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 12:41:33 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 12:37:45 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 12:34:18 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 12:33:35 AM
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 12:26:09 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 12:24:28 AM
There certainly isn't any upside, or need really, for people to own hand held rapid fire death machines. Simly put, it this asshole didn't have an assault rifle, he would have killed less people. There is absolutely no need for someone to own that kind of weaponry.
ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING?
AN ASSAULT RIFLE
ESPECIALLY THE KIND THAT WAS USED IS JUST A FUCKING SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLE WITH A PISTOL GRIP!!!
HUNTERS USE SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLES TO HUNT!!!!
THE ONLY REASON IT IS AN "ASSAULT" RIFLE IS THE PRESENCE OF A FUCKING PISTOL GRIP!!!!!
People don't need semi-automatic weapons.
You don't need an automobile. They kill way more people. Get your ass on the bus.
There is no valid comparison between the utility of an automobile and the utility of a gun, for the average American. Yes, automobiles kill but that is not their purpose. The purpose of a gun is to kill.
Tell that to your average drunken driver. Or the dumbfuck texting while driving. Or better yet, explain it to the families of the victims.
And the purpose of a gun is to walk up into Reddington Pass and blow the hell out of a bag of tin cans. Or to enjoy the Santa Ritas without worrying about crazy fucking bears or even crazier javalina packs.
But what do I know?
That's your purpose, unfortunately there are those who use it to put 11 rounds in a 5 year old. Sorry if it makes me a bad person but I'm perfectly willing to restrict your access to automatic weapons if it means less dead 5 year olds.
How about swimming pools? What's your stance on those?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 12:49:26 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 12:47:20 AM
That's your purpose, unfortunately there are those who use it to put 11 rounds in a 5 year old. Sorry if it makes me a bad person but I'm perfectly willing to restrict your access to automatic weapons if it means less dead 5 year olds.
Sure. Come take a walk with me in the Santa Ritas or the Catalinas. Or hell, on the South end. We can carry breech-loaders. When a pack of javalinas decide they don't like our faces, we can shoot them really slowly.
I am against the sale of guns for defence against javalinas because technology is cheating at natural selection. (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=32883.25)
The world would be better off if we all lived as nomadic hunter-gatherers and only wore badly tanned hides of the beasts we killed with our hands.
Quote from: Pæs on December 18, 2012, 12:50:57 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 12:47:20 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 12:41:33 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 12:37:45 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 12:34:18 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 12:33:35 AM
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 12:26:09 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 12:24:28 AM
There certainly isn't any upside, or need really, for people to own hand held rapid fire death machines. Simly put, it this asshole didn't have an assault rifle, he would have killed less people. There is absolutely no need for someone to own that kind of weaponry.
ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING?
AN ASSAULT RIFLE
ESPECIALLY THE KIND THAT WAS USED IS JUST A FUCKING SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLE WITH A PISTOL GRIP!!!
HUNTERS USE SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLES TO HUNT!!!!
THE ONLY REASON IT IS AN "ASSAULT" RIFLE IS THE PRESENCE OF A FUCKING PISTOL GRIP!!!!!
People don't need semi-automatic weapons.
You don't need an automobile. They kill way more people. Get your ass on the bus.
There is no valid comparison between the utility of an automobile and the utility of a gun, for the average American. Yes, automobiles kill but that is not their purpose. The purpose of a gun is to kill.
Tell that to your average drunken driver. Or the dumbfuck texting while driving. Or better yet, explain it to the families of the victims.
And the purpose of a gun is to walk up into Reddington Pass and blow the hell out of a bag of tin cans. Or to enjoy the Santa Ritas without worrying about crazy fucking bears or even crazier javalina packs.
But what do I know?
That's your purpose, unfortunately there are those who use it to put 11 rounds in a 5 year old. Sorry if it makes me a bad person but I'm perfectly willing to restrict your access to automatic weapons if it means less dead 5 year olds.
So we make better guns that don't do that.
Sorry, I should've been more clear and said that I DON'T want to outlaw bubble guns.
I don't approve of bubble guns, squirt guns, nerf guns, or any other toy guns that are marketed as toys for children.
Coyote, being serious
Quote from: hølist on December 18, 2012, 12:54:47 AM
How about swimming pools? What's your stance on those?
Each day in the United States, nine people drown.
Drowning is the second leading cause of accidental injury-related death among children ages 1 to 14.
Drowning is the leading cause of accidental injury-related death among children ages 1 to 4.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 12:54:15 AM
Quote from: Faust on December 18, 2012, 12:52:45 AM
I don't support legal sale of them because I see no necessity of use for them, and believe the few cases such as hunting and the like do not outweigh the deaths caused by them.
By that standard, we should outlaw ladders, too.
Misuse of ladders could admittedly be used to kill 30 people in a short space of time, Though outside of a Benny hill sketch would not prove efficient or easy, that's what guns are for.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 12:53:31 AM
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 12:50:45 AM
Also RWHN, automatic.
You keep using that word.
I do not think it means what you think it means.
To wit, an automatic firearm is one that will continuously discharge while the trigger is held down. Which is not what is commonly available to the citizens of the US, nor is it the type that that majority of "assault" rifles are. This includes military rifles.
Shoosh. He's an expert on this. Fully automatic, semi automatic, what's the difference?
Get rid of them both, fine by me.
I keep wanting to come back to the "Afghanistan" thing, because that's not, actually, what I had in mind.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:School_bombings
Quote from: Faust on December 18, 2012, 01:00:43 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 12:54:15 AM
Quote from: Faust on December 18, 2012, 12:52:45 AM
I don't support legal sale of them because I see no necessity of use for them, and believe the few cases such as hunting and the like do not outweigh the deaths caused by them.
By that standard, we should outlaw ladders, too.
Misuse of ladders could admittedly be used to kill 30 people in a short space of time, Though outside of a Benny hill sketch would not prove efficient or easy, that's what guns are for.
So it's not the number of deaths, but the speed at which they occur?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 12:59:23 AM
Quote from: hølist on December 18, 2012, 12:54:47 AM
How about swimming pools? What's your stance on those?
Each day in the United States, nine people drown.
Drowning is the second leading cause of accidental injury-related death among children ages 1 to 14.
Drowning is the leading cause of accidental injury-related death among children ages 1 to 4.
Accidental is a key word there.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 01:01:01 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 12:53:31 AM
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 12:50:45 AM
Also RWHN, automatic.
You keep using that word.
I do not think it means what you think it means.
To wit, an automatic firearm is one that will continuously discharge while the trigger is held down. Which is not what is commonly available to the citizens of the US, nor is it the type that that majority of "assault" rifles are. This includes military rifles.
Shoosh. He's an expert on this. Fully automatic, semi automatic, what's the difference?
Get rid of them both, fine by me.
No.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 01:01:57 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 12:59:23 AM
Quote from: hølist on December 18, 2012, 12:54:47 AM
How about swimming pools? What's your stance on those?
Each day in the United States, nine people drown.
Drowning is the second leading cause of accidental injury-related death among children ages 1 to 14.
Drowning is the leading cause of accidental injury-related death among children ages 1 to 4.
Accidental is a key word there.
Which is different than intentional. You get less dead.
Quote from: hølist on December 18, 2012, 01:01:40 AM
I keep wanting to come back to the "Afghanistan" thing, because that's not, actually, what I had in mind.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:School_bombings
Didn't we used to firebomb churches & schools?
Good thing nobody got shot, though.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 01:02:15 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 01:01:01 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 12:53:31 AM
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 12:50:45 AM
Also RWHN, automatic.
You keep using that word.
I do not think it means what you think it means.
To wit, an automatic firearm is one that will continuously discharge while the trigger is held down. Which is not what is commonly available to the citizens of the US, nor is it the type that that majority of "assault" rifles are. This includes military rifles.
Shoosh. He's an expert on this. Fully automatic, semi automatic, what's the difference?
Get rid of them both, fine by me.
No.
Don't worry, we happen to have a complete puss of a President right now so it will never happen anyway.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 01:02:41 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 01:01:57 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 12:59:23 AM
Quote from: hølist on December 18, 2012, 12:54:47 AM
How about swimming pools? What's your stance on those?
Each day in the United States, nine people drown.
Drowning is the second leading cause of accidental injury-related death among children ages 1 to 14.
Drowning is the leading cause of accidental injury-related death among children ages 1 to 4.
Accidental is a key word there.
Which is different than intentional. You get less dead.
And the intent wasn't raised during the discussion of automobile deaths because nobody had decided it was part of the criteria for acceptable deaths yet.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 12:59:23 AM
Quote from: hølist on December 18, 2012, 12:54:47 AM
How about swimming pools? What's your stance on those?
Each day in the United States, nine people drown.
Drowning is the second leading cause of accidental injury-related death among children ages 1 to 14.
Drowning is the leading cause of accidental injury-related death among children ages 1 to 4.
The odds of a child drowning while playing at a house with a pool are something like 500 times greater than the odds of a child being shot while playing at a house with a gun.
I can't remember the exact statistic and I don't feel like looking it up.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 01:01:01 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 12:53:31 AM
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 12:50:45 AM
Also RWHN, automatic.
You keep using that word.
I do not think it means what you think it means.
To wit, an automatic firearm is one that will continuously discharge while the trigger is held down. Which is not what is commonly available to the citizens of the US, nor is it the type that that majority of "assault" rifles are. This includes military rifles.
Shoosh. He's an expert on this. Fully automatic, semi automatic, what's the difference?
Get rid of them both, fine by me.
Ok, sure. I am sure I, or anyone, could get the rate of fire of a bolt action rifle up enough to kill that many of suprised noncombatants.
By the way. A bolt action rifle only chambers a round when the bolt is moved back by hand. Completely user operated.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 01:02:41 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 01:01:57 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 12:59:23 AM
Quote from: hølist on December 18, 2012, 12:54:47 AM
How about swimming pools? What's your stance on those?
Each day in the United States, nine people drown.
Drowning is the second leading cause of accidental injury-related death among children ages 1 to 14.
Drowning is the leading cause of accidental injury-related death among children ages 1 to 4.
Accidental is a key word there.
Which is different than intentional. You get less dead.
One person accidentally drowning in a pool kills less little kids than an unhinged 20 year old with a Bushmaster, yes.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 01:04:09 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 01:02:15 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 01:01:01 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 12:53:31 AM
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 12:50:45 AM
Also RWHN, automatic.
You keep using that word.
I do not think it means what you think it means.
To wit, an automatic firearm is one that will continuously discharge while the trigger is held down. Which is not what is commonly available to the citizens of the US, nor is it the type that that majority of "assault" rifles are. This includes military rifles.
Shoosh. He's an expert on this. Fully automatic, semi automatic, what's the difference?
Get rid of them both, fine by me.
No.
Don't worry, we happen to have a complete puss of a President right now so it will never happen anyway.
Won't happen, period. It's too ingrained in American culture. No politician who supports banning semi-automatic weapons of any kind has a chance.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 12:52:03 AM
Quote from: Cain on December 18, 2012, 12:50:34 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 12:44:30 AM
All automobile deaths in the USA, 2011: 34,485 (includes involvement by law enforcement)
All Firearm deaths in the USA, 2011: 31,347 (includes involvement by law enforcement)
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm
To be honest, that's a hell of a lot closer than I thought it would be.
For non-Americans, for comparison, the 2008 road death toll in the UK was 2538.
The UK has a population of 60 million, the USA, 311 million.
Cars beat guns, despite the oft-repeated assertion here that the only use of guns is to shoot 5 year olds.
And we're really shitty drivers. Comes from each of us thinking we own the road.
No, I was surprised guns were so close to cars. I knew the US driving death rate was pretty awfully high already, so I thought the gap would be much bigger.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 01:01:49 AM
Quote from: Faust on December 18, 2012, 01:00:43 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 12:54:15 AM
Quote from: Faust on December 18, 2012, 12:52:45 AM
I don't support legal sale of them because I see no necessity of use for them, and believe the few cases such as hunting and the like do not outweigh the deaths caused by them.
By that standard, we should outlaw ladders, too.
Misuse of ladders could admittedly be used to kill 30 people in a short space of time, Though outside of a Benny hill sketch would not prove efficient or easy, that's what guns are for.
So it's not the number of deaths, but the speed at which they occur?
It's the number of deaths, the easy at which they are performed, the speed at which they are performed, the likelihood of the victim surviving. I said so with my first posts in this thread, the Remote control analogy.
Impulsive violent crime and even premeditated is made more difficult without access to a gun.
Some will be put off by how it's more difficult, others because the suicide factor isn't as easy, others because when they sit down to google making a bomb they lose interest.
If it's more difficult to commit the crime, then by extension the rate goes down.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 01:06:32 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 01:02:41 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 01:01:57 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 12:59:23 AM
Quote from: hølist on December 18, 2012, 12:54:47 AM
How about swimming pools? What's your stance on those?
Each day in the United States, nine people drown.
Drowning is the second leading cause of accidental injury-related death among children ages 1 to 14.
Drowning is the leading cause of accidental injury-related death among children ages 1 to 4.
Accidental is a key word there.
Which is different than intentional. You get less dead.
One person accidentally drowning in a pool kills less little kids than an unhinged 20 year old with a Bushmaster, yes.
So it's ok that more children per year die by accidental drowning, because it happens accidentally, and only one at a time?
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 01:06:32 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 01:02:41 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 01:01:57 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 12:59:23 AM
Quote from: hølist on December 18, 2012, 12:54:47 AM
How about swimming pools? What's your stance on those?
Each day in the United States, nine people drown.
Drowning is the second leading cause of accidental injury-related death among children ages 1 to 14.
Drowning is the leading cause of accidental injury-related death among children ages 1 to 4.
Accidental is a key word there.
Which is different than intentional. You get less dead.
One person accidentally drowning in a pool kills less little kids than an unhinged 20 year old with a Bushmaster, yes.
Good thing only one person dies a year from that.
Oh, wait. 9 a day. So it's as bad as the school shooting every 3 days.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 01:06:32 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 01:02:41 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 01:01:57 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 12:59:23 AM
Quote from: hølist on December 18, 2012, 12:54:47 AM
How about swimming pools? What's your stance on those?
Each day in the United States, nine people drown.
Drowning is the second leading cause of accidental injury-related death among children ages 1 to 14.
Drowning is the leading cause of accidental injury-related death among children ages 1 to 4.
Accidental is a key word there.
Which is different than intentional. You get less dead.
One person accidentally drowning in a pool kills less little kids than an unhinged 20 year old with a Bushmaster, yes.
...what?
Quote from: Faust on December 18, 2012, 01:07:33 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 01:01:49 AM
Quote from: Faust on December 18, 2012, 01:00:43 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 12:54:15 AM
Quote from: Faust on December 18, 2012, 12:52:45 AM
I don't support legal sale of them because I see no necessity of use for them, and believe the few cases such as hunting and the like do not outweigh the deaths caused by them.
By that standard, we should outlaw ladders, too.
Misuse of ladders could admittedly be used to kill 30 people in a short space of time, Though outside of a Benny hill sketch would not prove efficient or easy, that's what guns are for.
So it's not the number of deaths, but the speed at which they occur?
It's the number of deaths, the easy at which they are performed, the speed at which they are performed, the likelihood of the victim surviving. I said so with my first posts in this thread, the Remote control analogy.
Impulsive violent crime and even premeditated is made more difficult without access to a gun.
Some will be put off by how it's more difficult, others because the suicide factor isn't as easy, others because when they sit down to google making a bomb they lose interest.
If it's more difficult to commit the crime, then by extension the rate goes down.
THIS
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 01:08:05 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 01:06:32 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 01:02:41 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 01:01:57 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 12:59:23 AM
Quote from: hølist on December 18, 2012, 12:54:47 AM
How about swimming pools? What's your stance on those?
Each day in the United States, nine people drown.
Drowning is the second leading cause of accidental injury-related death among children ages 1 to 14.
Drowning is the leading cause of accidental injury-related death among children ages 1 to 4.
Accidental is a key word there.
Which is different than intentional. You get less dead.
One person accidentally drowning in a pool kills less little kids than an unhinged 20 year old with a Bushmaster, yes.
So it's ok that more children per year die by accidental drowning, because it happens accidentally, and only one at a time?
That doesn't make sense. Retail should be more expensive than wholesale.
Also, drowned kids don't count, because they don't make great TV more than once every 3 years or so.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 01:03:30 AM
Quote from: hølist on December 18, 2012, 01:01:40 AM
I keep wanting to come back to the "Afghanistan" thing, because that's not, actually, what I had in mind.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:School_bombings
Didn't we used to firebomb churches & schools?
Good thing nobody got shot, though.
Yes.
Quote from: Faust on December 18, 2012, 01:07:33 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 01:01:49 AM
Quote from: Faust on December 18, 2012, 01:00:43 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 12:54:15 AM
Quote from: Faust on December 18, 2012, 12:52:45 AM
I don't support legal sale of them because I see no necessity of use for them, and believe the few cases such as hunting and the like do not outweigh the deaths caused by them.
By that standard, we should outlaw ladders, too.
Misuse of ladders could admittedly be used to kill 30 people in a short space of time, Though outside of a Benny hill sketch would not prove efficient or easy, that's what guns are for.
So it's not the number of deaths, but the speed at which they occur?
It's the number of deaths, the easy at which they are performed, the speed at which they are performed, the likelihood of the victim surviving. I said so with my first posts in this thread, the Remote control analogy.
Impulsive violent crime and even premeditated is made more difficult without access to a gun.
Some will be put off by how it's more difficult, others because the suicide factor isn't as easy, others because when they sit down to google making a bomb they lose interest.
If it's more difficult to commit the crime, then by extension the rate goes down.
Interestingly enough, gun legalization or illegalization doesn't seem to have much effect on the murder rate.
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 01:08:05 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 01:06:32 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 01:02:41 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 01:01:57 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 12:59:23 AM
Quote from: hølist on December 18, 2012, 12:54:47 AM
How about swimming pools? What's your stance on those?
Each day in the United States, nine people drown.
Drowning is the second leading cause of accidental injury-related death among children ages 1 to 14.
Drowning is the leading cause of accidental injury-related death among children ages 1 to 4.
Accidental is a key word there.
Which is different than intentional. You get less dead.
One person accidentally drowning in a pool kills less little kids than an unhinged 20 year old with a Bushmaster, yes.
So it's ok that more children per year die by accidental drowning, because it happens accidentally, and only one at a time?
At no point have I said anything about any death being okay. It's a stupid analogy anyway and I should have just ignored it. Guns are for killing, pools are for swimming. To outlaw death we'd need to outlaw living. But you can outlaw intentional death and put up barriers to make mass intentional death more difficult.
Accidental deaths are ok because I want to be able to swim in my pool and drive my car.
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 01:15:18 AM
Accidental deaths are ok because I want to be able to swim in my pool and drive my car.
At no point have I said anything about any death being okay. It's a stupid analogy anyway and I should have just ignored it. Guns are for killing, pools are for swimming. To outlaw death we'd need to outlaw living. But you can outlaw intentional death and put up barriers to make mass intentional death more difficult.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 01:10:05 AM
Quote from: Faust on December 18, 2012, 01:07:33 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 01:01:49 AM
Quote from: Faust on December 18, 2012, 01:00:43 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 12:54:15 AM
Quote from: Faust on December 18, 2012, 12:52:45 AM
I don't support legal sale of them because I see no necessity of use for them, and believe the few cases such as hunting and the like do not outweigh the deaths caused by them.
By that standard, we should outlaw ladders, too.
Misuse of ladders could admittedly be used to kill 30 people in a short space of time, Though outside of a Benny hill sketch would not prove efficient or easy, that's what guns are for.
So it's not the number of deaths, but the speed at which they occur?
It's the number of deaths, the easy at which they are performed, the speed at which they are performed, the likelihood of the victim surviving. I said so with my first posts in this thread, the Remote control analogy.
Impulsive violent crime and even premeditated is made more difficult without access to a gun.
Some will be put off by how it's more difficult, others because the suicide factor isn't as easy, others because when they sit down to google making a bomb they lose interest.
If it's more difficult to commit the crime, then by extension the rate goes down.
Interestingly enough, gun legalization or illegalization doesn't seem to have much effect on the murder rate.
Effect on the murder rates with guns or the total figure. Are you saying other murder rises to match the gun murder rate?
As you said legalisation or illegalistion(regulation?) are already too late in the game as guns have proliferated, I am willing to accept that it is a lost cause at this point if that is what you are saying.
It doesn't change my view on the legality on it but there may be no solution within the legal framework.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 01:04:09 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 01:02:15 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 01:01:01 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 12:53:31 AM
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 12:50:45 AM
Also RWHN, automatic.
You keep using that word.
I do not think it means what you think it means.
To wit, an automatic firearm is one that will continuously discharge while the trigger is held down. Which is not what is commonly available to the citizens of the US, nor is it the type that that majority of "assault" rifles are. This includes military rifles.
Shoosh. He's an expert on this. Fully automatic, semi automatic, what's the difference?
Get rid of them both, fine by me.
No.
Don't worry, we happen to have a complete puss of a President right now so it will never happen anyway.
Also, since when does the president legislate?
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 01:16:28 AM
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 01:15:18 AM
Accidental deaths are ok because I want to be able to swim in my pool and drive my car.
At no point have I said anything about any death being okay. It's a stupid analogy anyway and I should have just ignored it. Guns are for killing, pools are for swimming. To outlaw death we'd need to outlaw living. But you can outlaw intentional death and put up barriers to make mass intentional death more difficult.
SOMEONE SHOULD OUTLAW INTENTIONAL DEATH.
:argh!:
Quote from: Faust on December 18, 2012, 01:16:51 AM
Effect on the murder rates with guns or the total figure.
What possible difference does that make? If you're dead, you're dead, whether you are shot with an illegal gun, stabbed, strangled, whatever.
Quote from: Pæs on December 18, 2012, 01:17:59 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 01:16:28 AM
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 01:15:18 AM
Accidental deaths are ok because I want to be able to swim in my pool and drive my car.
At no point have I said anything about any death being okay. It's a stupid analogy anyway and I should have just ignored it. Guns are for killing, pools are for swimming. To outlaw death we'd need to outlaw living. But you can outlaw intentional death and put up barriers to make mass intentional death more difficult.
SOMEONE SHOULD OUTLAW INTENTIONAL DEATH.
:argh!:
We should also bubble-wrap the entire population.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 01:18:35 AM
Quote from: Faust on December 18, 2012, 01:16:51 AM
Effect on the murder rates with guns or the total figure.
What possible difference does that make? If you're dead, you're dead, whether you are shot with an illegal gun, stabbed, strangled, whatever.
Because there probably isn't a rate from a time when there are no guns in recent years, which pushes me towards the Lost cause column again.
It's now half one, I have to get up for work in five an a half hours.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 01:19:11 AM
Quote from: Pæs on December 18, 2012, 01:17:59 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 01:16:28 AM
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 01:15:18 AM
Accidental deaths are ok because I want to be able to swim in my pool and drive my car.
At no point have I said anything about any death being okay. It's a stupid analogy anyway and I should have just ignored it. Guns are for killing, pools are for swimming. To outlaw death we'd need to outlaw living. But you can outlaw intentional death and put up barriers to make mass intentional death more difficult.
SOMEONE SHOULD OUTLAW INTENTIONAL DEATH.
:argh!:
We should also bubble-wrap the entire population.
Would that help against the javelinas?
Quote from: Faust on December 18, 2012, 01:20:49 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 01:18:35 AM
Quote from: Faust on December 18, 2012, 01:16:51 AM
Effect on the murder rates with guns or the total figure.
What possible difference does that make? If you're dead, you're dead, whether you are shot with an illegal gun, stabbed, strangled, whatever.
Because there probably isn't a rate from a time when there are no guns in recent years, which pushes me towards the Lost cause column again.
It's now half one, I have to get up for work in five an a half hours.
There has never been a time in America in which there were no guns.
Quote from: Pæs on December 18, 2012, 01:21:44 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 01:19:11 AM
Quote from: Pæs on December 18, 2012, 01:17:59 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 01:16:28 AM
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 01:15:18 AM
Accidental deaths are ok because I want to be able to swim in my pool and drive my car.
At no point have I said anything about any death being okay. It's a stupid analogy anyway and I should have just ignored it. Guns are for killing, pools are for swimming. To outlaw death we'd need to outlaw living. But you can outlaw intentional death and put up barriers to make mass intentional death more difficult.
SOMEONE SHOULD OUTLAW INTENTIONAL DEATH.
:argh!:
We should also bubble-wrap the entire population.
Would that help against the javelinas?
If you use enough of it.
News at 1:30: Little Billy brought a pool to school, kills 30 More after this commercial breakdown.
I'll give you what for! Come at me, good sir!
// //
// //
(http://meanspirited.net/people/2010/feb/bubble-wrap-armor.jpg)
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 01:17:12 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 01:04:09 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 01:02:15 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 01:01:01 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 12:53:31 AM
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 12:50:45 AM
Also RWHN, automatic.
You keep using that word.
I do not think it means what you think it means.
To wit, an automatic firearm is one that will continuously discharge while the trigger is held down. Which is not what is commonly available to the citizens of the US, nor is it the type that that majority of "assault" rifles are. This includes military rifles.
Shoosh. He's an expert on this. Fully automatic, semi automatic, what's the difference?
Get rid of them both, fine by me.
No.
Don't worry, we happen to have a complete puss of a President right now so it will never happen anyway.
Also, since when does the president legislate?
You know damn well what I meant, don't be obtuse. He doesn't have the stones to actually rally his party to put forth any meaningful legislation that would make any meaningful change. Anything he says now after the tragedy is window dressing, and as Faust pointed out early in the thread, he's already starting to puss out.
See, it's ok that drowning kills more children than guns, because you can't bring a pool to the school and drown children with it.
Kill people one at a time, and it's ok.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 01:22:42 AM
Quote from: Pæs on December 18, 2012, 01:21:44 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 01:19:11 AM
Quote from: Pæs on December 18, 2012, 01:17:59 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 01:16:28 AM
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 01:15:18 AM
Accidental deaths are ok because I want to be able to swim in my pool and drive my car.
At no point have I said anything about any death being okay. It's a stupid analogy anyway and I should have just ignored it. Guns are for killing, pools are for swimming. To outlaw death we'd need to outlaw living. But you can outlaw intentional death and put up barriers to make mass intentional death more difficult.
SOMEONE SHOULD OUTLAW INTENTIONAL DEATH.
:argh!:
We should also bubble-wrap the entire population.
Would that help against the javelinas?
If you use enough of it.
Well, that's that solved, then. You don't need your guns after all.
Quote from: Pæs on December 18, 2012, 01:23:50 AM
I'll give you what for! Come at me, good sir!
// //
// //
(http://meanspirited.net/people/2010/feb/bubble-wrap-armor.jpg)
THAT IS FUCKING :horrormirth:
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 01:24:14 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 01:17:12 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 01:04:09 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 01:02:15 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 01:01:01 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 12:53:31 AM
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 12:50:45 AM
Also RWHN, automatic.
You keep using that word.
I do not think it means what you think it means.
To wit, an automatic firearm is one that will continuously discharge while the trigger is held down. Which is not what is commonly available to the citizens of the US, nor is it the type that that majority of "assault" rifles are. This includes military rifles.
Shoosh. He's an expert on this. Fully automatic, semi automatic, what's the difference?
Get rid of them both, fine by me.
No.
Don't worry, we happen to have a complete puss of a President right now so it will never happen anyway.
Also, since when does the president legislate?
You know damn well what I meant, don't be obtuse. He doesn't have the stones to actually rally his party to put forth any meaningful legislation that would make any meaningful change. Anything he says now after the tragedy is window dressing, and as Faust pointed out early in the thread, he's already starting to puss out.
If we slapped a laurel wreath on his head, I bet he could do it.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 01:22:21 AM
Quote from: Faust on December 18, 2012, 01:20:49 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 01:18:35 AM
Quote from: Faust on December 18, 2012, 01:16:51 AM
Effect on the murder rates with guns or the total figure.
What possible difference does that make? If you're dead, you're dead, whether you are shot with an illegal gun, stabbed, strangled, whatever.
Because there probably isn't a rate from a time when there are no guns in recent years, which pushes me towards the Lost cause column again.
It's now half one, I have to get up for work in five an a half hours.
There has never been a time in America in which there were no guns.
And as you said there probably never will be, doesn't mean its ok, or I support it legally or morally, but what difference does that make I don't have to live there nor do I get any say in the legal system.
People are going to be shot in cinemas and schools multiple times a year and that is normal. It's ok for those people to die because getting killed in a mass spree is also now the norm, and even if it's not nothing is ever going to change that now.
See, I think there are a ton of ways we could make the country a safer and better place. Banning guns aren't even in my top ten, to tell the truth, even if I believed that there was a functional way to unring that bell and recall all the guns out there on the market, and prevent any more from coming in illegally.
Expanding light rail in order to minimize personal automobile use, largely eliminating the need for personal automobile ownership. How many lives would that save each year, in addition to the reduction in auto accidents? How much war could we avert?
A cost of living stipend for everyone, regardless of income.
Universal health care and free birth control for everyone.
Increased mental health care and greater support systems for mental health issues.
Increased regulations on corporate activities to ensure that their actions are beneficial to the populace.
Changes in farm subsidy policies so that we stop subsidizing largely worthless monoculture crops and corporate farms, and encourage small farmers to diversify their crops.
Tax the fuck out of the super-rich.
End corporate welfare.
Implement a fully subsidized educational system from preschool to PhD.
Shorten the work week to 30 hours.
Significantly increase paid sick time and parental leave.
Significantly increase vacation time, both paid and unpaid options.
If these were implemented, betcha anything that gun (and other types of) violence would become a minimal issue.
See the thing is, if someone went fucking batshit and drove a car through a densely packed area and killed 30 people, it is obvious that he is crazy and no one is going to be calling for the banning of cars.
Or someone is serial killing people by drowning them, it's obviously because he is crazy, and no one is going to ask that pools be banned.
If it wasn't guns, it would have been poison or a bomb or someone driving a bus into the building/playground whatever else. There are an infinite variety of ways to kill people.
If guns are harder to get then they'll use the next easiest thing and the next and the next. In between next new things there will be a lull or a gap until the next fad comes along, then an outbreak, and then wash, rinse, repeat.
Going after the method doesn't change the underlying problem. You can put as many band-aids on a severed limb as you want, but that's not going to fix it.
Quote from: hølist on December 18, 2012, 01:30:22 AM
See, I think there are a ton of ways we could make the country a safer and better place. Banning guns aren't even in my top ten, to tell the truth, even if I believed that there was a functional way to unring that bell and recall all the guns out there on the market, and prevent any more from coming in illegally.
Expanding light rail in order to minimize personal automobile use, largely eliminating the need for personal automobile ownership. How many lives would that save each year, in addition to the reduction in auto accidents? How much war could we avert?
A cost of living stipend for everyone, regardless of income.
Universal health care and free birth control for everyone.
Increased mental health care and greater support systems for mental health issues.
Increased regulations on corporate activities to ensure that their actions are beneficial to the populace.
Changes in farm subsidy policies so that we stop subsidizing largely worthless monoculture crops and corporate farms, and encourage small farmers to diversify their crops.
Tax the fuck out of the super-rich.
End corporate welfare.
Implement a fully subsidized educational system from preschool to PhD.
Shorten the work week to 30 hours.
Significantly increase paid sick time and parental leave.
Significantly increase vacation time, both paid and unpaid options.
If these were implemented, betcha anything that gun (and other types of) violence would become a minimal issue.
I suspect that all this madness of public shootings is a symptom of there being too many people and too much stress of the kind that humanity hasn't evolved to cope with.
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 01:30:35 AM
See the thing is, if someone went fucking batshit and drove a car through a densely packed area and killed 30 people, it is obvious that he is crazy and no one is going to be calling for the banning of cars.
Or someone is serial killing people by drowning them, it's obviously because he is crazy, and no one is going to ask that pools be banned.
Nobody is ever violently impulsive at the wheel of a car.
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 01:30:35 AM
See the thing is, if someone went fucking batshit and drove a car through a densely packed area and killed 30 people, it is obvious that he is crazy and no one is going to be calling for the banning of cars.
Or someone is serial killing people by drowning them, it's obviously because he is crazy, and no one is going to ask that pools be banned.
Also, this.
Quote from: Pæs on December 18, 2012, 01:17:59 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 01:16:28 AM
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 01:15:18 AM
Accidental deaths are ok because I want to be able to swim in my pool and drive my car.
At no point have I said anything about any death being okay. It's a stupid analogy anyway and I should have just ignored it. Guns are for killing, pools are for swimming. To outlaw death we'd need to outlaw living. But you can outlaw intentional death and put up barriers to make mass intentional death more difficult.
SOMEONE SHOULD OUTLAW INTENTIONAL DEATH.
:argh!:
I'M SURPRISED NOBODY HAS DONE THAT YET! :?
Quote from: hølist on December 18, 2012, 01:33:37 AM
Quote from: Pæs on December 18, 2012, 01:17:59 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 01:16:28 AM
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 01:15:18 AM
Accidental deaths are ok because I want to be able to swim in my pool and drive my car.
At no point have I said anything about any death being okay. It's a stupid analogy anyway and I should have just ignored it. Guns are for killing, pools are for swimming. To outlaw death we'd need to outlaw living. But you can outlaw intentional death and put up barriers to make mass intentional death more difficult.
SOMEONE SHOULD OUTLAW INTENTIONAL DEATH.
:argh!:
I'M SURPRISED NOBODY HAS DONE THAT YET! :?
Isn't suicide illegal? Does that count?
Quote from: hølist on December 18, 2012, 01:33:37 AM
Quote from: Pæs on December 18, 2012, 01:17:59 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 01:16:28 AM
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 01:15:18 AM
Accidental deaths are ok because I want to be able to swim in my pool and drive my car.
At no point have I said anything about any death being okay. It's a stupid analogy anyway and I should have just ignored it. Guns are for killing, pools are for swimming. To outlaw death we'd need to outlaw living. But you can outlaw intentional death and put up barriers to make mass intentional death more difficult.
SOMEONE SHOULD OUTLAW INTENTIONAL DEATH.
:argh!:
I'M SURPRISED NOBODY HAS DONE THAT YET! :?
We should start a pention against intentional death.
Something about terrorists using our swimming pools against us or :?
Quote from: hølist on December 18, 2012, 01:30:22 AM
See, I think there are a ton of ways we could make the country a safer and better place. Banning guns aren't even in my top ten, to tell the truth, even if I believed that there was a functional way to unring that bell and recall all the guns out there on the market, and prevent any more from coming in illegally.
Expanding light rail in order to minimize personal automobile use, largely eliminating the need for personal automobile ownership. How many lives would that save each year, in addition to the reduction in auto accidents? How much war could we avert?
A cost of living stipend for everyone, regardless of income.
Universal health care and free birth control for everyone.
Increased mental health care and greater support systems for mental health issues.
Increased regulations on corporate activities to ensure that their actions are beneficial to the populace.
Changes in farm subsidy policies so that we stop subsidizing largely worthless monoculture crops and corporate farms, and encourage small farmers to diversify their crops.
Tax the fuck out of the super-rich.
End corporate welfare.
Implement a fully subsidized educational system from preschool to PhD.
Shorten the work week to 30 hours.
Significantly increase paid sick time and parental leave.
Significantly increase vacation time, both paid and unpaid options.
If these were implemented, betcha anything that gun (and other types of) violence would become a minimal issue.
Agreed, it is symptomatic, and if legislation is fruitless then these methods would probably be far more likely to garner results.
Of course if managed correctly at that point gun proliferation can also be tackled and legislation could stop it rising to the high levels again should things get shit again.
And in retarded news from the right...
(http://www.zewp.com/dump/photo/tedbaxterknows.jpg)
So, it's either the guns or the internet. Not the perpetrator being a fucking nutcase or anything.
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 01:32:49 AM
Quote from: hølist on December 18, 2012, 01:30:22 AM
See, I think there are a ton of ways we could make the country a safer and better place. Banning guns aren't even in my top ten, to tell the truth, even if I believed that there was a functional way to unring that bell and recall all the guns out there on the market, and prevent any more from coming in illegally.
Expanding light rail in order to minimize personal automobile use, largely eliminating the need for personal automobile ownership. How many lives would that save each year, in addition to the reduction in auto accidents? How much war could we avert?
A cost of living stipend for everyone, regardless of income.
Universal health care and free birth control for everyone.
Increased mental health care and greater support systems for mental health issues.
Increased regulations on corporate activities to ensure that their actions are beneficial to the populace.
Changes in farm subsidy policies so that we stop subsidizing largely worthless monoculture crops and corporate farms, and encourage small farmers to diversify their crops.
Tax the fuck out of the super-rich.
End corporate welfare.
Implement a fully subsidized educational system from preschool to PhD.
Shorten the work week to 30 hours.
Significantly increase paid sick time and parental leave.
Significantly increase vacation time, both paid and unpaid options.
If these were implemented, betcha anything that gun (and other types of) violence would become a minimal issue.
I suspect that all this madness of public shootings is a symptom of there being too many people and too much stress of the kind that humanity hasn't evolved to cope with.
I don't even think it's too many people, as much as just too much stress and an overall very mentally unhealthy population. We work too hard and receive too little reward, we are always stressed, we have little to no hope of ever doing better than our parents did or even as well as our parents did, we have no financial or even physical security at all, and it's terrible for us.
As I said before, The way my brain works is that if you are gonna kill someone it doesn't matter what you use.
So what I'm getting from the anti-gun crowd is that even though you can kill someone with anything, you could possibly not kill as many as fast if that thing isn't a gun.
Also that most people who use a gun to kill wouldn't bother if they didn't have that method.
Now I've thought about it since it was mentioned, and it just may be some flaw with me, but I just can't see anyone that takes the time to get a gun (plus a vest in some cases) being deterred from the time it takes to make a bomb or practice with a knife or whatever.
good god, I get distracted and forget to hit post and like 20 replies go by....still gonna post anyway
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 01:30:35 AM
See the thing is, if someone went fucking batshit and drove a car through a densely packed area and killed 30 people, it is obvious that he is crazy and no one is going to be calling for the banning of cars.
Or someone is serial killing people by drowning them, it's obviously because he is crazy, and no one is going to ask that pools be banned.
No one is saying a person with a gun on a shooting spree isn't crazy. I haven't commented on motivation in any way shape or form.
If commented on the restricting of access to the easiest method of implementing a killing spree and the car example does happen but is even rarer then knife or club attacks.
Quote from: Pæs on December 18, 2012, 01:34:58 AM
Quote from: hølist on December 18, 2012, 01:33:37 AM
Quote from: Pæs on December 18, 2012, 01:17:59 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 01:16:28 AM
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 01:15:18 AM
Accidental deaths are ok because I want to be able to swim in my pool and drive my car.
At no point have I said anything about any death being okay. It's a stupid analogy anyway and I should have just ignored it. Guns are for killing, pools are for swimming. To outlaw death we'd need to outlaw living. But you can outlaw intentional death and put up barriers to make mass intentional death more difficult.
SOMEONE SHOULD OUTLAW INTENTIONAL DEATH.
:argh!:
I'M SURPRISED NOBODY HAS DONE THAT YET! :?
We should start a pention against intentional death.
Something about terrorists using our swimming pools against us or :?
I'm gonna write a letter to my legislators.
Quote from: Faust on December 18, 2012, 01:38:42 AM
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 01:30:35 AM
See the thing is, if someone went fucking batshit and drove a car through a densely packed area and killed 30 people, it is obvious that he is crazy and no one is going to be calling for the banning of cars.
Or someone is serial killing people by drowning them, it's obviously because he is crazy, and no one is going to ask that pools be banned.
No one is saying a person with a gun on a shooting spree isn't crazy. I haven't commented on motivation in any way shape or form.
If commented on the restricting of access to the easiest method of implementing a killing spree and the car example does happen but is even rarer then knife or club attacks.
And you don't think that desperate people aren't going to turn to the next easiest method of causing mass harm?
Cars are easier to get access to than gun.
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 01:40:05 AM
Quote from: Faust on December 18, 2012, 01:38:42 AM
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 01:30:35 AM
See the thing is, if someone went fucking batshit and drove a car through a densely packed area and killed 30 people, it is obvious that he is crazy and no one is going to be calling for the banning of cars.
Or someone is serial killing people by drowning them, it's obviously because he is crazy, and no one is going to ask that pools be banned.
No one is saying a person with a gun on a shooting spree isn't crazy. I haven't commented on motivation in any way shape or form.
If commented on the restricting of access to the easiest method of implementing a killing spree and the car example does happen but is even rarer then knife or club attacks.
And you don't think that desperate people aren't going to turn to the next easiest method of causing mass harm?
Cars are easier to get access to than gun.
Correct I don't think so.
Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on December 18, 2012, 01:34:40 AM
Quote from: hølist on December 18, 2012, 01:33:37 AM
Quote from: Pæs on December 18, 2012, 01:17:59 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 01:16:28 AM
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 01:15:18 AM
Accidental deaths are ok because I want to be able to swim in my pool and drive my car.
At no point have I said anything about any death being okay. It's a stupid analogy anyway and I should have just ignored it. Guns are for killing, pools are for swimming. To outlaw death we'd need to outlaw living. But you can outlaw intentional death and put up barriers to make mass intentional death more difficult.
SOMEONE SHOULD OUTLAW INTENTIONAL DEATH.
:argh!:
I'M SURPRISED NOBODY HAS DONE THAT YET! :?
Isn't suicide illegal? Does that count?
It is and in most cases it will stop your family getting life insurance.
Quote from: Faust on December 18, 2012, 01:42:26 AM
Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on December 18, 2012, 01:34:40 AM
Quote from: hølist on December 18, 2012, 01:33:37 AM
Quote from: Pæs on December 18, 2012, 01:17:59 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 01:16:28 AM
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 01:15:18 AM
Accidental deaths are ok because I want to be able to swim in my pool and drive my car.
At no point have I said anything about any death being okay. It's a stupid analogy anyway and I should have just ignored it. Guns are for killing, pools are for swimming. To outlaw death we'd need to outlaw living. But you can outlaw intentional death and put up barriers to make mass intentional death more difficult.
SOMEONE SHOULD OUTLAW INTENTIONAL DEATH.
:argh!:
I'M SURPRISED NOBODY HAS DONE THAT YET! :?
Isn't suicide illegal? Does that count?
It is and in most cases it will stop your family getting life insurance.
Which is retarded. Because in most cases, suicide is death by mental illness.
Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on December 18, 2012, 01:34:40 AM
Quote from: hølist on December 18, 2012, 01:33:37 AM
Quote from: Pæs on December 18, 2012, 01:17:59 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 01:16:28 AM
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 01:15:18 AM
Accidental deaths are ok because I want to be able to swim in my pool and drive my car.
At no point have I said anything about any death being okay. It's a stupid analogy anyway and I should have just ignored it. Guns are for killing, pools are for swimming. To outlaw death we'd need to outlaw living. But you can outlaw intentional death and put up barriers to make mass intentional death more difficult.
SOMEONE SHOULD OUTLAW INTENTIONAL DEATH.
:argh!:
I'M SURPRISED NOBODY HAS DONE THAT YET! :?
Isn't suicide illegal? Does that count?
Yes, and also so does murder.
Quote from: Faust on December 18, 2012, 01:42:26 AM
Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on December 18, 2012, 01:34:40 AM
Quote from: hølist on December 18, 2012, 01:33:37 AM
Quote from: Pæs on December 18, 2012, 01:17:59 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 01:16:28 AM
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 01:15:18 AM
Accidental deaths are ok because I want to be able to swim in my pool and drive my car.
At no point have I said anything about any death being okay. It's a stupid analogy anyway and I should have just ignored it. Guns are for killing, pools are for swimming. To outlaw death we'd need to outlaw living. But you can outlaw intentional death and put up barriers to make mass intentional death more difficult.
SOMEONE SHOULD OUTLAW INTENTIONAL DEATH.
:argh!:
I'M SURPRISED NOBODY HAS DONE THAT YET! :?
Isn't suicide illegal? Does that count?
It is and in most cases it will stop your family getting life insurance.
I don't think anyone in my family has insurance for anything. Cuts too far into the booze budget, that does. Must suck for other people, though.
Quote from: hølist on December 18, 2012, 01:44:16 AM
Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on December 18, 2012, 01:34:40 AM
Quote from: hølist on December 18, 2012, 01:33:37 AM
Quote from: Pæs on December 18, 2012, 01:17:59 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 01:16:28 AM
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 01:15:18 AM
Accidental deaths are ok because I want to be able to swim in my pool and drive my car.
At no point have I said anything about any death being okay. It's a stupid analogy anyway and I should have just ignored it. Guns are for killing, pools are for swimming. To outlaw death we'd need to outlaw living. But you can outlaw intentional death and put up barriers to make mass intentional death more difficult.
SOMEONE SHOULD OUTLAW INTENTIONAL DEATH.
:argh!:
I'M SURPRISED NOBODY HAS DONE THAT YET! :?
Isn't suicide illegal? Does that count?
Yes, and also so does murder.
Pssh. Only certain types of murder.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 01:44:05 AM
Quote from: Faust on December 18, 2012, 01:42:26 AM
Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on December 18, 2012, 01:34:40 AM
Quote from: hølist on December 18, 2012, 01:33:37 AM
Quote from: Pæs on December 18, 2012, 01:17:59 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 01:16:28 AM
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 01:15:18 AM
Accidental deaths are ok because I want to be able to swim in my pool and drive my car.
At no point have I said anything about any death being okay. It's a stupid analogy anyway and I should have just ignored it. Guns are for killing, pools are for swimming. To outlaw death we'd need to outlaw living. But you can outlaw intentional death and put up barriers to make mass intentional death more difficult.
SOMEONE SHOULD OUTLAW INTENTIONAL DEATH.
:argh!:
I'M SURPRISED NOBODY HAS DONE THAT YET! :?
Isn't suicide illegal? Does that count?
It is and in most cases it will stop your family getting life insurance.
Which is retarded. Because in most cases, suicide is death by mental illness.
I don't understand where the law came from. I heard a myth that it was because of all the wall street bankers jumping after the crash so their families would get the payment and not be broke but its policy world wide.
Quote from: Sita on December 18, 2012, 01:37:48 AM
As I said before, The way my brain works is that if you are gonna kill someone it doesn't matter what you use.
So what I'm getting from the anti-gun crowd is that even though you can kill someone with anything, you could possibly not kill as many as fast if that thing isn't a gun.
Also that most people who use a gun to kill wouldn't bother if they didn't have that method.
Now I've thought about it since it was mentioned, and it just may be some flaw with me, but I just can't see anyone that takes the time to get a gun (plus a vest in some cases) being deterred from the time it takes to make a bomb or practice with a knife or whatever.
good god, I get distracted and forget to hit post and like 20 replies go by....still gonna post anyway
If his fantasy was to kill a lot of kids with guns he isn't going to be satisfied if all he has is a knife. If it is harder for him to get guns, that is more time for a possible intervention which would avert the tragedy all together.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 01:52:15 AM
Quote from: Sita on December 18, 2012, 01:37:48 AM
As I said before, The way my brain works is that if you are gonna kill someone it doesn't matter what you use.
So what I'm getting from the anti-gun crowd is that even though you can kill someone with anything, you could possibly not kill as many as fast if that thing isn't a gun.
Also that most people who use a gun to kill wouldn't bother if they didn't have that method.
Now I've thought about it since it was mentioned, and it just may be some flaw with me, but I just can't see anyone that takes the time to get a gun (plus a vest in some cases) being deterred from the time it takes to make a bomb or practice with a knife or whatever.
good god, I get distracted and forget to hit post and like 20 replies go by....still gonna post anyway
If his fantasy was to kill a lot of kids with guns he isn't going to be satisfied if all he has is a knife. If it is harder for him to get guns, that is more time for a possible intervention which would avert the tragedy all together.
Similarly if he had a fantasy to kill a lot of kids with a car, he probably wouldn't mind about gun restrictions.
All I ever hear about is this spate of mass car massacres, it's literally non stop. So many people are doing it.
Wait did I say cars? I meant guns.
I don't know why I seem to be arguing for guns. I'm not actually much of a fan. I just haven't found any lulzy pro-gun comments to respond to.
I mean, "Man, remember back before there were guns when nobody ever killed anybody else?"
Quote from: Faust on December 18, 2012, 01:58:43 AM
All I ever hear about is this spate of mass car massacres, it's literally non stop. So many people are doing it.
Wait did I say cars? I meant guns.
You mean the terrible multicar pile ups that happen? Or the constant death by auto that happen?
Oh that's right.
Deaths that accidental and one at a time are not as bad, even if there are more of them, than a whole bunch at once.
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 02:05:05 AM
Quote from: Faust on December 18, 2012, 01:58:43 AM
All I ever hear about is this spate of mass car massacres, it's literally non stop. So many people are doing it.
Wait did I say cars? I meant guns.
You mean the terrible multicar pile ups that happen? Or the constant death by auto that happen?
Oh that's right.
Deaths that accidental and one at a time are not as bad, even if there are more of them, than a whole bunch at once.
Dude I don't but that, roger posted the road death rate and the gun death rate, there was a 9% difference, that's insane, I couldn't believe gun deaths were so close to it.
I'm changing teams. Guns should be restricted before cars because improvements to guns make them more deadly while improvements to cars make them safer, making both the deadliness of guns and the safety of cars functions of time.
The sooner we restrict gun ownership, the safer the guns will be.
The later we restrict vehicle ownership, the safer the vehicles will be.
Quote from: Faust on December 18, 2012, 02:07:46 AM
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 02:05:05 AM
Quote from: Faust on December 18, 2012, 01:58:43 AM
All I ever hear about is this spate of mass car massacres, it's literally non stop. So many people are doing it.
Wait did I say cars? I meant guns.
You mean the terrible multicar pile ups that happen? Or the constant death by auto that happen?
Oh that's right.
Deaths that accidental and one at a time are not as bad, even if there are more of them, than a whole bunch at once.
Dude I don't but that, roger posted the road death rate and the gun death rate, there was a 9% difference, that's insane, I couldn't believe gun deaths were so close to it.
Yes, and?
You are still stating that the death by auto are acceptable because they are stretched over the course of the year, or aren't a massacre. From my viewpoint, you are equating lots of death at once being worse the the same number or more deaths over the course of a year.
HOLY SHIT.
I've just had the CSI breakthrough of the year. I've cross examined evidence from every shooting in the US, there was a car present or within two miles maximum of every. last. murder.
We're not dealing with separate incidents at all, these were all perpetrated by a SINGLE individual. He is the single most dangerous serial killer this country has ever known. We call him: The driver.
:putin:
He makes a very strong point.
Without cars, all these shooters would have had to walk to where they killed people, and as we know, Americans are fat and lazy and hate walking.
(http://i.imgur.com/6Pfut.png)
SCIENCE
You can tell the guns are bad because the scientist made them the red one.
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 02:11:10 AM
Quote from: Faust on December 18, 2012, 02:07:46 AM
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 02:05:05 AM
Quote from: Faust on December 18, 2012, 01:58:43 AM
All I ever hear about is this spate of mass car massacres, it's literally non stop. So many people are doing it.
Wait did I say cars? I meant guns.
You mean the terrible multicar pile ups that happen? Or the constant death by auto that happen?
Oh that's right.
Deaths that accidental and one at a time are not as bad, even if there are more of them, than a whole bunch at once.
Dude I don't but that, roger posted the road death rate and the gun death rate, there was a 9% difference, that's insane, I couldn't believe gun deaths were so close to it.
Yes, and?
You are still stating that the death by auto are acceptable because they are stretched over the course of the year, or aren't a massacre. From my viewpoint, you are equating lots of death at once being worse the the same number or more deaths over the course of a year.
I NEVER said that. You have just confused me with RWHN, shame.
Quote from: Faust on December 18, 2012, 02:16:54 AM
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 02:11:10 AM
Quote from: Faust on December 18, 2012, 02:07:46 AM
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 02:05:05 AM
Quote from: Faust on December 18, 2012, 01:58:43 AM
All I ever hear about is this spate of mass car massacres, it's literally non stop. So many people are doing it.
Wait did I say cars? I meant guns.
You mean the terrible multicar pile ups that happen? Or the constant death by auto that happen?
Oh that's right.
Deaths that accidental and one at a time are not as bad, even if there are more of them, than a whole bunch at once.
Dude I don't but that, roger posted the road death rate and the gun death rate, there was a 9% difference, that's insane, I couldn't believe gun deaths were so close to it.
Yes, and?
You are still stating that the death by auto are acceptable because they are stretched over the course of the year, or aren't a massacre. From my viewpoint, you are equating lots of death at once being worse the the same number or more deaths over the course of a year.
I NEVER said that. You have just confused me with RWHN, shame.
To be fair, I don't think RWHN ever actually said that some deaths were acceptable.
Quote from: Pæs on December 18, 2012, 02:17:58 AM
Quote from: Faust on December 18, 2012, 02:16:54 AM
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 02:11:10 AM
Quote from: Faust on December 18, 2012, 02:07:46 AM
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 02:05:05 AM
Quote from: Faust on December 18, 2012, 01:58:43 AM
All I ever hear about is this spate of mass car massacres, it's literally non stop. So many people are doing it.
Wait did I say cars? I meant guns.
You mean the terrible multicar pile ups that happen? Or the constant death by auto that happen?
Oh that's right.
Deaths that accidental and one at a time are not as bad, even if there are more of them, than a whole bunch at once.
Dude I don't but that, roger posted the road death rate and the gun death rate, there was a 9% difference, that's insane, I couldn't believe gun deaths were so close to it.
Yes, and?
You are still stating that the death by auto are acceptable because they are stretched over the course of the year, or aren't a massacre. From my viewpoint, you are equating lots of death at once being worse the the same number or more deaths over the course of a year.
I NEVER said that. You have just confused me with RWHN, shame.
To be fair, I don't think RWHN ever actually said that some deaths were acceptable.
I'm fairly certain my last comment on transport was that it should all be public transport which would be awesome.
Quote from: Faust on December 18, 2012, 02:19:36 AM
Quote from: Pæs on December 18, 2012, 02:17:58 AM
Quote from: Faust on December 18, 2012, 02:16:54 AM
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 02:11:10 AM
Quote from: Faust on December 18, 2012, 02:07:46 AM
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 02:05:05 AM
Quote from: Faust on December 18, 2012, 01:58:43 AM
All I ever hear about is this spate of mass car massacres, it's literally non stop. So many people are doing it.
Wait did I say cars? I meant guns.
You mean the terrible multicar pile ups that happen? Or the constant death by auto that happen?
Oh that's right.
Deaths that accidental and one at a time are not as bad, even if there are more of them, than a whole bunch at once.
Dude I don't but that, roger posted the road death rate and the gun death rate, there was a 9% difference, that's insane, I couldn't believe gun deaths were so close to it.
Yes, and?
You are still stating that the death by auto are acceptable because they are stretched over the course of the year, or aren't a massacre. From my viewpoint, you are equating lots of death at once being worse the the same number or more deaths over the course of a year.
I NEVER said that. You have just confused me with RWHN, shame.
To be fair, I don't think RWHN ever actually said that some deaths were acceptable.
I'm fairly certain my last comment on transport was that it should all be public transport which would be awesome.
What are the figures looking like for death caused by illness spread through public transport?
Quote from: Faust on December 18, 2012, 02:16:54 AM
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 02:11:10 AM
Quote from: Faust on December 18, 2012, 02:07:46 AM
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 02:05:05 AM
Quote from: Faust on December 18, 2012, 01:58:43 AM
All I ever hear about is this spate of mass car massacres, it's literally non stop. So many people are doing it.
Wait did I say cars? I meant guns.
You mean the terrible multicar pile ups that happen? Or the constant death by auto that happen?
Oh that's right.
Deaths that accidental and one at a time are not as bad, even if there are more of them, than a whole bunch at once.
Dude I don't but that, roger posted the road death rate and the gun death rate, there was a 9% difference, that's insane, I couldn't believe gun deaths were so close to it.
Yes, and?
You are still stating that the death by auto are acceptable because they are stretched over the course of the year, or aren't a massacre. From my viewpoint, you are equating lots of death at once being worse the the same number or more deaths over the course of a year.
I NEVER said that. You have just confused me with RWHN, shame.
I haven't said that either.
Quote from: Pæs on December 18, 2012, 02:20:44 AM
Quote from: Faust on December 18, 2012, 02:19:36 AM
Quote from: Pæs on December 18, 2012, 02:17:58 AM
Quote from: Faust on December 18, 2012, 02:16:54 AM
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 02:11:10 AM
Quote from: Faust on December 18, 2012, 02:07:46 AM
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 02:05:05 AM
Quote from: Faust on December 18, 2012, 01:58:43 AM
All I ever hear about is this spate of mass car massacres, it's literally non stop. So many people are doing it.
Wait did I say cars? I meant guns.
You mean the terrible multicar pile ups that happen? Or the constant death by auto that happen?
Oh that's right.
Deaths that accidental and one at a time are not as bad, even if there are more of them, than a whole bunch at once.
Dude I don't but that, roger posted the road death rate and the gun death rate, there was a 9% difference, that's insane, I couldn't believe gun deaths were so close to it.
Yes, and?
You are still stating that the death by auto are acceptable because they are stretched over the course of the year, or aren't a massacre. From my viewpoint, you are equating lots of death at once being worse the the same number or more deaths over the course of a year.
I NEVER said that. You have just confused me with RWHN, shame.
To be fair, I don't think RWHN ever actually said that some deaths were acceptable.
I'm fairly certain my last comment on transport was that it should all be public transport which would be awesome.
What are the figures looking like for death caused by illness spread through public transport?
36-24-36
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 02:21:38 AM
Quote from: Faust on December 18, 2012, 02:16:54 AM
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 02:11:10 AM
Quote from: Faust on December 18, 2012, 02:07:46 AM
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 02:05:05 AM
Quote from: Faust on December 18, 2012, 01:58:43 AM
All I ever hear about is this spate of mass car massacres, it's literally non stop. So many people are doing it.
Wait did I say cars? I meant guns.
You mean the terrible multicar pile ups that happen? Or the constant death by auto that happen?
Oh that's right.
Deaths that accidental and one at a time are not as bad, even if there are more of them, than a whole bunch at once.
Dude I don't but that, roger posted the road death rate and the gun death rate, there was a 9% difference, that's insane, I couldn't believe gun deaths were so close to it.
Yes, and?
You are still stating that the death by auto are acceptable because they are stretched over the course of the year, or aren't a massacre. From my viewpoint, you are equating lots of death at once being worse the the same number or more deaths over the course of a year.
I NEVER said that. You have just confused me with RWHN, shame.
I haven't said that either.
Whoops sorry.
Quote from: Faust on December 18, 2012, 02:27:10 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 02:21:38 AM
Quote from: Faust on December 18, 2012, 02:16:54 AM
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 02:11:10 AM
Quote from: Faust on December 18, 2012, 02:07:46 AM
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 02:05:05 AM
Quote from: Faust on December 18, 2012, 01:58:43 AM
All I ever hear about is this spate of mass car massacres, it's literally non stop. So many people are doing it.
Wait did I say cars? I meant guns.
You mean the terrible multicar pile ups that happen? Or the constant death by auto that happen?
Oh that's right.
Deaths that accidental and one at a time are not as bad, even if there are more of them, than a whole bunch at once.
Dude I don't but that, roger posted the road death rate and the gun death rate, there was a 9% difference, that's insane, I couldn't believe gun deaths were so close to it.
Yes, and?
You are still stating that the death by auto are acceptable because they are stretched over the course of the year, or aren't a massacre. From my viewpoint, you are equating lots of death at once being worse the the same number or more deaths over the course of a year.
I NEVER said that. You have just confused me with RWHN, shame.
I haven't said that either.
Whoops sorry.
GO
TO
BED
Quote from: hølist on December 18, 2012, 01:30:22 AM
See, I think there are a ton of ways we could make the country a safer and better place. Banning guns aren't even in my top ten, to tell the truth, even if I believed that there was a functional way to unring that bell and recall all the guns out there on the market, and prevent any more from coming in illegally.
Expanding light rail in order to minimize personal automobile use, largely eliminating the need for personal automobile ownership. How many lives would that save each year, in addition to the reduction in auto accidents? How much war could we avert?
A cost of living stipend for everyone, regardless of income.
Universal health care and free birth control for everyone.
Increased mental health care and greater support systems for mental health issues.
Increased regulations on corporate activities to ensure that their actions are beneficial to the populace.
Changes in farm subsidy policies so that we stop subsidizing largely worthless monoculture crops and corporate farms, and encourage small farmers to diversify their crops.
Tax the fuck out of the super-rich.
End corporate welfare.
Implement a fully subsidized educational system from preschool to PhD.
Shorten the work week to 30 hours.
Significantly increase paid sick time and parental leave.
Significantly increase vacation time, both paid and unpaid options.
If these were implemented, betcha anything that gun (and other types of) violence would become a minimal issue.
I agree wholeheartedly. I also think any two of those changes would be opposed almost as hard as gun restriction.
It is pretty difficult to argue that guns don't make it easier to kill quicker than other forms of weaponry. Recent years have proven that building bombs is a hell of a lot more difficult than people think, and knife attacks - whilst horrific - don't rack up the 20+ body counts.
But the fact remains that in the case of the United States, it is - like Nigel said - impossible to take it all back. Aside from being politically unpalatable, I'd imagine the costs of trying to cut down on gun ownership would be obscene.
On a completely different note, whilst rifles of various sorts are used for hunting... aren't pistols only practical for killing people? I'm genuinely curious on that because I believe that was the rhetoric used to justify banning pistols over here, whilst sporting rifles (even semi-automatic ones) and shotguns are still available with a license.
It's also interesting that gun crime in the UK has been rising significantly over the past few years, as cheap firearms have become more readily available. Mostly this has remained criminal-on-criminal, as the expectation is that people don't have guns so you don't need more than a knife to scare the piss out of a couple you are robbing, but there are notable exceptions (http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/two-policewomen-gunned-down-and-attacked-with-grenade-may-have-been-lured-to-their-deaths-8152798.html).
Mark Ames finally has a piece up on the shooting.
Sort of.
As I suspected, he felt the shooting didn't fall into the typical school or workplace shootings he discussed, as Lanza was not a student or employee of the place he shot up.
He instead decides to talk about the history of the NRA, gun control, wealth disparities and society in general.
http://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/newtown
QuoteSo what's really going on here? Why the crazy? It's not exactly a revelation to learn that the NRA is run by hick fascist nutjobs, although we quickly forget just how toxic they are without constant reminding. But each time you peel off a layer, it's more shocking than you expected it be.
But what's the purpose, what are the deeper ideological politics of that sort of gun-cult fanaticism?
Looking back at Big Business' violent reaction against the New Deal and the political culture that it created: a more "collectivist" political culture, as the libertarians derisively call it, where people were more deeply involved with each other and their communities, and with that involvement in their politics and communities came greater trust in their communities. That political culture — where people were more involved in their politics and trusted government more than they trusted business — was a big problem, according to pollsters and PR experts hired by business lobby groups in the postwar era, groups like the National Association of Manufacturers and the Chamber of Commerce.
Much better is to pour arms unrestricted into the population, give them legal cover and political encouragement to take political matters into their own hands with laws like "Stand Your Ground". That way you wind up creating a political culture of atomized, fear-fueled citizens who think they're literally at war with each other, and their only way out is to fend for themselves and their family.
One of FDR's first and most powerful opponents in the 30s and 40s was a New York lobbyist and public relations heavyweight named Merwin K. Hart. He was the brains and organizing force behind far-right big business groups like the American Liberty League, the isolationist America First Committee, and the far-right National Economic Council, fighting labor unions and waging nonstop war on democracy, which Merwin Hart equated with Communism. He also served as PR flak for Spain's fascist dictator, publishing a fawning book on Franco in 1939 titled "America, Look At Spain" completely whitewashing the hundreds of thousands of Spaniards his client the Generalissimo had just finished slaughtering.
Robert Jackson — the Nuremberg Trials prosecutor and Supreme Court Justice — singled out Merwin K. Hart as one of America's most dangerous fascists on the eve of World War Two. After the war, Hart became a leading Holocaust denier. He also helped engineer Joe McCarthy's election victory, and helped spearhead relentless attacks on "collectivism" (in which act together in politics and the workplace, rather than "individually" which is how the bosses prefer it), and against democracy, which Hart claimed was an alien Communist idea subverting American liberty. He proposed "that every person who accepted any form of government help should be denied the right to vote." He also called for impeaching the entire Supreme Court, accusing the justices of being "dedicated to socialism."
In place of democracy and "collectivism" and community activism, Merwin K. Hart promoted "individualism" and fear.
And that naturally led Merwin K Hart into promoting the sort of fanatical gun-politics that shocked the public in his time, but today is accepted as part of the mainstream discourse, as if NRA gun-fanaticism was always in the air, rather than a political project with political ends in mind.
In a 1948 newsletter to his followers later read aloud to shocked House committee members, Hart made a "concrete suggestion" to his members, calling on the head of every American home to "possess himself of one or more guns, making sure they are in good condition, that he and other members of his family know how to use them, and that he has a reasonable supply of ammunition."
And just before he died in 1962, Merwin Hart organized fringe gun groups like the Minutemen -- a Southern California gun-cult that claimed to possess hundreds of automatic weapons and had "information" of an impending invasion by Chinese troops massing on the Mexican border. Together, they successfully killed a bill that would require handgun registration. Hart used language too extreme for that era's NRA: "Any congressman or senator who votes for the Anfoso [gun] bill knowing its real purpose would disqualify himself from ever again expecting to be called an American."
QuoteBecause it's now so deeply ingrained that owning guns is a form of radical subversive politics, the people who still engage in real politics have the pick of the litter. That first became really clear in the depths of the 2008-9 collapse, when a lot of people who thought of themselves as radicals and anarchists made a lot of feckless noise about how they were arming and preparing for the collapse and revolution. They could've gone out and organized something and maybe built a politics of people power or even a politics of what they call revolution, a politics that actually changed things. But instead, they locked themselves in their homes and apartments with their guns and fancied themselves political revolutionaries just waiting to be swept up. But no one came. No one bothered or cared. And really, why would any plutocrat or evil government agency bother with the suckers, all harmlessly atomized and isolated and thoroughly neutralized by the false sense of political empowerment that their guns gave them, while you do the real work of plundering budgets, bribing politicians and writing laws even more in your favor?
So while everyone was hiding out in their homes armed and ready for Hollywood finales that never came, in the real world political power was concentrating at warp-speed with zero resistance.
From the oligarchy's perspective, the people were thoroughly neutralized by the false sense of political empowerment that guns gave them. Guns don't work in this country — they didn't work for the Black Panthers or the Whiskey Rebellion, and they won't work for you or me either.
Which I can't disagree with. I know I've said, in this very thread, that gun control in the USA is untenable, for social reasons, and for reasons of basic supply and demand. Too many guns are available, if they were outlawed a black market would easily flourish, in addition to the social unrest issues I've mentioned already.
But I've also said before that anyone who thinks having a gun is defending their rights is a moron, and that letting people own guns is a distraction from how they are taking it up the arse from plutocrats, because "they still have their guns" and so must be free, right?
Because I'm late to the thread:
Quote from: Faust on December 18, 2012, 12:01:12 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 17, 2012, 11:59:06 PM
On the other hand, I am puzzled by Faust attempting to turn you and I into caricatures of NRA members.
I haven't. I have no idea if you own a gun at all. I just haven't seen anything to shift my view that there is simply no reason to own a gun.
This is why:
(http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/41051_1529513112768_1903057_n.jpg)
But, once again, Cain's posted something brilliant, and I just sound trite.
Quote from: Cain on December 18, 2012, 09:35:37 AM
Mark Ames finally has a piece up on the shooting.
Sort of.
As I suspected, he felt the shooting didn't fall into the typical school or workplace shootings he discussed, as Lanza was not a student or employee of the place he shot up.
He instead decides to talk about the history of the NRA, gun control, wealth disparities and society in general.
http://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/newtown
QuoteSo what’s really going on here? Why the crazy? It’s not exactly a revelation to learn that the NRA is run by hick fascist nutjobs, although we quickly forget just how toxic they are without constant reminding. But each time you peel off a layer, it’s more shocking than you expected it be.
But what’s the purpose, what are the deeper ideological politics of that sort of gun-cult fanaticism?
Looking back at Big Business’ violent reaction against the New Deal and the political culture that it created: a more "collectivist" political culture, as the libertarians derisively call it, where people were more deeply involved with each other and their communities, and with that involvement in their politics and communities came greater trust in their communities. That political culture — where people were more involved in their politics and trusted government more than they trusted business — was a big problem, according to pollsters and PR experts hired by business lobby groups in the postwar era, groups like the National Association of Manufacturers and the Chamber of Commerce.
Much better is to pour arms unrestricted into the population, give them legal cover and political encouragement to take political matters into their own hands with laws like "Stand Your Ground". That way you wind up creating a political culture of atomized, fear-fueled citizens who think they’re literally at war with each other, and their only way out is to fend for themselves and their family.
One of FDR’s first and most powerful opponents in the 30s and 40s was a New York lobbyist and public relations heavyweight named Merwin K. Hart. He was the brains and organizing force behind far-right big business groups like the American Liberty League, the isolationist America First Committee, and the far-right National Economic Council, fighting labor unions and waging nonstop war on democracy, which Merwin Hart equated with Communism. He also served as PR flak for Spain’s fascist dictator, publishing a fawning book on Franco in 1939 titled "America, Look At Spain" completely whitewashing the hundreds of thousands of Spaniards his client the Generalissimo had just finished slaughtering.
Robert Jackson — the Nuremberg Trials prosecutor and Supreme Court Justice — singled out Merwin K. Hart as one of America’s most dangerous fascists on the eve of World War Two. After the war, Hart became a leading Holocaust denier. He also helped engineer Joe McCarthy’s election victory, and helped spearhead relentless attacks on "collectivism" (in which act together in politics and the workplace, rather than "individually" which is how the bosses prefer it), and against democracy, which Hart claimed was an alien Communist idea subverting American liberty. He proposed "that every person who accepted any form of government help should be denied the right to vote." He also called for impeaching the entire Supreme Court, accusing the justices of being "dedicated to socialism."
In place of democracy and "collectivism" and community activism, Merwin K. Hart promoted "individualism" and fear.
And that naturally led Merwin K Hart into promoting the sort of fanatical gun-politics that shocked the public in his time, but today is accepted as part of the mainstream discourse, as if NRA gun-fanaticism was always in the air, rather than a political project with political ends in mind.
In a 1948 newsletter to his followers later read aloud to shocked House committee members, Hart made a "concrete suggestion" to his members, calling on the head of every American home to "possess himself of one or more guns, making sure they are in good condition, that he and other members of his family know how to use them, and that he has a reasonable supply of ammunition."
And just before he died in 1962, Merwin Hart organized fringe gun groups like the Minutemen -- a Southern California gun-cult that claimed to possess hundreds of automatic weapons and had "information" of an impending invasion by Chinese troops massing on the Mexican border. Together, they successfully killed a bill that would require handgun registration. Hart used language too extreme for that era’s NRA: "Any congressman or senator who votes for the Anfoso [gun] bill knowing its real purpose would disqualify himself from ever again expecting to be called an American."
QuoteBecause it’s now so deeply ingrained that owning guns is a form of radical subversive politics, the people who still engage in real politics have the pick of the litter. That first became really clear in the depths of the 2008-9 collapse, when a lot of people who thought of themselves as radicals and anarchists made a lot of feckless noise about how they were arming and preparing for the collapse and revolution. They could’ve gone out and organized something and maybe built a politics of people power or even a politics of what they call revolution, a politics that actually changed things. But instead, they locked themselves in their homes and apartments with their guns and fancied themselves political revolutionaries just waiting to be swept up. But no one came. No one bothered or cared. And really, why would any plutocrat or evil government agency bother with the suckers, all harmlessly atomized and isolated and thoroughly neutralized by the false sense of political empowerment that their guns gave them, while you do the real work of plundering budgets, bribing politicians and writing laws even more in your favor?
So while everyone was hiding out in their homes armed and ready for Hollywood finales that never came, in the real world political power was concentrating at warp-speed with zero resistance.
From the oligarchy’s perspective, the people were thoroughly neutralized by the false sense of political empowerment that guns gave them. Guns don’t work in this country — they didn’t work for the Black Panthers or the Whiskey Rebellion, and they won’t work for you or me either.
Which I can't disagree with. I know I've said, in this very thread, that gun control in the USA is untenable, for social reasons, and for reasons of basic supply and demand. Too many guns are available, if they were outlawed a black market would easily flourish, in addition to the social unrest issues I've mentioned already.
But I've also said before that anyone who thinks having a gun is defending their rights is a moron, and that letting people own guns is a distraction from how they are taking it up the arse from plutocrats, because "they still have their guns" and so must be free, right?
Bump to bring Cain's post to the new page.
Cain forgets that America is a nation composed of the lunatics that his nation - among others - threw out for being retards.
What the hell did Europe think it was going to get out of this?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 03:17:32 PM
Cain forgets that America is a nation composed of the lunatics that his nation - among others - threw out for being retards.
What the hell did Europe think it was going to get out of this?
At least Australia got convicts. :horrormirth:
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on December 18, 2012, 04:19:34 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 03:17:32 PM
Cain forgets that America is a nation composed of the lunatics that his nation - among others - threw out for being retards.
What the hell did Europe think it was going to get out of this?
At least Australia got convicts. :horrormirth:
They were called coffin ships for a reason, you were never supposed to survive. I think europe should ask for it's money back.
Of course, we are all overlooking one simple prevention method to halt school shootings:
God (http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/12/conservatives-newtown-shooting-twitter).
I am fascinated by the idea of individualism as a corporate product. It makes more sense to explain that facet of American culture than any other explanation I've heard. It's interesting to me because individualism is fundamentally detrimental to communities, yet it is so strongly ingrained in our culture.
i don't see what the failing of the typical explanation is, i.e. the self-reliance required by a frontier society, and a heritage of mistrust of govt.
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on December 18, 2012, 05:34:31 PM
i don't see what the failing of the typical explanation is, i.e. the self-reliance required by a frontier society, and a heritage of mistrust of govt.
Bolded part is utter goo and drivel. The American public worships the government. Part of that worship is pretending to despise it, which they do poorly.
Americans worship all manner of things that don't actually exist. Government is pretty much #2.
the fact that it is myth hardly invalidates it as reason for individualism in our culture.
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on December 18, 2012, 05:34:31 PM
i don't see what the failing of the typical explanation is, i.e. the self-reliance required by a frontier society, and a heritage of mistrust of govt.
The bolded is where the typical explanation fails, because it's complete and utter made-up bullshit. Self-reliance in that context is a fairy tale; survival in frontier conditions requires a strong and cohesive community. The self-reliance mythos came from miners and mining companies moving into new territory with an every-man-for-himself ethic, but it completely falls apart when you examine the survival needs of family settlers moving West. Or the entire history of humanity.
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on December 18, 2012, 05:40:47 PM
the fact that it is myth hardly invalidates it as reason for individualism in our culture.
I can accept that as valid; I suspect that it is a myth created and spread by corporate interests who wanted the public to buy into it and act accordingly.
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on December 18, 2012, 05:40:47 PM
the fact that it is myth hardly invalidates it as reason for individualism in our culture.
What individualism? 94% of all Americans strongly identify with one of the "two" political parties, and swallow the indentical bullshit. The individualist has about as much reality in American history as does Paul Bunyan...That is to say, it is an entirely made-up legend (barring the odd psychotic here an there in history).
Even our "rebels" wear a uniform, for Chrissakes. Conformity, though not as emphatic now as it was after world war II, is an American trait.
Quote from: hølist on December 18, 2012, 05:43:45 PM
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on December 18, 2012, 05:40:47 PM
the fact that it is myth hardly invalidates it as reason for individualism in our culture.
I can accept that as valid; I suspect that it is a myth created and spread by corporate interests who wanted the public to buy into it and act accordingly.
Yep. That's why the Koch brothers created Sarah Palin.
Quote from: hølist on December 18, 2012, 05:27:17 PM
I am fascinated by the idea of individualism as a corporate product. It makes more sense to explain that facet of American culture than any other explanation I've heard. It's interesting to me because individualism is fundamentally detrimental to communities, yet it is so strongly ingrained in our culture.
I believe the New Left has produced a significant amount of literature on this topic.
I haven't read much of it, but the reading I have done suggests that there is a certain element of truth to it. Though I would suggest it is a specifically oligarchical/plutocratic product, most corporations caring more about making money than stifling dissent.
If anyone wants to see "individualism" in action, go look at houston free thinkers on Facebook.
There's your individualism.
it seems a little too CT to me. possible, i guess, but wouldn't it have to be a large scale effort to push this on the public (considering the forces you mention which would work in the exact opposite direction) over a terribly long time? it seems that it would be outed by now if that were the case.
fun to think about, though
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on December 18, 2012, 05:49:41 PM
it seems a little too CT to me.
Well, let's consider the facts:
1. People who are definitely dependent on society refer to themselves as "rugged individualists".
2. From 1945-1993, individualism was frowned upon.
3. From 1993-present, right wing propaganda has unceasingly brayed about the "individualist".
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on December 18, 2012, 05:49:41 PM
it seems a little too CT to me. possible, i guess, but wouldn't it have to be a large scale effort to push this on the public (considering the forces you mention which would work in the exact opposite direction) over a terribly long time? it seems that it would be outed by now if that were the case.
fun to think about, though
Since when is "marketing" a conspiracy theory? :lol:
The whole "Rugged Frontier Individualist Society" thing never made any sense to me, for reasons I've already explained. Huge swathes of our American mythology come from marketing campaigns, and this particular one, so neat and tidy, definitely fits that model well. It seems a hell of a lot more plausible than the idea that it arose spontaneously.
http://www.amazon.com/Manufacturing-Discontent-Individualism-Corporate-Society/dp/0745324061
Quote from: hølist on December 18, 2012, 05:56:05 PM
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on December 18, 2012, 05:49:41 PM
it seems a little too CT to me. possible, i guess, but wouldn't it have to be a large scale effort to push this on the public (considering the forces you mention which would work in the exact opposite direction) over a terribly long time? it seems that it would be outed by now if that were the case.
fun to think about, though
Since when is "marketing" a conspiracy theory? :lol:
Since it started
working. Ever since the 8 circuit model was adopted, in other words. They figured out that ads with women draped over cars sold magazines with the ads, not the cars themselves. So they went with the 8 circuit model, discredited Leary (with his assistance), and then put the shit to work. That's why the 8 circuit model is found in marketing and political science classes, but not psychology classes.
You can't swing a dead cat without hitting an example of the model in use. Every commercial on TV, for example.
So it's a CT. It's just a CT that happens to be TRUE.
Quote from: hølist on December 18, 2012, 05:56:05 PM
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on December 18, 2012, 05:49:41 PM
it seems a little too CT to me. possible, i guess, but wouldn't it have to be a large scale effort to push this on the public (considering the forces you mention which would work in the exact opposite direction) over a terribly long time? it seems that it would be outed by now if that were the case.
fun to think about, though
Since when is "marketing" a conspiracy theory? :lol:
The whole "Rugged Frontier Individualist Society" thing never made any sense to me, for reasons I've already explained. Huge swathes of our American mythology come from marketing campaigns, and this particular one, so neat and tidy, definitely fits that model well. It seems a hell of a lot more plausible than the idea that it arose spontaneously.
maybe you're right, but i was under the impression that "marketing" was pretty straight forward at the time the individualism theme became prominent in our country. (which was when? if it is the result of a campaign, it would have a pretty clear demarcation of origin, wouldn't it?)
Quote from: Cain on December 18, 2012, 05:48:23 PM
Quote from: hølist on December 18, 2012, 05:27:17 PM
I am fascinated by the idea of individualism as a corporate product. It makes more sense to explain that facet of American culture than any other explanation I've heard. It's interesting to me because individualism is fundamentally detrimental to communities, yet it is so strongly ingrained in our culture.
I believe the New Left has produced a significant amount of literature on this topic.
I haven't read much of it, but the reading I have done suggests that there is a certain element of truth to it. Though I would suggest it is a specifically oligarchical/plutocratic product, most corporations caring more about making money than stifling dissent.
All corporations care about is making money, which means that they will stifle dissent (or encourage it) when it's financially expedient.
I mean, look at Venezuela.
Quote from: Cain on December 18, 2012, 05:58:22 PM
http://www.amazon.com/Manufacturing-Discontent-Individualism-Corporate-Society/dp/0745324061
Thanks, Cain!
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on December 18, 2012, 06:08:33 PM
Quote from: hølist on December 18, 2012, 05:56:05 PM
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on December 18, 2012, 05:49:41 PM
it seems a little too CT to me. possible, i guess, but wouldn't it have to be a large scale effort to push this on the public (considering the forces you mention which would work in the exact opposite direction) over a terribly long time? it seems that it would be outed by now if that were the case.
fun to think about, though
Since when is "marketing" a conspiracy theory? :lol:
The whole "Rugged Frontier Individualist Society" thing never made any sense to me, for reasons I've already explained. Huge swathes of our American mythology come from marketing campaigns, and this particular one, so neat and tidy, definitely fits that model well. It seems a hell of a lot more plausible than the idea that it arose spontaneously.
maybe you're right, but i was under the impression that "marketing" was pretty straight forward at the time the individualism theme became prominent in our country. (which was when? if it is the result of a campaign, it would have a pretty clear demarcation of origin, wouldn't it?)
Why are you asking me for facts and figures on a concept that I just heard about and said I'm intrigued by? And why are you arguing against the idea of it before I even look into it? Trying to dissuade someone from
doing more research is kinda pink, don't you think? Does the idea threaten your worldview so profoundly that you don't even want other people to look into it? WTF.
An interesting dichotomy exists between television shows and television commercials.
The commercials use the 8 circuit model to emphasize a myth of individuality (some of which are done in a diabolically clever way, like the "Bluebell Ice Cream" commericials), while the shows emphatically state that it's okay for an individualist to conform to the group or submit to authority by his or her own choice (that choice, of course, being an illusion). Specific examples would be "24", where we "choose to allow" people like Jack Bauer to torture people for the common good, because he's an even more "rugged individualist" than we are, and can therefore be trusted to act in our stead.
What this means, of course, is that American society has been sold on the idea that they're individualists for really and true, they're just taking a vacation from it while the bigger, meaner individualists fix shit.
Which is, to my mind, horrormirth at its finest.
What I want to know is why do mentally unhealthy Americans keep targeting schools? Isn't that the more critical question? Why not banks or Walmart or the airports or malls or any other crowded place?
When Columbine happened I was in the 7th grade...and was anything but shocked. Our schools are breeding grounds for poor mental health. The only thing that shocks me is how infrequently these things happen. Americans are slowly but surely eating themselves, and they are going to do it with whatever tools on hand.
And it seems many of these people pick places that coincide with critical aspects of their development.
Quote from: Alty on December 18, 2012, 06:45:00 PM
What I want to know is why do mentally unhealthy Americans keep targeting schools? Isn't that the more critical question? Why not banks or Walmart or the airports or malls or any other crowded place?
Because they're nuts?
Quote from: hølist on December 18, 2012, 06:18:15 PM
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on December 18, 2012, 06:08:33 PM
Quote from: hølist on December 18, 2012, 05:56:05 PM
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on December 18, 2012, 05:49:41 PM
it seems a little too CT to me. possible, i guess, but wouldn't it have to be a large scale effort to push this on the public (considering the forces you mention which would work in the exact opposite direction) over a terribly long time? it seems that it would be outed by now if that were the case.
fun to think about, though
Since when is "marketing" a conspiracy theory? :lol:
The whole "Rugged Frontier Individualist Society" thing never made any sense to me, for reasons I've already explained. Huge swathes of our American mythology come from marketing campaigns, and this particular one, so neat and tidy, definitely fits that model well. It seems a hell of a lot more plausible than the idea that it arose spontaneously.
maybe you're right, but i was under the impression that "marketing" was pretty straight forward at the time the individualism theme became prominent in our country. (which was when? if it is the result of a campaign, it would have a pretty clear demarcation of origin, wouldn't it?)
Why are you asking me for facts and figures on a concept that I just heard about and said I'm intrigued by? And why are you arguing against the idea of it before I even look into it? Trying to dissuade someone from doing more research is kinda pink, don't you think? Does the idea threaten your worldview so profoundly that you don't even want other people to look into it? WTF.
no. it was idle chatting. i wasn't asking for facts and figures, they were rhetorical questions that popped into my head.
you're more than welcome to do research that intrigues you, of course, and far be it from me to attempt to dissuade you. if you found anything of note, i would be interested to hear it.
Quote from: Alty on December 18, 2012, 06:45:00 PM
When Columbine happened I was in the 7th grade...and was anything but shocked. Our schools are breeding grounds for poor mental health. The only thing that shocks me is how infrequently these things happen. Americans are slowly but surely eating themselves, and they are going to do it with whatever tools on hand.
And it seems many of these people pick places that coincide with critical aspects of their development.
Expect this post to get ignored, Alty. It's not pushing the right buttons for this thread. The correct buttons are:
1. GUNS ARE INHERENTLY BAD.
2. GUNS ARE INHERENTLY GOOD.
3. AMERICANS ARE INDIVIDUALISTS.
4. GUNSGUNSGUNSGUNSGUNS
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 06:36:23 PM
What this means, of course, is that American society has been sold on the idea that they're individualists for really and true, they're just taking a vacation from it while the bigger, meaner individualists fix shit.
Which is, to my mind, horrormirth at its finest.
Why do I even bother?
Found another solution for tackling insane gunmen, which does not this time rely on the power of prayer and a moral lifestyle:
Banzai toddler charges (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/17/there-s-little-we-can-do-to-prevent-another-massacre.html).
Quote from: Cain on December 18, 2012, 06:54:13 PM
Found another solution for tackling insane gunmen, which does not this time rely on the power of prayer and a moral lifestyle:
Banzai toddler charges (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/17/there-s-little-we-can-do-to-prevent-another-massacre.html).
:lulz: :horrormirth: :lulz:
Quote from: Alty on December 18, 2012, 06:45:00 PM
What I want to know is why do mentally unhealthy Americans keep targeting schools? Isn't that the more critical question? Why not banks or Walmart or the airports or malls or any other crowded place?
When Columbine happened I was in the 7th grade...and was anything but shocked. Our schools are breeding grounds for poor mental health. The only thing that shocks me is how infrequently these things happen. Americans are slowly but surely eating themselves, and they are going to do it with whatever tools on hand.
And it seems many of these people pick places that coincide with critical aspects of their development.
Could you expand on that thought of schools being breeding grounds for poor mental health? What specifically about schools do you think breeds poor mental health?
Also, an interesting note specific to the actual news story, it turns ou that Lanza in fact had no ties to this school. He didn't go there and his mother didn't teach there, contrary to the initial reports. So it is curious as to why he decided to target this school.
Quote from: Alty on December 18, 2012, 06:45:00 PM
What I want to know is why do mentally unhealthy Americans keep targeting schools? Isn't that the more critical question? Why not banks or Walmart or the airports or malls or any other crowded place?
When Columbine happened I was in the 7th grade...and was anything but shocked. Our schools are breeding grounds for poor mental health. The only thing that shocks me is how infrequently these things happen. Americans are slowly but surely eating themselves, and they are going to do it with whatever tools on hand.
And it seems many of these people pick places that coincide with critical aspects of their development.
Throwing some speculation at the question:
1) Schools are vulnerable, because kids are vulnerable. Mass killers are looking to rack up a body count, fast, with minimal resistance. Schools are not the only places that fit this criteria, but they're probably one of the best.
2) If these killers have come to the conclusion that people must die because they believe society/everyone/the world is somehow wrong and deserving of murder, schools might fit very well into a killer's mental construct as "the root of corruption."
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 06:56:25 PM
Could you expand on that thought of schools being breeding grounds for poor mental health? What specifically about schools do you think breeds poor mental health?
Also, an interesting note specific to the actual news story, it turns ou that Lanza in fact had no ties to this school. He didn't go there and his mother didn't teach there, contrary to the initial reports. So it is curious as to why he decided to target this school.
The fuckery deepens, but I'm not too surprised. After reading
Columbine by Dave Cullen (highly recommended read), I learned to be extremely skeptical of all reporting coming out of events like this.
It's a lens on the tragedy of the news media machine these days. The motivstion to get "facts" on the air quickly is, of course, all one ups-manship. Get the scoop. But with the Internet it's been amplified. And as soon as something goes up, it goes viral, and you can't unring the bell. They initially fingered the wrong Lanza. Think about what HIS life is going to be like now?
Not only is he the brother of this idiot who killed all of those people, for many, he still IS the idiot who killed all of those kids. Facebook is great at spreading false information but it sucks at correcting it. But it is getting fed the bullshit by the news media. It's just all horribly broken.
Quote from: Alty on December 18, 2012, 06:45:00 PM
What I want to know is why do mentally unhealthy Americans keep targeting schools?
Hold up.
The last three major shootings that come to mind:
School.
Movie Theater.
Political Rally.
It's called the LAW OF FIVES, PEOPLE! I expect people on this board to be SLIGHTLY more rational!
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 06:48:15 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 06:36:23 PM
What this means, of course, is that American society has been sold on the idea that they're individualists for really and true, they're just taking a vacation from it while the bigger, meaner individualists fix shit.
Which is, to my mind, horrormirth at its finest.
Why do I even bother?
Independence is a myth, and always has been. It's a brave, noble narrative, made popular by 70s outlaw cinema, but it's utterly bullshit.
NOT ONLY DID YOU NOT BUILD THAT, YOU DIDN'T EVEN TRY TO HELP.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 06:56:25 PM
Quote from: Alty on December 18, 2012, 06:45:00 PM
What I want to know is why do mentally unhealthy Americans keep targeting schools? Isn't that the more critical question? Why not banks or Walmart or the airports or malls or any other crowded place?
When Columbine happened I was in the 7th grade...and was anything but shocked. Our schools are breeding grounds for poor mental health. The only thing that shocks me is how infrequently these things happen. Americans are slowly but surely eating themselves, and they are going to do it with whatever tools on hand.
And it seems many of these people pick places that coincide with critical aspects of their development.
Could you expand on that thought of schools being breeding grounds for poor mental health? What specifically about schools do you think breeds poor mental health?
Well, I can't speak for other school districts, and it's kind of hard to explain because I take it for granted, but:
The schools I went to all had bullying, apathy in the staff from top to bottom, an US vs THEM mentality between the students and the staff, lack of monitoring of behavior allowing bullying and other cruelties to take place, theft, violence. And all to guarantee...what? That American kids have a basic education? For what, so that we can eventually build up a good credit rating so we can all rot comfortably on this crowded dirtball? What exactly does a light at the end of that tunnel look like?
This was my environment. Add to that the developing of a horrible human brain, how in gods name is ANYONE surprised?
Imagine all the kids that go through that and don't have the means to express their rage and horror because they've, you know, never been TAUGHT how to express those things in a safe, healthy manner.
LMNO: Yeah but how many other school shootings have there been total in the US? Compared with other countries? I remember one about ten years ago in Germany. But you are probably right, about the Lo5's, especially considering what I just posted above. I will think about that, thanks.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 06:48:15 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 06:36:23 PM
What this means, of course, is that American society has been sold on the idea that they're individualists for really and true, they're just taking a vacation from it while the bigger, meaner individualists fix shit.
Which is, to my mind, horrormirth at its finest.
Why do I even bother?
I somehow enjoy knowing that that's just another product. Like a Quarter Pounder with Cheese for your entire life. At least it makes it easier to avoid.
Quote from: Alty on December 18, 2012, 07:39:11 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 06:48:15 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 06:36:23 PM
What this means, of course, is that American society has been sold on the idea that they're individualists for really and true, they're just taking a vacation from it while the bigger, meaner individualists fix shit.
Which is, to my mind, horrormirth at its finest.
Why do I even bother?
I somehow enjoy knowing that that's just another product. Like a Quarter Pounder with Cheese for your entire life. At least it makes it easier to avoid.
Yeah.
Anyway, I now know not to bother challenging cherished paradigms. Here, at least. People just look right past it and move on.
Quote from: Alty on December 18, 2012, 07:39:11 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 06:48:15 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 06:36:23 PM
What this means, of course, is that American society has been sold on the idea that they're individualists for really and true, they're just taking a vacation from it while the bigger, meaner individualists fix shit.
Which is, to my mind, horrormirth at its finest.
Why do I even bother?
I somehow enjoy knowing that that's just another product. Like a Quarter Pounder with Cheese for your entire life. At least it makes it easier to avoid.
Massacres as a mass market product so you too can have something to feel outrage over.
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 07:44:04 PM
Quote from: Alty on December 18, 2012, 07:39:11 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 06:48:15 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 06:36:23 PM
What this means, of course, is that American society has been sold on the idea that they're individualists for really and true, they're just taking a vacation from it while the bigger, meaner individualists fix shit.
Which is, to my mind, horrormirth at its finest.
Why do I even bother?
I somehow enjoy knowing that that's just another product. Like a Quarter Pounder with Cheese for your entire life. At least it makes it easier to avoid.
Massacres as a mass market product so you too can have something to feel outrage over.
:facepalm:
I quit.
Quote from: Alty on December 18, 2012, 07:33:06 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2012, 06:56:25 PM
Quote from: Alty on December 18, 2012, 06:45:00 PM
What I want to know is why do mentally unhealthy Americans keep targeting schools? Isn't that the more critical question? Why not banks or Walmart or the airports or malls or any other crowded place?
When Columbine happened I was in the 7th grade...and was anything but shocked. Our schools are breeding grounds for poor mental health. The only thing that shocks me is how infrequently these things happen. Americans are slowly but surely eating themselves, and they are going to do it with whatever tools on hand.
And it seems many of these people pick places that coincide with critical aspects of their development.
Could you expand on that thought of schools being breeding grounds for poor mental health? What specifically about schools do you think breeds poor mental health?
Well, I can't speak for other school districts, and it's kind of hard to explain because I take it for granted, but:
The schools I went to all had bullying, apathy in the staff from top to bottom, an US vs THEM mentality between the students and the staff, lack of monitoring of behavior allowing bullying and other cruelties to take place, theft, violence. And all to guarantee...what? That American kids have a basic education? For what, so that we can eventually build up a good credit rating so we can all rot comfortably on this crowded dirtball? What exactly does a light at the end of that tunnel look like?
This was my environment. Add to that the developing of a horrible human brain, how in gods name is ANYONE surprised?
Imagine all the kids that go through that and don't have the means to express their rage and horror because they've, you know, never been TAUGHT how to express those things in a safe, healthy manner.
LMNO: Yeah but how many other school shootings have there been total in the US? Compared with other countries? I remember one about ten years ago in Germany. But you are probably right, about the Lo5's, especially considering what I just posted above. I will think about that, thanks.
I want to say there might be a connection, of sorts, between school environment and the general culture that encourages this kind of thing to happen. But, I might be reaching.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 06:31:10 PM
An interesting dichotomy exists between television shows and television commercials.
The commercials use the 8 circuit model to emphasize a myth of individuality (some of which are done in a diabolically clever way, like the "Bluebell Ice Cream" commericials), while the shows emphatically state that it's okay for an individualist to conform to the group or submit to authority by his or her own choice (that choice, of course, being an illusion). Specific examples would be "24", where we "choose to allow" people like Jack Bauer to torture people for the common good, because he's an even more "rugged individualist" than we are, and can therefore be trusted to act in our stead.
Yeah, it's pretty interesting how so many TV shows right now center around an agency that's bigger than the government, or an individual (or individuals) who operate outside of the law, essentially taking care of things for the rest of us.
It's an odd dichotomy, reinforcing the idea of "rugged individualism GOOD!" while also providing the comforting notion that we're all being taken care of.
Quote from: hølist on December 18, 2012, 07:56:57 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 06:31:10 PM
An interesting dichotomy exists between television shows and television commercials.
The commercials use the 8 circuit model to emphasize a myth of individuality (some of which are done in a diabolically clever way, like the "Bluebell Ice Cream" commericials), while the shows emphatically state that it's okay for an individualist to conform to the group or submit to authority by his or her own choice (that choice, of course, being an illusion). Specific examples would be "24", where we "choose to allow" people like Jack Bauer to torture people for the common good, because he's an even more "rugged individualist" than we are, and can therefore be trusted to act in our stead.
Yeah, it's pretty interesting how so many TV shows right now center around an agency that's bigger than the government, or an individual (or individuals) who operate outside of the law, essentially taking care of things for the rest of us.
It's an odd dichotomy, reinforcing the idea of "rugged individualism GOOD!" while also providing the comforting notion that we're all being taken care of.
It's also funny how people can't or won't look at the situation, because it hits them square in the 2nd circuit. You can explain until you're blue in the face, and they CAN'T LOOK AT IT.
Conditioning is a terrible thing.
Quote from: Alty on December 18, 2012, 06:45:00 PM
What I want to know is why do mentally unhealthy Americans keep targeting schools? Isn't that the more critical question? Why not banks or Walmart or the airports or malls or any other crowded place?
When Columbine happened I was in the 7th grade...and was anything but shocked. Our schools are breeding grounds for poor mental health. The only thing that shocks me is how infrequently these things happen. Americans are slowly but surely eating themselves, and they are going to do it with whatever tools on hand.
And it seems many of these people pick places that coincide with critical aspects of their development.
Yep. Completely. That's just one facet of our deeply fucked society, but yes. You also see that pattern in workplace shootings. Deeply damaged people doing damage on places that they felt traumatized and disempowered in.
Quote from: Cain on December 18, 2012, 06:54:13 PM
Found another solution for tackling insane gunmen, which does not this time rely on the power of prayer and a moral lifestyle:
Banzai toddler charges (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/17/there-s-little-we-can-do-to-prevent-another-massacre.html).
i read through this article bobbing my head like a ninny, in total agreement, thinking your summary phrase was just a hook, and then she said it. :aaa: :lulz:
apart from the final suggestion, though, it was a really good article, imo.
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on December 18, 2012, 06:46:19 PM
Quote from: hølist on December 18, 2012, 06:18:15 PM
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on December 18, 2012, 06:08:33 PM
Quote from: hølist on December 18, 2012, 05:56:05 PM
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on December 18, 2012, 05:49:41 PM
it seems a little too CT to me. possible, i guess, but wouldn't it have to be a large scale effort to push this on the public (considering the forces you mention which would work in the exact opposite direction) over a terribly long time? it seems that it would be outed by now if that were the case.
fun to think about, though
Since when is "marketing" a conspiracy theory? :lol:
The whole "Rugged Frontier Individualist Society" thing never made any sense to me, for reasons I've already explained. Huge swathes of our American mythology come from marketing campaigns, and this particular one, so neat and tidy, definitely fits that model well. It seems a hell of a lot more plausible than the idea that it arose spontaneously.
maybe you're right, but i was under the impression that "marketing" was pretty straight forward at the time the individualism theme became prominent in our country. (which was when? if it is the result of a campaign, it would have a pretty clear demarcation of origin, wouldn't it?)
Why are you asking me for facts and figures on a concept that I just heard about and said I'm intrigued by? And why are you arguing against the idea of it before I even look into it? Trying to dissuade someone from doing more research is kinda pink, don't you think? Does the idea threaten your worldview so profoundly that you don't even want other people to look into it? WTF.
no. it was idle chatting. i wasn't asking for facts and figures, they were rhetorical questions that popped into my head.
you're more than welcome to do research that intrigues you, of course, and far be it from me to attempt to dissuade you. if you found anything of note, i would be interested to hear it.
Sometimes it seems like you enjoy arguing just for the sake of arguing itself, whether you believe in your arguments and have information to back them up, or not.
I don't.
I am now finding this avoidance to be hilariously funny.
:lulz:
OOOOOK!
all right, Nigel.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 18, 2012, 07:24:18 PM
Quote from: Alty on December 18, 2012, 06:45:00 PM
What I want to know is why do mentally unhealthy Americans keep targeting schools?
Hold up.
The last three major shootings that come to mind:
School.
Movie Theater.
Political Rally.
It's called the LAW OF FIVES, PEOPLE! I expect people on this board to be SLIGHTLY more rational!
Don't forget the ever-popular mall shootings. Those don't usually end in a high death toll though, because malls are large and have many exits.
I think I'm missing a whole bunch of shit in this thread.
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 08:18:48 PM
I think I'm missing a whole bunch of shit in this thread.
It's okay. Just use the default settings: Guns, massacre, etc.
You don't have to reference the things you're responding to, in this sort of thread.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 07:59:22 PM
Quote from: hølist on December 18, 2012, 07:56:57 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 06:31:10 PM
An interesting dichotomy exists between television shows and television commercials.
The commercials use the 8 circuit model to emphasize a myth of individuality (some of which are done in a diabolically clever way, like the "Bluebell Ice Cream" commericials), while the shows emphatically state that it's okay for an individualist to conform to the group or submit to authority by his or her own choice (that choice, of course, being an illusion). Specific examples would be "24", where we "choose to allow" people like Jack Bauer to torture people for the common good, because he's an even more "rugged individualist" than we are, and can therefore be trusted to act in our stead.
Yeah, it's pretty interesting how so many TV shows right now center around an agency that's bigger than the government, or an individual (or individuals) who operate outside of the law, essentially taking care of things for the rest of us.
It's an odd dichotomy, reinforcing the idea of "rugged individualism GOOD!" while also providing the comforting notion that we're all being taken care of.
It's also funny how people can't or won't look at the situation, because it hits them square in the 2nd circuit. You can explain until you're blue in the face, and they CAN'T LOOK AT IT.
Conditioning is a terrible thing.
Yeah, it's true. Trust me, I've tried to have this conversation before, about how the "rugged individualism" that Americans pride ourselves on so much is actually toxic and anti-community, as well as paradoxically anti-survival. Which is part of why I'm so interested in its origins.
People really can't wrap their heads around it, and avoid the shit out of it. Especially enlightened liberals, who feel special and hate the masses etc etc. They've bought into it completely, and it's too uncomfortable for them to examine the possibility that the only way to build a healthy society is to actually FUCKING BE A SOCIETY.
Quote from: hølist on December 18, 2012, 08:23:20 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 07:59:22 PM
Quote from: hølist on December 18, 2012, 07:56:57 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 06:31:10 PM
An interesting dichotomy exists between television shows and television commercials.
The commercials use the 8 circuit model to emphasize a myth of individuality (some of which are done in a diabolically clever way, like the "Bluebell Ice Cream" commericials), while the shows emphatically state that it's okay for an individualist to conform to the group or submit to authority by his or her own choice (that choice, of course, being an illusion). Specific examples would be "24", where we "choose to allow" people like Jack Bauer to torture people for the common good, because he's an even more "rugged individualist" than we are, and can therefore be trusted to act in our stead.
Yeah, it's pretty interesting how so many TV shows right now center around an agency that's bigger than the government, or an individual (or individuals) who operate outside of the law, essentially taking care of things for the rest of us.
It's an odd dichotomy, reinforcing the idea of "rugged individualism GOOD!" while also providing the comforting notion that we're all being taken care of.
It's also funny how people can't or won't look at the situation, because it hits them square in the 2nd circuit. You can explain until you're blue in the face, and they CAN'T LOOK AT IT.
Conditioning is a terrible thing.
Yeah, it's true. Trust me, I've tried to have this conversation before, about how the "rugged individualism" that Americans pride ourselves on so much is actually toxic and anti-community, as well as paradoxically anti-survival. Which is part of why I'm so interested in its origins.
People really can't wrap their heads around it, and avoid the shit out of it. Especially enlightened liberals, who feel special and hate the masses etc etc. They've bought into it completely, and it's too uncomfortable for them to examine the possibility that the only way to build a healthy society is to actually FUCKING BE A SOCIETY.
Yep. It particularly doesn't fly in "rugged individualist" states, like Alaska (Alty seems to be an exception). Or Texas, for that matter. :lol:
But you are correct. While certain regions may have it worse than others, ALL OF THEM HAVE IT.
And I could see how the left fringe would really, really fall for it, just as much as the teabaggers.
"The sheeple don't understand."
\
:hippie:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 08:20:13 PM
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 08:18:48 PM
I think I'm missing a whole bunch of shit in this thread.
It's okay. Just use the default settings: Guns, massacre, etc.
You don't have to reference the things you're responding to, in this sort of thread.
So this is now
:deadthread:
And we can just jump in screech about random talking points without bothering to make sense?
Quote from: hølist on December 18, 2012, 08:23:20 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 07:59:22 PM
Quote from: hølist on December 18, 2012, 07:56:57 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 06:31:10 PM
An interesting dichotomy exists between television shows and television commercials.
The commercials use the 8 circuit model to emphasize a myth of individuality (some of which are done in a diabolically clever way, like the "Bluebell Ice Cream" commericials), while the shows emphatically state that it's okay for an individualist to conform to the group or submit to authority by his or her own choice (that choice, of course, being an illusion). Specific examples would be "24", where we "choose to allow" people like Jack Bauer to torture people for the common good, because he's an even more "rugged individualist" than we are, and can therefore be trusted to act in our stead.
Yeah, it's pretty interesting how so many TV shows right now center around an agency that's bigger than the government, or an individual (or individuals) who operate outside of the law, essentially taking care of things for the rest of us.
It's an odd dichotomy, reinforcing the idea of "rugged individualism GOOD!" while also providing the comforting notion that we're all being taken care of.
It's also funny how people can't or won't look at the situation, because it hits them square in the 2nd circuit. You can explain until you're blue in the face, and they CAN'T LOOK AT IT.
Conditioning is a terrible thing.
Yeah, it's true. Trust me, I've tried to have this conversation before, about how the "rugged individualism" that Americans pride ourselves on so much is actually toxic and anti-community, as well as paradoxically anti-survival. Which is part of why I'm so interested in its origins.
People really can't wrap their heads around it, and avoid the shit out of it. Especially enlightened liberals, who feel special and hate the masses etc etc. They've bought into it completely, and it's too uncomfortable for them to examine the possibility that the only way to build a healthy society is to actually FUCKING BE A SOCIETY.
See I agree with this, but um, what more do I say?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 08:25:37 PM
Quote from: hølist on December 18, 2012, 08:23:20 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 07:59:22 PM
Quote from: hølist on December 18, 2012, 07:56:57 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 06:31:10 PM
An interesting dichotomy exists between television shows and television commercials.
The commercials use the 8 circuit model to emphasize a myth of individuality (some of which are done in a diabolically clever way, like the "Bluebell Ice Cream" commericials), while the shows emphatically state that it's okay for an individualist to conform to the group or submit to authority by his or her own choice (that choice, of course, being an illusion). Specific examples would be "24", where we "choose to allow" people like Jack Bauer to torture people for the common good, because he's an even more "rugged individualist" than we are, and can therefore be trusted to act in our stead.
Yeah, it's pretty interesting how so many TV shows right now center around an agency that's bigger than the government, or an individual (or individuals) who operate outside of the law, essentially taking care of things for the rest of us.
It's an odd dichotomy, reinforcing the idea of "rugged individualism GOOD!" while also providing the comforting notion that we're all being taken care of.
It's also funny how people can't or won't look at the situation, because it hits them square in the 2nd circuit. You can explain until you're blue in the face, and they CAN'T LOOK AT IT.
Conditioning is a terrible thing.
Yeah, it's true. Trust me, I've tried to have this conversation before, about how the "rugged individualism" that Americans pride ourselves on so much is actually toxic and anti-community, as well as paradoxically anti-survival. Which is part of why I'm so interested in its origins.
People really can't wrap their heads around it, and avoid the shit out of it. Especially enlightened liberals, who feel special and hate the masses etc etc. They've bought into it completely, and it's too uncomfortable for them to examine the possibility that the only way to build a healthy society is to actually FUCKING BE A SOCIETY.
Yep. It particularly doesn't fly in "rugged individualist" states, like Alaska (Alty seems to be an exception). Or Texas, for that matter. :lol:
But you are correct. While certain regions may have it worse than others, ALL OF THEM HAVE IT.
And I could see how the left fringe would really, really fall for it, just as much as the teabaggers.
"The sheeple don't understand."
\
:hippie:
How does it go?
You aren't really real <insert group here> unless you believe and act the way I deem to proper for <insert group here> otherwise you are part of <different group that is totally not us and is the enemy>?
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 08:26:02 PM
And we can just jump in screech about random talking points without bothering to make sense?
Please to look at the last 25 pages.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 08:27:58 PM
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 08:26:02 PM
And we can just jump in screech about random talking points without bothering to make sense?
Please to look at the last 25 pages.
Which has been chock full of screeching.
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 08:27:27 PM
How does it go?
You aren't really real <insert group here> unless you believe and act the way I deem to proper for <insert group here> otherwise you are part of <different group that is totally not us and is the enemy>?
Yep.
Or "Listen up, while I tell you how to think for yourself/be an individualist."
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 08:28:49 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 08:27:58 PM
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 08:26:02 PM
And we can just jump in screech about random talking points without bothering to make sense?
Please to look at the last 25 pages.
Which has been chock full of screeching.
Yep. My mistake, back on page 24, was to stop screeching and try to post something that might explain some of the mindset that leads to guns dichotomy in the USA.
Rest assured, I won't be doing that again, anytime soon. I basically scooped the 3 posts up and retooled them, and I'll use them at Scrubgenius. They sure as fuck aren't worth a damn here.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 08:25:37 PM
Quote from: hølist on December 18, 2012, 08:23:20 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 07:59:22 PM
Quote from: hølist on December 18, 2012, 07:56:57 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 06:31:10 PM
An interesting dichotomy exists between television shows and television commercials.
The commercials use the 8 circuit model to emphasize a myth of individuality (some of which are done in a diabolically clever way, like the "Bluebell Ice Cream" commericials), while the shows emphatically state that it's okay for an individualist to conform to the group or submit to authority by his or her own choice (that choice, of course, being an illusion). Specific examples would be "24", where we "choose to allow" people like Jack Bauer to torture people for the common good, because he's an even more "rugged individualist" than we are, and can therefore be trusted to act in our stead.
Yeah, it's pretty interesting how so many TV shows right now center around an agency that's bigger than the government, or an individual (or individuals) who operate outside of the law, essentially taking care of things for the rest of us.
It's an odd dichotomy, reinforcing the idea of "rugged individualism GOOD!" while also providing the comforting notion that we're all being taken care of.
It's also funny how people can't or won't look at the situation, because it hits them square in the 2nd circuit. You can explain until you're blue in the face, and they CAN'T LOOK AT IT.
Conditioning is a terrible thing.
Yeah, it's true. Trust me, I've tried to have this conversation before, about how the "rugged individualism" that Americans pride ourselves on so much is actually toxic and anti-community, as well as paradoxically anti-survival. Which is part of why I'm so interested in its origins.
People really can't wrap their heads around it, and avoid the shit out of it. Especially enlightened liberals, who feel special and hate the masses etc etc. They've bought into it completely, and it's too uncomfortable for them to examine the possibility that the only way to build a healthy society is to actually FUCKING BE A SOCIETY.
Yep. It particularly doesn't fly in "rugged individualist" states, like Alaska (Alty seems to be an exception). Or Texas, for that matter. :lol:
But you are correct. While certain regions may have it worse than others, ALL OF THEM HAVE IT.
And I could see how the left fringe would really, really fall for it, just as much as the teabaggers.
"The sheeple don't understand."
\
:hippie:
Exactly... and as the Common Walls project existed to try to expound upon, a divided population is an easy population to control and manipulate. The "Rugged Individualism" meme is inherently divisive.
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 08:27:27 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 08:25:37 PM
Quote from: hølist on December 18, 2012, 08:23:20 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 07:59:22 PM
Quote from: hølist on December 18, 2012, 07:56:57 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 06:31:10 PM
An interesting dichotomy exists between television shows and television commercials.
The commercials use the 8 circuit model to emphasize a myth of individuality (some of which are done in a diabolically clever way, like the "Bluebell Ice Cream" commericials), while the shows emphatically state that it's okay for an individualist to conform to the group or submit to authority by his or her own choice (that choice, of course, being an illusion). Specific examples would be "24", where we "choose to allow" people like Jack Bauer to torture people for the common good, because he's an even more "rugged individualist" than we are, and can therefore be trusted to act in our stead.
Yeah, it's pretty interesting how so many TV shows right now center around an agency that's bigger than the government, or an individual (or individuals) who operate outside of the law, essentially taking care of things for the rest of us.
It's an odd dichotomy, reinforcing the idea of "rugged individualism GOOD!" while also providing the comforting notion that we're all being taken care of.
It's also funny how people can't or won't look at the situation, because it hits them square in the 2nd circuit. You can explain until you're blue in the face, and they CAN'T LOOK AT IT.
Conditioning is a terrible thing.
Yeah, it's true. Trust me, I've tried to have this conversation before, about how the "rugged individualism" that Americans pride ourselves on so much is actually toxic and anti-community, as well as paradoxically anti-survival. Which is part of why I'm so interested in its origins.
People really can't wrap their heads around it, and avoid the shit out of it. Especially enlightened liberals, who feel special and hate the masses etc etc. They've bought into it completely, and it's too uncomfortable for them to examine the possibility that the only way to build a healthy society is to actually FUCKING BE A SOCIETY.
Yep. It particularly doesn't fly in "rugged individualist" states, like Alaska (Alty seems to be an exception). Or Texas, for that matter. :lol:
But you are correct. While certain regions may have it worse than others, ALL OF THEM HAVE IT.
And I could see how the left fringe would really, really fall for it, just as much as the teabaggers.
"The sheeple don't understand."
\
:hippie:
How does it go?
You aren't really real <insert group here> unless you believe and act the way I deem to proper for <insert group here> otherwise you are part of <different group that is totally not us and is the enemy>?
Yes, precisely. :lol:
And isn't it ironic that the gun-control issue is dividing people over this?
Quote from: hølist on December 18, 2012, 08:32:13 PM
Exactly... and as the Common Walls project existed to try to expound upon, a divided population is an easy population to control and manipulate. The "Rugged Individualism" meme is inherently divisive.
DING! Post of the fucking year. That's a connection I hadn't made.
We can do something with this.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 08:29:08 PM
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 08:27:27 PM
How does it go?
You aren't really real <insert group here> unless you believe and act the way I deem to proper for <insert group here> otherwise you are part of <different group that is totally not us and is the enemy>?
Yep.
Or "Listen up, while I tell you how to think for yourself/be an individualist."
"You need this gas guzzling, 24 inches lifted, all time 4 wheel drive, with reclining bucket leather seats, AC, MP3, Bluetooth to show the world how much of a rugged individualist you are. Nothing says rugged and individual like owning the same high priced crap as everyone else."
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 08:34:02 PM
Quote from: hølist on December 18, 2012, 08:32:13 PM
Exactly... and as the Common Walls project existed to try to expound upon, a divided population is an easy population to control and manipulate. The "Rugged Individualism" meme is inherently divisive.
DING! Post of the fucking year. That's a connection I hadn't made.
We can do something with this.
Awesome, I think it's go time.
Quote from: hølist on December 18, 2012, 08:33:41 PM
And isn't it ironic that the gun-control issue is dividing people over this?
Sure. Granted, here, it has a few years of festering butthurt helping it along (GOOD THING WE'RE NOT LIKE THOSE SHEEPLE GRAYFACES), but yes. Even here, there was nothing but fucking talking points on all sides.
In this, we - PD - have failed as Discordians.
Quote from: hølist on December 18, 2012, 08:33:41 PM
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 08:27:27 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 08:25:37 PM
Quote from: hølist on December 18, 2012, 08:23:20 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 07:59:22 PM
Quote from: hølist on December 18, 2012, 07:56:57 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 06:31:10 PM
An interesting dichotomy exists between television shows and television commercials.
The commercials use the 8 circuit model to emphasize a myth of individuality (some of which are done in a diabolically clever way, like the "Bluebell Ice Cream" commericials), while the shows emphatically state that it's okay for an individualist to conform to the group or submit to authority by his or her own choice (that choice, of course, being an illusion). Specific examples would be "24", where we "choose to allow" people like Jack Bauer to torture people for the common good, because he's an even more "rugged individualist" than we are, and can therefore be trusted to act in our stead.
Yeah, it's pretty interesting how so many TV shows right now center around an agency that's bigger than the government, or an individual (or individuals) who operate outside of the law, essentially taking care of things for the rest of us.
It's an odd dichotomy, reinforcing the idea of "rugged individualism GOOD!" while also providing the comforting notion that we're all being taken care of.
It's also funny how people can't or won't look at the situation, because it hits them square in the 2nd circuit. You can explain until you're blue in the face, and they CAN'T LOOK AT IT.
Conditioning is a terrible thing.
Yeah, it's true. Trust me, I've tried to have this conversation before, about how the "rugged individualism" that Americans pride ourselves on so much is actually toxic and anti-community, as well as paradoxically anti-survival. Which is part of why I'm so interested in its origins.
People really can't wrap their heads around it, and avoid the shit out of it. Especially enlightened liberals, who feel special and hate the masses etc etc. They've bought into it completely, and it's too uncomfortable for them to examine the possibility that the only way to build a healthy society is to actually FUCKING BE A SOCIETY.
Yep. It particularly doesn't fly in "rugged individualist" states, like Alaska (Alty seems to be an exception). Or Texas, for that matter. :lol:
But you are correct. While certain regions may have it worse than others, ALL OF THEM HAVE IT.
And I could see how the left fringe would really, really fall for it, just as much as the teabaggers.
"The sheeple don't understand."
\
:hippie:
How does it go?
You aren't really real <insert group here> unless you believe and act the way I deem to proper for <insert group here> otherwise you are part of <different group that is totally not us and is the enemy>?
Yes, precisely. :lol:
And isn't it ironic that the gun-control issue is dividing people over this?
See I thought I had mentioned it, but maybe I just thought it without vomiting it out.
No I got caught up in trying to prove how wrong other people were.
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 08:34:23 PM
"You need this gas guzzling, 24 inches lifted, all time 4 wheel drive, with reclining bucket leather seats, AC, MP3, Bluetooth to show the world how much of a rugged individualist you are. Nothing says rugged and individual like owning the same high priced crap as everyone else."
How about:
"Boy, it's a good thing we all think for ourselves here in Discordia. We're so good at it that vigilance is not necessary."
:lulz:
What's especially funny is that when I made a series of posts undermining my own earlier arguments, people COULD NOT SEE THE POSTS.
Too much ouch on the old 2d circuit.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 08:34:02 PM
Quote from: hølist on December 18, 2012, 08:32:13 PM
Exactly... and as the Common Walls project existed to try to expound upon, a divided population is an easy population to control and manipulate. The "Rugged Individualism" meme is inherently divisive.
DING! Post of the fucking year. That's a connection I hadn't made.
We can do something with this.
I was just about to say something similar.
Also, it's funny there's a dichotomy between the pro-healthcare stance around here, the pro-takes-a-villiage mentality expressed,
even a pro-Project-Mayhem-no-precious-snowflake-or-unicorn memeswamp... and the now-rearing "individuality" idea.
Plus, far too many hyphens.
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 08:34:23 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 08:29:08 PM
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 08:27:27 PM
How does it go?
You aren't really real <insert group here> unless you believe and act the way I deem to proper for <insert group here> otherwise you are part of <different group that is totally not us and is the enemy>?
Yep.
Or "Listen up, while I tell you how to think for yourself/be an individualist."
"You need this gas guzzling, 24 inches lifted, all time 4 wheel drive, with reclining bucket leather seats, AC, MP3, Bluetooth to show the world how much of a rugged individualist you are. Nothing says rugged and individual like owning the same high priced crap as everyone else."
Oh, bingo! And while looking for an ad I saw once that completely exemplified this principle, I ran across this: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/4622146?uid=3739856&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21101507425821
I'm going to have to look that up in the PSU library so I can read the whole thing, but the abstract looks excellent.
GET OUT OF MY SELF-CONSISTENT WORLDVIEW, YOU MANIAC.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 08:36:42 PM
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 08:34:23 PM
"You need this gas guzzling, 24 inches lifted, all time 4 wheel drive, with reclining bucket leather seats, AC, MP3, Bluetooth to show the world how much of a rugged individualist you are. Nothing says rugged and individual like owning the same high priced crap as everyone else."
How about:
"Boy, it's a good thing we all think for ourselves here in Discordia. We're so good at it that vigilance is not necessary."
:lulz:
:horrormirth:
Discordia, it parodies itself?
Or
Discordia, thinking for itself so hard it....something something
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 18, 2012, 08:38:17 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 08:34:02 PM
Quote from: hølist on December 18, 2012, 08:32:13 PM
Exactly... and as the Common Walls project existed to try to expound upon, a divided population is an easy population to control and manipulate. The "Rugged Individualism" meme is inherently divisive.
DING! Post of the fucking year. That's a connection I hadn't made.
We can do something with this.
I was just about to say something similar.
Also, it's funny there's a dichotomy between the pro-healthcare stance around here, the pro-takes-a-villiage mentality expressed, even and pro-Project-Mayhem-no-precious-snowflake-or-unicorn memeswamp... and the now-rearing "individuality" idea.
Plus, far too many hyphens.
I don't see any problem with any of the above. What I see a problem with in this thread has been TALKING POINTS, and people believing shit that ISN'T SO.
And people venting dusty & archaic butthurt over things that only they remember or care about.
Which is more funny than anything else.
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 08:39:55 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 08:36:42 PM
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 08:34:23 PM
"You need this gas guzzling, 24 inches lifted, all time 4 wheel drive, with reclining bucket leather seats, AC, MP3, Bluetooth to show the world how much of a rugged individualist you are. Nothing says rugged and individual like owning the same high priced crap as everyone else."
How about:
"Boy, it's a good thing we all think for ourselves here in Discordia. We're so good at it that vigilance is not necessary."
:lulz:
:horrormirth:
Discordia, it parodies itself?
Or
Discordia, thinking for itself so hard it....something something
Or how about BACKSLIDING, PERNICIOUS
SINNERS?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 08:37:46 PM
What's especially funny is that when I made a series of posts undermining my own earlier arguments, people COULD NOT SEE THE POSTS.
Too much ouch on the old 2d circuit.
Ideas that are really uncomfortable often become invisible.
Quote from: Pæs on December 18, 2012, 08:39:40 PM
GET OUT OF MY SELF-CONSISTENT WORLDVIEW, YOU MANIAC.
:lulz:
Quote from: hølist on December 18, 2012, 08:41:26 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 08:37:46 PM
What's especially funny is that when I made a series of posts undermining my own earlier arguments, people COULD NOT SEE THE POSTS.
Too much ouch on the old 2d circuit.
Ideas that are really uncomfortable often become invisible.
This is a beautiful layman rephrasing of "cognitive dissonance".
Quote from: hølist on December 18, 2012, 08:41:26 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 08:37:46 PM
What's especially funny is that when I made a series of posts undermining my own earlier arguments, people COULD NOT SEE THE POSTS.
Too much ouch on the old 2d circuit.
Ideas that are really uncomfortable often become invisible.
Apparently so. You can scream about the elephant in the living room all day long, you'll just get hoarse.
I REJECT THE IDEA THAT I AM REJECTING IDEAS AUTOMATICALLY.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 08:41:03 PM
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 08:39:55 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 08:36:42 PM
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 08:34:23 PM
"You need this gas guzzling, 24 inches lifted, all time 4 wheel drive, with reclining bucket leather seats, AC, MP3, Bluetooth to show the world how much of a rugged individualist you are. Nothing says rugged and individual like owning the same high priced crap as everyone else."
How about:
"Boy, it's a good thing we all think for ourselves here in Discordia. We're so good at it that vigilance is not necessary."
:lulz:
:horrormirth:
Discordia, it parodies itself?
Or
Discordia, thinking for itself so hard it....something something
Or how about BACKSLIDING, PERNICIOUS SINNERS?
I have
SINNEDTM for showing my ass like that of the monkeys and neglected my
APPOINTED HOLY BIDNESSTM!!!!!!!!!!!
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 18, 2012, 08:42:24 PM
Quote from: hølist on December 18, 2012, 08:41:26 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 08:37:46 PM
What's especially funny is that when I made a series of posts undermining my own earlier arguments, people COULD NOT SEE THE POSTS.
Too much ouch on the old 2d circuit.
Ideas that are really uncomfortable often become invisible.
This is a beautiful layman rephrasing of "cognitive dissonance".
Telling ya, the last two pages are a GOLD MINE.
Quote from: Pæs on December 18, 2012, 08:39:40 PM
GET OUT OF MY SELF-CONSISTENT WORLDVIEW, YOU MANIAC.
:lol:
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 08:42:55 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 08:41:03 PM
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 08:39:55 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 08:36:42 PM
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 08:34:23 PM
"You need this gas guzzling, 24 inches lifted, all time 4 wheel drive, with reclining bucket leather seats, AC, MP3, Bluetooth to show the world how much of a rugged individualist you are. Nothing says rugged and individual like owning the same high priced crap as everyone else."
How about:
"Boy, it's a good thing we all think for ourselves here in Discordia. We're so good at it that vigilance is not necessary."
:lulz:
:horrormirth:
Discordia, it parodies itself?
Or
Discordia, thinking for itself so hard it....something something
Or how about BACKSLIDING, PERNICIOUS SINNERS?
I have SINNEDTM for showing my ass like that of the monkeys and neglected my APPOINTED HOLY BIDNESSTM!!!!!!!!!!!
Damn near every person in this thread, myself included, has been shamelessly wallowing in baboonery.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 18, 2012, 08:42:24 PM
Quote from: hølist on December 18, 2012, 08:41:26 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 08:37:46 PM
What's especially funny is that when I made a series of posts undermining my own earlier arguments, people COULD NOT SEE THE POSTS.
Too much ouch on the old 2d circuit.
Ideas that are really uncomfortable often become invisible.
This is a beautiful layman rephrasing of "cognitive dissonance".
:thanks:
I work with children. I can rephrase things like a motherfucker.
Quote from: hølist on December 18, 2012, 08:44:29 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 18, 2012, 08:42:24 PM
Quote from: hølist on December 18, 2012, 08:41:26 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 08:37:46 PM
What's especially funny is that when I made a series of posts undermining my own earlier arguments, people COULD NOT SEE THE POSTS.
Too much ouch on the old 2d circuit.
Ideas that are really uncomfortable often become invisible.
This is a beautiful layman rephrasing of "cognitive dissonance".
:thanks:
I work with children. I can rephrase things like a motherfucker.
And now cognitive dissonance has taken on a slightly different meaning.
Quote from: hølist on December 18, 2012, 08:44:29 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 18, 2012, 08:42:24 PM
Quote from: hølist on December 18, 2012, 08:41:26 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 08:37:46 PM
What's especially funny is that when I made a series of posts undermining my own earlier arguments, people COULD NOT SEE THE POSTS.
Too much ouch on the old 2d circuit.
Ideas that are really uncomfortable often become invisible.
This is a beautiful layman rephrasing of "cognitive dissonance".
:thanks:
I work with children. I can rephrase things like a motherfucker.
I like it because the thing most people forget is that the phrase
includes the process of resolution. People don't just go around dissonantly cognitive (at least not for any reasonable amount of time). They find the easiest path towards resolution, and often that is, "it never happened."
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 08:45:18 PM
Quote from: hølist on December 18, 2012, 08:44:29 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 18, 2012, 08:42:24 PM
Quote from: hølist on December 18, 2012, 08:41:26 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 08:37:46 PM
What's especially funny is that when I made a series of posts undermining my own earlier arguments, people COULD NOT SEE THE POSTS.
Too much ouch on the old 2d circuit.
Ideas that are really uncomfortable often become invisible.
This is a beautiful layman rephrasing of "cognitive dissonance".
:thanks:
I work with children. I can rephrase things like a motherfucker.
And now cognitive dissonance has taken on a slightly different meaning.
How so?
I am in serious danger of having an idea, here.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 18, 2012, 08:47:46 PM
Quote from: hølist on December 18, 2012, 08:44:29 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 18, 2012, 08:42:24 PM
Quote from: hølist on December 18, 2012, 08:41:26 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 08:37:46 PM
What's especially funny is that when I made a series of posts undermining my own earlier arguments, people COULD NOT SEE THE POSTS.
Too much ouch on the old 2d circuit.
Ideas that are really uncomfortable often become invisible.
This is a beautiful layman rephrasing of "cognitive dissonance".
:thanks:
I work with children. I can rephrase things like a motherfucker.
I like it because the thing most people forget is that the phrase includes the process of resolution. People don't just go around dissonantly cognitive (at least not for any reasonable amount of time). They find the easiest path towards resolution, and often that is, "it never happened."
Yep. Skills learned at 3 years old can serve you your entire life. :lulz:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 08:47:57 PM
I am in serious danger of having an idea, here.
:craig:
I have no idea why I used that emote, except for the fact that I don't think it's ever been used on this forum.
Funny thing with the original topic...
The 2nd amendment spells out the right of individuals to bear arms, with the justfication in the explanitory clause being that they can therefore operate in a GROUP known as a "militia".
:lulz:
There's something down this fucking rabbit hole. I just have to keep digging.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 18, 2012, 08:47:46 PM
Quote from: hølist on December 18, 2012, 08:44:29 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 18, 2012, 08:42:24 PM
Quote from: hølist on December 18, 2012, 08:41:26 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 08:37:46 PM
What's especially funny is that when I made a series of posts undermining my own earlier arguments, people COULD NOT SEE THE POSTS.
Too much ouch on the old 2d circuit.
Ideas that are really uncomfortable often become invisible.
This is a beautiful layman rephrasing of "cognitive dissonance".
:thanks:
I work with children. I can rephrase things like a motherfucker.
I like it because the thing most people forget is that the phrase includes the process of resolution. People don't just go around dissonantly cognitive (at least not for any reasonable amount of time). They find the easiest path towards resolution, and often that is, "it never happened."
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 08:45:18 PM
Quote from: hølist on December 18, 2012, 08:44:29 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 18, 2012, 08:42:24 PM
Quote from: hølist on December 18, 2012, 08:41:26 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 08:37:46 PM
What's especially funny is that when I made a series of posts undermining my own earlier arguments, people COULD NOT SEE THE POSTS.
Too much ouch on the old 2d circuit.
Ideas that are really uncomfortable often become invisible.
This is a beautiful layman rephrasing of "cognitive dissonance".
:thanks:
I work with children. I can rephrase things like a motherfucker.
And now cognitive dissonance has taken on a slightly different meaning.
How so?
The thing is, I think I know which posts Roger is talking about in this thread, the ones that got ignored, but to me a lot of things that might cause cognitive dissonance sort of don't? By that I mean, I ignored those posts, not because I didn't see them or read them, but because I agreed with them but did not know how to address that, or even if it would merit that. This also applies to lots of points that I disagree with, that I never address.
So maybe, cognitive dissonance might be that thing that keeps people bottled up in their head on the things that they do not know how to (dis)agree with.
That sounds suspiciously collectivist. Real Randian superheroes fucking Rambo it, and don't need no stinking communist "militia" to back them up.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 08:51:13 PM
Funny thing with the original topic...
The 2nd amendment spells out the right of individuals to bear arms, with the justfication in the explanitory clause being that they can therefore operate in a GROUP known as a "militia".
:lulz:
There's something down this fucking rabbit hole. I just have to keep digging.
That just made my fucking hurt even more.
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 08:54:26 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 08:51:13 PM
Funny thing with the original topic...
The 2nd amendment spells out the right of individuals to bear arms, with the justfication in the explanitory clause being that they can therefore operate in a GROUP known as a "militia".
:lulz:
There's something down this fucking rabbit hole. I just have to keep digging.
That just made my fucking hurt even more.
See, here's the thing. We're primates. The only "individuals" in the primate world
are those driven out of the pack.
Now, I'm NOT saying that people shouldn't think for themselves, or that we should all engage in 100% pack mentality, but I AM saying that the DEFAULT position is pack thinking.
And I think I'm also saying that being driven out of the pack CAN be a GOOD thing, under certain circumstances...
But that being said, you are
most often going to have one unhappy, dysfunctional primate.
And maybe a small percentage of those unhappy, dysfunctional primates do things like go on shooting sprees.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 08:48:47 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 18, 2012, 08:47:46 PM
Quote from: hølist on December 18, 2012, 08:44:29 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 18, 2012, 08:42:24 PM
Quote from: hølist on December 18, 2012, 08:41:26 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 08:37:46 PM
What's especially funny is that when I made a series of posts undermining my own earlier arguments, people COULD NOT SEE THE POSTS.
Too much ouch on the old 2d circuit.
Ideas that are really uncomfortable often become invisible.
This is a beautiful layman rephrasing of "cognitive dissonance".
:thanks:
I work with children. I can rephrase things like a motherfucker.
I like it because the thing most people forget is that the phrase includes the process of resolution. People don't just go around dissonantly cognitive (at least not for any reasonable amount of time). They find the easiest path towards resolution, and often that is, "it never happened."
Yep. Skills learned at 3 years old can serve you your entire life. :lulz:
Last term's psych prof talked about cognitive dissonance as being a recognizable sign that you have an opportunity for learning, and how important that is. I liked it.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 09:00:58 PM
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 08:54:26 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 08:51:13 PM
Funny thing with the original topic...
The 2nd amendment spells out the right of individuals to bear arms, with the justfication in the explanitory clause being that they can therefore operate in a GROUP known as a "militia".
:lulz:
There's something down this fucking rabbit hole. I just have to keep digging.
That just made my fucking hurt even more.
See, here's the thing. We're primates. The only "individuals" in the primate world are those driven out of the pack.
Now, I'm NOT saying that people shouldn't think for themselves, or that we should all engage in 100% pack mentality, but I AM saying that the DEFAULT position is pack thinking.
And I think I'm also saying that being driven out of the pack CAN be a GOOD thing, under certain circumstances...But that being said, you are most often going to have one unhappy, dysfunctional primate.
And maybe a small percentage of those unhappy, dysfunctional primates do things like go on shooting sprees.
MUST RECONCILE NEED TO BE NOT THEM WITH NEED TO BE PART OF THEM
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 09:06:40 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 09:00:58 PM
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 08:54:26 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 08:51:13 PM
Funny thing with the original topic...
The 2nd amendment spells out the right of individuals to bear arms, with the justfication in the explanitory clause being that they can therefore operate in a GROUP known as a "militia".
:lulz:
There's something down this fucking rabbit hole. I just have to keep digging.
That just made my fucking hurt even more.
See, here's the thing. We're primates. The only "individuals" in the primate world are those driven out of the pack.
Now, I'm NOT saying that people shouldn't think for themselves, or that we should all engage in 100% pack mentality, but I AM saying that the DEFAULT position is pack thinking.
And I think I'm also saying that being driven out of the pack CAN be a GOOD thing, under certain circumstances...But that being said, you are most often going to have one unhappy, dysfunctional primate.
And maybe a small percentage of those unhappy, dysfunctional primates do things like go on shooting sprees.
MUST RECONCILE NEED TO BE NOT THEM WITH NEED TO BE PART OF THEM
And that's the fucking beauty of it. It's a false dichotomy. You can be BOTH part of the pack and an individual. In fact, you kind of HAVE to be both.
In other words, the question isn't "how can I be an individual and not part of the pack", but "How can I be an individual while remaining part of the pack."
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 09:00:58 PM
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 08:54:26 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 08:51:13 PM
Funny thing with the original topic...
The 2nd amendment spells out the right of individuals to bear arms, with the justfication in the explanitory clause being that they can therefore operate in a GROUP known as a "militia".
:lulz:
There's something down this fucking rabbit hole. I just have to keep digging.
That just made my fucking hurt even more.
See, here's the thing. We're primates. The only "individuals" in the primate world are those driven out of the pack.
Now, I'm NOT saying that people shouldn't think for themselves, or that we should all engage in 100% pack mentality, but I AM saying that the DEFAULT position is pack thinking.
And I think I'm also saying that being driven out of the pack CAN be a GOOD thing, under certain circumstances...But that being said, you are most often going to have one unhappy, dysfunctional primate.
And maybe a small percentage of those unhappy, dysfunctional primates do things like go on shooting sprees.
Absolutely... it relates to Durkheim and his studies on suicide. Anomie is a terrible, powerful driver.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 09:07:42 PM
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 09:06:40 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 09:00:58 PM
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 08:54:26 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 08:51:13 PM
Funny thing with the original topic...
The 2nd amendment spells out the right of individuals to bear arms, with the justfication in the explanitory clause being that they can therefore operate in a GROUP known as a "militia".
:lulz:
There's something down this fucking rabbit hole. I just have to keep digging.
That just made my fucking hurt even more.
See, here's the thing. We're primates. The only "individuals" in the primate world are those driven out of the pack.
Now, I'm NOT saying that people shouldn't think for themselves, or that we should all engage in 100% pack mentality, but I AM saying that the DEFAULT position is pack thinking.
And I think I'm also saying that being driven out of the pack CAN be a GOOD thing, under certain circumstances...But that being said, you are most often going to have one unhappy, dysfunctional primate.
And maybe a small percentage of those unhappy, dysfunctional primates do things like go on shooting sprees.
MUST RECONCILE NEED TO BE NOT THEM WITH NEED TO BE PART OF THEM
And that's the fucking beauty of it. It's a false dichotomy. You can be BOTH part of the pack and an individual. In fact, you kind of HAVE to be both.
YES.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 09:09:10 PM
In other words, the question isn't "how can I be an individual and not part of the pack", but "How can I be an individual while remaining part of the pack."
And THAT is the disconnect. Right wingers want to be lone wolves, and left wingers want to collectivize. Both answers, by themselves, are wrong.
Instead, the goal should be to create a society in which the rights of the individual are best served by cooperation within the group.
A bunch of guys in wigs proposed something similar (though less inclusive) a couple of hundred years ago, but nobody took them seriously.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 09:09:10 PM
In other words, the question isn't "how can I be an individual and not part of the pack", but "How can I be an individual while remaining part of the pack."
I'd go a step deeper than that. "I am an individual whose identity is defined primarily in terms of my relationship to my pack."
If you lose that relationship, whether by choice or by alienation, you lose your connection to society at large, and you also lose your connection to and relationship with social norms.
Quote from: hølist on December 18, 2012, 09:10:05 PM
Absolutely... it relates to Durkheim and his studies on suicide. Anomie is a terrible, powerful driver.
QuoteA winter's day
In a deep and dark December;
I am alone,
Gazing from my window to the streets below
On a freshly fallen silent shroud of snow.
I am a rock,
I am an island.
I've built walls,
A fortress deep and mighty,
That none may penetrate.
I have no need of friendship; friendship causes pain.
It's laughter and it's loving I disdain.
I am a rock,
I am an island.
Don't talk of love,
But I've heard the words before;
It's sleeping in my memory.
I won't disturb the slumber of feelings that have died.
If I never loved I never would have cried.
I am a rock,
I am an island.
I have my books
And my poetry to protect me;
I am shielded in my armor,
Hiding in my room, safe within my womb.
I touch no one and no one touches me.
I am a rock,
I am an island.
And a rock feels no pain;
And an island never cries.
And there you have it. THE STATED GOAL OF THE AMERICAN.
Quote from: hølist on December 18, 2012, 09:13:40 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 09:09:10 PM
In other words, the question isn't "how can I be an individual and not part of the pack", but "How can I be an individual while remaining part of the pack."
I'd go a step deeper than that. "I am an individual whose identity is defined primarily in terms of my relationship to my pack."
If you lose that relationship, whether by choice or by alienation, you lose your connection to society at large, and you also lose your connection to and relationship with social norms.
Funny thing is, you go too far the other way (making the group too large and too stifling), same thing happens (ie, behavioral sink).
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 09:14:26 PM
Quote from: hølist on December 18, 2012, 09:10:05 PM
Absolutely... it relates to Durkheim and his studies on suicide. Anomie is a terrible, powerful driver.
QuoteA winter's day
In a deep and dark December;
I am alone,
Gazing from my window to the streets below
On a freshly fallen silent shroud of snow.
I am a rock,
I am an island.
I've built walls,
A fortress deep and mighty,
That none may penetrate.
I have no need of friendship; friendship causes pain.
It's laughter and it's loving I disdain.
I am a rock,
I am an island.
Don't talk of love,
But I've heard the words before;
It's sleeping in my memory.
I won't disturb the slumber of feelings that have died.
If I never loved I never would have cried.
I am a rock,
I am an island.
I have my books
And my poetry to protect me;
I am shielded in my armor,
Hiding in my room, safe within my womb.
I touch no one and no one touches me.
I am a rock,
I am an island.
And a rock feels no pain;
And an island never cries.
And there you have it. THE STATED GOAL OF THE AMERICAN.
It might as well be our national anthem.
Which is interesting, simply because isolation is the single most psychologically damaging environmental factor for the human psyche; worse than stress or physical and sexual abuse. Well, saying that it's worse than stress is incorrect: Other than catastrophic trauma, isolation is the single greatest psychological stressor known to our species.
USA: I'm going to buy a gun to protect my rights.
Canada: I'm going to help protect my neighbor's rights, and he'll help protect mine.
England: *thump thump thump* (the Met protecting someone's rights).
Norway: Why would you have to protect someone's rights? :?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 09:15:26 PM
Quote from: hølist on December 18, 2012, 09:13:40 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 09:09:10 PM
In other words, the question isn't "how can I be an individual and not part of the pack", but "How can I be an individual while remaining part of the pack."
I'd go a step deeper than that. "I am an individual whose identity is defined primarily in terms of my relationship to my pack."
If you lose that relationship, whether by choice or by alienation, you lose your connection to society at large, and you also lose your connection to and relationship with social norms.
Funny thing is, you go too far the other way (making the group too large and too stifling), same thing happens (ie, behavioral sink).
If the group is too large, it may result in disconnect, alienation, and anomie. In order for people to have their social needs met, they need a group that is small enough that they have a sense of connectedness and inclusion.
Quote from: hølist on December 18, 2012, 09:19:52 PM
It might as well be our national anthem.
Which is interesting, simply because isolation is the single most psychologically damaging environmental factor for the human psyche; worse than physical and sexual abuse. Well, saying that it's worse than stress is incorrect: Other than catastrophic trauma, isolation is the single greatest psychological stressor known to our species.
And we have reached the bottom of the rabbit hole, folks.
We have been sold - indeed, sold ourselves - on the idea of harming ourselves in the worst possible manner, for our own "good".
Always
Be
Closing
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 09:22:22 PM
Quote from: hølist on December 18, 2012, 09:19:52 PM
It might as well be our national anthem.
Which is interesting, simply because isolation is the single most psychologically damaging environmental factor for the human psyche; worse than physical and sexual abuse. Well, saying that it's worse than stress is incorrect: Other than catastrophic trauma, isolation is the single greatest psychological stressor known to our species.
And we have reached the bottom of the rabbit hole, folks.
We have been sold - indeed, sold ourselves - on the idea of harming ourselves in the worst possible manner, for our own "good".
Always
Be
Closing
BAM.
Quote from: hølist on December 18, 2012, 09:23:40 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 09:22:22 PM
Quote from: hølist on December 18, 2012, 09:19:52 PM
It might as well be our national anthem.
Which is interesting, simply because isolation is the single most psychologically damaging environmental factor for the human psyche; worse than physical and sexual abuse. Well, saying that it's worse than stress is incorrect: Other than catastrophic trauma, isolation is the single greatest psychological stressor known to our species.
And we have reached the bottom of the rabbit hole, folks.
We have been sold - indeed, sold ourselves - on the idea of harming ourselves in the worst possible manner, for our own "good".
Always
Be
Closing
BAM.
Yep. I think we've found one of the main motive forces of The Machine™, AND what separates The Machine™ from a healthy society.
Now it looks OBVIOUS. :lulz:
And I bet it's gonna piss some people off.
The MachineTM is not inevitable?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 09:25:58 PM
Now it looks OBVIOUS. :lulz:
And I bet it's gonna piss some people off.
GOOD.
I dunno, I always kinda considered that to be the case.
I'm not pissed off - I'm relieved that I'm not the only one who sees it, and that other people think it's also a fairly obvious concept.
Quote from: Cain on December 18, 2012, 09:29:19 PM
I dunno, I always kinda considered that to be the case.
I'm not pissed off - I'm relieved that I'm not the only one who sees it, and that other people think it's also a fairly obvious concept.
It's obvious once you walk it though, anyway.
Quote from: Cain on December 18, 2012, 09:29:19 PM
I dunno, I always kinda considered that to be the case.
I'm not pissed off - I'm relieved that I'm not the only one who sees it, and that other people think it's also a fairly obvious concept.
The problem is that telling Americans that Rugged Individualism™ isn't actually good for them and that it leads to isolation, disconnection, and a host of psychological problems including depression and antisocial behavior is a lot like telling the British that the sky is made of dancing clown ponies or telling Australians that peanut butter is food. They just ignore you because to them, what you're saying is completely ridiculous and not to be dignified by giving it a second thought.
Quote from: hølist on December 18, 2012, 09:33:01 PM
Quote from: Cain on December 18, 2012, 09:29:19 PM
I dunno, I always kinda considered that to be the case.
I'm not pissed off - I'm relieved that I'm not the only one who sees it, and that other people think it's also a fairly obvious concept.
The problem is that telling Americans that Rugged Individualism™ isn't actually good for them and that it leads to isolation, disconnection, and a host of psychological problems including depression and antisocial behavior is a lot like telling the British that the sky is made of dancing clown ponies or telling Australians that peanut butter is food. They just ignore you because to them, what you're saying is completely ridiculous and not to be dignified by giving it a second thought.
Yep. The frontier myth is a rock-solid bitch, the fact that it's based entirely on fantasy notwithstanding.
I used to say "Keep the dumb ones busy and the smart ones scared".
Now I think I'll say "Keep the dumb ones busy and the smart ones isolated."
Quote from: H0list on December 18, 2012, 09:26:50 PM
The MachineTM is not inevitable?
No. I don't think so.
Or at least I no longer allow myself to believe it is.
Otherwise, what's the point?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 09:46:34 PM
I used to say "Keep the dumb ones busy and the smart ones scared".
Now I think I'll say "Keep the dumb ones busy and the smart ones isolated."
I like that a lot. I'm also concerned because I tend to isolate myself because of my bad attitude, or it gets done for me.
What do we do to stay together what with the rage and hate and the screaming? What does this say for those of us who struggle with that very thing?
Quote from: Alty on December 18, 2012, 09:51:02 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 09:46:34 PM
I used to say "Keep the dumb ones busy and the smart ones scared".
Now I think I'll say "Keep the dumb ones busy and the smart ones isolated."
I like that a lot. I'm also concerned because I tend to isolate myself because of my bad attitude, or it gets done for me.
What do we do to stay together what with the rage and hate and the screaming? What does this say for those of us who struggle with that very thing?
Therapy.
Also, you may be looking at things the wrong way 'round, with the isolation and the rage and hate and screaming. Just sayin'.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 09:24:33 PM
Quote from: hølist on December 18, 2012, 09:23:40 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 09:22:22 PM
Quote from: hølist on December 18, 2012, 09:19:52 PM
It might as well be our national anthem.
Which is interesting, simply because isolation is the single most psychologically damaging environmental factor for the human psyche; worse than physical and sexual abuse. Well, saying that it's worse than stress is incorrect: Other than catastrophic trauma, isolation is the single greatest psychological stressor known to our species.
And we have reached the bottom of the rabbit hole, folks.
We have been sold - indeed, sold ourselves - on the idea of harming ourselves in the worst possible manner, for our own "good".
Always
Be
Closing
BAM.
Yep. I think we've found one of the main motive forces of The Machine™, AND what separates The Machine™ from a healthy society.
Kind of a capitalistic thing? "Imma self made man, fuck the others" etc.?
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on December 18, 2012, 11:13:12 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 09:24:33 PM
Quote from: hølist on December 18, 2012, 09:23:40 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 09:22:22 PM
Quote from: hølist on December 18, 2012, 09:19:52 PM
It might as well be our national anthem.
Which is interesting, simply because isolation is the single most psychologically damaging environmental factor for the human psyche; worse than physical and sexual abuse. Well, saying that it's worse than stress is incorrect: Other than catastrophic trauma, isolation is the single greatest psychological stressor known to our species.
And we have reached the bottom of the rabbit hole, folks.
We have been sold - indeed, sold ourselves - on the idea of harming ourselves in the worst possible manner, for our own "good".
Always
Be
Closing
BAM.
Yep. I think we've found one of the main motive forces of The Machine™, AND what separates The Machine™ from a healthy society.
Kind of a capitalistic thing? "Imma self made man, fuck the others" etc.?
Not even that. It's more basic.
"I'm alone."
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 19, 2012, 12:00:19 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on December 18, 2012, 11:13:12 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 09:24:33 PM
Quote from: hølist on December 18, 2012, 09:23:40 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 09:22:22 PM
Quote from: hølist on December 18, 2012, 09:19:52 PM
It might as well be our national anthem.
Which is interesting, simply because isolation is the single most psychologically damaging environmental factor for the human psyche; worse than physical and sexual abuse. Well, saying that it's worse than stress is incorrect: Other than catastrophic trauma, isolation is the single greatest psychological stressor known to our species.
And we have reached the bottom of the rabbit hole, folks.
We have been sold - indeed, sold ourselves - on the idea of harming ourselves in the worst possible manner, for our own "good".
Always
Be
Closing
BAM.
Yep. I think we've found one of the main motive forces of The Machine™, AND what separates The Machine™ from a healthy society.
Kind of a capitalistic thing? "Imma self made man, fuck the others" etc.?
Not even that. It's more basic.
"I'm alone."
:eek:
:horrormirth:
Ok, so we've got people isolated from a healthy community (what that means, we'll have to discuss further), who's behavior when taken collectively can best be represented by The Machine™. While this can often be manageable by a society as a whole, our current culture reveres, emphasizes, and supports that very isolation that causes the problems in the first place.
And so The Machine™ becomes dominant over the healthy community.
Did I get that right?
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 19, 2012, 01:19:06 PM
Ok, so we've got people isolated from a healthy community (what that means, we'll have to discuss further), who's behavior when taken collectively can best be represented by The Machine™. While this can often be manageable by a society as a whole, our current culture reveres, emphasizes, and supports that very isolation that causes the problems in the first place.
And so The Machine™ becomes dominant over the healthy community.
Did I get that right?
Mostly. When The Machine™ sells people behavior that is unhealthy (isolation, extreme collectivism), etc, then The Machine™ becomes dominant.
The Soviet Union wasn't a healthy place, either.
Utah is turning into Texas, or what Texas used to be like, or some shit. http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/national/west-kearns-elementary-school-utah-6th-grader-brings-gun-to-school-for-protection-after-sandy-hook
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on December 19, 2012, 08:50:41 PM
Utah is turning into Texas, or what Texas used to be like, or some shit. http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/national/west-kearns-elementary-school-utah-6th-grader-brings-gun-to-school-for-protection-after-sandy-hook
That kid is about to learn about AMERICA.
Poor bastard. He bought the goods, and now he's gonna GET the goods.
QuoteThe 11-year-old boy allegedly told other students his parents encouraged him to bring a gun to school for protection following the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut on Friday.
Wow.
It would have been just as dangerous if he had pulled a car out of his bag and pointed it at someone.
Quote from: Pæs on December 19, 2012, 08:55:40 PM
It would have been just as dangerous if he had pulled a car out of his bag and pointed it at someone.
Or a swimming pool, for that matter.
Just get it over with... :retard:
(http://i524.photobucket.com/albums/cc322/fennario99/556320_527797633912160_2128154342_n_zps307be3c1.jpg)
Yep, let's fix the gun problem with MORE guns. Astounding logic!
I think it's still mandatory to own a firearm in Kenesaw, Georgia, and Virgin, Utah
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1818862/posts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin,_Utah
I'm not surprised the Republicans are promoting the Virginisation of America.
Oh, and Greenleaf, Idaho.
http://www.examiner.com/article/as-american-as-mandatory-gun-ownership
Quote from: Deepthroat Chopra on December 20, 2012, 01:05:21 AM
I think it's still mandatory to own a firearm in Kenesaw, Georgia, and Virgin, Utah
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1818862/posts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin,_Utah
I'm not surprised the Republicans are promoting the Virginisation of America.
Oh, and Greenleaf, Idaho.
http://www.examiner.com/article/as-american-as-mandatory-gun-ownership
It's true, about Kennesaw. I keep wanting to go there just so I have a reasonable excuse for buying a Springfield XD.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 19, 2012, 11:44:08 PM
Yep, let's fix the gun problem with MORE guns. Astounding logic!
Just hand everyone a pistol and a vest on their way into the building.
Nothing could go wrong!
It'll be just like Laser Tag, just, less Cheetoh's and more blood.
By the way, the whole gun control issue is being used as a smokescreen while Obama plans to slash Social Security.
While everyone gets up in arms about the gun issue, the Cat Food Committee is convening. Classic Obama.
Quote from: Cain on December 26, 2012, 11:37:31 AM
By the way, the whole gun control issue is being used as a smokescreen while Obama plans to slash Social Security.
While everyone gets up in arms about the gun issue, the Cat Food Committee is convening. Classic Obama.
Of course. :x
ASS TO MOUTH, AMERICA!
(TM):a2m:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 01:22:21 AM
Quote from: Faust on December 18, 2012, 01:20:49 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 01:18:35 AM
Quote from: Faust on December 18, 2012, 01:16:51 AM
Effect on the murder rates with guns or the total figure.
What possible difference does that make? If you're dead, you're dead, whether you are shot with an illegal gun, stabbed, strangled, whatever.
Because there probably isn't a rate from a time when there are no guns in recent years, which pushes me towards the Lost cause column again.
It's now half one, I have to get up for work in five an a half hours.
There has never been a time in America in which there were no guns.
Except for her entire history pre Columbus.
Quote from: Pergamos on December 27, 2012, 07:53:11 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 01:22:21 AM
Quote from: Faust on December 18, 2012, 01:20:49 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 01:18:35 AM
Quote from: Faust on December 18, 2012, 01:16:51 AM
Effect on the murder rates with guns or the total figure.
What possible difference does that make? If you're dead, you're dead, whether you are shot with an illegal gun, stabbed, strangled, whatever.
Because there probably isn't a rate from a time when there are no guns in recent years, which pushes me towards the Lost cause column again.
It's now half one, I have to get up for work in five an a half hours.
There has never been a time in America in which there were no guns.
Except for her entire history pre Columbus.
Rolling back the clock that far would be an impressive feat, America could experience the industrial revolution again.
Quote from: Faust on December 27, 2012, 11:47:28 AM
Quote from: Pergamos on December 27, 2012, 07:53:11 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 01:22:21 AM
Quote from: Faust on December 18, 2012, 01:20:49 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 01:18:35 AM
Quote from: Faust on December 18, 2012, 01:16:51 AM
Effect on the murder rates with guns or the total figure.
What possible difference does that make? If you're dead, you're dead, whether you are shot with an illegal gun, stabbed, strangled, whatever.
Because there probably isn't a rate from a time when there are no guns in recent years, which pushes me towards the Lost cause column again.
It's now half one, I have to get up for work in five an a half hours.
There has never been a time in America in which there were no guns.
Except for her entire history pre Columbus.
Rolling back the clock that far would be an impressive feat, America could experience the industrial revolution again.
Smallpox first.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 05:37:47 PM
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on December 18, 2012, 05:34:31 PM
i don't see what the failing of the typical explanation is, i.e. the self-reliance required by a frontier society, and a heritage of mistrust of govt.
Bolded part is utter goo and drivel. The American public worships the government. Part of that worship is pretending to despise it, which they do poorly.
Americans worship all manner of things that don't actually exist. Government is pretty much #2.
The other part is drivel too. People on the frontier need tight communities. There's room for hermits and mountain men, but they're dependent on the communities that they trade with and those communities were way more in one another's business than any modern American would be willing to put up with.
Quote from: Pergamos on December 27, 2012, 07:31:48 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 05:37:47 PM
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on December 18, 2012, 05:34:31 PM
i don't see what the failing of the typical explanation is, i.e. the self-reliance required by a frontier society, and a heritage of mistrust of govt.
Bolded part is utter goo and drivel. The American public worships the government. Part of that worship is pretending to despise it, which they do poorly.
Americans worship all manner of things that don't actually exist. Government is pretty much #2.
The other part is drivel too. People on the frontier need tight communities. There's room for hermits and mountain men, but they're dependent on the communities that they trade with and those communities were way more in one another's business than any modern American would be willing to put up with.
Yes, this. So much this.
Quote from: Pergamos on December 27, 2012, 07:53:11 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 01:22:21 AM
Quote from: Faust on December 18, 2012, 01:20:49 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 01:18:35 AM
Quote from: Faust on December 18, 2012, 01:16:51 AM
Effect on the murder rates with guns or the total figure.
What possible difference does that make? If you're dead, you're dead, whether you are shot with an illegal gun, stabbed, strangled, whatever.
Because there probably isn't a rate from a time when there are no guns in recent years, which pushes me towards the Lost cause column again.
It's now half one, I have to get up for work in five an a half hours.
There has never been a time in America in which there were no guns.
Except for her entire history pre Columbus.
Yes, because that's totally relevant to the United States.
Quote from: Pergamos on December 27, 2012, 07:31:48 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2012, 05:37:47 PM
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on December 18, 2012, 05:34:31 PM
i don't see what the failing of the typical explanation is, i.e. the self-reliance required by a frontier society, and a heritage of mistrust of govt.
Bolded part is utter goo and drivel. The American public worships the government. Part of that worship is pretending to despise it, which they do poorly.
Americans worship all manner of things that don't actually exist. Government is pretty much #2.
The other part is drivel too. People on the frontier need tight communities. There's room for hermits and mountain men, but they're dependent on the communities that they trade with and those communities were way more in one another's business than any modern American would be willing to put up with.
Absolutely. No support system = death.
To even imagine how a lone person could survive on the frontier brings to mind a savage existence of subsistance farming and malnutrition.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 28, 2012, 04:01:39 PM
To even imagine how a lone person could survive on the frontier brings to mind a savage existence of subsistance farming and malnutrition.
Death by rabbit starvation. Or a broken arm. Or an absessed tooth. Or simple exhaustion.
Humans are primates; we have a pack mentality for a reason. We're not good at ANYTHING individually. We can't sprint worth a damn, fight, or even hide. In groups, though, nothing has ever stopped us.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 28, 2012, 04:05:28 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 28, 2012, 04:01:39 PM
To even imagine how a lone person could survive on the frontier brings to mind a savage existence of subsistance farming and malnutrition.
Death by rabbit starvation. Or a broken arm. Or an absessed tooth. Or simple exhaustion.
Humans are primates; we have a pack mentality for a reason. We're not good at ANYTHING individually. We can't sprint worth a damn, fight, or even hide. In groups, though, nothing has ever stopped us.
It's so weird how the forum keeps spitting up new unread replies to posts, even when I thought I'd tapped that well dry.
And yeah, basic human survival is social in nature. "Lone survivalists" quickly become "That skeleton we found in a cabin in the woods".
Lolz. So it turns out, Wayne LaPierre was another Vietnam draft-dodger. "Nervous disorder", was the diagnosis.
Quote from: Cain on January 12, 2013, 11:07:54 AM
Lolz. So it turns out, Wayne LaPierre was another Vietnam draft-dodger. "Nervous disorder", was the diagnosis.
:lulz:
Oh man, I can't wait to happily deliver that information to the fella I saw standing at a stoplight with a cardboard sign reading: FIRST HITLER TOOK GUNS.
I actually nearly shit myself with laughter.
This guy, this blubber bubuh, is doesn't give a shit about money=speech, thus making either term useless, doesn't give a shit about warrant-less wiretapping or other, many other, 4th amendment violations, doesn't even stand out there concerned that Obama can execute any citizen. No.
But his pistol grips. Oh heavens no.
FTR, I don't agree 100% with pro or anti gun people. I am gun agnostic. Certainly I don't think Joe Biden is going to save anybody's life.
Quote from: Alty on January 12, 2013, 07:35:49 PM
Quote from: Cain on January 12, 2013, 11:07:54 AM
Lolz. So it turns out, Wayne LaPierre was another Vietnam draft-dodger. "Nervous disorder", was the diagnosis.
:lulz:
Oh man, I can't wait to happily deliver that information to the fella I saw standing at a stoplight with a cardboard sign reading: FIRST HITLER TOOK GUNS.
Which, incidentally, he didn't (http://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/stop_talking_about_hitler/).
Except from the Jews, of course. Hitler in fact liberalised the previously stingent gun laws of the Weimar Republic. Hitler made great hay about armed gangs in 1932, but that was an election year, and by "armed gangs" he meant the KPD's paramilitary wing. His own paramilitary wing was curiously not mentioned at all...
Also, Sandy Hook was staged by Obama in order to take all your guns.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/professor-won-t-back-down-newtown-massacre-conspiracy-183530799.html
The commentary on the above piece is interesting, as I am seeing places where people are saying he said that Obama staged the entire massacre then used paid actors to pose as the parents, in order to take away guns.
Which is, to put it bluntly, not so.
QuoteThe professor writes on his blog, Memory Hole, "While it sounds like an outrageous claim, one is left to inquire whether the Sandy Hook shooting ever took place—at least in the way law enforcement authorities and the nation's news media have described." He suggests that there were multiple shooters and that the number of dead is incorrect. The blog post was published on the Global Research site, where it caught the attention of the Web.
The academic, who is known for his conspiracy theories on 9/11 and the Oklahoma bombing, believes—as he claims on his blog and recently stated on a radio show—that trained "crisis actors" may have been employed by the Obama administration to shape public opinion on gun control.
The 47-year-old, who holds a Ph.D. from the University of Iowa in mass communication, wrote on his blog, " As documents relating to the Sandy Hook shooting continue to be assessed and interpreted by independent researchers there is a growing awareness that the media coverage of the massacre of 26 children and adults was intended primarily for public consumption to further larger political ends."
Questioning the police and whether there where in fact multiple shooters isn't entirely crazy. And of course the media coverage of the massacre is being put towards political ends. I just doubt those ends are the seizure of guns.
FP crunched the numbers: no correlation between gun ownership and freedom
http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/01/09/guns_dont_kill_dictatorships_people_do
Edit: also, when someone stopped a shooting with their own weapon, they were a trained professional with a firearm http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/12/18/a_league_of_our_own?page=full
Heh. Figured.
What most people don't realize is what happens to your perceptions when you get in a situation like that. It takes frequent training to do things automatically. Going to the range once a month doesn't cut it.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 14, 2013, 02:20:15 PM
Heh. Figured.
What most people don't realize is what happens to your perceptions when you get in a situation like that. It takes frequent training to do things automatically. Going to the range once a month doesn't cut it.
I have a friend who was a SWAT trainer. One of the drills they had to do was soak their arms up to the elbows in ice water and then demonstrate they could still maintain, load & shoot their weapons effectively with severely reduced dexterity. The numbing from the ice was said to simulate the state of being highly adrenalized in an extreme situation.
Of all the people I know with guns, if shit went down, Steve is the only guy who I would actually want around. The rest of them are either totally out of practise or believe that standing in a shooting range makes them combat ready.
I'm a moderate when it comes to gun control. I'd like to see them licensed and registered like automobiles. However registration is not going to happen as long as there is a credible threat of it leading to confiscation.
Or even an uncredible but widely perceived threat.
My preference is for that kind of system myself, though living as I am in the UK, our problem is overly strict gun control. It is bad enough here that our own Olympic marksmanship team has to live and practice in Switzerland, because sporting is not a valid enough excuse for a gun licence. My preference is for that over a far too permissive gun regime, but I'm not going to pretend either are really preferable options.
So to look at it from another perspective, what keeps the UK from liberalizing their gun laws? I know that inertia is part of what keeps guns nearly unregulated in the US and nearly non existent in the UK, but I assume it is more than that.
I'd say there's substantial sentiment against more firearms in the UK from the general public. The relatively rare shootings that occur here are big news stories for good while. There's pretty much no high profile support for a more liberal regime either.
Anyway, over here you're more likely to be stabbed than shot.
There seems to me to be no easy answer with guns in the U.S. It's a part of our culture I can remember the rite of passage of going to hunter's safety classes before getting my first 22 rifle for my twelfth birthday. In the Midwest this was the common tradition but note the use of education before ownership.
I also had a lengthy talk with a fellow grad student from AZ who thought maybe a response would be to make ammunition harder to come by. His idea was that non-lethal rounds could be had for everyone but legit ammo would require a legal hunting license, or some other equivalent permit. While a somewhat probable idea it does nothing about the about of ammo out there already and the fact that rounds aren't all that complicated to make.
Gun control isn't the problem as I see it. For me it seems that the entire collapse of a mental health care system needs to be brought to the forefront of the issue. Despite the news screaming about guns for decades the FBI has recorded the number one murder weapon is the common household knife (even the poorest of the poor have kitchen utensils).
The worst aspect of all these incidents is that they will continue to happen and I hate to buy into the thought that over prescription of heavy duty anti-psychotic drugs for extended periods of time plays a major role in it all. Money over proper treatment - the drugs have a place to stabilize people so that actual therapy can be used but this seems to limit the amount of profit so nvm.
As I already said, I can't seem to find an answer to fix it. And things never have a simple answer those usually come to us from simple people with an agenda paying for their views.
Is it just me or is the whole mental health care act just a bit of bullshit?
Yes, I do think it is important. However placing that above the actual discussion (Guns) is reframing the debate to the ideas that only the mentally unbalanced commit violent crimes.
My wildly impractiacal solution ignoring the arms in circulation is that every new owner should have a required level of training and pass a william tell style test. Fail the test, go to jail. Can't find anyone to volunteer to hold the apple, well shit you're not passing.
Quote from: Pergamos on January 18, 2013, 08:14:48 AM
So to look at it from another perspective, what keeps the UK from liberalizing their gun laws? I know that inertia is part of what keeps guns nearly unregulated in the US and nearly non existent in the UK, but I assume it is more than that.
The UK put in gun control much earlier, due to the percieved threat from Communists and similar. That passed more easily because guns don't have such a place in our national discourse as they do in the American one. Britain's strong military tradition was a mostly Naval one, too, and this military power and independence were associated with the Navy - where handguns of any kind are not especially effective.
In particular, the last piece of gun control legislation took place after the Dunblane Massacre, an incident not too dissimilar to Sandy Hook, barring the shooter in question was a former Scout master with pedophilic tendencies.* However, gun control had already been on the agenda in previous years due to the ongoing terrorist risk in the UK from Irish elements, and was already fairly strict by US standards at the time of the killings.
In many parts of the UK, a gun also seems like unnecessary overkill. Our crime rates are much, much lower than those in the US, and have been dropping at a comparable speed to the US crime rate. The reasons for that are many and varied, but it does mean people feel they don't need to rely on a gun for protection. The demand isn't there for it as much.
*And some interesting connections...which have been sealed. According to
The Guardian, one sealed police report deals with his actities in Loch Lamond, five years earlier and allegedly links Hamilton to senior figures in the Scottish political establishment. The
Sunday Herald further revealed that a letter from George Robertson, an MP formerly residing in Dunblane but by then was the Secretary General of NATO, to Hamilton was also sealed. All sealed evidence will be kept secret for 100 years. This is probably a case of powerful people wanting to hide or otherwise play down their earlier interactions with a murderer...but given how it has been handled, the calls of "coverup!" are not unjustified.
And on another subject entirely, let's talk about the exploitation of child murder for the purposes of fame!
Quote from: NSFWCorpOn Tuesday, Ingrid Michaelson visited the set of Good Morning America to breathlessly bleat her way through the heartwarming song made famous by Glee (and perhaps some other stuff). Accompanying her were 20 Sandy Hook students: one live child, presumably, to represent each dead one.
Michaelson is a pop star. Pop stars are generally known to be horrible. Until now, though, her horribleness has consisted entirely of being so sweet and smiley and chirpy and syrupy that there is nothing you could crave more fervently than to scoop out her larynx with a grapefruit spoon every time "The Way I Am" starts playing in a coffee shop or a dog food commercial or a shitty CW show or any one of my more perversely satisfying nightmares.
Singing "Somewhere Over The Rainbow" with Sandy Hook survivors should win her a Grammy Lifetime Achievement Award for Utter Fucking Horribleness. Not only does she deliver a rendition of the song as cloying as all her other dreck—she involves children who should not be given this kind of crass exposure so soon after such a traumatic experience.
Even worse, a recorded version of the song—produced by Chris Frantz and Tina Weymouth of Talking Heads, who should know better—has also been released as a downloadable single. True, the proceeds go to charity, namely the Newtown Youth Academy and the United Way of Western Connecticut. Michaelson, Frantz, and Weymouth—platinum-selling artists all—could have simply and silently cut a check. Instead, they trotted out the youngsters with bells on.
QuoteMichaelson probably has no ill intent. Nor do Frantz and Weymouth. That doesn't change the fact that their actions have only added to the platform of misery fetishism and grief porn that our culture has erected in an effort to accommodate and cope with a new, hard fact: When we as a nation aren't singing together, we're slaughtering each other.
The survivors of Sandy Hook are being used, and society is telling them that's normal. They're being pushed, prodded, poked, probed, and made to perform in every corner of politics and the media, in hopes that their pain can be modulated into something melodious in the ear of the beholder.
Indeed, thanks to Michaelson's poignant, blood-streaked version of "Somewhere Over The Rainbow," the children of America have fresh hope. They may now pray that something as exciting as a mass shooting will happen at their school. That way they can appear on national TV, warble with a pop star, and get psychoanalyzed by George Stephanopoulos between celebrity interviews and cooking demos.
Quote from: Junkenstein on January 18, 2013, 10:20:01 AM
Is it just me or is the whole mental health care act just a bit of bullshit?
Yes, I do think it is important. However placing that above the actual discussion (Guns) is reframing the debate to the ideas that only the mentally unbalanced commit violent crimes.
My wildly impractiacal solution ignoring the arms in circulation is that every new owner should have a required level of training and pass a william tell style test. Fail the test, go to jail. Can't find anyone to volunteer to hold the apple, well shit you're not passing.
In my own weird view, yes, only the mental imbalanced commit violent crime that is why things like Boot Camp are necessary to enable soldiers to commit murder. First break them down mentally then rebuild them in any horrific way you see fit. [This is also what happens to inner city youth] The history of psychology is plagued by this notion of rebuilding or breaking the psyche look into it and see that the first cases of multiple personalities were done intentionally by psychologists even Jung mentions it.
Violence for self-preservation such as hunting or protecting ones kin is not the same as all violent crime yet guns get the blame when its the people behind them that pull the triggers.
The mental health care system in America was systemically disabled and now it is entirely a chemically driven profit business. I live in CO and the guy that shot up the movie theater was banned from his campus because his shrink called in a warning. That same shrink by law should have reported him to the authorities for a 72 hour hold and is now being sued. Its a question of how many people ignore the RED FLAGS over and over till this shit happens.
So the mental health aspect is not bullshit and just try disarming America it can not be done. This country is way to big and from coast to coast it is armed, just saying...
Quote from: zen_magick on January 18, 2013, 12:47:59 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on January 18, 2013, 10:20:01 AM
Is it just me or is the whole mental health care act just a bit of bullshit?
Yes, I do think it is important. However placing that above the actual discussion (Guns) is reframing the debate to the ideas that only the mentally unbalanced commit violent crimes.
My wildly impractiacal solution ignoring the arms in circulation is that every new owner should have a required level of training and pass a william tell style test. Fail the test, go to jail. Can't find anyone to volunteer to hold the apple, well shit you're not passing.
In my own weird view, yes, only the mental imbalanced commit violent crime that is why things like Boot Camp are necessary to enable soldiers to commit murder. First break them down mentally then rebuild them in any horrific way you see fit. [This is also what happens to inner city youth] The history of psychology is plagued by this notion of rebuilding or breaking the psyche look into it and see that the first cases of multiple personalities were done intentionally by psychologists even Jung mentions it.
Violence for self-preservation such as hunting or protecting ones kin is not the same as all violent crime yet guns get the blame when its the people behind them that pull the triggers.
The mental health care system in America was systemically disabled and now it is entirely a chemically driven profit business. I live in CO and the guy that shot up the movie theater was banned from his campus because his shrink called in a warning. That same shrink by law should have reported him to the authorities for a 72 hour hold and is now being sued. Its a question of how many people ignore the RED FLAGS over and over till this shit happens.
So the mental health aspect is not bullshit and just try disarming America it can not be done. This country is way to big and from coast to coast it is armed, just saying...
bullshit. the mentally ill are more likely to be victims of crime than perps. The "only crazy folks do this shit" stigmatizes the majority of peaceful or only a harm to themselves crazies. There are extreme cases, but they are by and large very very rare.
I agree with both of you.
Most mentally ill people are more of a danger to themselves or more likely to be a victim than anything else.
However, there is no denying there are mentally ill people who pose a danger to others. Psychotics, those with low impulse control etc.. And the US mental health system is broken, completely. In the current American climate, there is nothing to stop such a person amassing a large arsenal of weapons and hurting a lot of people.
Would a better mental health system eliminate such crimes? Of course not. Would they help prevent incidents, though? Undeniably.
Ok, I'd like to show my ignorance and get down to basics.
QuoteA 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.
Ok. Great. But my question is, does the absence of specific
types of arms mean that it encompasses
all arms? There's already a ban on fully automatic guns (I think), and there are other kinds of weapons that are illegal. But could the argument be made that if you have access to
some kind of gun, then your rights aren't being infringed?
If this is far too stupid to address, please ignore it.
Quote from: Pixie on January 18, 2013, 01:37:26 PM
Quote from: zen_magick on January 18, 2013, 12:47:59 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on January 18, 2013, 10:20:01 AM
Is it just me or is the whole mental health care act just a bit of bullshit?
Yes, I do think it is important. However placing that above the actual discussion (Guns) is reframing the debate to the ideas that only the mentally unbalanced commit violent crimes.
My wildly impractiacal solution ignoring the arms in circulation is that every new owner should have a required level of training and pass a william tell style test. Fail the test, go to jail. Can't find anyone to volunteer to hold the apple, well shit you're not passing.
In my own weird view, yes, only the mental imbalanced commit violent crime that is why things like Boot Camp are necessary to enable soldiers to commit murder. First break them down mentally then rebuild them in any horrific way you see fit. [This is also what happens to inner city youth] The history of psychology is plagued by this notion of rebuilding or breaking the psyche look into it and see that the first cases of multiple personalities were done intentionally by psychologists even Jung mentions it.
Violence for self-preservation such as hunting or protecting ones kin is not the same as all violent crime yet guns get the blame when its the people behind them that pull the triggers.
The mental health care system in America was systemically disabled and now it is entirely a chemically driven profit business. I live in CO and the guy that shot up the movie theater was banned from his campus because his shrink called in a warning. That same shrink by law should have reported him to the authorities for a 72 hour hold and is now being sued. Its a question of how many people ignore the RED FLAGS over and over till this shit happens.
So the mental health aspect is not bullshit and just try disarming America it can not be done. This country is way to big and from coast to coast it is armed, just saying...
bullshit. the mentally ill are more likely to be victims of crime than perps. The "only crazy folks do this shit" stigmatizes the majority of peaceful or only a harm to themselves crazies. There are extreme cases, but they are by and large very very rare.
It depends quite a bit on the mental illness, Pixie. The vast majority of mental illnesses are harmless to everyone but the sufferer, but a few are dangerous. A one-size-fits-all answer like "the mentally ill are more likely to be victims of crime than perpetrators" isn't really an answer that works.
It also depends on what you define as mental illness. I could argue that large swathes of society suffer from stress-induced psychosis, and that can make a sufferer very dangerous indeed.
Also the whole "GUNS VS. MENTAL HEALTH" debate makes me sick.
ADDRESS SYSTEMIC STRESSORS INCLUDING POVERTY AND LACK OF HEALTH CARE.
Apparently that approach is too indirect for most Americans to even grasp. "Derp? What does endemic social stress have to do with violence and mass shootings?"
And Nigel said probably much better than I would have. Which I've been debating with people crying over the perceived threat to their guns, that these sorts of crimes wouldn't be as much of an issue of the roots of the problem.
That, and it sickens me, that with all the civil liberties issues, poverty, unemployment, poor health and mental health care, poor education system, etc., not to mention, actual rights being stripped away, THIS is what people are whining about. MAH GUNS! :roll:
Here's my hair-brained idea. Most states have Prescription Monitoring Programs that, crudely and in a nutshell, tip off physicians when one of their patients might be doctor-shopping and diverting pills. So, you create a Gun Monitoring Program, where whenever someone purchases a gun, data is entered into a system that physicians can monitor. But, like the PMP's, they can only monitor THEIR patients, and not just anyone who buys a gun.
So if Dr. Smith sees that John, who has been disgnosed with a mental health condition that COULD pose a threat to others, and he sees that John has just purchased a couple of guns and a bunch of ammo, there can be some kind of intervention.
I inow this will make Conservatives and the ACLU itchy, but if we can do it for drugs there is no reason why we can't do it for weapons.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 18, 2013, 04:51:40 PM
Here's my hair-brained idea. Most states have Prescription Monitoring Programs that, crudely and in a nutshell, tip off physicians when one of their patients might be doctor-shopping and diverting pills. So, you create a Gun Monitoring Program, where whenever someone purchases a gun, data is entered into a system that physicians can monitor. But, like the PMP's, they can only monitor THEIR patients, and not just anyone who buys a gun.
So if Dr. Smith sees that John, who has been disgnosed with a mental health condition that COULD pose a threat to others, and he sees that John has just purchased a couple of guns and a bunch of ammo, there can be some kind of intervention.
I inow this will make Conservatives and the ACLU itchy, but if we can do it for drugs there is no reason why we can't do it for weapons.
What about knives? And ropes and bare hands?
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on January 18, 2013, 02:47:13 PM
Ok, I'd like to show my ignorance and get down to basics.
QuoteA 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.
Ok. Great. But my question is, does the absence of specific types of arms mean that it encompasses all arms? There's already a ban on fully automatic guns (I think), and there are other kinds of weapons that are illegal. But could the argument be made that if you have access to some kind of gun, then your rights aren't being infringed?
If this is far too stupid to address, please ignore it.
exactly.
I don't see an argument. I think being able to own a handgun to protect my home is just fine. I don't need a high powered assault rifle for that.
But then I'm not afraid of my big bad government coming to get me for no reason.
Fuck that noise. If I lived in America I'd want a nuclear warhead or two. Statistically less people have been killed by nukes than almost any other weapon, including improvised shit like hammers and baseball bats. So there's really no argument for me not having a couple. Just in case. For, like defending my family and property and shit.
ETA: I agree with a ban on multiple yield, tho. Who would possibly need one of those?
Quote from: Sir Squid Diddimus on January 18, 2013, 06:31:08 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on January 18, 2013, 02:47:13 PM
Ok, I'd like to show my ignorance and get down to basics.
QuoteA 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.
Ok. Great. But my question is, does the absence of specific types of arms mean that it encompasses all arms? There's already a ban on fully automatic guns (I think), and there are other kinds of weapons that are illegal. But could the argument be made that if you have access to some kind of gun, then your rights aren't being infringed?
If this is far too stupid to address, please ignore it.
exactly.
I don't see an argument. I think being able to own a handgun to protect my home is just fine. I don't need a high powered assault rifle for that.
But then I'm not afraid of my big bad government coming to get me for no reason.
Where as I would much rather have an
assault rifle for home defense due my much greater familiarity with rifles than with handguns.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 18, 2013, 06:34:55 PM
Fuck that noise. If I lived in America I'd want a nuclear warhead or two. Statistically less people have been killed by nukes than almost any other weapon, including improvised shit like hammers and baseball bats. So there's really no argument for me not having a couple. Just in case. For, like defending my family and property and shit.
ETA: I agree with a ban on multiple yield, tho. Who would possibly need one of those?
(http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m5y2zjgNAI1qgc3a2o1_500.gif)
Americaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 18, 2013, 04:51:40 PM
Here's my hair-brained idea. Most states have Prescription Monitoring Programs that, crudely and in a nutshell, tip off physicians when one of their patients might be doctor-shopping and diverting pills. So, you create a Gun Monitoring Program, where whenever someone purchases a gun, data is entered into a system that physicians can monitor. But, like the PMP's, they can only monitor THEIR patients, and not just anyone who buys a gun.
So if Dr. Smith sees that John, who has been disgnosed with a mental health condition that COULD pose a threat to others, and he sees that John has just purchased a couple of guns and a bunch of ammo, there can be some kind of intervention.
I inow this will make Conservatives and the ACLU itchy, but if we can do it for drugs there is no reason why we can't do it for weapons.
On top of the HIPAA violation issue, most people who DO have healthcare see their doctor only once a year at most, many mentally ill people whose condition is deteriorating avoid seeing their doctor, and many people who commit violent acts are not diagnosed with any mental illness.
Like many of the rights violations that are ostensibly designed to "protect" us, it might make people feel better, but would be unlikely to have any measurable effect on reducing gun violence.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 18, 2013, 06:34:55 PM
Fuck that noise. If I lived in America I'd want a nuclear warhead or two. Statistically less people have been killed by nukes than almost any other weapon, including improvised shit like hammers and baseball bats. So there's really no argument for me not having a couple. Just in case. For, like defending my family and property and shit.
ETA: I agree with a ban on multiple yield, tho. Who would possibly need one of those?
Funny but true: One of the best deterrents to home intrusion is owning an intimidating dog. Pit bulls are banned in many municipalities, but it is still totally legal to own a gun.
I don't feel like I need a gun in the house when I have this:
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8312/7950443848_5765dc7cd7_z.jpg)
OK, so that's not exactly intimidating. But man, she COULD be.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 18, 2013, 07:33:59 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 18, 2013, 04:51:40 PM
Here's my hair-brained idea. Most states have Prescription Monitoring Programs that, crudely and in a nutshell, tip off physicians when one of their patients might be doctor-shopping and diverting pills. So, you create a Gun Monitoring Program, where whenever someone purchases a gun, data is entered into a system that physicians can monitor. But, like the PMP's, they can only monitor THEIR patients, and not just anyone who buys a gun.
So if Dr. Smith sees that John, who has been disgnosed with a mental health condition that COULD pose a threat to others, and he sees that John has just purchased a couple of guns and a bunch of ammo, there can be some kind of intervention.
I inow this will make Conservatives and the ACLU itchy, but if we can do it for drugs there is no reason why we can't do it for weapons.
On top of the HIPAA violation issue, most people who DO have healthcare see their doctor only once a year at most, many mentally ill people whose condition is deteriorating avoid seeing their doctor, and many people who commit violent acts are not diagnosed with any mental illness.
Like many of the rights violations that are ostensibly designed to "protect" us, it might make people feel better, but would be unlikely to have any measurable effect on reducing gun violence.
There wouldn't be any HIPAA violations whatsoever. Data is fed into the system by the gun merchants but they can't view the data. The only person who could view the information of the patient would be the patient's physician. Or, as is currently allowable with PMPs, law enforcement could view the data with a court order.
Interesting idea, but would the old flaws regarding drug prescriptions not come in handy?
I would suggest most ne'er-do-wells would be able to bribe a suitable "upstanding" patsy. There remains the issue of the current existing arsenal as well which I would imagine is now pretty much impossible to track down to the level that would make this effective. Criminals tend to ignore laws and I suspect any law/regulation change, no matter how well publicised would still create a lot of incidental criminals through ignorance.
Given that most mental illness linked to violence tends to be undiagnosed, would some kind of screening every X years help detect/prevent problems? The UK is/was (?) pushing a "Health MOT" basically encouraging everyone to go to their doctor at key milestone ages (30,50,65 for men if I recall correctly). Something similar every 5/10 years would probably be possible. The problem is both scale and that entire towns would be declared mentally subnormal.
Round here for example, I don't even trust anyone holding a spoon.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 18, 2013, 08:04:19 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 18, 2013, 07:33:59 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 18, 2013, 04:51:40 PM
Here's my hair-brained idea. Most states have Prescription Monitoring Programs that, crudely and in a nutshell, tip off physicians when one of their patients might be doctor-shopping and diverting pills. So, you create a Gun Monitoring Program, where whenever someone purchases a gun, data is entered into a system that physicians can monitor. But, like the PMP's, they can only monitor THEIR patients, and not just anyone who buys a gun.
So if Dr. Smith sees that John, who has been disgnosed with a mental health condition that COULD pose a threat to others, and he sees that John has just purchased a couple of guns and a bunch of ammo, there can be some kind of intervention.
I inow this will make Conservatives and the ACLU itchy, but if we can do it for drugs there is no reason why we can't do it for weapons.
On top of the HIPAA violation issue, most people who DO have healthcare see their doctor only once a year at most, many mentally ill people whose condition is deteriorating avoid seeing their doctor, and many people who commit violent acts are not diagnosed with any mental illness.
Like many of the rights violations that are ostensibly designed to "protect" us, it might make people feel better, but would be unlikely to have any measurable effect on reducing gun violence.
There wouldn't be any HIPAA violations whatsoever. Data is fed into the system by the gun merchants but they can't view the data. The only person who could view the information of the patient would be the patient's physician. Or, as is currently allowable with PMPs, law enforcement could view the data with a court order.
The HIPAA violation is inherent in the law you're proposing, wherein the doctor stages an intervention if a patient he or she considers a risk purchases a gun.
Or maybe you're proposing that the doctor performs the intervention on their own? Perhaps makes a housecall to the patient? I'm not anticipating much AMA support for such a scheme, if that's the case...
"So, Jim, I can't help but notice that you haven't seen me in a while and seem to have gone off your meds, and also that you've been buying guns, so I thought I would just drop by and have a little chat..."
:lol:
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 18, 2013, 04:31:19 PM
Quote from: Pixie on January 18, 2013, 01:37:26 PM
Quote from: zen_magick on January 18, 2013, 12:47:59 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on January 18, 2013, 10:20:01 AM
Is it just me or is the whole mental health care act just a bit of bullshit?
Yes, I do think it is important. However placing that above the actual discussion (Guns) is reframing the debate to the ideas that only the mentally unbalanced commit violent crimes.
My wildly impractiacal solution ignoring the arms in circulation is that every new owner should have a required level of training and pass a william tell style test. Fail the test, go to jail. Can't find anyone to volunteer to hold the apple, well shit you're not passing.
In my own weird view, yes, only the mental imbalanced commit violent crime that is why things like Boot Camp are necessary to enable soldiers to commit murder. First break them down mentally then rebuild them in any horrific way you see fit. [This is also what happens to inner city youth] The history of psychology is plagued by this notion of rebuilding or breaking the psyche look into it and see that the first cases of multiple personalities were done intentionally by psychologists even Jung mentions it.
Violence for self-preservation such as hunting or protecting ones kin is not the same as all violent crime yet guns get the blame when its the people behind them that pull the triggers.
The mental health care system in America was systemically disabled and now it is entirely a chemically driven profit business. I live in CO and the guy that shot up the movie theater was banned from his campus because his shrink called in a warning. That same shrink by law should have reported him to the authorities for a 72 hour hold and is now being sued. Its a question of how many people ignore the RED FLAGS over and over till this shit happens.
So the mental health aspect is not bullshit and just try disarming America it can not be done. This country is way to big and from coast to coast it is armed, just saying...
bullshit. the mentally ill are more likely to be victims of crime than perps. The "only crazy folks do this shit" stigmatizes the majority of peaceful or only a harm to themselves crazies. There are extreme cases, but they are by and large very very rare.
It depends quite a bit on the mental illness, Pixie. The vast majority of mental illnesses are harmless to everyone but the sufferer, but a few are dangerous. A one-size-fits-all answer like "the mentally ill are more likely to be victims of crime than perpetrators" isn't really an answer that works.
It also depends on what you define as mental illness. I could argue that large swathes of society suffer from stress-induced psychosis, and that can make a sufferer very dangerous indeed.
I've had stress induced psychosis, and have friends and relatives with psychotic conditions, from schizo affective disorder to full blown schizophrenia. By and large psychotics are most likely to harm themselves. there are notable cases, of paranoid psychotics harming others, however you don't ever hear about the psychotics that don't kill anyone, so the media representation is heavily skewed. I'd guess that originally aggressive folks who then get a psychotic episode are the ones you see going to the harm others end of the scale.
http://www.mentalhealthcare.org.uk/living_with_psychosis#Violent_behaviour
it's not UNKNOWN, sure, but its in the minority.
Sorry, shit like this winds me the fuck up because the majority of people who have psychosis are treated like violent people, when in fact it's not actually the case.
The stigma around psychosis and assumptions of violence is why I am very guarded about who I tell about that particular phase in my life.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 18, 2013, 09:43:19 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 18, 2013, 08:04:19 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 18, 2013, 07:33:59 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 18, 2013, 04:51:40 PM
Here's my hair-brained idea. Most states have Prescription Monitoring Programs that, crudely and in a nutshell, tip off physicians when one of their patients might be doctor-shopping and diverting pills. So, you create a Gun Monitoring Program, where whenever someone purchases a gun, data is entered into a system that physicians can monitor. But, like the PMP's, they can only monitor THEIR patients, and not just anyone who buys a gun.
So if Dr. Smith sees that John, who has been disgnosed with a mental health condition that COULD pose a threat to others, and he sees that John has just purchased a couple of guns and a bunch of ammo, there can be some kind of intervention.
I inow this will make Conservatives and the ACLU itchy, but if we can do it for drugs there is no reason why we can't do it for weapons.
On top of the HIPAA violation issue, most people who DO have healthcare see their doctor only once a year at most, many mentally ill people whose condition is deteriorating avoid seeing their doctor, and many people who commit violent acts are not diagnosed with any mental illness.
Like many of the rights violations that are ostensibly designed to "protect" us, it might make people feel better, but would be unlikely to have any measurable effect on reducing gun violence.
There wouldn't be any HIPAA violations whatsoever. Data is fed into the system by the gun merchants but they can't view the data. The only person who could view the information of the patient would be the patient's physician. Or, as is currently allowable with PMPs, law enforcement could view the data with a court order.
The HIPAA violation is inherent in the law you're proposing, wherein the doctor stages an intervention if a patient he or she considers a risk purchases a gun.
Or maybe you're proposing that the doctor performs the intervention on their own? Perhaps makes a housecall to the patient? I'm not anticipating much AMA support for such a scheme, if that's the case...
It would be the same model as the PMP's which are universally accepted across the country, quite legal, and enjoy the overwhelming support of the medical community. Because, of course, a sudden purchase of a gun an ammunition could be any number of things, including the potential for suicide. So it is in the best interest of the physician, in terms of the welfare of their patient, to have that information to have the opportunity to further assess the patient and initiate the appropriate care.
Quote from: Pixie on January 18, 2013, 11:38:21 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 18, 2013, 04:31:19 PM
Quote from: Pixie on January 18, 2013, 01:37:26 PM
Quote from: zen_magick on January 18, 2013, 12:47:59 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on January 18, 2013, 10:20:01 AM
Is it just me or is the whole mental health care act just a bit of bullshit?
Yes, I do think it is important. However placing that above the actual discussion (Guns) is reframing the debate to the ideas that only the mentally unbalanced commit violent crimes.
My wildly impractiacal solution ignoring the arms in circulation is that every new owner should have a required level of training and pass a william tell style test. Fail the test, go to jail. Can't find anyone to volunteer to hold the apple, well shit you're not passing.
In my own weird view, yes, only the mental imbalanced commit violent crime that is why things like Boot Camp are necessary to enable soldiers to commit murder. First break them down mentally then rebuild them in any horrific way you see fit. [This is also what happens to inner city youth] The history of psychology is plagued by this notion of rebuilding or breaking the psyche look into it and see that the first cases of multiple personalities were done intentionally by psychologists even Jung mentions it.
Violence for self-preservation such as hunting or protecting ones kin is not the same as all violent crime yet guns get the blame when its the people behind them that pull the triggers.
The mental health care system in America was systemically disabled and now it is entirely a chemically driven profit business. I live in CO and the guy that shot up the movie theater was banned from his campus because his shrink called in a warning. That same shrink by law should have reported him to the authorities for a 72 hour hold and is now being sued. Its a question of how many people ignore the RED FLAGS over and over till this shit happens.
So the mental health aspect is not bullshit and just try disarming America it can not be done. This country is way to big and from coast to coast it is armed, just saying...
bullshit. the mentally ill are more likely to be victims of crime than perps. The "only crazy folks do this shit" stigmatizes the majority of peaceful or only a harm to themselves crazies. There are extreme cases, but they are by and large very very rare.
It depends quite a bit on the mental illness, Pixie. The vast majority of mental illnesses are harmless to everyone but the sufferer, but a few are dangerous. A one-size-fits-all answer like "the mentally ill are more likely to be victims of crime than perpetrators" isn't really an answer that works.
It also depends on what you define as mental illness. I could argue that large swathes of society suffer from stress-induced psychosis, and that can make a sufferer very dangerous indeed.
I've had stress induced psychosis, and have friends and relatives with psychotic conditions, from schizo affective disorder to full blown schizophrenia. By and large psychotics are most likely to harm themselves. there are notable cases, of paranoid psychotics harming others, however you don't ever hear about the psychotics that don't kill anyone, so the media representation is heavily skewed. I'd guess that originally aggressive folks who then get a psychotic episode are the ones you see going to the harm others end of the scale.
Right... mental illness doesn't automatically make people a danger to others, it just also doesn't automatically make them NOT a danger to others, either.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 18, 2013, 08:04:19 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 18, 2013, 07:33:59 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 18, 2013, 04:51:40 PM
Here's my hair-brained idea. Most states have Prescription Monitoring Programs that, crudely and in a nutshell, tip off physicians when one of their patients might be doctor-shopping and diverting pills. So, you create a Gun Monitoring Program, where whenever someone purchases a gun, data is entered into a system that physicians can monitor. But, like the PMP's, they can only monitor THEIR patients, and not just anyone who buys a gun.
So if Dr. Smith sees that John, who has been disgnosed with a mental health condition that COULD pose a threat to others, and he sees that John has just purchased a couple of guns and a bunch of ammo, there can be some kind of intervention.
I inow this will make Conservatives and the ACLU itchy, but if we can do it for drugs there is no reason why we can't do it for weapons.
On top of the HIPAA violation issue, most people who DO have healthcare see their doctor only once a year at most, many mentally ill people whose condition is deteriorating avoid seeing their doctor, and many people who commit violent acts are not diagnosed with any mental illness.
Like many of the rights violations that are ostensibly designed to "protect" us, it might make people feel better, but would be unlikely to have any measurable effect on reducing gun violence.
There wouldn't be any HIPAA violations whatsoever. Data is fed into the system by the gun merchants but they can't view the data. The only person who could view the information of the patient would be the patient's physician. Or, as is currently allowable with PMPs, law enforcement could view the data with a court order.
So the gun merchant can't see the rejection of the application? What?
Why not just medicalize guns and ammo, so that you have to have a prescription to buy them? Combination gun stores and pharmacies.
Of course, there's also the problem of GPs not being qualified to diagnose mental illnesses, and the issue of what conditions or behavior would be considered grounds for flagging a purchase.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 19, 2013, 12:07:39 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 18, 2013, 08:04:19 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 18, 2013, 07:33:59 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 18, 2013, 04:51:40 PM
Here's my hair-brained idea. Most states have Prescription Monitoring Programs that, crudely and in a nutshell, tip off physicians when one of their patients might be doctor-shopping and diverting pills. So, you create a Gun Monitoring Program, where whenever someone purchases a gun, data is entered into a system that physicians can monitor. But, like the PMP's, they can only monitor THEIR patients, and not just anyone who buys a gun.
So if Dr. Smith sees that John, who has been disgnosed with a mental health condition that COULD pose a threat to others, and he sees that John has just purchased a couple of guns and a bunch of ammo, there can be some kind of intervention.
I inow this will make Conservatives and the ACLU itchy, but if we can do it for drugs there is no reason why we can't do it for weapons.
On top of the HIPAA violation issue, most people who DO have healthcare see their doctor only once a year at most, many mentally ill people whose condition is deteriorating avoid seeing their doctor, and many people who commit violent acts are not diagnosed with any mental illness.
Like many of the rights violations that are ostensibly designed to "protect" us, it might make people feel better, but would be unlikely to have any measurable effect on reducing gun violence.
There wouldn't be any HIPAA violations whatsoever. Data is fed into the system by the gun merchants but they can't view the data. The only person who could view the information of the patient would be the patient's physician. Or, as is currently allowable with PMPs, law enforcement could view the data with a court order.
So the gun merchant can't see the rejection of the application? What?
Well, if a state is set up to reject applications based upon mental health status then that would supercede this system, and would be a separate system. One is to clear someone to purchase a gun the other is to alert a physician that a patient with a mental health condition has purchased a weapon. But, much like with the PMPs, it wouldn't be the case that every mental health patient who purchases a gun would automatically be red flagged. You'd have to create threshholds, like they do with PMPs, that would trigger depending on the diagnosis and what was purchased. It certainly would take some time to properly design and get online, but it would be another tool and another opportunity to perhaps stave off an individual crisis.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 19, 2013, 12:12:46 AM
Why not just medicalize guns and ammo, so that you have to have a prescription to buy them? Combination gun stores and pharmacies.
Throw cigs and porn in, and you've got a winner.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 19, 2013, 12:16:50 AM
Of course, there's also the problem of GPs not being qualified to diagnose mental illnesses, and the issue of what conditions or behavior would be considered grounds for flagging a purchase.
That's not a problem at all. For one, both the GP and the specialist would have access to the information for the particular patient, which means both would get the threshhold reports. Hopefully, the two would be in communication and consult each other when a report was generated and decide if any further action is needed.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 18, 2013, 11:52:02 PM
Quote from: Pixie on January 18, 2013, 11:38:21 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 18, 2013, 04:31:19 PM
Quote from: Pixie on January 18, 2013, 01:37:26 PM
Quote from: zen_magick on January 18, 2013, 12:47:59 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on January 18, 2013, 10:20:01 AM
Is it just me or is the whole mental health care act just a bit of bullshit?
Yes, I do think it is important. However placing that above the actual discussion (Guns) is reframing the debate to the ideas that only the mentally unbalanced commit violent crimes.
My wildly impractiacal solution ignoring the arms in circulation is that every new owner should have a required level of training and pass a william tell style test. Fail the test, go to jail. Can't find anyone to volunteer to hold the apple, well shit you're not passing.
In my own weird view, yes, only the mental imbalanced commit violent crime that is why things like Boot Camp are necessary to enable soldiers to commit murder. First break them down mentally then rebuild them in any horrific way you see fit. [This is also what happens to inner city youth] The history of psychology is plagued by this notion of rebuilding or breaking the psyche look into it and see that the first cases of multiple personalities were done intentionally by psychologists even Jung mentions it.
Violence for self-preservation such as hunting or protecting ones kin is not the same as all violent crime yet guns get the blame when its the people behind them that pull the triggers.
The mental health care system in America was systemically disabled and now it is entirely a chemically driven profit business. I live in CO and the guy that shot up the movie theater was banned from his campus because his shrink called in a warning. That same shrink by law should have reported him to the authorities for a 72 hour hold and is now being sued. Its a question of how many people ignore the RED FLAGS over and over till this shit happens.
So the mental health aspect is not bullshit and just try disarming America it can not be done. This country is way to big and from coast to coast it is armed, just saying...
bullshit. the mentally ill are more likely to be victims of crime than perps. The "only crazy folks do this shit" stigmatizes the majority of peaceful or only a harm to themselves crazies. There are extreme cases, but they are by and large very very rare.
It depends quite a bit on the mental illness, Pixie. The vast majority of mental illnesses are harmless to everyone but the sufferer, but a few are dangerous. A one-size-fits-all answer like "the mentally ill are more likely to be victims of crime than perpetrators" isn't really an answer that works.
It also depends on what you define as mental illness. I could argue that large swathes of society suffer from stress-induced psychosis, and that can make a sufferer very dangerous indeed.
I've had stress induced psychosis, and have friends and relatives with psychotic conditions, from schizo affective disorder to full blown schizophrenia. By and large psychotics are most likely to harm themselves. there are notable cases, of paranoid psychotics harming others, however you don't ever hear about the psychotics that don't kill anyone, so the media representation is heavily skewed. I'd guess that originally aggressive folks who then get a psychotic episode are the ones you see going to the harm others end of the scale.
Right... mental illness doesn't automatically make people a danger to others, it just also doesn't automatically make them NOT a danger to others, either.
same goes for sane people.
You can't ever eliminate the threat that any kind of person would pose. And I think we need to look at systems that are more about intervention and helping a person who may be in trouble, rather than a system that automatically stigmatizes those who are affected by behavioral health issues. Which is what the system I propose is, a system that allows opportunities for conversation, not accusation.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 19, 2013, 12:34:23 AM
You can't ever eliminate the threat that any kind of person would pose. And I think we need to look at systems that are more about intervention and helping a person who may be in trouble, rather than a system that automatically stigmatizes those who are affected by behavioral health issues. Which is what the system I propose is, a system that allows opportunities for conversation, not accusation.
Which would be immediately abused.
Quote from: Pixie on January 19, 2013, 12:31:02 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 18, 2013, 11:52:02 PM
Quote from: Pixie on January 18, 2013, 11:38:21 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 18, 2013, 04:31:19 PM
Quote from: Pixie on January 18, 2013, 01:37:26 PM
Quote from: zen_magick on January 18, 2013, 12:47:59 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on January 18, 2013, 10:20:01 AM
Is it just me or is the whole mental health care act just a bit of bullshit?
Yes, I do think it is important. However placing that above the actual discussion (Guns) is reframing the debate to the ideas that only the mentally unbalanced commit violent crimes.
My wildly impractiacal solution ignoring the arms in circulation is that every new owner should have a required level of training and pass a william tell style test. Fail the test, go to jail. Can't find anyone to volunteer to hold the apple, well shit you're not passing.
In my own weird view, yes, only the mental imbalanced commit violent crime that is why things like Boot Camp are necessary to enable soldiers to commit murder. First break them down mentally then rebuild them in any horrific way you see fit. [This is also what happens to inner city youth] The history of psychology is plagued by this notion of rebuilding or breaking the psyche look into it and see that the first cases of multiple personalities were done intentionally by psychologists even Jung mentions it.
Violence for self-preservation such as hunting or protecting ones kin is not the same as all violent crime yet guns get the blame when its the people behind them that pull the triggers.
The mental health care system in America was systemically disabled and now it is entirely a chemically driven profit business. I live in CO and the guy that shot up the movie theater was banned from his campus because his shrink called in a warning. That same shrink by law should have reported him to the authorities for a 72 hour hold and is now being sued. Its a question of how many people ignore the RED FLAGS over and over till this shit happens.
So the mental health aspect is not bullshit and just try disarming America it can not be done. This country is way to big and from coast to coast it is armed, just saying...
bullshit. the mentally ill are more likely to be victims of crime than perps. The "only crazy folks do this shit" stigmatizes the majority of peaceful or only a harm to themselves crazies. There are extreme cases, but they are by and large very very rare.
It depends quite a bit on the mental illness, Pixie. The vast majority of mental illnesses are harmless to everyone but the sufferer, but a few are dangerous. A one-size-fits-all answer like "the mentally ill are more likely to be victims of crime than perpetrators" isn't really an answer that works.
It also depends on what you define as mental illness. I could argue that large swathes of society suffer from stress-induced psychosis, and that can make a sufferer very dangerous indeed.
I've had stress induced psychosis, and have friends and relatives with psychotic conditions, from schizo affective disorder to full blown schizophrenia. By and large psychotics are most likely to harm themselves. there are notable cases, of paranoid psychotics harming others, however you don't ever hear about the psychotics that don't kill anyone, so the media representation is heavily skewed. I'd guess that originally aggressive folks who then get a psychotic episode are the ones you see going to the harm others end of the scale.
Right... mental illness doesn't automatically make people a danger to others, it just also doesn't automatically make them NOT a danger to others, either.
same goes for sane people.
Yep.
How? PMPs aren't abused. And if you were to abuse it, at least here in Maine, there are very serious consequences which deter abuse. You'd set up a system for guns the same way.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 19, 2013, 12:22:25 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 19, 2013, 12:16:50 AM
Of course, there's also the problem of GPs not being qualified to diagnose mental illnesses, and the issue of what conditions or behavior would be considered grounds for flagging a purchase.
That's not a problem at all. For one, both the GP and the specialist would have access to the information for the particular patient, which means both would get the threshhold reports. Hopefully, the two would be in communication and consult each other when a report was generated and decide if any further action is needed.
I just consulted a doctor and her reaction was "BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAA WTF"
Not sure you're going to get a lot of support for this one.
Meh, doesn't surprise me. No one seems to have any real interest in ACTUALLY solving our gun violence issues. Lot's of people want to talk and wring their hands, but no real solutions are coming from anyone, on either side of the aisle. So, we'll just keep on keeping on, and we'll have another Columbine, another Newton, another Aurora...but it's what The People want, right?
I think it was more that it's a preposterous proposal with a million gaping holes in it, but you can imagine that you're Using Your Powers For Good if that's what rings your jingle.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 19, 2013, 12:51:42 AM
Meh, doesn't surprise me. No one seems to have any real interest in ACTUALLY solving our gun violence issues.
Sounds more like no one seems to agree with your solution.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 19, 2013, 12:54:35 AM
I think it was more that it's a preposterous proposal with a million gaping holes in it, but you can imagine that you're Using Your Powers For Good if that's what rings your jingle.
What holes?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 19, 2013, 01:01:41 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 19, 2013, 12:51:42 AM
Meh, doesn't surprise me. No one seems to have any real interest in ACTUALLY solving our gun violence issues.
Sounds more like no one seems to agree with your solution.
Sure, but that aside, we are also getting the usual window-dressing bullshit from the Democrats. Obama's proposals have no teeth and will do jack shit. They're too scared of the bat-shit-crazy NRA to actually propose something that might actually have an impact. People will forget about Newton, like they forgot about Columbine. Maybe if those little kids had been shot by a smudgy guy from Afghanistan we'd actually be doing something about it.
Those lazy, lazy doctors... all talk, and no ACTION. :lol:
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 19, 2013, 01:03:22 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 19, 2013, 12:54:35 AM
I think it was more that it's a preposterous proposal with a million gaping holes in it, but you can imagine that you're Using Your Powers For Good if that's what rings your jingle.
What holes?
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 18, 2013, 07:33:59 PM
On top of the HIPAA violation issue, most people who DO have healthcare see their doctor only once a year at most, many mentally ill people whose condition is deteriorating avoid seeing their doctor, and many people who commit violent acts are not diagnosed with any mental illness.
In addition, there is the fact that guns, unlike drugs, are very much outside of a doctor's demesnes.
And those are just a few of the more glaringly obvious problems.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 19, 2013, 01:06:37 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 19, 2013, 01:01:41 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 19, 2013, 12:51:42 AM
Meh, doesn't surprise me. No one seems to have any real interest in ACTUALLY solving our gun violence issues.
Sounds more like no one seems to agree with your solution.
Sure, but that aside, we are also getting the usual window-dressing bullshit from the Democrats. Obama's proposals have no teeth and will do jack shit. They're too scared of the bat-shit-crazy NRA to actually propose something that might actually have an impact. People will forget about Newton, like they forgot about Columbine. Maybe if those little kids had been shot by a smudgy guy from Afghanistan we'd actually be doing something about it.
I don't want them to do anything.
It's the same sort of thinking that gave us the TSA, DHS, and waterboarding. Fear uber alles.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 19, 2013, 01:13:26 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 19, 2013, 01:03:22 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 19, 2013, 12:54:35 AM
I think it was more that it's a preposterous proposal with a million gaping holes in it, but you can imagine that you're Using Your Powers For Good if that's what rings your jingle.
What holes?
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 18, 2013, 07:33:59 PM
On top of the HIPAA violation issue, most people who DO have healthcare see their doctor only once a year at most, many mentally ill people whose condition is deteriorating avoid seeing their doctor, and many people who commit violent acts are not diagnosed with any mental illness.
In addition, there is the fact that guns, unlike drugs, are very much outside of a doctor's demesnes.
And those are just a few of the more glaringly obvious problems.
At no point did I say this was a silver bullet or THE solution. It's a tool, and should be one of MANY strategies. You can make the same arguments for the PMPs. The drug abusers who aren't seeing their doctor obviously aren't going to trip a PMP threshhold report. So it certainly is for a certain segment of the population. You would obviously need different strategies for people who don't have healthcare and/or mot seeing docs. And again, it would be the BEHAVIORAL HEALTH specialists who would be focusing on these reports since, you know, they specialize in behavioral health. Sudden gun purchases, in the context of the behavioral health issues, certainly would be within the realm of a behavioral health specialist, as it is a behavior that poses potential danger to the patient, again, in the context of their documented diagnosis.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 19, 2013, 01:16:13 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 19, 2013, 01:06:37 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 19, 2013, 01:01:41 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 19, 2013, 12:51:42 AM
Meh, doesn't surprise me. No one seems to have any real interest in ACTUALLY solving our gun violence issues.
Sounds more like no one seems to agree with your solution.
Sure, but that aside, we are also getting the usual window-dressing bullshit from the Democrats. Obama's proposals have no teeth and will do jack shit. They're too scared of the bat-shit-crazy NRA to actually propose something that might actually have an impact. People will forget about Newton, like they forgot about Columbine. Maybe if those little kids had been shot by a smudgy guy from Afghanistan we'd actually be doing something about it.
I don't want them to do anything.
It's the same sort of thinking that gave us the TSA, DHS, and waterboarding. Fear uber alles.
I strongly disagree with that. Kids being gunned down in school, or anywhere, is completely unacceptible and demands something(s) be changed.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 19, 2013, 01:24:32 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 19, 2013, 01:16:13 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 19, 2013, 01:06:37 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 19, 2013, 01:01:41 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 19, 2013, 12:51:42 AM
Meh, doesn't surprise me. No one seems to have any real interest in ACTUALLY solving our gun violence issues.
Sounds more like no one seems to agree with your solution.
Sure, but that aside, we are also getting the usual window-dressing bullshit from the Democrats. Obama's proposals have no teeth and will do jack shit. They're too scared of the bat-shit-crazy NRA to actually propose something that might actually have an impact. People will forget about Newton, like they forgot about Columbine. Maybe if those little kids had been shot by a smudgy guy from Afghanistan we'd actually be doing something about it.
I don't want them to do anything.
It's the same sort of thinking that gave us the TSA, DHS, and waterboarding. Fear uber alles.
I strongly disagree with that. Kids being gunned down in school, or anywhere, is completely unacceptible and demands something(s) be changed.
Tell it to Kent State.
Kent State has nothing to do with a 6 year old being gunned down in their goddamned classroom. Gunned down buy an asshat who's Mom was armed to the gills. But this country fucking worships the goddamned gun, we can replace kids, but fuck, if you take our guns the world will fucking end.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 19, 2013, 01:33:39 AM
Kent State has nothing to do with a 6 year old being gunned down in their goddamned classroom. Gunned down buy an asshat who's Mom was armed to the gills. But this country fucking worships the goddamned gun, we can replace kids, but fuck, if you take our guns the world will fucking end.
So, it's okay if the state does it, then?
Of course not, but again, it has fuck all to do with what lead to the Newton tragedy. They aren't comparable, at all.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 19, 2013, 01:40:02 AM
Of course not, but again, it has fuck all to do with what lead to the Newton tragedy. They aren't comparable, at all.
Yeah, Kent State was worse. A platoon of soldiers lined up 150 meters away and volley-fired, without the excuse of insanity.
So let's disarm the US military while we're at it. Or at least make their doctors call them once in a while.
It's a red herring with respect to the topic of this thread. How many Kent States have there been since Kent State?
How many acts of gun violence have we had just in the past year?
We have a problem and problems should at least attempted to be solved, not just swept aside like it's no big deal, for the sake of protecting an antiquated Amendment that was written in the time of the goddamned musket by menwho couldn't possibly have imagined the hand-held mass-death machines we have today.
Quote from: Junkenstein on January 18, 2013, 08:51:21 AM
I'd say there's substantial sentiment against more firearms in the UK from the general public. The relatively rare shootings that occur here are big news stories for good while. There's pretty much no high profile support for a more liberal regime either.
Anyway, over here you're more likely to be stabbed than shot.
That seems like a reason for guns (stabbings) Guns are awfully good at preventing them.
Quote from: Junkenstein on January 18, 2013, 10:20:01 AM
Is it just me or is the whole mental health care act just a bit of bullshit?
Yes, I do think it is important. However placing that above the actual discussion (Guns) is reframing the debate to the ideas that only the mentally unbalanced commit violent crimes.
My wildly impractiacal solution ignoring the arms in circulation is that every new owner should have a required level of training and pass a william tell style test. Fail the test, go to jail. Can't find anyone to volunteer to hold the apple, well shit you're not passing.
The mentally ill are who go on killing sprees like Sandy Hook. Better mental health care wont prevent all gun crimes, but it does a lot to address the particular issue at hand.
Quote from: Junkenstein on January 18, 2013, 10:20:01 AM
Yes, I do think it is important. However placing that above the actual discussion (Guns) is reframing the debate to the ideas that only the mentally unbalanced commit violent crimes.
Only the mentally unbalanced commit sensational, over the top awesome crimes that drive news cycles and sell ads.* Normal people commit normal boring crimes, almost by definition: if it's the kind of crime that normal people commit, it's committed so frequently that it's not worth talking about. Child abuse is a dime a dozen, but an 11-year old slitting her classmate's throat and wrists and then returning to class covered in blood as if nothing had happened?
Priceless.Plus, a lot of the normal crime and violence is profitable. A number of institutionalized people asphyxiate every year because of being restrained unnecessarily or improperly, but if we payed more to hire competent security (or more staff in general, so nurses could devote proper attention to patients instead of strategically ignoring the ones who require extra attention) then our insurance premiums would go up and that would be
awful. All of the rapes, murders, and suicides in prison exist for basically the same reason - if we couldn't farm out prisons to for-profit
corporations Small Businesses, we'd have to pay for them with taxes, and that would be so expensive we'd probably have to revamp our penal code or something.
*exception: normal crimes against photogenic children that
also have a plot twist.
So, repurposing doctors as gun control detectives (completely ignoring the fact that guns are outside the purvey of doctors, that most people don't see their doctors frequently enough for it to be useful, and that most gun violence happens by people who are not diagnosed with a mental illness) is a partial solution, but measures to resolve societal stressors are not worth a second mention. Got it.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 19, 2013, 06:16:06 AM
So, repurposing doctors as gun control detectives (completely ignoring the fact that guns are outside the purvey of doctors, that most people don't see their doctors frequently enough for it to be useful, and that most gun violence happens by people who are not diagnosed with a mental illness) is a partial solution, but measures to resolve societal stressors are not worth a second mention. Got it.
But that's complicated, and hard, and might actually involve rearranging society so that the rich don't get nearly all the goodies. Plus it isn't amenable to a quick fix that will win the next election.
Why didn't you fuckers tell me this was the opening volley of the zombie apocalypse?
http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2013/01/20/ssdi-says-adam-lanza-died-a-day-before-sandy-hook-massacre/
Oh, the wackjobs. :lol:
No-one in overworked, underpayed government departments EVER makes sloppy date-based errors.
Clearly, Lanza was killed and replaced by an MK-Ultra assassin Obama bought in from Indokenya.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jackson-katz/men-gender-gun-violence_b_2308522.html?utm_hp_ref=tw
I thought it was time to insert a different perspective on this debate, rather than focusing on mental health.
Quote from: Pixie on January 24, 2013, 02:52:25 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jackson-katz/men-gender-gun-violence_b_2308522.html?utm_hp_ref=tw
I thought it was time to insert a different perspective on this debate, rather than focusing on mental health.
Woah. So there are so many thoughts swimming through my head about this that there's no way for me to form a coherent reply. I can say, however, that there are some really interesting points raised in there that, coming from an experiential perspective, make a frighteningly amount of sense.
Quote from: Bu☆ns on January 24, 2013, 03:10:52 PM
Quote from: Pixie on January 24, 2013, 02:52:25 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jackson-katz/men-gender-gun-violence_b_2308522.html?utm_hp_ref=tw
I thought it was time to insert a different perspective on this debate, rather than focusing on mental health.
Woah. So there are so many thoughts swimming through my head about this that there's no way for me to form a coherent reply. I can say, however, that there are some really interesting points raised in there that, coming from an experiential perspective, make a frighteningly amount of sense.
I was figuring that things like race and gender of the perps was getting overlooked as a common thread in school shootings and cases like the Aurora shooting at the cinema, and it was all getting bogged down in mental health stuff.
TBH, gun violence is one of the last things I've ever been worried about. I'm generally on guard against A) rapey guys, B) getting arrested on some trumped up charge and C) getting hit by a car. You know, things that commonly happen. I've only been shot at once in my entire life, and I was hanging around crazy drunks when that happened - WELL DUHR.
When my kids were in school, I worried about the same things for them. You know, things that had a good chance of actually happening.
Bump.
Here's some interesting stuff about Adam Lanza. Looks like he was a fan of some form of anarcho-primitivism...and Anders Behring Breivik.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/exclusive-lanza-twisted-call-radio-station-article-1.1580984
Should I be creeped out?
Because I'm creeped out.
I saw this yesterday. I'm really creeped out. That kid...just...yeah.
So sad and scary.
Mass-murder fanboy... :eek: