RainbowSingularity
Valued Senior Member
you forgot to note USA school mass shooting.
about 1 per month it seems to average.
why is there not a mass shooting every few months or at least once a year in the Senate ?
A Gun control solution - perhaps
- Thread starter Quantum Quack
- Start date
you forgot to note USA school mass shooting.
about 1 per month it seems to average.
why is there not a mass shooting every few months or at least once a year in the Senate ?
Couple of issues:
1) Aggregating data on gun violence by State tends to mislead, sometimes badly. For one thing, the association between gun prevalence and gun homicide seems to be an artifact of aggregation by State. Within my State, and I believe several others, the correlation is negative. That changes the argument, imho.
2) As they are - admirably - careful to point out, the "gun death" problem is mostly a gun suicide problem in the US.
But although they do point that out, they seem to overlook the implications for the rest of the rhetoric. That is an often-blurred aspect - gun control measures not aimed at suicides or effective at preventing suicides can have only limited effect on total gun deaths in America. And such measures are problematic, to put it mildly.
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
Crazy, insane, idiotic link there dadio
do the math
1600 mass shootings
1800 deaths (including the shooters)
Does one death = a "mass shooting" ?
RainbowSingularity
Valued Senior Member
guns = death = problem ?
problem = guns = death ?
death = problem = guns ?
Any goddam excuse.
Y'know, I think one of the things we just need to say up front is that at some point it is worrisome that people obsessed with firearms and identity can only manage to denigrate themselves.
What will help save lives in Las Vegas or Parkland will not necessarily prevent a suicide. Declaring problematic any effort that falls short of proverbial magic-bullet perfection is about as dysfunctional as one could choose. And when we take a moment to consider a nexus of emotionalism, irrationality, identity, and killing machines, it seems clear the appropriate question to be asking any of these problematic individuals is: What's your exposure?
Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
Perspective matters!
From my perspective, it is the anti-gun mob that are obsessed with firearms.
Really, I rarely think of my guns. Much like any good tool, they are cleaned and oiled and put away until I have a use for them.
I spend a lot more time thinking of and caring for my bladed tools, like planes and saws and chisels and gouges and axes-----they are used more often and take more time in maintaining them.
Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
Which group owns hundreds of millions of guns?
Being distracted from the central matters by a "bothsides" paradigm is a failure of analysis.
Any excuse to what, exactly?
Abandonment of reason is now classified - by you, and Bells, and the entire benighted faction you carry water for - as a moral virtue.
Or why, in your opinion, is the advocacy for gun control dominated in the public arena by illiterate interpretations of the 2nd Amendment, bullshit employment of bad statistics, invalid reasoning from flawed and muddled
premises, and absurd personal attacks on anyone who frustrates those abuses of station and rhetoric?
Hold that thought.
Which is one of my routine objections to the bad reasoning on display here. And is not a feature of any of my posting. Which makes your attempts to assign it as a feature of my posting a symptom, a field mark of a serious issue that is my nomination for the key obstacle to sound governance of gun ownership in the US.
And when I ask such questions of you, or Bells, or any of the ranting authoritarian faction on the one "side", you lose your ability to read with comprehension, or make sense in your responses.
My agenda is soundly reasoned and effective control of guns, responsible governance of gun ownership in the US. Failing that, in my home State.
My "exposure" - adult political responsibility and citizenship in a country and State that lacks such governance - is on detailed, repetitive, public record on this forum. You - and the entire authoritarian faction on the one "side" - simply refuse to acknowledge it. Why is that?
Last edited:
because you'd find less bullshit in a cow pasture. you have a proven track record of arguing that the second amendment prevents gun control that is a fact. which you know claim you've always argued against. you have in the past consistently argued against any sort of responsibility by gun owners, in fact you have argued their threats and general refusal to acknowledge any sort of gun control is because people are mean to them and make them feel attacked and unsafe while ignoring and be using your bothsiderism defending threats of violence by gun owners. you have no problem with the idea if we lose with ballots will when with bullets mentality in the gun cult. you are full of shit and your pretentious and sanctimonious whining about how your being attacked, because you know people remember, is old. take some fucking responsibility for your words and actions not that has ever been in your wheelhouse. simply put you dishonest, egotistical, delusional, and generally on the topic comport yourself ass an all around asshole. so again
QUIT LYING ABOUT YOUR RECORD. ITS NOT OF REASONABLE GUN CONTROL. ITS OF DEFENDING VIOLENCE AND IRRESPONSIBILITY. ITS OF ATTACKING ANYONE WHO WANTS REAL ACTUAL COMMONSENSE GUN CONTROL.
You and the NRA which is an extremist org have very little to separate you. I love how your whining like a spoiled kid about the second amendment and why is everyone focus on it when you have been one of its biggest advocates as preventing gun control.
Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
Easier to shoot the other party.
Opinion:
Sorry iceaura it is not.
You need to look at the bigger picture.
The USA has a reputation for being an incredibly violent union of states. A highly combative political system. A highly combative population. A highly combative financial system.
The term American is synonymous to aggressiveness, extreme competitiveness, and "end justifies the means" mentality.
It pretends to be morally guided but is essentially amoral.
So merely claiming a double bind or a both sides or a double jamb exists and failing to address the root causes renders change impossible and actually, even if otherwise intended maintains the status quo.
I agree with you that there does exist a double jamb as you call it but this is more a statement of the reality which you seem keen to perpetuate instead of dealing with the reality that the American democratic system, whilst (barely) functional is incredibly flawed.
The NRA is ultimately correct in saying that it is not the guns, it is the actor who has the guns that is responsible. An actor who is obliged to adhere to his/her human nature.
It is not a guns issue it is a mental health issue or at the very least an individual personal development issue.
Surely you must agree that any national gun control reform is better than no gun control reform, even if the benefit of such only improves the situation by for example, 1000 lives, but this is only tampering around the edges of the main issue.
That main issue is constitutional reform.
One only has to read the constitution and one can see easily and clearly where the problem lies.
All citizens are indoctrinated from early years into blind devotion to protecting the Constitution.
All citizens are placed in a combative position with the government, due to the 2nd amendment condoning bloody revolution. ( a perception perhaps but one not to be underestimated)
A constitution that is in serious need of updating and is currently flawed.
- It incites violent protectionism.
- It incites your youth to fight rather than negotiate.
- To suicide instead of endure. (if you can't compete you are dead)
- It promotes violence against any government regulation. (including international)
- It is essentially self destructive.
- A recipe for ordered anarchy.
- It has given birth to a pseudo Republican POTUS that is seen as the global bully.
..and because the world is in extreme need of sound global leadership from the USA, it may ultimately lead to human extinction by USA inspired inaction/action or being unprepared for catastrophic pseudo natural events. (climate change or other)
The constitution has failed to progress into the 21st century...and the world is paying for it.
I am sorry to disagree with you but your agenda falls short terribly and as a consequence is badly reasoned because it fails to take into account the actual root causation of the problem.
The fear of tyranny! ( not just government but also your neighbor)
Love of country, love of freedom can lead to the fear of loss and it is the fear of loss that is extreme in the USA.
"A man sitting in his armchair with a loaded shotty aimed at his front door is far from free."
"A man guarding at the front gate of the local high school with a loaded shotty is far from free and nor are the children he is attempting to protect."
...and as most contemporary psychologists would suggest, if you fear losing something, you have already lost it.
Last edited:
In the old American movie "Cool Hand Luke" (1967) there was a scene where by the escapee from jail had surrendered.
the jail warden said in a strong Southern drawl something similar to:
"What we've got here.... is a failure to communnnnnicate!"
where upon he orders/allows the immediate extrajudicial execution of the surrendered escapee prisoner.
The need for any weapons is a sad indictment of this failure.
the jail warden said in a strong Southern drawl something similar to:
"What we've got here.... is a failure to communnnnnicate!"
where upon he orders/allows the immediate extrajudicial execution of the surrendered escapee prisoner.
The need for any weapons is a sad indictment of this failure.
Last edited:
You have misquoted, by taking a fragment out of context and thereby altering its meaning completely.
Did you do that on purpose? I think not - I think you actually missed the meaning and point of the posted sentence. And that illustrates my arguments here.
Here is the original sentence:
Your response makes no sense, unless you are telling me I don't know what my agenda is - to which my reply is ? - or attempting to present me as claiming sound reasoning for my agenda rather than presenting it - which I am happy to do, but did not in that sentence.
The frequent failures of ordinary reading comprehension among gun control advocates here are striking - a symptom, imho. That they are invariably followed by bizarrely counterfactual and personally derogatory presumptions of what I am supposed to have posted or argued or meant offers a clue to what they are a symptom of.
I am.
You are missing that in my posting.
Notice: You are arguing that the US is in a sense deranged in this matter, as if that were in conflict with my posting - that is agreed, and inherent in my posting, and frequently explicit - I have described the status quo in the US using words like "insane", "deranged", etc, several times.
You are posting pictures of US military aggression, Trump behavior, etc, completely irrelevant except as a a hinted illustration of why and how the US has become deranged - it also illustrates some of the grounds for mistrust of the US government by its citizenry, which is therefore not as irrational ( or not as irrational for the same reasons) as you seem to presume.
And so forth. Missing my argument, in other words.
Not a double bind, not a double jamb - a single jamb, caused by irrationality and abandonment of reason as a fundamental necessity by two factions.
The root causes of this abandonment of reason differ between the two "sides" - you do not address them. I do.
That is a fundamental error of both reason and politics, a colossal delusion marking the triumph of the NRA's agitprop in the US.
No, I do not. And I regard that presumption as a clear and present danger regardless of the issue at hand - the US is flirting with fascist governance. I think - my opinion - that allowing this government to alter the Constitution on the grounds presented, for example, would be a disaster without any compensating benefits whatsoever.
You are recommending altering the US Constitution to deal with a mental health issue among its citizens? Seriously?
A recipe for either futility or tyranny.
- - - - -
I have always and frequently and repetitively and consistently and explicitly and in detail argued the exact opposite claim, in plain English. I have posted past and recent (very recent) judicial decisions supporting that claim, accurate readings of the 2nd Amendment supporting that claim, and examples of legislation both enacted and possible illustrating that claim (including the Massachusetts law that was at issue in the recent Court ruling I posted). It's been one of my central and most often repeated claims in this matter.
The inability of that "side", supposedly "liberal" or "left" (and therefore dependent on reason) to read with comprehension, or argue with reason, or even perceive the most basic of physical realities, is striking. Symptomatic.
It is evidence supporting my argument here that almost rises to the level of demonstration.
Last edited:
So Iceaura, tell me, ( as I ponder your response)
Why you feel constitutionally empowering the people to be able to, under certain and specific criteria, force a "tyrannical" government to the polls, by referendum, for an election instead of bloody revolution is somehow the wrong path and would not mitigate this obvious and intense fear that drives people to preemptively arm themselves.
Why you feel constitutionally empowering the people to be able to, under certain and specific criteria, force a "tyrannical" government to the polls, by referendum, for an election instead of bloody revolution is somehow the wrong path and would not mitigate this obvious and intense fear that drives people to preemptively arm themselves.
Collective paranoia is indeed a mental health issue IMO
Last edited:
What are you talking about?
As far as I can make out, you seem to think Americans bought all these guns in order to preemptively arm themselves out of fear of their government.
Sure. So is individual paranoia.
Thank you for responding and thank you for granting me the benefit of the doubt.
The key word missing for me was "that" as in:
"My agenda is that soundly reasoned and effective control of guns, responsible governance of gun ownership in the US. Failing that, in my home State, is possible."
still this is no excuse on my part. I apologize with out reservation.
So if we look at the edited version, I can still say that my position is the same.
In that, you are reasoning, that
My point is that sound reasoning is not available due to the intense fear and paranoia associated with this issue and you are failing to acknowledge this factor.
My solution then follows. That is to reduce this fear to a level where rational, reasonable and non emotive discussion can take place.
One key fear being the fear of tyranny which justifies the right to bear arms c/o the 2nd amendment.
Reduce this fear by empowering the people via a new constitutional amendment, to force a Federal government back to the polls if tyranny is deemed to be present ( via the various state Judiciary collectively calling for a national referendum, perhaps )
An action that the proposed amendment would prevent by deterrence. In other words an amendment that would rarely be needed except as a deterrence to tyrannical government forming.
If the states are empowered via national population referendum to vote a no-confidence in the federal government, the Federal government would be forced to return to the people to choose again.
With the ability to stand down a Federal government, enshrined democratically, the fear of tyranny essentially goes away and can no longer be a justification for preemptive arming of the population.
Thus rational and reasonable discussion can take place over gun management. Discussion that currently is unavailable due to the fear that is present.
Can you comprehend my somewhat poorly explained position?
If so can you tell me what that is? ( to confirm understanding.)
I have addressed it claiming a collective paranoia destroys any chance of a reasoned outcome by any one. period.
How else did this government get into power except via the constitution.
To suggest that the constitution is not responsible is folly, is it not?
Please explain...
From my perspective of living in a land that has solid management of firearms and enjoying the freedom and peace that makes available, of course I can see it as a mental health issue for those living with and "under the gun", so to speak, in the USA.
Our ability to manage our government as citizens is much stronger than what you have in the USA. We do not need the threat of armed revolution to force the government to stand down, and allow a caretaker government to manage things until a general election can be undertaken.
Cusp:
You, the people ( individually) have the ability to elect a Federal government (given) but you have no ability to stand it down when there is a need to do so.... and that is the cusp of the problem.
yes it appears I may have inadvertently misrepresented your position.
The key word missing for me was "that" as in:
"My agenda is that soundly reasoned and effective control of guns, responsible governance of gun ownership in the US. Failing that, in my home State, is possible."
still this is no excuse on my part. I apologize with out reservation.
So if we look at the edited version, I can still say that my position is the same.
In that, you are reasoning, that
- sound reasoning is possible in a climate of intense fear and paranoia among a fiercely patriotic population when it is not.
My point is that sound reasoning is not available due to the intense fear and paranoia associated with this issue and you are failing to acknowledge this factor.
My solution then follows. That is to reduce this fear to a level where rational, reasonable and non emotive discussion can take place.
One key fear being the fear of tyranny which justifies the right to bear arms c/o the 2nd amendment.
Reduce this fear by empowering the people via a new constitutional amendment, to force a Federal government back to the polls if tyranny is deemed to be present ( via the various state Judiciary collectively calling for a national referendum, perhaps )
An action that the proposed amendment would prevent by deterrence. In other words an amendment that would rarely be needed except as a deterrence to tyrannical government forming.
If the states are empowered via national population referendum to vote a no-confidence in the federal government, the Federal government would be forced to return to the people to choose again.
With the ability to stand down a Federal government, enshrined democratically, the fear of tyranny essentially goes away and can no longer be a justification for preemptive arming of the population.
Thus rational and reasonable discussion can take place over gun management. Discussion that currently is unavailable due to the fear that is present.
Can you comprehend my somewhat poorly explained position?
If so can you tell me what that is? ( to confirm understanding.)
you need to dig deeper and find the fundamental problem IMO
I have addressed it claiming a collective paranoia destroys any chance of a reasoned outcome by any one. period.
The NRA is IMO, one of the most paranoid institution in America so reasonability or sound reason is unavailable to it and it's members. ( if one ignores the obvious possibility of vested interest in maintaining conflict)
Am I correct in saying that it is the constitution that allows this tipping point. That it allows for effectively fascist governance disguised otherwise?
How else did this government get into power except via the constitution.
To suggest that the constitution is not responsible is folly, is it not?
I fail to see how strengthening the democratic right for a representative government and the ability to force a government to the polls is a recipe for tyranny?
Please explain...
From my perspective of living in a land that has solid management of firearms and enjoying the freedom and peace that makes available, of course I can see it as a mental health issue for those living with and "under the gun", so to speak, in the USA.
Our ability to manage our government as citizens is much stronger than what you have in the USA. We do not need the threat of armed revolution to force the government to stand down, and allow a caretaker government to manage things until a general election can be undertaken.
Cusp:
You, the people ( individually) have the ability to elect a Federal government (given) but you have no ability to stand it down when there is a need to do so.... and that is the cusp of the problem.
Last edited: