Mass Shootings and Gun Debate 2018 Thread

[undiminished689]

I gotta go for a bit.

But pretty much anarcho-anything after is just a product of super left wing authoritarian idealogies.

It?s like for edgy teenagers who hang out at the mall.

No gods, no masters. The world doesn?t owe me a thing and neither does the world philosophies. That?s anarchy.

Besides ancapastan

 

[JessFR]

michael cohen, the guy who had his house raided in connection with the mueller investgation yesterday? that's interesting...



uh no, that's not what anarchy means at all.
anarchism or anarcho-syndicalism is a strain of political theory with a long history. if you think it means simply "absence of government", you've been grossly misinformed.

but anyway, let's get back to the topic at hand - you are derailing the thread.




do you think it's american society that is "more pro 2nd amendment", or do you think the gun lobby's power and influence has increased?


it seems to me that the post-911 age has been dominated with the politics of fear, and all kinds of ridiculous forms of paranoia - fear of government conspiracies and the whole "prepper" movement; the kinds of people that believe in elaborate conspiracy stuff related to government tyranny - but then go and elect anti-democratic people like trump.

is this the sort of thing you mean by increased support for the 2nd amendment, or are you referring to people who understand that taxation is a necessary part of living in society with roads, bridges and electricity?


(that sounds rude - i guess what i'm actually asking is if the increased support for the 2nd amendment is actually a reflection of how a large body of people are feeling - as opposed to the vocal minority of extremist ideologues(

Id say it's both really. People have gotten more extreme yes. The gun lobby power has increased as more people have joined or increased their sympathies to it.

I think the modern media and internet age has done a lot to damage the situation. It's what I blame for causing such an increase in the number of people with extreme beliefs. Such types have always gravitated to eachother and feed off each other. And now we've connected them all.

I still think the original Clinton assault weapon ban did a lot of unintended damage too. It was highly ineffective, cause a great deal of obstruction to the law abiding gun owners who still vividly remember it and fear another one. And on the other side, the anti gun types gravitate to that idea because it seems the most obvious and simple. And the two feed off eachother.

Really I think both sides have made each other more extreme and now it's resulted in a stalemate where we can't change anything at all. A lot of people who think themselves sensible people, and for the most part are, I think they contribute to it as well. When people who don't know much about the situation talk about assault weapon bans, they perpetuate this culture within the pro gun side that feels they are under constant attack. It all just feeds on itself preventing any sort of compromise.

In the end, I think social ignorance is the biggest part of the problem. If the pro gun side and anti gun sides saw each other as friends with a disagreement, rather than enemies who "other" each other, we'd probably be a lot better off. We all do it. It's in our nature to try and simplify things. And so we simplify how we view other groups we don't belong too. And we stop caring about how they feel. And stop wanting to compromise because we don't care how it affects then.

Like when anti gun types say how they don't care if law abiding gun owners can't have their hobby anymore. And The gun owners know they don't care, and don't care right back. And both get more extreme as a result.

 

[cduggles]

undiminished689: Stop making multiple posts. I've done six merges so far from the last page. I'm going to finish up to this post, and then I'd really like for you to stop.

 

[JessFR]

You guys need an auto append feature. Where new posts by the same poster as the previous poster get auto edited into the first post.

Would make things easier for me too, I usually edit my multiple posts together myself, would be a lot easier if I didn't have to worry and it got auto edited together.

 

[spacejunk]

Id say it's both really. People have gotten more extreme yes. The gun lobby power has increased as more people have joined or increased their sympathies to it.

I think the modern media and internet age has done a lot to damage the situation. It's what I blame for causing such an increase in the number of people with extreme beliefs. Such types have always gravitated to eachother and feed off each other. And now we've connected them all.

I still think the original Clinton assault weapon ban did a lot of unintended damage too. It was highly ineffective, cause a great deal of obstruction to the law abiding gun owners who still vividly remember it and fear another one. And on the other side, the anti gun types gravitate to that idea because it seems the most obvious and simple. And the two feed off eachother.

Really I think both sides have made each other more extreme and now it's resulted in a stalemate where we can't change anything at all. A lot of people who think themselves sensible people, and for the most part are, I think they contribute to it as well. When people who don't know much about the situation talk about assault weapon bans, they perpetuate this culture within the pro gun side that feels they are under constant attack. It all just feeds on itself preventing any sort of compromise.

In the end, I think social ignorance is the biggest part of the problem. If the pro gun side and anti gun sides saw each other as friends with a disagreement, rather than enemies who "other" each other, we'd probably be a lot better off. We all do it. It's in our nature to try and simplify things. And so we simplify how we view other groups we don't belong too. And we stop caring about how they feel. And stop wanting to compromise because we don't care how it affects then.

Like when anti gun types say how they don't care if law abiding gun owners can't have their hobby anymore. And The gun owners know they don't care, and don't care right back. And both get more extreme as a result.

thanks, that's an interesting post, and i agree about the fragmentation and widening of the gulf between people.

tribalism doesn't really get us anywhere - just butting heads and refusing to listen or learn.

i guess the poinf i was trying to make about the paranoia that drives (presumably) both extremes of the debate is (by definition) irrational and based on fear. and it's nigh on impossible to constructively debate anything if the people you are talking to are driven by fears and assumptions with little basis in reality - let alone trying to find a way to compromise with them.

 

[cduggles]

You guys need an auto append feature. Where new posts by the same poster as the previous poster get auto edited into the first post.

Would make things easier for me too, I usually edit my multiple posts together myself, would be a lot easier if I didn't have to worry and it got auto edited together.

Atm I heartily concur. You don't do it half a dozen times per page, so at least imo, it's not a problem.

 

[zephyr]

I dont know what tribalism means.

Im prol the only blr who thinks guns (esp automatic and semi autonatic killing machines) are really stupid, dumb, not worth the risk and dont care if anyone gets their knickers in a knot- get tid of the bloody things.

Forever.

No matter what- just go around and get them off everyone. Give them a tissue for their tears and hats it.


Pretty unpopular opinion innit?


Oh well. This isnt a popularity contest, thats exactly what I think and its not really worth anything anyway as America is a foreign country and many other countries have heaps of guns and militias/gangs so not much different.

 

[JessFR]

I dont know what tribalism means.

Im prol the only blr who thinks guns (esp automatic and semi autonatic killing machines) are really stupid, dumb, not worth the risk and dont care if anyone gets their knickers in a knot- get tid of the bloody things.

Forever.

No matter what- just go around and get them off everyone. Give them a tissue for their tears and hats it.


Pretty unpopular opinion innit?


Oh well. This isnt a popularity contest, thats exactly what I think and its not really worth anything anyway as America is a foreign country and many other countries have heaps of guns and militias/gangs so not much different.

You realize what you describe is essentially a coup right? The existing government system is destroyed by powers within and replaced.

It is currently illegal to do what you're saying, are you saying you'd do it anyway?

Because I find this quite strange, on the one hand you hate guns, but on the other you hate them so much that you'd do away with the rule of law and send men.. With guns, to go take them. And in the process entirely take over the government.

You don't find that a little perplexing?

I'll say it a third time. Doing what you suggest without a referendum, which can't get through because it requires a majority of both the population and state governments to agree, is a coup. The destruction of the existing government system and imposing a new one. That's what it is when you decide to just ignore the current system and do away with it by force and create a new one.

And not just that, but breaking the law and sending men with guns to collect all the guns because breaking the law using guns for violence is bad and must be stopped... With more guns and violence and breaking the law? Right. Yes. I'll admit I can see now why many might disagree with that reasoning.

Personally I'd be pretty horrified if it weren't unpopular. People do get rather upset when someone suggests we just entirely ignore the system of laws and society and send men into people's homes by force to take their property, that they lawfully owned under the system you're ignoring, away from them.

I'll assume you can't even see how much like a dictator that makes you sound. I had assumed that you honestly didn't realize that what you suggested was unlawful. But now I think I was mistaken, and that you realize it's against the highest laws of the land and totally destroys any protections provided by the system. And you still don't care. Because guns and violence is wrong and must be destroyed with as many guns and violence as is required.

 

[zephyr]

^ mate im too sloshes right now to be answering as my thoughts are there but i smash on goon.


Ill get back to this hopefully not hungover!


All i say is coup? Sure if thats what it takes no worries


Really- its just a gun, not oxygen or sj's undies.


If guns are really that much of a dependance to feel free then surely thats got to be an addiction of sorts?



I know it wont happen. But yes it should.

 

[Xorkoth]

I dont know what tribalism means.

When people talk about tribalism in this context, they're referring to the 2-party system of government, Republican/Democrat, which used to facilitate competition but still existed with respect for the other side. But increasingly they have intentionally fostered a sense of tribalism, where people feel the need to blindly stick to "their side", while simultaneously feeling anger/hatred/disrespect for the "other side". Just like how different countries, or tribes, or whatever will get an idea about the other and people start to hate anyone from the other country without even ever meeting or knowing them, simply because of their group. This is generally used as a technique to manipulate the public into feeling that objectionable acts are justified, even applauded... things such as invading another land for resources, or ethnic cleansing, or eroding the rights of the people of their own country in order to gain more power, by causing them to turn on each other and blindly support the agenda of their tribe, no matter what, regardless of how obvious it is what they're doing.

Europe is literally a shell of its former self and it?s people are becoming minorities in their own country while having Muslim rape gangs and sharia law in their countries. Thanks government. Thanks gun control

Umm.... so are you saying that immigration is happening because of gun control? Are you suggesting that people should have guns so they can shoot and kill immigrants, which would solve the problem? That's the only thing I can think of that would make your statement make any sense. In which case, damn, you're starting to sound a lot like Trump (in his campaign rallies he would sometimes tell people to get violent against illegal immigrants).

If you look at xenophobic groups trying to oppose immigration, throughout the world, you hear this idea of them being rapists being thrown around. Rapists exist in every culture. Most of the rapes being done are by whichever ethnic group is the dominant one in a country, because it's a numbers thing. And sharia law in the countries where gun control is happening? Uh, give me a break, that's nonsense. You have no idea what you're talking about. Pretty sure you're just parroting right wing hate speech talking points.

 

[tathra]

I dont know what tribalism means.

tribalism is like a smaller version of nationalism. its an extension of extreme selfishness and narcissm to include other people that are part of a group. one's "tribe" can be anything made of something real, like blood family members, or it can be based around sharing a common belief or worldview. politically, tribalism causes people to act and beleive as if they and their tribe are automatically right and correct about everything, because its their tribe, so ofc its right. facts and evidence do not matter, and rational discussion will not be allowed to occur, the belief or veiw they advocate is correct because their tribe says it is.

from this you see fanatical and insane shit, like automatically believing somebody cannot possibly have ever committed anything wrong and should therefore never be investigated, or that even if they did break the law that the was still no harm and no need to investigate because its the law that is in the wrong because their leader is infallible.

you'll most often see it, particularly in american politics, with what position a person has regarding policies is determined by which political party they affiliate with. except simply having the same positions isnt tribalism, tribalism is when the reason for having that position is because its the position of the group.

 

[JessFR]

^ mate im too sloshes right now to be answering as my thoughts are there but i smash on goon.


Ill get back to this hopefully not hungover!


All i say is coup? Sure if thats what it takes no worries


Really- its just a gun, not oxygen or sj's undies.


If guns are really that much of a dependance to feel free then surely thats got to be an addiction of sorts?



I know it wont happen. But yes it should.

Yeah I had a feeling that might be the case. Tell you what, if you come back and realize that it doesn't make entirely great sense, far as I'm concerned you're free to say nothing and we can chalk it up to this being bluelight.

Usually when I post under the influence it's opiates or meth. When it's meth you can tell because my already long posts grow to at least three times the size. When it's opiates you can't tell at all because either it's not enough to be notable, or it's so much that I passed out and woke up to the post unfinished and still unposted realizing that it took me an hour to write 3 sentences and a bunch of random characters.

All good.

 

[alasdairm]

examples of tribalism abound right now.

obama was evil for taking a vacation. trump's on vacation significantly more often. not a problem for many trump fans.

obama's an evil lefty who spends with impunity. cbo predicts trump's tax and spending plans will massively increase the deficit and the debt. not a problem for many trump fans.

liberals want to take our guns! trump suggests taking guns without due process. not a problem for many trump fans.

and 100 other examples.

alasdair

 

[zephyr]

Yeah I had a feeling that might be the case. Tell you what, if you come back and realize that it doesn't make entirely great sense, far as I'm concerned you're free to say nothing and we can chalk it up to this being bluelight.

Usually when I post under the influence it's opiates or meth. When it's meth you can tell because my already long posts grow to at least three times the size. When it's opiates you can't tell at all because either it's not enough to be notable, or it's so much that I passed out and woke up to the post unfinished and still unposted realizing that it took me an hour to write 3 sentences and a bunch of random characters.

All good.

Nothing makes sense already yay


I quit drugs a few months ago

And i still love you jess!!@$

 

[undiminished689]

@cduggles

Sorry boss im terrible at that even when I text my girlfriends it?s the same way

@Jess

Everything is so extreme now a days because we went from a moderate right country to an extreme communist totalitarian state. We are taxed for everything, need licenses by approval of the state, the state wires all our phone calls, crony capitalism is an all time high because all successful businesses get/stay successful by the taxpayer, we pay have to pay tolls on roads that was already stolen from us. And it?s so bad you have ?anarchists? calling for government control on guns.

U might not like the way I post but I know ur smart enough to know i am right on this matter. The 2nd amendment was designed to fight against tyrannical government. Are you for denying that right to American citizens especially in this time where it seems like the state is everywhere you turn and undeniably tyrannical?

@Xoroth

They don?t have the means to defend themselves from violent migrants from the 3rd world. That is why it?s so so important to put as much blame on gun control and their Marxist governments because tbat is what America is trying to implement here. Especially the comparisons to how Europe is between media and you people.

@space junk

You?re not an anarchist. You?re a total statist. Please take down ur icon because you?re committing fraud at this point to people who hold anarchist and extreme RIGHT WING views
(On the single line poltical views chart)

 

[cduggles]

@cduggles: interesting read. i will have to read it again to really get his idea of putting such words out there during a crucial moment in history. what are your thoughts on it?

Remember that you asked!

Overall, I like the piece because it covers a lot of ground and isn't as anti-gun as one might suspect. The breadth is the expense of depth, but I still found it and the links to be worth some time.

It covers every major philosophical argument in the gun debate today.

Main points (imo):

1. Gun violence is widespread in the US, including "routine violence" and suicides, as well as mass shootings.

2. A brief history of the writing of the Second Amendment is presented. It wasn't a contentious amendment.

3. The evolution of the NRA into a many-tentacled organization that has exerted influence on or spun conclusions of each branch of government. I don't think the importance of the NRA can be overstated in the modern debate about gun regulation.

4. The relevance of two Supreme Court cases, Heller and McDonald. Heller is initially presented from a pro-gun perspective and so you have to read the whole thing for a more even interpretation.

5. Provides some international perspective, including countries that enshrine the right to bear arms into their constitutions and countries with stricter arms control, including (but not just) the UK and Australia.

6. Interesting statistics throughout, including a mention of a recent increase in knife crimes in London.

7. Some interesting conclusions about the Heller decision, less so about the Second Amendment being repealed (mostly because it's not happening any time soon).

8. Finally, it's just difficult for me, even as someone who loves guns, to not have deep and sincere compassion for all the victims of gun violence. Many aren't dead. Many have never been shot.

I don't understand the "cost of doing business" people. Life is precious and just acknowledging that sincerely might be one thing most can agree upon. Maybe?

tl:dr The biggest takeaway for me is #3. You hear these arguments again and again.

I just think it's a gem of an article.

 

[JGrimez]

If you look at xenophobic groups trying to oppose immigration, throughout the world, you hear this idea of them being rapists being thrown around. Rapists exist in every culture. Most of the rapes being done are by whichever ethnic group is the dominant one in a country, because it's a numbers thing.

Not all cultures are equal in terms of how they treat people. This is quite obvious. If you want to experience a legitimate "rape culture" try visiting some middle eastern countries, where a woman's testimony is worth less than a man's and women are often blamed for being raped and then stoned to death. Are you denying the spate of rapes (and murders) that have been occurring in Europe by refugees from certain countries? The rise in crime rates that have accompanied the mass influx? It's not racist to say that some people are brought up in cultures that severely mistreat women and view them as property (or much less). A bad idea is importing a large number of people who think this way into a liberal, western society. Because not only can they take advantage of welfare systems, but locals are also scared, intimidated or threatened with labels of racist if they ever decide to speak up and say the obvious, that it is becoming a problem. Not saying that this is a Muslim problem as there are Muslim countries where the citizens are civilized and respectful. It's an issue with culture, government and education.

Why do you think Hungary just re-elected Viktor Orban in a landslide? The proof is in the pudding (currently Germany and Sweden)

"Everybody was sure that Orban and Fidesz would achieve victory. But getting two thirds of the ballot (133 seats out of 199 in the parliament) for the third time in a row was more than they expected themselves," he said.

Anti-migration rhetoric became a key factor in Prime Minister Orban's success as "three years ago he sensed that things weren't going the way they should and showed an alternative - for domestic use, at least," Stier explained. The Hungarian PM refused to take in refugees as part of a quota for the EU member states despite pressure from the bloc, and he blasted Brussels over its failed migration policies.

Stier says Orban "used the fears of the population" to his advantage during his campaign. "The people came to the polling stations on Sunday thinking that the main thing is protecting Hungary from migrants, whom we don't have here. We have stability now and if the opposition comes to power it'll bring turmoil and chaos. So, let it stay the way it is despite the existing problems."

The PM will continue to implement his anti-migrant policies throughout his third term in office as he "set the stakes too high," said Mariann Ory, political commentator for the Hungarian Magyar Hirlap paper. "One wrong decision now, one step on the road to become an immigrant country would determine Hungary's future for decades and, based on the failed integration experiences of Western Europe, there's no way back after such a decision."

Orban has been labelled nationalist in Europe for his refusal to let asylum seekers in, but "We don't consider it 'far right,'" said Ory. "On the contrary, Hungary supports a migration policy based on common sense, instead of the open-borders policy of Western Europe, that proved to be dangerous," she added.

 

[JGrimez]

liberals want to take our guns! trump suggests taking guns without due process. not a problem for many trump fans.

Most Trump supporters were up in arms (no pun intended) over his comments. I saw him get absolutely roasted by a significant part of his supporters and especially the conservatives.
Some of his supporters were ok as they saw the comments as a chance to appease the left, and Trump did tweet not long after that reinforcing his commitment to protecting the 2nd amendment.

 

[alasdairm]

just as well he's a real straight shooter and you always know exactly where he stands on an issue...



alasdair

 

[JGrimez]

No politician is a straight shooter. It's the nature of the game that they need to either directly lie or bend the truth at certain times.
Every politician does it. What's important is when it happens and for what reason, and the intent behind it. That's how someone can be an honest person yet still be forced to bend the truth sometimes (aka playing by the rules)
"Saddam has WMDs" very bad lie that led to war and people dying.
"We'll take the guns of mentally ill people without due process" a lie that harms nobody and temporarily placates people concerned about gun violence.