Rick Perry: Don't Blame Guns for Charleston Attack. But Maybe Blame Drugs.

[Voxide]

How could anything be a guns fault? Guns don't make decisions, you can't assign blame to an inanimate object.

Regardless, the odds are that this hateful little rake could not have killed anyone if he did not have access to firearms, let alone 9 fucking people.

Like Obama said the other day, Americans need to realise this bullshit just doesn't happen a fraction as much in the rest of the developed world. Drive your head in the sand if you like, but the availability of firearms in the US is a HUGE factor in this equation.

Lol, you act like guns are so hard to get on the black market or through connections anyway. Odds are this would have happened regardless. He was apparently smoking weed that was purchased through illegal means, so. Not that there's anything wrong with that or that weed should be to blame, obviously. I'm just going by the picture that was posted earlier in the thread.

Perry isn't completely wrong about drugs being partly to blame. Look at most of these mass murders and they are usually taking either an SSRI or similar antidepressant. Way to make a completely misleading title to get a bunch of hard-on, die-hard left wingers completely riled up and flustered; though you can't really expect much else since your source is basically from a right wing defamation site. He never mentioned anything about smoking weed or doing shrooms making you crazy or something, literally just a 10 second tidbit about how kids are medicated in this county because of pussy parents that can't deal with them or they simply lack the testicular fortitude to work through problems themselves.

But I digress. One is a fucking idiot if they think drugs should be legal but guns should be banned. It's practically the same issue. Hurr durr something illegal, hurr durr people get it anyway and banning the gun/drug solves nothing. The only difference is that a gun can be used for many purposes such as hunting, collecting, and range shooting but a habit forming narcotic (meth, crack, street opiates) can only be used for one thing and that is degeneracy. Granted, I'm not going to debate drug legality with anyone. Just pointing out the irony since the latter of the two has definitely destroyed more lives than it helped but guns can at least be debated.

 

[slimvictor]

One is a fucking idiot if they think drugs should be legal but guns should be banned. It's practically the same issue. Hurr durr something illegal, hurr durr people get it anyway and banning the gun/drug solves nothing. The only difference is that a gun can be used for many purposes such as hunting, collecting, and range shooting but a habit forming narcotic (meth, crack, street opiates) can only be used for one thing and that is degeneracy. Granted, I'm not going to debate drug legality with anyone. Just pointing out the irony since the latter of the two has definitely destroyed more lives than it helped but guns can at least be debated.

We love to hear all sorts of opinions here, and I personally value opinions that diverge from my own because I believe that this is a fantastic way to learn, and I am constantly trying to learn more, especially about issues such as drugs.

But the way you present your opinion goes against the spirt, and the rules, of DiTM. You cannot insult people who have opinions you disagree with. Using profanity to insult people is also not acceptable. I
am aware that things go differently elsewhere, and e.g. The Lounge is full of attacks, insults, and profanity, but we do not permit it here.

Furthermore, your belief that drugs are "used for degeneracy" is not likely to get many people here to entertain your opinions in a straightforward way, so if you are really about discussing the issues, you need to take a step back and see how you sound. If you are just trying to get a rise out of people by attacking them for their beliefs, I would ask you to stop entirely.

 

[Droppersneck]

How could anything be a guns fault? Guns don't make decisions, you can't assign blame to an inanimate object.

Regardless, the odds are that this hateful little rake could not have killed anyone if he did not have access to firearms, let alone 9 fucking people.

Like Obama said the other day, Americans need to realise this bullshit just doesn't happen a fraction as much in the rest of the developed world. Drive your head in the sand if you like, but the availability of firearms in the US is a HUGE factor in this equation.

We need population control regardless. You aussies can keep your commie gun laws. Every church should have a gun imo

 

[slimvictor]

One is a fucking idiot if they think drugs should be legal but guns should be banned. It's practically the same issue. Hurr durr something illegal, hurr durr people get it anyway and banning the gun/drug solves nothing. The only difference is that a gun can be used for many purposes such as hunting, collecting, and range shooting but a habit forming narcotic (meth, crack, street opiates) can only be used for one thing and that is degeneracy. Granted, I'm not going to debate drug legality with anyone. Just pointing out the irony since the latter of the two has definitely destroyed more lives than it helped but guns can at least be debated.

Above, I posted my comment as a moderator of the forum. Here I will comment as someone who is involved in the conversation, without any power/hierarchy involved.

Guns and drugs are not "practically the same issue". Drugs are typically taken by people, put into their bodies, by choice. People choose to alter their consciousness, and they have been doing so for most or all of our history, in every culture on the earth. There is a reason why they have done so - they have gained great benefit. Otherwise, drug use would not be so prevalent in culture after culture, era after era. So, saying that drug use has "definitely destroyed more lives than it helped" is clearly a very odd comment that doesn't mesh with the evidence, and makes it look like your mind is already made up firmly, more than anything else.

To name some of their many benefits, drugs are used to increase energy and alertness, to relax, to relieve pain, and to access the subconscious. They are also used to party.

Guns, on the other hand, are not used for the same purposes as drugs. They are not used for any of the purposes listed above. You list 3 purposes for guns - hunting, collecting, and range shooting - that are all essentially 2 things to me - shooting guns at animals or targets - though I believe you if you say that they seem like three totally different things to you. However, shooting guns at a target can't be listed as a purpose of the gun, I think, logically. Importantly, you failed to list invasions, defending against invasions, gang turf wars, mass murders, bank robberies, etc. War must surely account for a major portion of the guns used on the earth, in history. So, as far as the debate you mention that guns may have helped more than they hurt, I don't think that you would win.

I would be happy to receive a reply from you, as long as you remain civil.

 

[spacejunk]

We need population control regardless. You aussies can keep your commie gun laws. Every church should have a gun imo

From "Population control" to "every church should have gun control" in 3 sentences. Nice work; crap trolling.

 

[Voxide]

Guns and drugs are not "practically the same issue". Drugs are typically taken by people, put into their bodies, by choice. People choose to alter their consciousness, and they have been doing so for most or all of our history, in every culture on the earth. There is a reason why they have done so

Or because of...you know...addiction and negative examples set by previous generations. There is literally no redeeming quality to speed or dope except for the fact they get you high. You think it's some sort of victimless crime but you fail to realize and account for all the other people that have to live with and associate said user of drug. If you had a little more real world hands on experience with people who use hard narcotics on a frequent basis, you wouldn't be so quick to come to their defense.

 

[slimvictor]

Or because of...you know...addiction and negative examples set by previous generations. There is literally no redeeming quality to speed or dope except for the fact they get you high. You think it's some sort of victimless crime but you fail to realize and account for all the other people that have to live with and associate said user of drug. If you had a little more real world hands on experience with people who use hard narcotics on a frequent basis, you wouldn't be so quick to come to their defense.

I think it is fair for you to point out the terrible effects of drug addiction on those close to the addict.
I would not want to downplay the suffering involved with watching someone you love give up their life to drugs.

But I also think you undervalue "getting high", as you put it, though I would rather call it "altering one's consciousness".
Either way, it is something that history has shown is very important to many people in all cultures. They will risk imprisonment and even death to do it.

 

[KyFried]

The fact that he had access to guns don't have anything to do with it, he would have made a bomb if he couldn't get a gun, then we could blame the plumbing industry for making pipes too available to just anyone, oh and the gardening industry also for the ease of obtaining fertilizer and the internet for the bomb making plans.

I blame his mother if she was a swallower he never would have been born, making new people is to easy also they should put a ban on that also.

 

[drug_mentor]

Or because of...you know...addiction and negative examples set by previous generations. There is literally no redeeming quality to speed or dope except for the fact they get you high. You think it's some sort of victimless crime but you fail to realize and account for all the other people that have to live with and associate said user of drug. If you had a little more real world hands on experience with people who use hard narcotics on a frequent basis, you wouldn't be so quick to come to their defense.

You seem not to understand that amphetamine, methamphetamine and diamorphine all have medical benefits, which can often be achieved without inducing a significant level of intoxication. You are also disregarding a great deal of art that has been created under the influence of these drugs.

Drug addiction is a negative thing, but you seem to ignore that most drug users are not addicts.

The fact that he had access to guns don't have anything to do with it, he would have made a bomb if he couldn't get a gun, then we could blame the plumbing industry for making pipes too available to just anyone, oh and the gardening industry also for the ease of obtaining fertilizer and the internet for the bomb making plans.

That doesn't follow, there is a chance he may have made a bomb sure, but I would argue that it is a small chance. How do you explain the fact that in countries where firearms have been restricted, shootings (particularly mass shootings) have a tendency to go way down, without their being a subsequent increase in public bombings?

Most people aren't particularly scared of handling a gun, they know the chances of them hurting themselves with it are rather small. Building a bomb from scratch and planting it in public is a lot more risk than your average wannabe tough guy is going to take.

 

[cj]

You seem not to understand that amphetamine, methamphetamine and diamorphine all have medical benefits, which can often be achieved without inducing a significant level of intoxication. You are also disregarding a great deal of art that has been created under the influence of these drugs.

Drug addiction is a negative thing, but you seem to ignore that most drug users are not addicts.



That doesn't follow, there is a chance he may have made a bomb sure, but I would argue that it is a small chance. How do you explain the fact that in countries where firearms have been restricted, shootings (particularly mass shootings) have a tendency to go way down, without their being a subsequent increase in public bombings?

Most people aren't particularly scared of handling a gun, they know the chances of them hurting themselves with it are rather small. Building a bomb from scratch and planting it in public is a lot more risk than your average wannabe tough guy is going to take.

Well those places aren't the United States either. For whatever reason we have a real problem with angry people and mass violence here. I blame our culture more than I blame guns. We also have a rich history of domestic bomb GS here in the states. All the way back to the 1960s. Just a really violent country for whatever reason.

Blaming drugs is just politics for Perry. He is all in guns being great so he has to do whatever he can to deflect the blame from them. It doesn't even have to hold up too logical scrutiny he just had to blame something. I'm not worried about his dumb ass honestly. No way he wins the nomination.

 

[Voxide]

I think it is fair for you to point out the terrible effects of drug addiction on those close to the addict.
I would not want to downplay the suffering involved with watching someone you love give up their life to drugs.

But I also think you undervalue "getting high", as you put it, though I would rather call it "altering one's consciousness".
Either way, it is something that history has shown is very important to many people in all cultures. They will risk imprisonment and even death to do it.

Well it can be pretty hard to value it when you see it up close and personal. And yes. It is "getting high". How else would I put it? We aren't talking about Terrance McKenna and spiritual enlightenment via LSD experiences here. Smoking a bunch of crank and sitting on the internet all day or looking for shit to break into is not a productive use of time. You guys have an altered perception of the situation and I can tell you why. The so called more responsible drug users post on sites like this. And guess what? They only make up a drop in the ocean of actual regular drug users. You don't mention casually to a new acquaintance that you smoke crack and PCP and there's a good reason for that. There's also a good reason why if close associates found out you do those things they would either be concerned or drop you altogether. Maybe things would be fine and dandy if all drug users were like the ones on the internet, but they aren't and never will be, probably because of said drug use. The people I graduated with who are doing nothing with their degree either collecting unemployment or working a min wage job all have one variable in common and that is that they use drugs.

You guys go about things and maybe know more than the average bear when it comes to drug abuse, I get it. But I also think you're pretty delusional if you think drugs haven't earned their bad reputation. Heroin or methamphetamine or cocaine could literally have never been isolated and the world would honestly be a better place for it today. Don't worry, alcohol is right there next to em. There's nothing wrong with harm reduction and looking at different perspectives but get real.

You seem not to understand that amphetamine, methamphetamine and diamorphine all have medical benefits, which can often be achieved without inducing a significant level of intoxication. You are also disregarding a great deal of art that has been created under the influence of these drugs.

Drug addiction is a negative thing, but you seem to ignore that most drug users are not addicts.

Yeah, that's most likely true in the sense that they will not get sick when they stop using the drug, but would you really deny the fact that the drug/s plays a significant role in their life even at the expense of others and their own quality of it? I'm not talking about a doctor or accountant sparking up a joint after work here guys.

And yeah, of course amphetamines and strong opiates can be used in a medical setting, I wouldn't even really call those benefits, just a use they are indicated for, but that's not what the average junkie has in mind when buying a bag of heroin. They are not seeking it out because they have a kidney stone or current gun shot wound. I know that for 100% because if they did, a doctor would have no problem treating them and supplying them with meds. They are trying to get high. If you wanna use the guns argument, why should we make it easier for them to continue ruining their lives, straining the healthcare system, and committing crime to get more? If you all claim that an inanimate substance like heroin can't be dangerous then it's just flat out hypocritical and absurd to think a gun by itself can be. I could care less what positive experience you think you had with a drug. I just don't get how you can be okay with one and not the other. Regardless, I know there's going to be at least one idiot responding thinking I insinuated all drugs should be banned and punishable by death. Getting fucked up on various pills and powders really is your right as an American, but that doesn't mean you're smart for doing it.


I still stand strongly by the statement that SSRIs had a lot to do with this. Homicidal ideation is a listed side effect especially in young adults. Yeah, maybe things would have ended different if his parents didn't buy him a gun, but they would have ended differently also if it wasn't acceptable to feed your kid serotonin drugs to make him normal. This ain't the first time this happened either.

 

[poledriver]

Of course it would have been alot different if this guy didnt have access to guns. How many people you think he could kill with his bare hands or with a knife? Not many. Weak POS.

 

[Voxide]

Of course it would have been alot different if this guy didnt have access to guns. How many people you think he could kill with his bare hands or with a knife? Not many. Weak POS.

The point is that accessing a gun isn't hard if one wants it to the extent he did. I figured that the drug war was an obvious enough example of that but common sense is a rarity nowadays.

Banning guns just takes them away from law abiding citizens and puts them in the hands of criminals.

 

[when I dream]

Never let a tragedy go to waste. This is not guns fault and it is not the fault of the confederate flag.

I disagree- maybe if we had gotten rid of the flag a long time ago there would be a smaller chance of people like this believing that racism and prejudice are okay. Shocking that when we fly a flag that was born out of hate that we get hateful, murderous bigots like this waste of life.

 

[spacejunk]

We need population control regardless. You aussies can keep your commie gun laws. Every church should have a gun imo

Give the trolling a rest...mate.

 

[JessFR]

Is there any chance at all we can just blame the killer himself?

I hate gun control arguments, I almost never let myself get sucked into one anymore. Because no one will budge, accept the legitimacy of other viewpoints, or see reason.

Yes it should be harder to get guns, no we shouldn't ban guns, yes the arguments of the gun lobby are often just as full of lies and propaganda as antigun groups and individuals.

Long ago I decided I wanted to know the truth about gun control, so I looked at all the arguments and unbiased statistics I could find. And concluded that no one was proposing what I felt was the right answer. But convincing even a single person I've found completely impossible. So I largely gave up and try my best to ignore the whole thing.

 

[slimvictor]

Well it can be pretty hard to value it when you see it up close and personal. And yes. It is "getting high". How else would I put it? We aren't talking about Terrance McKenna and spiritual enlightenment via LSD experiences here. Smoking a bunch of crank and sitting on the internet all day or looking for shit to break into is not a productive use of time. You guys have an altered perception of the situation and I can tell you why. The so called more responsible drug users post on sites like this. And guess what? They only make up a drop in the ocean of actual regular drug users. You don't mention casually to a new acquaintance that you smoke crack and PCP and there's a good reason for that. There's also a good reason why if close associates found out you do those things they would either be concerned or drop you altogether. Maybe things would be fine and dandy if all drug users were like the ones on the internet, but they aren't and never will be, probably because of said drug use. The people I graduated with who are doing nothing with their degree either collecting unemployment or working a min wage job all have one variable in common and that is that they use drugs.

You guys go about things and maybe know more than the average bear when it comes to drug abuse, I get it. But I also think you're pretty delusional if you think drugs haven't earned their bad reputation. Heroin or methamphetamine or cocaine could literally have never been isolated and the world would honestly be a better place for it today. Don't worry, alcohol is right there next to em. There's nothing wrong with harm reduction and looking at different perspectives but get real.

I am really happy that we can have this exchange Voxide, because you have a lot to share, and a strong desire to share it, and that is just what BL thrives on. In your earlier post, I could not understand what you were arguing, and only saw your anger, but afterward you held your anger back and explained your points clearly, so I could understand, and I even agreed with some things you said. I found your observations about the bias BL is (or I am) likely to have to be insightful, though you don't know me, so I was surprised and happy to read them.

Not only is your opinion valid, but I found some truth in it. I agree that we on BL do not represent a random sample of drug users. So I accept that it is possible that I am not seeing the situation in an unbiased manner.

And, I do admit that drugs cause grievous harm.
But I believe that it is the illegality of drugs that has caused the greatest harm, not the drugs themselves.
I see legalization as a method of harm-reduction, as I assume many people on BL do.
So, in a way, your argument is somewhat tangential to what I see as the main point.
I know we were discussing how much harm drugs cause (vs. how much good they bring), but a more relevant question is whether they cause more harm if illegal (resulting in punishment) or legal (permitting better control and education).
My money is on legality, for many reasons, including precedence (Holland, Portugal) and various logical arguments.

This analysis does not extend to guns, for me, because (again) of real-world data. E.g. comparing Australia, the UK, and the US, we can see the damage caused by guns when they are legal, and how it is reduced where / when they are illegal.

 

[slimvictor]

Is there any chance at all we can just blame the killer himself?

Absolutely - this is what we should do! I refuse to accept e.g. drunkenness as an excuse - you invited the alcohol into your body, now you are responsible for what you do when under the influence. People need to take responsibility for their actions.

But we need to look at how to prevent such things from happening again, and that is where the gun control argument comes in.

 

[AlphaMethylPhenyl]

Slim, you have my utmost respect. I remember our debates on the potential harm of pot, and you always treated me as an equal rather than as an inferior party.

My first comment is that, from my position, and I get it, I'm a socialist, but my first comment is that he's a bumbling idiot. It's just like a politician, not to mention a right-winger, trying to cover his butt with "I don't have all the information yet", and such phrases.

I doubt we'l ever hear the truth from Perry or the republican party: it was indeed an act of terror.

Next is his proclomation about opioids. Sure, heroin addicts get so desperate that they break car windows to steal radios, rob houses, turn to prostitution, or otherwise participate in unregulated, dangerous business. But mass murdering? And if this kid had been an opioid addict, Perry might have something to stand on. But I never read that. I don't believe that was the case. Now, taking a look at other rampaging maniacs, SSRIs and other psych meds were involved. Not opioids, as far as I'm aware, at least directly (sure there are outlaw cartels/what have you which sell and use drugs, but we're talking about lone wolves here of developed countries committing several murders or more in public (James Holmes, Jared Loughner, etc). I'm not surprised that Perry doesn't even mention that this is a "chicken or the egg" problem.

I can't necessarily hold it against him, because all politicians toot their own horn, but his statistic about Texas graduation rates seem suspect - he doesn't even give a source - so to me that's just hearsay, or worse, given his status as a politician, and more-so as a right-winger. Yes I am a bit prejudice. Call me a liberal snot, but honestly enough the only reason I can see, at least on the face of things, for being a conservative in US is that it makes people feel safe when they watch someone being blown up on FOX news in their air-conditioned living room with their TV dinner.

Why would guns and drugs be the same issue? I didn't understand that either.

Voxide, if you look at statistics for drug use in countries/states which have more relaxed laws, you will find that negatives across the board, such as incidence of HIV infection, overdoses, problems of purity, and hosts of other ills, happen at a lesser rate than in countries which go tough on drug use. What you missed is that the dynamics of use change with the laws. It's a fallacy to compare the effects of drugs with the effects of guns because their laws are in no way analogous.

Drugs have the potential to destroy lives, but they also restore lives. At this point I would refer to them as medicines. Has a gun ever helped your depression (beyond instant gratification)? I would accept if it makes you feel more safe, but I don't have time to list all of the potential benevolence that drugs, or, medicines, can bring to individuals. Guns are made to kill things; that generally encompasses their purpose.

Beyond that feeling of extra protection, a bit of happiness at buying something, and a bit of a rush at shooting them, what do guns offer? There are some parallels to drug use, in that they're both here to stay, they can both provide security, and they can be very dangerous.

I'm not pro- or anti- guns. I just wanted to reply to Perry and continue this dialogue with a few talking points.

 

[poledriver]

Obama demands action on gun violence, Confederate flag in moving eulogy for slain Charleston pastor

US President Barack Obama has praised the "love, faith and purity" of the pastor slain in a South Carolina church shooting massacre in a eulogy attended by thousands of mourners.

Mr Obama also issued another call for the US to act on gun crime.

"We've been blind to the unique mayhem that gun violence inflicts upon this nation," Mr Obama said at the funeral in the South Carolina city.

"The vast majority of Americans, the majority of gun owners, want to do something about this."

Mr Obama gave a rousing speech in front of thousands of mourners who came to pay their last respects to Reverend Clementa Pinckney, who was one of the nine people gunned down last week during a Bible study class at the Emanuel AME Church.

The alleged gunman, 21-year-old Dylann Roof, has been charged with nine counts of murder and a related weapons charge. He is in custody in a South Carolina jail.

Mr Obama referred to other mass shootings that have shocked America - the Newtown school massacre in 2012, the killings in a Colorado theater earlier that same year - and acknowledged that more gun controls could not prevent all tragedies.

But, as he has since the June 17 killings in Charleston, the president urged the nation to reflect and take action.

"Whatever solutions we find will necessarily be incomplete. But it would be a betrayal of everything Reverend Pinckney stood for, I believe, if we allowed ourselves to slip into a comfortable silence again," he said.

Mr Obama also waded into the thorny debate about the future of the Confederate flag, a symbol embraced by Roof in an online manifesto espousing white supremacy.

"For too long, we were blind to the pain that the Confederate flag stirred in too many of our citizens," he said.

"As we all have to acknowledge the flag has always represented more than just ancestral pride. For many, black and white, that flag was a reminder of systemic oppression. And we see that now."

He said removing the Stars and Bars from the grounds of the South Carolina State House would not be "an insult to the valor of Confederate soldiers."

"It would simply be an acknowledgement that the cause for which they fought, the cause of slavery, was wrong," he said.

http://www.9news.com.au/world/2015/...eulogizes-slain-pastor-in-charleston-massacre