Quote:I don't see this as a good discussion tactic at all.
Because someone ran people down with a truck we cannot have a discussion about the 1,238 kids under 18 that have been killed or injured this year due to gun violence?
Mike, I never stated or inferred that. Don't be that guy.
It is not even Memorial day yet. We probably could have a discussion about how to deal with vehicular homicide but that's not really what this is about.
Given the number of fairly infamous vehicular homicides in recent years, and that they represent that sick people will use what comes to hand, I think it's related.
The fact of the matter is that we have WAY too much of a problem with gun violence. Now there's truth to the matter that bad guys with guns are always going to be bad guys with guns. But part of the research needs to be on why guns keep finding their way into the hands of people that shouldn't have them. And I have to think that the number of guns in this country HAS to play into that somehow. No?
If you cite the huge number of guns, the easy comeback is that gun crimes have actually trended downward during the sales spikes...but that deals with legit buyers vs those that care nothing for any gun laws, whatsoever.
The real deal is that if things keep going the way that they are then maybe it is quite possible that the general public WILL have enough and move to outlaw guns entirely. It is already known that by far the general public supports gun legislation. At this point it might be in gun owners best interest to put in gun safety legislation. If not I can see guns going the way of Cigarettes. Eventually there will be a cultural shift away from their acceptance because the harm to the public will outweigh the general public's desire to have them be prevalent in society. We aren't that many years removed from ashtrays in the armrests of airplanes and vehicles. And dead kids aren't a real popular thing either.
The general public has already killed a ton of bills in that direction, and one absolute truth is that these crimes came about after two-plus centuries of firearm ownership in this country...so what's the difference? The numbers, again, state that it's not simply the guns...so I don't see that bill going through in our lifetime. There may be more compromise, but the moment this country disarms, it will become an empire...not anything like a Constitutional Republic. That will be the end of the United States of America.
Seems to me that making some concessions on what people actually need for realistic self defense and hunting is in the best interest of responsible gun owners. At least coming to the table with the demand that we get tough on bad guys with guns. Meaning Real Tough. For a lot of the country (I am NOT saying anyone in this thread) there is the idea of a boogey man with a gun. Black Gangs. Muslim Terrorists. Illegal aliens. Or klansmen, or just general whitey (yeah even whitey is being marketed to brown people to protect themselves against... .Gun crazy... it isn't just for white folks anymore) to which many people believe that they need to be armed to the teeth to defend themselves against. And you know what? I'm not even saying that you don't have to be armed for protection. But let's be honest about what we need versus what the likelihood is that our weapons may end up causing more harm than good. The ratio isn't in favor of more guns means more safety.
Actually, a central point with a great many gun owners is that, with the endless videos on youtube and the like regarding misuses/perversions of authority and a government populated by two horrible "main" parties that are, at their cores, both incompetent and corrupt...that people want the ability to defend themselves against baseless oppression under the guise of legal authority. I'd also add that the manipulation of the media against gun owners is particularly vicious. Sites like guns.com go to considerable lengths to find the local stories regarding firearms used in defense...but these stories have very slim odds of getting to the national level. I'd suggest taking a look, and wondering why those stories don't rate the same level of attention in this discussion....
With any product that may pose any public health risks we have to figure out what it's place in society is. There's no difference in that with guns. In fact eh USSC ruled that very thing in that they said that the 2nd does not guarantee any firearm for every citizen. It found in it's ruling that the types of weapons that can be made available to the public absolutely can be regulated. And still through Bush W, Through Obama, Through Yea one of Trump not much has changed.
Actually, it'd be tragic to force firearms on people that don't want them...so I wouldn't want it going that way. In fact, I'm all for sensible legislation, but I've yet to hear a way to make that happen with the extremes getting most of the airplay ("clickbait" is the fave in most media, on all sides) and with the very people in charge of said legislation being such filthy asshats, themselves.
And I haven't heard any word from my lunatic liberal friends of going after F150's either.
Oh, for f***'s sake, I was making a pretty obvious joke...but, I'd bet a bottle of good bourbon that if you repeated the term "F-150 Assault Truck" enough times, describing every car accident as involving "an F-150 type vehicle", that it wouldn't take more than 6 months.
Quote: @"Zanary" said:
@"MaroonBells" said:
@"Zanary" said:
@"MaroonBells" said:
There was a picture going around the media recently of a young lady at Kent State University. She was wearing a sunny white dress and an AR-15 over her shoulder. My first thought was..."wow, what a brilliant commentary on the absurdity of our gun laws." Turns out the statement she was attempting to make was the opposite. Recently graduated, she was protesting that as a student she was not allowed to carry the AR-15 around campus. Poor thing. Can't imagine why THAT would be a problem.
I think the best thing we can do is to make it harder to access weapons like this. Drugs should be on the table. Increased school security should be on the table. Better and more effective gun regulations should be on the table.
Interesting cherry-picking there, as she had recently graduated and was showing that the moment she was no longer a student, that open carry was legal...which is odd, given that students aren't allowed to be armed. I'm assuming you read the whole article...?
Cherry picking what? I'm just telling you my reaction to the photo. From what i understand she was protesting the fact that, as a student, she could not carry a weapon. But now that she had graduated she could. And so she marches out there with an AR-15 draped over her shoulder. What I thought was a brilliant commentary on the absurdity of our lax gun laws was just the opposite. She was protesting the fact that students could NOT carry. What did I get wrong?
First of all, the articles I've seen state that it's an AR-10, not the "media created Darth Vader of rifles", the AR-15.
Secondly...why should visitors have that self-defense capability when students don't? It's not like that would override laws regarding acceptable ages of ownership, and I'd actually push for concealed carry because so many are-I use this term for dual purpose-"triggered" by just the sight of a firearm.
The AR-15 is "guilty" of being widely sold. I figure that the whacko that rented the F-150 and mowed people down in New York will cause demands to ban the country's most popular vehicle any moment now...
...and it'll be called the "F-150 AR-15 by Four" by some bobblehead.
I'll just go ahead and give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you know the difference between the purpose of an F-150 and the purpose of an AR-15. What's interesting is that one requires you to register it, buy insurance in case you hurt anyone with it, get it licensed and then pass tests in order to use it. And it's not the killing machine.
Thanks for pointing out the girl had an AR-10. Because that's an important distinction.
Quote: @"MaroonBells" said:
@"Zanary" said:
@"MaroonBells" said:
@"Zanary" said:
@"MaroonBells" said:
There was a picture going around the media recently of a young lady at Kent State University. She was wearing a sunny white dress and an AR-15 over her shoulder. My first thought was..."wow, what a brilliant commentary on the absurdity of our gun laws." Turns out the statement she was attempting to make was the opposite. Recently graduated, she was protesting that as a student she was not allowed to carry the AR-15 around campus. Poor thing. Can't imagine why THAT would be a problem.
I think the best thing we can do is to make it harder to access weapons like this. Drugs should be on the table. Increased school security should be on the table. Better and more effective gun regulations should be on the table.
Interesting cherry-picking there, as she had recently graduated and was showing that the moment she was no longer a student, that open carry was legal...which is odd, given that students aren't allowed to be armed. I'm assuming you read the whole article...?
Cherry picking what? I'm just telling you my reaction to the photo. From what i understand she was protesting the fact that, as a student, she could not carry a weapon. But now that she had graduated she could. And so she marches out there with an AR-15 draped over her shoulder. What I thought was a brilliant commentary on the absurdity of our lax gun laws was just the opposite. She was protesting the fact that students could NOT carry. What did I get wrong?
First of all, the articles I've seen state that it's an AR-10, not the "media created Darth Vader of rifles", the AR-15.
Secondly...why should visitors have that self-defense capability when students don't? It's not like that would override laws regarding acceptable ages of ownership, and I'd actually push for concealed carry because so many are-I use this term for dual purpose-"triggered" by just the sight of a firearm.
The AR-15 is "guilty" of being widely sold. I figure that the whacko that rented the F-150 and mowed people down in New York will cause demands to ban the country's most popular vehicle any moment now...
...and it'll be called the "F-150 AR-15 by Four" by some bobblehead.
I'll just go ahead and give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you know the difference between the purpose of an F-150 and the purpose of an AR-15. What's interesting is that one requires you to register it, buy insurance in case you hurt anyone with it, get it licensed and then pass tests in order to use it. And it's not the killing machine.
Thanks for pointing out the girl had an AR-10. Because that's an important distinction.
Actually, the F-150 is easy for me to use as it was the central object in a paper I wrote a few years ago regarding what could be misused as much as firearms. The vehicle massacres in recent years were pretty chilling as I considered how those events were putting body counts to a concept that that gotten me a 98% on the paper.
Oh...and, folks...anyone really taking "F-150 AR-15 by Four" seriously is TRYING to be offended. Work less.
Still, car bombs are very old news, the IRA and countless Middle East groups used them forever. What's so very interesting is that, in a country that's been armed since its inception...what's with the kids nowadays?
The guns aren't a new part of the equation, so...what is it?
The problem is "sin". That's what I call it, anyway. You can call it evil... or selfishness... or a lack of empathy... or whatever else. The name doesn't matter. What matters is that life is not considered a gift... and we- as a society- are comfortable with the idea that someone else's life is not as important as ours, because they did/said something that we don't agree with / like. It used to be that "hate" was considered a bad thing. Now it's only a bad thing- if you hate the wrong things. Otherwise, hate is completely justifiable. And that sucks. Social media (and the MSM in general) have made hate into an industry. They are constantly trying to tell their customers who to hate- and use lies to do it. There is no "side" that is innocent- or immune.
The #1 solution to the problem (outside of a "religious" one that would probably derail this discussion) is parenting. Kids are going to be exposed to all kinds of garbage. That is the reality of the world now. What can "save" them from it is parents who actively- and proactively- talk with their kids about life's situations... and teach them to respect others- even when they don't agree with them. Of course, it helps if you can convince them that each and every life is a precious gift. That's really it. Life has been so de-valued, by so many, that we have reached the point that if the existence of another human life is irritating or inconvenient to us, we are justified in harming (or destroying) it. This society has been telling kids for so long- in words and in actions- that you have to look out for #1... that you can't love someone else unless you love yourself first... and other such narcissistic clap-trap... and now we're surprised that they don't have an understanding of their own self-worth (apart from any comparisons to anyone else)... or that they are incapable of seeing any other point of view (other than their own)?
Frankly put: we are reaping what we have sown. If we want things to be different, we can't keep doing things the way that we have been doing them for the past 30-40 years. But that would force people to look in the mirror, rather than blaming someone else. And it would require the majority of people to get on board with sacrificial love for their kids- as well as their neighbor's kids. Since virtue is pretty much anathema these days, I won't be holding my breath.
EDIT: And this "selfishness" is not just manifest in intentional violence; it is also seen in the willingness of people to put other lives at risk by drinking & driving or driving distracted because they can't put their phones down. These kinds of deaths dwarf those of gun violence, but the root cause is the same: each person making themselves a "god" (by putting themselves ahead of everyone else).
That was a helluva post, pumpf. Very good stuff.
its easier to blame an inanimate object, and some people that make those objects, than it is to reflect inward and see that we ourselves, or something that we enjoy or are a part of, may be part of the problem.
fact is people are killing people and taking away the tool does not take away the desire, until we are really ready to make the world a better place I dont think we will every make it a safer place... no matter how many guns we take away. perhaps its our other American freedoms that are at the root of these school shootings and not the second amendment?
I have absolutely zero data to back this up, but I wouldnt be at all surprised to learn that more people per 1000 are killed by firearms in our country now than at any other time in our short history outside of domestic wars (including those with the native Americans and Mexicans). I think Pumpf is a lot closer to the root of this than we all want to accept, as a society we need to change how we view and treat each other and that starts with how we raise the next generation.
Quote: @"pumpf" said:
... What matters is that life is not considered a gift... and we- as a society- are comfortable with the idea that someone else's life is not as important as ours,...
... require the majority of people to get on board with sacrificial love for their kids- as well as their neighbor's kids. Since virtue is pretty much anathema these days, I won't be holding my breath. ...
Bingo. Kids see through the fluff. Our generation has not valued life no matter how many trophies we give and so why should the next generation value life?
So yes, it starts with ourselves.
I'm going to add one more thing to my previous post. Another way that this "selfishness" that I was talking about manifests itself is the lack of civility and respect that people have for one another online- and then justify it by claiming that "everyone else needs to get thicker skin". While that certainly may be true (that some people need to get "thicker skin") it does not in any way absolve someone from intentionally offending others. Now, I may offend people by what I believe (and, therefore, say about what I believe). But I need to be mindful that it is what I believe that offends people (which surely does) and NOT how I say it. I am as guilty as anyone else of "telling it like it is" without regard for the other person. I justify it in my own mind, by telling myself that they "deserved" it... or brought it on themselves. Speaking only for myself, that is wrong. I tell my kids that it doesn't matter what other people do to you, YOU continue to do what is right. And I fail often to follow my own advice.
Unfortunately, many others do too. And some simply don't give a *bleep* about anyone else. They have an opinion and they are going to share it. And if it (in style / delivery) offends you, then that's your problem. That's one of the issues I've always had with those who want the "freedom" to say whatever they want on these boards. It's not what they say (sometimes I agree with it, sometimes I don't). It's their desire to have the freedom to (intentionally) offend others. Just because we have a First Amendment right to say whatever we want, does that mean we should? Or, should we think about others and how our words may hurt and offend them? Like I said, there are things that some people believe (Bible-believing Christians, for example) that are offensive to others (like adultery- in all its forms- is a sin against God). And any expression of that belief is sure to offend some people. But there is a difference between trying to speak faithfully about what you believe... and being Fred Phelps. Too many people follow in his footsteps- about all kinds of things- simply because they can. And it all goes back to that narcissistic, myopic view of life: "I'm the only one that matters at this moment."
|
