- This topic has 64 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 11 months ago by
.
-
I dont really care one way or another about gun control btw. I’m ok with it, but I dont really think it will do much good. Or harm. Too many guns already out there. Too easy to get them. And i do think poor people ought to be able to protect themselves from the wolves.
w
vWell, it depends on what is meant by gun control. If by gun control, you mean tougher gun laws, registration, licensing, restrictions on magazine size and the types of gun one can own, then I’m in favor of gun control.
If by gun control you mean making the possession of ANY gun illegal, then I’m not in favor of that either. I don’t think most people who are in favor of gun control are actually talking about that though. Most people just want some reasonable measures enacted to reduce gun violence ala Australia, Canada, etc.
Also, WV,
That fear people have? Where does it come from, and what (and whose) purpose does it serve? The most obvious source is the Gun Industry. Whip up fear, in any way possible, through the NRA, the GOP, Hate Radio, craven Democrats, etc. etc. . . . and you get a huge increase in gun sales — as in, profits for billion-dollar corporations. Since we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that more guns means more death and injury, those people who live in fear, including the poor, are being radically hurt by this steady stream of propaganda.
Crime has actually fallen for decades — though mass shootings have increased. People should be LESS fearful than ever of most kinds of crime — but more fearful of those mass shootings. But they’re being fed lies about the way to solve this, which is actually the opposite of what SHOULD happen. More guns at home means more deaths and injuries, and more guns on the streets means the same. The most effective possible means of reducing the only kind of violent crime on the rise — those mass shootings — is radically limiting firepower available to Americans. Get rid of all detachable ammo containers, and any kind of gun that can use them. That, mixed with licensing and registration, “smart technology,” closing all loopholes in the gun-check process, will make these people safer.
Crime has actually fallen for decades — though mass shootings have increased. People should be LESS fearful than ever of most kinds of crime — but more fearful of those mass shootings.
That has to be stressed. WHAT people CLAIM to be afraid of is actually decreasing.
From an article posted earlier…
A recent study published by the Harvard Injury Control Research Center shows that the frequency of mass shooting is increasing over time. The researchers measured the increase by calculating the time between the occurrence of mass shootings. According to the research, the days separating mass shooting occurrence went from on average 200 days during the period of 1983 to 2011 to 64 days since 2011.
What is most alarming with mass shootings is the fact that this increasing trend is moving in the opposite direction of overall intentional homicide rates in the US, which decreased by almost 50% since 1993 and in Europe where intentional homicides decreased by 40% between 2003 and 2013.
I mean, think about it. It’s harder to get a prescription for a sinus infection than to get an AR-15. It’s often harder to open the damn bottle once you get the medicine than it is to slap in 30 rounds and blast away.
We took asthma inhalers off the shelf because a few kids got high from them. And we can’t stop the arms race of ever-increasing firepower, readily available to anyone with the money? Mateen got a concealed carry license and purchased weapons of mass destruction with ease. It’s much harder for people to purchase help for serious, persistent colds and the flu than it was for Mateen to do what he did.
It’s just flat out insane.
Also, WV,
That fear people have? Where does it come from, and what (and whose) purpose does it serve? The most obvious source is the Gun Industry. Whip up fear, in any way possible, through the NRA, the GOP, Hate Radio, craven Democrats, etc. etc. . . . and you get a huge increase in gun sales — as in, profits for billion-dollar corporations. Since we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that more guns means more death and injury, those people who live in fear, including the poor, are being radically hurt by this steady stream of propaganda.
————————
Well, walk around on the street like a poor person sometime. The street of a city at night. In a poor neighborhood. Kinda like Chris Long did. Then ask “what purpose does fear serve” and then wonder if its only the gun industry thats whipping up irrational fears.
I work with the poorest of the poor everyday. I hear their stories of life on the street. (And this is just a little town in WV). Their fears are justified. They cant rely on the police or the middle-class-folks safe in their homes or behind their gates.
I see too many wealthy pundits on the media acting like there’s nuthin to fear. Really?
Try going out in the city the way the poor have to.At any rate, I just dont care about gun control. I’m not against it, I’m not for it. Its just not an issue I’m gonna spend brain-energy on. Corporate-Capitalism has created a dangerous hell-hole for a lot of poor people — if they wanna get guns, fine by me. If the Government bans assault weapons fine by me. The gun issue pales in comparison to the “corporate-capitalism is mass-murdering the biosphere” issue.
Im a mono-maniac on the corporate-capitalism issue, BT. I just am. I know hundreds of folks are gonna get shot in amerika every year coz of mean-guns. And banning assault weapons might save some of those folks. Not all, but some. (cause the legal weapons can kill a lot of folks too, and weapons are easy to modify, etc, etc)
As you know though, corporate-capitalism is killing all life. How bout we ban corporate-capitalism. Its a tad worse than an assault weapon — itz an assault-ideololgy 🙂
w
vBS. You determine all for her and everyone else. Such pomposity. The lady might prefer a semi-auto. Licensing and registering doesn’t do anything to make anyone safer. It does make money for the government for doing nothing. Which is how government likes it.
Society has laws, regulations, rules. That’s been the case at least since the dawn of the first “higher civilization” in Sumeria, 6000 years ago. The Constitution sets this up as well, with the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, the General Welfare Clause, the Equal Protection Clause and Article One, Section Eight in general. You seem to be suggesting that it’s “tyrannical” to have our Constitution at all, because it sets this up. This, apparently, is “determining all for her and everyone else.”
As for what she may prefer. She may prefer her own nuclear submarine, but we have rules and laws in place to prevent that. She may prefer to own lions, tigers, crocs and take them with her on the streets. But we have laws and rules to prevent that. She may prefer to blow things up with explosives, because that looks cool and everything. But we have laws and rules to prevent that.
You like to use “BS.” Your take is the epitome of that. Basic rules on firepower, registration and licensing don’t in any way, shape or form “determine all for her and everyone else.” That kind of extremist hyperbole is the real “BS” here.
BS. You determine all for her and everyone else. Such pomposity. The lady might prefer a semi-auto. Licensing and registering doesn’t do anything to make anyone safer. It does make money for the government for doing nothing. Which is how government likes it.
Society has laws, regulations, rules. That’s been the case at least since the dawn of the first “higher civilization” in Sumeria, 6000 years ago. The Constitution sets this up as well, with the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, the General Welfare Clause, the Equal Protection Clause and Article One, Section Eight in general. You seem to be suggesting that it’s “tyrannical” to have our Constitution at all, because it sets this up. This, apparently, is “determining all for her and everyone else.”
As for what she may prefer. She may prefer her own nuclear submarine, but we have rules and laws in place to prevent that. She may prefer to own lions, tigers, crocs and take them with her on the streets. But we have laws and rules to prevent that. She may prefer to blow things up with explosives, because that looks cool and everything. But we have laws and rules to prevent that.
You like to use “BS.” Your take is the epitome of that. Basic rules on firepower, registration and licensing don’t in any way, shape or form “determine all for her and everyone else.” That kind of extremist hyperbole is the real “BS” here.
Congrats. You have equated her wanting a semi-auto hand gun in her purse with her owning a nuclear powered submarine. I’ll use your own words in closing.
“That kind of extremist hyperbole is the real “BS” here.”
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
Congrats. You have equated her wanting a semi-auto hand gun in her purse with her owning a nuclear powered submarine. I’ll use your own words in closing.
I didn’t equate the two. At all. I just showed that what we may “want” isn’t always possible in a society with rules and regulations — and all of them have them. Again, at least for the last 6000 years. It’s the price we all play to live with one another. It’s not in any way unreasonable to set limits to things, and when it comes to weapons designed to kill, it’s more than reasonable. It’s actually insane not to.
The other key factor: Those limits do not prevent her from having a weapon, or protecting herself with it. Those limits do not stop her from “keeping and bearing” arms. They just limit the number of bullets she can fire without reloading, and the way she reloads.
Congrats. You have equated her wanting a semi-auto hand gun in her purse with her owning a nuclear powered submarine. I’ll use your own words in closing.
“That kind of extremist hyperbole is the real “BS” here.”
Well he didn’t equate the 2. Logically, it’s an example of reductio ad absurdum. The point is things are banned constantly because different societies see them as dangerous and unnecessary. We all agree private citizens should not own their own nuclear subs. What does that prove? THat we always draw limits. In fact that’s the very nature of being in a society.
So saying that just demonstrates the absurdity of claiming that all socially and legally imposed limits are wrong or bad. Obviously that’s not true.
The question then becomes, where is the line to be drawn?
When it comes to everyone carrying MP 40s on their key chains, you come down on one side, he comes down on another.
And no you did not literally specify everyone has to carry an MP 40 on their key chain. Not every point is made with literal language.
Maybe I’m in the minority here but I see gun control as a huge issue. And the tired old argument of “they’ll get guns anyway” never cut it for me. While that may be true to some degree–I don’t completely buy it. Why have laws against cocaine? They’ll get it anyway. Rape? They’ll do it anyway. Even murder? If the answer is, “they’ll get guns anyway” well–why have any laws on the books?
You try.
That’s the bottom line for me.
There is just a deeply entrenched gun-loving culture in this country. And that goes for Democrats and Republicans. People hug their guns and hug them even tighter in times of crises. After every mass shooting gun sales go up. And most of that is fear of the government. These people are terrified the government will ban everything and they won’t get to buy their guns for burying in the yard so that they’re ready to go to war with their government over their right to buy more guns.
I find it sad.
Look–whenever this happens anyone who is pro gun control HAS to make sure they first throw out the disclaimer that: I don’t want to take away your guns. I just want common sense legislation. And it doesn’t matter.
If I could wave a magic wand and get rid of all the guns–I’d do it.
But I’m not an idiot. We will always live with guns. I get that. I even accept that.
But if we can’t have some sort of intelligent restrictions we are lost.
I’d be willing to bet that the victim’s families of that nightclub massacre could care less right now about corporate-capitalist arguments. Of course that’s a huge issue. But if we can’t even pass sensible gun control we have zero chance against the other thing. Zero.
I think of my son or daughter or wife being in the wrong place at the wrong time when some maniac who was easily able to walk into a store and walk out with a very efficient killing machine with out so much as a waiting period decides to strike and I get furious. That we accept this? That we live with this?
I’m sorry. I’ll never go there.
Fuck the NRA.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. " Philip K. Dick
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
