Jump to content

Oh by the way, someone shot and killed an 8 year old (of course it's USA)


TerraPrime

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, litechick said:

Drunk again, similar state of mind...

Should we rejoice that more murder/suicides are racially diverse?  (that's progress)

Obviously not.

But what we should do is  endevour to be accurate in our discussions, and quick to acknowledge when we are wrong, if we want to be taken seriously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Pebble.  (and Theda and even James Arryn for making reasonable responses.)

Swordfish, I only post drunk because no matter how sober I am, I don't expect to be taken seriously.  When sober, I just let it roll by.  There's no point in even contributing.  But drunk, what the hell? Let it fly and let the shit fall where it may.

This thread is about a dead woman and child and I don't mean to make it about me but since the alternative is, as Terra points out, " the usual hand-wringing about the need to do something to protect children. Then followed by a chorus of we should politicize the tragedy. To be then followed in turn by protestation that this an isolated incident committed by an unstable person, and then we will see links to sites showing how people have safely and successfully used guns to protect themselves, then we will hear about the need to arm our teachers in public schools, and then we will hear about how this man wasn't even a Responsible Gun Owner {tm} and how dare we generalize about all gun owners based on this one data point" it seems like it couldn't hurt to explore a new perspective.

If you would rather retread the same ground, don't let me stop you.  Have your fun while I sleep it off.

coda:  Yes, I was wrong.  I own it.  I'm sort of relieved by being wrong.  Does that make sense?

I'm just saying that for a woman (me), sometimes it all piles up.  You see stories about the things men will do to women, you wonder what the men in your own life might be capable of.  What are the consequences of breaking up with him?  Will he throw rocks through my windows?  Will he cut my break lines?  Will he talk shit to my acquaintances, portraying me as a degenerate slut?  Will he hurt me directly?

It's not just him.  It's my next door neighbor whom I can hear right this minute shouting at his ex on the phone.  What is he capable of?  He seems so bland but isn't that always what the neighbors say?

I understand that I am currently in a state of mind which is antagonistic towards men, that's the reason for my initial disclaimer.  Feel free to dismiss me on those grounds.  Hopefully in a week I will denounce myself.  I just can't do it today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tens of millions around the world outraged over a man dragged off an airplane (which was outrageous, don't get me wrong) but a man shooting his wife and two young children (one dead, one critical) is just too commonplace to be bothered much about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Fragile Bird said:

Tens of millions around the world outraged over a man dragged off an airplane (which was outrageous, don't get me wrong) but a man shooting his wife and two young children (one dead, one critical) is just too commonplace to be bothered much about.

I'd be outraged if it happened somewhere that wasn't America.    I'm just too tired of it to care much about US gun violence, when the US don't even want to try to fix it.   I'd rather put my energy into things that maybe will make a difference.

 

You can't help an Addict until they actually want help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

Tens of millions around the world outraged over a man dragged off an airplane (which was outrageous, don't get me wrong) but a man shooting his wife and two young children (one dead, one critical) is just too commonplace to be bothered much about.

Yup.  Plus it's easy to feel hopeless when a huge portion of the US actually desire murdered children.  There are several posters here who think murdered children is an excellent tradeoff for being able to have all the guns they want.  There's very little to say in the face of monsters like that.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/12/2017 at 2:24 PM, Let's Get Kraken said:

I agree with the general sentiment that gun laws in the U.S. need to be seriously overhauled, but I don't think that's going to completely solve the problem. We need to look at the root causes of why school shootings are happening. Look at Canada. While the laws there are indeed more restrictive than they are in the U.S., it's still, from what I understand, not terribly difficult to obtain a firearm. And yet, they manage not to have a school shooting once per week.

Of course this wasn't really a school shooting as we've come to view them. Just another self-entitled coward who didn't want to let his wife get away.

Word.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Canadian children don't grow up being told they have a right to kill.  Owning murder weapons is a privilege rather than a right, which changes the culture quite a bit.

I appreciate your anger and distress over this horrifying incident but the logic you apply in this post:

 

Yup.  Plus it's easy to feel hopeless when a huge portion of the US actually desire murdered children.  There are several posters here who think murdered children is an excellent tradeoff for being able to have all the guns they want.  There's very little to say in the face of monsters like that.



Could be used to justify banning anything that causes a child to die.  I strongly support heavier regulation of the ownership of firearms.  I do not support an absolute ban.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I appreciate your anger and distress over this horrifying incident but the logic you apply in this post:
 



Could be used to justify banning anything that causes a child to die.  I strongly support heavier regulation of the ownership of firearms.  I do not support an absolute ban.

No one said anything about an absolute ban.  I said that there are people who think murdered children are a good price to pay.  Then I said that Canadian children don't grow up thinking they have a right to kill like American children do.  In Canada guns are a privilege, not a right.  I think removing the second Amendment goes a long way towards changing the culture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

No one said anything about an absolute ban.  I said that there are people who think murdered children are a good price to pay.  Then I said that Canadian children don't grow up thinking they have a right to kill like American children do.  In Canada guns are a privilege, not a right. 

I do understand that.  You are aware, I'm confident, that politically a repeal of the 2nd amendment is a no go.  It will not be successful and would, likely, do more harm than good in an attempt to strengthen regulation of firearms ownership and use in the US.  I think working locally to get reasonable regulations requiring proper training and storage of firearms would go a long way toward making the US a safer place.  

Given the wording in the recent cases making the 2nd amendment a personal liberty interest and applying the 2nd amendment to the States that is the best way to go.  The Court explicitly said that the right to keep and bear arms is subject to reasonable regulation.  Legally, the question is what is "reasonable regulation"?  The only way to establish what is reasonable regulation is to attempt to reasonably apply regulations to the ownership and use of firearms.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I do understand that.  You are aware, I'm confident, that politically a repeal of the 2nd amendment is a no go.  It will not be successful and would, likely, do more harm than good in an attempt to strengthen regulation of firearms ownership and use in the US.  I think working locally to get reasonable regulations requiring proper training and storage of firearms would go a long way toward making the US a safer place.  

Given the wording in the recent cases making the 2nd amendment a personal liberty interest and applying the 2nd amendment to the States that is the best way to go.  The Court explicitly said that the right to keep and bear arms is subject to reasonable regulation.  Legally, the question is what is "reasonable regulation"?  The only way to establish what is reasonable regulation is to attempt to reasonably apply regulations to the ownership and use of firearms.  

Yes, I'm aware that repeal of 2A is a no go. It's almost always a no go when something is so deeply ingrained into culture - like how murder is ingrained in American culture.  

In order for gun regulations to be useful, they really need to be national. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Yes, I'm aware that repeal of 2A is a no go. It's almost always a no go when something is so deeply ingrained into culture - like how murder is ingrained in American culture.  

In order for gun regulations to be useful, they really need to be national. 

 

Perhaps.  I'm positing something that can be done by individuals in individual communities.  A push for national regulations is likely to prompt a national push back against such regulations and may, once again, strengthen the movement opposing any regulations.  Further, a national regulatory scheme is much easier to challenge in court than local schemes that have to be challenged one at a time.  I appreciate your point but I don't believe a move for stronger local and state regulations on the use and ownership of firearms is without merit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Perhaps.  I'm positing something that can be done by individuals in individual communities.  A push for national regulations is likely to prompt a national push back against such regulations and may, once again, strengthen the movement opposing any regulations.  Further, a national regulatory scheme is much easier to challenge in court than local schemes that have to be challenged one at a time.  I appreciate your point but I don't believe a move for stronger local and state regulations on the use and ownership of firearms is without merit.

I'm not trying to make any sort of argument about gun regulations.  My only point in this thread has been to show a major difference between Canadian and American culture and also point out why people aren't up in arms over another dead kid.  In general, Americans think piles of murdered children is just fine because Americans believe they have the right to kill.  

But while I'm here, I'll just point out that localized gun regulations don't tend to work real well when your neighbor has lax controls.  Individuals in Chicago have passed some really strict gun laws and yet Indiana is so law that it creates a heavy flow straight into Chicago.  We don't have borders between cities, counties, or states.  

America will never fix it's murdered children problem.  This has been proven over and over.  It's why we'll spend 20 pages about shitty airline service and ignore the kids killed by guns.  One thing can be improved, the other won't.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

I'm not trying to make any sort of argument about gun regulations.  My only point in this thread has been to show a major difference between Canadian and American culture and also point out why people aren't up in arms over another dead kid.  In general, Americans think piles of murdered children is just fine because Americans believe they have the right to kill.  

But while I'm here, I'll just point out that localized gun regulations don't tend to work real well when your neighbor has lax controls.  Individuals in Chicago have passed some really strict gun laws and yet Indiana is so law that it creates a heavy flow straight into Chicago.  We don't have borders between cities, counties, or states.  

America will never fix it's murdered children problem.  This has been proven over and over.  It's why we'll spend 20 pages about shitty airline service and ignore the kids killed by guns.  One thing can be improved, the other won't.  

Dr.P,

I appreciate what you are saying.  One child dead is one death too many.  But ultimately what we should be trying to change is the culture that says "my gun rights are more important than that dead child".  I think going from the ground up will be a more effective, if slower, mechanism for changing the culture that says "my gun rights are more important than that dead child".  

When things come from on high people get indignant.  They don't like "strangers from far away telling them how to live their lives".  It's harder to play the put upon local when it's Bob from down the street making the argument instead of a regulator from DC.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Dr.P,

I appreciate what you are saying.  One child dead is one death too many.  But ultimately what we should be trying to change is the culture that says "my gun rights are more important than that dead child".  I think going from the ground up will be a more effective, if slower, mechanism for changing the culture that says "my gun rights are more important than that dead child".  

When things come from on high people get indignant.  They don't like "strangers from far away telling them how to live their lives".  It's harder to play the put upon local when it's Bob from down the street making the argument instead of a regulator from DC.  

Changing culture is a lot more complicated than you suggest.  It's not just a 'ground up' thing, not when it's already agreed that dead children are a good price to pay.  People have always been working at grassroots levels to try to change America's murder culture.  It's systemic.  It's etched into our identity by way of an incredibly outdated constitution.  It's deeply embedded within the economy.  It's woven in with the majority religion.  It's in our history and in our children's textbooks.  Feeling a right to murder is one of the few things that bind all Americans together. 

It's not going to change until one day people decide that murdered kids is bad.  Period.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Changing culture is a lot more complicated than you suggest.  It's not just a 'ground up' thing, not when it's already agreed that dead children are a good price to pay.  People have always been working at grassroots levels to try to change America's murder culture.  It's systemic.  It's etched into our identity by way of an incredibly outdated constitution.  It's deeply embedded within the economy.  It's woven in with the majority religion.  It's in our history and in our children's textbooks.  Feeling a right to murder is one of the few things that bind all Americans together. 

It's not going to change until one day people decide that murdered kids is bad.  Period.  

I'm not saying it's simple.  I'm saying changing culture works better from the ground up than from the top down.  That's all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I'm not saying it's simple.  I'm saying changing culture works better from the ground up than from the top down.  That's all.

This is simply not true.  It's not top down or ground up.  It's more like using a net, catching everything.  Things that are systemic require changes systemically.  Legalized segregation, slavery, LGBT equality, women's vote...these things were attacked on all fronts with major changes requiring a hammer rather than a soft word to your neighbor.  Like taking a net to drag everyone where you should be whether someone wants it or not.  For a lot of things, it's not worth waiting until you can convince someone that something is bad.  Like dead children.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

This is simply not true.  It's not top down or ground up.  It's more like using a net, catching everything.  Things that are systemic require changes systemically.  Legalized segregation, slavery, LGBT equality, women's vote...these things were attacked on all fronts with major changes requiring a hammer rather than a soft word to your neighbor.  Like taking a net to drag everyone where you should be whether someone wants it or not.  For a lot of things, it's not worth waiting until you can convince someone that something is bad.  Like dead children.  

 

Dr.P,

Do you think the 19th amendment would have been passed without the suffrage movement?  That slavery would have been made illegal without the abolitionist movement?  That LGBT folks would have gotten the right to marry as others without boots on the ground convincing most people that it really wasn't anyones' business who someone sleeps with so long as all parties consent?  

I get that big dramatic moves matter, but you have to have the support for those moves on the ground floor before they will take root.  Start small then build up.  Right now the culture will not support the change you want.  Start local and change people's minds.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Dr.P,

Do you think the 19th amendment would have been passed without the suffrage movement?  That slavery would have been made illegal without the abolitionist movement?  That LGBT folks would have gotten the right to marry as others without boots on the ground convincing most people that it really wasn't anyones' business who someone sleeps with so long as all parties consent?  

I get that big dramatic moves matter, but you have to have the support for those moves on the ground floor before they will take root.  Start small then build up.  Right now the culture will not support the change you want.  Start local and change people's minds.  

The only reason those things listed exist today is due to big dramatic moves.  Sure, try to change people's mind.  But at the same time, the dramatic moves are necessary.  It can't just be grassroots, which is what you are suggesting.  Grassroots will be failures without the big dramatic moves, especially when the other side has an endless supply of money (ya know, kinda like the pro-murder/gun folks).  The 13th amendment might have taken decades or another century to pass if it weren't for the civil war, for example. Any delay to wait out the 'changing of minds' would have meant continued enslavement of human beings.  

Some things aren't worth the wait until your neighbor decides they want to stop being a monster.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

The only reason those things listed exist today is due to big dramatic moves.  Sure, try to change people's mind.  But at the same time, the dramatic moves are necessary.  It can't just be grassroots, which is what you are suggesting.  Grassroots will be failures without the big dramatic moves, especially when the other side has an endless supply of money (ya know, kinda like the pro-murder/gun folks).  The 13th amendment might have taken decades or another century to pass if it weren't for the civil war, for example. Any delay to wait out the 'changing of minds' would have meant continued enslavement of human beings.  

Some things aren't worth the wait until your neighbor decides they want to stop being a monster.  

That's not what I said.  Both are necessary.  Dramatic moves, by your own admission, will fail right now.  Build the grassroots then make the dramatic move when it will work not when it will only serve to harm the cause you advocate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...