Jump to content

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


TerraPrime

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

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.

Actually I think it's the other way around.  I think it needs some dramatic show of force for a cultural thing so deeply ingrained to be changed.  Though I guess you could argue that it's a chicken or egg issue.  You need people to execute a dramatic move, but again if you wait to do it all perfectly right and legal based on laws we have now, kids continue to be murdered.  I think it needs a hammer.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Actually I think it's the other way around.  I think it needs some dramatic show of force for a cultural thing so deeply ingrained to be changed.  Though I guess you could argue that it's a chicken or egg issue.  You need people to execute a dramatic move, but again if you wait to do it all perfectly right and legal based on laws we have now, kids continue to be murdered.  I think it needs a hammer.  

I think that moment likely passed when 20 5-6 year olds were lined up against a classroom wall and executed, and no one really even blinked. Not sure how it gets any more dramatic than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

I think that moment likely passed when 20 5-6 year olds were lined up against a classroom wall and executed, and no one really even blinked. Not sure how it gets any more dramatic than that.

We're talking about the opposite, dear.  You know, NOT having children murdered by the truckload.  Because pro-murder and the acceptability of dead children is so entrenched in the culture, it will take a huge dramatic action to change that, to make dead children in classrooms unacceptable.

12 minutes ago, Let's Get Kraken said:

I typically avoid the post-tragedy gun debate that gets waged on this subforum every couple of weeks, so I've really only scanned this thread, but there are two points @Dr. Pepper has repeated several times that I feel the need to respond to:

1) Pro-gun people believe that dead children are an acceptable price to pay for access to firearms - Not at all true. In my experience most gun owners or strong second amendment proponents have little or no faith at all that increasingly restrictive gun laws will do anything to prevent gun violence. That's not the same as believing that there is a solution to the problem available, and choosing not to act.

2) Americans are raised to believe that they have a right to murder someone - There is a difference between believing that one needs to own a gun to be able to adequately defend themselves, and believing that their right to do so entitles them to murder. It's also worth pointing out that tragedies like Sandy Hook do as much to entrench people in the belief that they need guns as they do in exposing the problems with such belief. I'm not really a "gun person" myself, and I've spent most of my life in a fairly blue state (albeit in a conservative town), but I recall feeling a very strong desire to go out and buy a gun after that movie theater shooting in Colorado.

1.) Sorry, you can't claim that to be true when people are literally choosing not to act. If they choose not to act, then they've decided dead children are an acceptable price for guns.  Period.  

2.)Yes, Americans are definitely raised to be pro murder.  Guns are designed specifically to kill.  That's their purpose.  They aren't like other potentially deadly things that serve a different purpose.  For example, automobiles serve the purpose of getting someone from one place to the other.  They can be deadly, but their purpose is not to kill.  A pillow is to provide a soft, supportive place to lay your head when you sleep.  It can be deadly, but it's purpose isn't to kill.  Get the picture?  Americans have enshrined in their bill of rights that they have the right to possess an item specifically designed to kill.  

Further, there are a lot of things within our culture that feed into the 2A worship.  Anti-science sentiment for one (talking about Americans being ok with preventing research on gun violence, amongst other things), treating certain parts of our history as something positive or even just neutral instead of horrific (talking about manifest destiny and all that genocide that went along with that), the rugged individualism that's encouraged and celebrated.  All of this helps contribute to people feeling that their property rights - property which the purpose is to kill - supersedes other people's right to life.  

 

When there are significant changes in how we react to dead children or how we view guns, then perhaps your statements might be valid.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dr. Pepper said:

We're talking about the opposite, dear.  You know, NOT having children murdered by the truckload.  Because pro-murder and the acceptability of dead children is so entrenched in the culture, it will take a huge dramatic action to change that, to make dead children in classrooms unacceptable.

You alluded to needing a hammer. I have to believe Sandy Hook was one hell of a hammer, but no one had the guts to pick it up and swing it. That's all I was saying. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

We're talking about the opposite, dear.  You know, NOT having children murdered by the truckload.  Because pro-murder and the acceptability of dead children is so entrenched in the culture,

it's this kind of reductionist rhetoric that sets back these conversations significantly.  

This is pretty much exactly the kind of argument pro lifers make.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Let's Get Kraken said:

Do you consider there to be a distinction between "killing" and "murder"?

Yes, let's argue semantics and legal definitions. 

Do you consider there to be a distinction between alive and dead?  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours 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.

And the assumption as fact that the 2nd Ammendment cannot and will not be touched is the bedrock of that culture.

The Canadian comparison is way off, btw. Firstly, there are 3 categories of gun (legal, restricted, prohibited), and only hunting guns (rifles and long shotguns) have the kind of legality that all guns have in the states. Then there are restricted and prohibited guns, the latter being any kind of concealable gun, handguns of .25 or .32 > caliber,and/or multi-fire/automatics, any altered gun, any hand-sized gun...really, the list is way too long. There are specific handguns (a la target shooting) which are restricted rather than prohibited, but you need to take 2 separate courses, pass 2 separate tests, get 2 separate licences (with periods between each, btw) and even then excepting at licensed ranges those must at all times be unloaded, locked and partially dismantled. 

Secondly, using a gun in self-defence is very problematic, and almost never cited. The person claiming self-defense must prove absolutely that his/her life was immediately in danger and that no alternative (running away, for example) was available. Defending property/being burgled and such like is in no way considered applicable. Carrying a handgun (openly or concealed) is completely illegal excepting for law-enforcement officials and similar. 

So basically when Americans mention Canada as an example of gun freedom without the violence, they are misapplying the example. Almost all the guns are hunting guns, which even in America are rarely used in the kinds of shootings we're seeing more and more, and even where people are afforded the privilege to own guns the procedures to get and restrictions on keeping guns are the stuff of 2nd Ammendment defenders nightmares. It can be so only because we, like pretty much every industrialized country other than the US, do not see keeping guns designed to kill humans as a right. If you want to start from the ground up, Scot, that's where it's buried, along with all the casualties of insane/outdated legislation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Let's Get Kraken said:

You're coming back at me with sarcasm, but I actually think what I asked was a pretty relevant question to our current discussion.

Most people believe that under some extreme circumstances, killing another human being is permissible (self defense, etc.). if what you're saying is that gun culture in America fosters an environment in which killing is made too permissible, then I agree with you. I think the way that "popular art" fetishizes violence instead of exploring the negative consequences of destructive forces probably has a lot to do with that as well,

Do you have data to support this?  most of what I've read says basically 'inconclusive', or 'no strong causal link'.  

I haven't seen anythign really that supports it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

You alluded to needing a hammer. I have to believe Sandy Hook was one hell of a hammer, but no one had the guts to pick it up and swing it. That's all I was saying. 

This is, frankly, bullshit.  There was a ton of fun control legislation proposed list Sandy Hook and while some of it was admittedly of base (aesthetic restrictions) the electorate was so opposed to anything Obama that it was a nonstarter.  Don't act like this shit failed to happen in a vacuum.  This is the culture the republican party has coddled and fondled for years.  They've essentially been a wholly owned subsidiary of the firearms industry.  And always have flourishes in the wake of Sandy Hook.  Much like environmental issues, the GOP response has been to pick the most disastrous course of action, spin it to the masses, and floor it.  Anyone calling for serious gun reform was laughed out of town after Sandy Hook.  Fuck, we had ten years worth gun control thread s on this board in six months time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Let's Get Kraken said:

Not really, that part was mostly just me thinking out loud, going off of what I see in my own personal life. Anecdotal evidence and such. Though if you know of any recent studies that point in either direction I'd be interested in reading them.

I certainly don't want to come off all "Fredric Wertham" about it. But art both reflects and influences the mentality of the society that births it, and the sociological significance of this cannot be overstated. Just look at the tremendous impact that the music of the 1960s and 1970s had on the civil rights movement. It's even true of the campy stuff. British scifi following the second World War was all about alien spaceships and death from the sky, the American slasher movie rose to prominence following the serial killer craze of the 1980s when Ted Bundy and John Wayne Gacey were arrested, the list goes on.

It just seems to me like lately for every book, movie, video game, whatever, that explores the negative consequences of violence on society (like ASoIaF), there are half a dozen that just wallow in them, or raise the "badasses" who practice violence up to a place of reverence (like Game of Thrones).

Again, this is all just me thinking speculating.

Sure, that makes sense in that context.

i think where that sort of falls apart though, is that violent crime, overall, is down(and continuing to drop) while I'm not sure the same can be said about the type of media you're talking about.

I'll do some digging later if i get some time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

This is, frankly, bullshit.  There was a ton of fun control legislation proposed list Sandy Hook and while some of it was admittedly of base (aesthetic restrictions) the electorate was so opposed to anything Obama that it was a nonstarter.  Don't act like this shit failed to happen in a vacuum.  This is the culture the republican party has coddled and fondled for years.  

If you're interested in the actual demographics around the support for gun control, they can be found here:

http://www.pewresearch.org/2011/01/13/views-of-gun-control-a-detailed-demographic-breakdown/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Let's Get Kraken said:

I know poverty-driven crime has been dropping, but is the same true of the sort of crime we've been discussing here? School shootings, spousal abuse, etc?

Violent crime in general is on a downward trend, and has been for some time.

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/dueling-claims-on-crime-trend/

I am not sure about mass shootings at this point.  As of a few years ago they seemed to be no more prevalent.  it's possible they've upticked the past few years.  But that would be an oddly specific way for your theory to display it's effects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

This is, frankly, bullshit.  There was a ton of fun control legislation proposed list Sandy Hook and while some of it was admittedly of base (aesthetic restrictions) the electorate was so opposed to anything Obama that it was a nonstarter.  Don't act like this shit failed to happen in a vacuum.  This is the culture the republican party has coddled and fondled for years.  They've essentially been a wholly owned subsidiary of the firearms industry.  And always have flourishes in the wake of Sandy Hook.  Much like environmental issues, the GOP response has been to pick the most disastrous course of action, spin it to the masses, and floor it.  Anyone calling for serious gun reform was laughed out of town after Sandy Hook.  Fuck, we had ten years worth gun control thread s on this board in six months time.

Okay, perhaps an attempt was made, but NOTHING FUCKING HAPPENED. On the back of what was in my mind the most horrific gun crime in the history of this country. So I simply can't agree with your bullshit pronouncement here. I'm not going to go so far as to blame Obama, but do you really feel like he used this moment to its' fullest effect? It seems to me the White House could've done a lot more than it did. You could've made a DEVASTATING PSA on the back of that event. Did you ever see one? I didn't. I agree with you in terms of blame that you could point to Congress and the Senate and the Gun Lobby first, but I think it's fair to say that any effort on the Left side of the aisle was lackluster, given the disastrous nature of the event. This was a formative moment. And it was largely wasted, IMHO.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Okay, perhaps an attempt was made, but NOTHING FUCKING HAPPENED. On the back of what was in my mind the most horrific gun crime in the history of this country. So I simply can't agree with your bullshit pronouncement here. I'm not going to go so far as to blame Obama, but do you really feel like he used this moment to its' fullest effect? It seems to me the White House could've done a lot more than it did. You could've made a DEVASTATING PSA on the back of that event. Did you ever see one? I didn't. I agree with you in terms of blame that you could point to Congress and the Senate and the Gun Lobby first, but I think it's fair to say that any effort on the Left side of the aisle was lackluster, given the disastrous nature of the event. This was a formative moment. And it was largely wasted, IMHO.

The problem that the gun control crowd has is that it's particularly difficult to prove the efficacy of anything that actually has any chance of being enacted.  The devil is in the details.

And gun crime is decreasing, so before we make any kind of drastic changes, it's important to understand what is causing this decrease.

And of course, there is the issue of the geographical concentrations of this particular type of violence.......

 

 

 

Quote

If there has been an uptick it's probably the result of several factors. I certainly don't mean to imply that media is solely responsible.

Thanks for the link.

Definitely.  I don't necessarily claim to know the answers, just that they are not as simple as extreme voices on either side like to make them out to be,.(not referring to you, here)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Swordfish said:

The problem that the gun control crowd has is that it's particularly difficult to prove the efficacy of anything that actually has any chance of being enacted.  The devil is in the details.

And gun crime is decreasing, so before we make any kind of drastic changes, it's important to understand what is causing this decrease.

And of course, there is the issue of the geographical concentrations of this particular type of violence.......

Frankly I don't give a hairy rat's ass about efficacy when scaled against the lives of 20 5-6 year olds. Something substantial had to be done on the back of that. I think it's shameful that nothing substantial was done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Frankly I don't give a hairy rat's ass about efficacy when scaled against the lives of 20 5-6 year olds. Something substantial had to be done on the back of that. I think it's shameful that nothing substantial was done.

Yeah, but it's not what you care about that passes legislation. And the pro-gun rights crowd will use any and all ammunition to decimate any such legislation, and that includes just what Swordfish pointed to. 

Which kind of ties into what Larry was saying too. I honestly think you all have good points here; they're all facets of why nothing has happened on this front, and why nothing will continue to happen. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, IamMe90 said:

Yeah, but it's not what you care about that passes legislation. And the pro-gun rights crowd will use any and all ammunition to decimate any such legislation, and that includes just what Swordfish pointed to. 

Which kind of ties into what Larry was saying too. I honestly think you all have good points here; they're all facets of why nothing has happened on this front, and why nothing will continue to happen. 

True. I don't know what the answer is, I just know it's not "ah well, too much money and political will on the other side, guess we'll just let this one slide."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

True. I don't know what the answer is, I just know it's not "ah well, too much money and political will on the other side, guess we'll just let this one slide."

On that, I agree. But I feel the same way about climate change. And I honestly have no fucking clue what the way to go about this is. It's mind boggling! Sometimes it feels like the total dissolution of the Republican party is the only thing that can move these issues forward. Which is obviously not going to happen anytime soon...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, IamMe90 said:

On that, I agree. But I feel the same way about climate change. And I honestly have no fucking clue what the way to go about this is. It's mind boggling! Sometimes it feels like the total dissolution of the Republican party is the only thing that can move these issues forward. Which is obviously not going to happen anytime soon...

With the gun issue, I think the easy answer is money. There is nothing on the Gun Control side of the aisle that even vaguely resembles the NRA in terms of money and influence. Seems to me that's there's more money in the Green Energy movement and other aspects of climate change. Not as much as is on the other side of the aisle, but at least there's something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...