Firearms. Who or what is dangerous? |
![]() |
| log in |
Message boards : Politics : Firearms. Who or what is dangerous?
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 . . . 25 · Next
| Author | Message |
|---|---|
|
Saw a pic of the Webster Whack Job. | |
| ID: 1319755 · | |
|
What happened at Sandy Hook Elementary is unthinkable. I expect people to have an emotive, visceral response to such a tragedy. I am a father. Upon hearing the news I rushed home and held my daughter tight and I wept. I am sure a lot of Americans did. But I also rushed home to hold my daughter when I saw the leaked gunship footage from the Bradley Manning bundle, which depicts a US military helicopter blowing civilian vehicles to bits, vehicles with Iraqi children in them. My fear is that that is the difference between me and most Americans. Their response to tragedy is not evenly apportioned. It is often myopic and divorced from broader acts of savagery undertaken by their own government. Their response is often simplistic, easily goaded by political leaders and the media with ad metum and ad bellum appeals. I believe that most Americans live in an infantilized, Disney-fied version of the world, where it's somehow alright to decry gun violence when a domestic shooting occurs in an American mall or school, but fail to possess the same indignation and outrage when a US military drone kills a dozen children in Pakistan. Human savagery behaves like a liquid; you cannot agitate it without causing ripples. It spills over and leaks. It gathers and concentrates in the lowest possible points, and it doesn't magically stop at fences and concertina wire. Every facet of the US economy and indeed every mainstream political agenda, liberal and conservative, is intrinsically tied to and dependent upon the culture of militarism and conquest that the United States has imbibed in since at least the Spanish American war. America spends more on its military than any other nation on earth by far. Her social policies and welfare state depend utterly on a GDP that is super charged by global economic marginalization and an unfair advantage in world markets and natural resource extraction, and this is accomplished through militarism, clandestine warfare and bloody regime pacification, which the US engages in regularly under the auspices of its rapacious foreign policy and its endless actual and notional wars, such as the war of terror and the war on drugs. A huge byproduct of this paradigm are the countless military grade weapons waiting to leak through US borders in the event of the supply vacuum caused by a new prohibition on gun ownership. Many of these weapons would be American made and our savagery on the world stage would come home to roost in an even more violent and sadly ironic way than it has with our plethora of deranged gunman. That is not a pro-gun statement. It is a pro-reality assertion. It is cheaper to jump through legal hoops and acquire a gun than it is to deal with the black market, but a gun prohibition would eradicate this cost prohibition, and just like heroin and cocaine before them, M4 rifles would make their way onto American streets. The same weapons that have killed and maimed in the hands of despots would now simply trickle into the US and continue to kill and maim in the hands of gangs or lunatics. Instead of guns flowing out and drugs flowing in, guns and drugs would flow in, because prohibition does not work. You cannot bridle supply by ignoring or legislating against demand. Guns are a symptom, not a cause, and this nation has some deep soul searching to do, about what kind of nation it wants to be and how it wants to project itself at home and abroad, and our militaristic teleology needs to be parsed before any other cultural, clinical or other contributors to these shootings can be addressed. Might I also remind this particularly tech savvy audience that 3D printers are only getting smaller and more powerful. Guns can already be "printed." The implications for this are that the 2nd Amendment is effectively redundant, and with it, law enforcement and the desire to put the genie back in the bottle. | |
| ID: 1319759 · | |
What happened at Sandy Hook Elementary is unthinkable. I expect people to have an emotive, visceral response to such a tragedy. I am a father. Upon hearing the news I rushed home and held my daughter tight and I wept. I am sure a lot of Americans did. But I also rushed home to hold my daughter when I saw the leaked gunship footage from the Bradley Manning bundle, which depicts a US military helicopter blowing civilian vehicles to bits, vehicles with Iraqi children in them. My fear is that that is the difference between me and most Americans. Their response to tragedy is not evenly apportioned. It is often myopic and divorced from broader acts of savagery undertaken by their own government. Their response is often simplistic, easily goaded by political leaders and the media with ad metum and ad bellum appeals. I believe that most Americans live in an infantilized, Disney-fied version of the world, where it's somehow alright to decry gun violence when a domestic shooting occurs in an American mall or school, but fail to possess the same indignation and outrage when a US military drone kills a dozen children in Pakistan. Human savagery behaves like a liquid; you cannot agitate it without causing ripples. It spills over and leaks. It gathers and concentrates in the lowest possible points, and it doesn't magically stop at fences and concertina wire. Every facet of the US economy and indeed every mainstream political agenda, liberal and conservative, is intrinsically tied to and dependent upon the culture of militarism and conquest that the United States has imbibed in since at least the Spanish American war. America spends more on its military than any other nation on earth by far. Her social policies and welfare state depend utterly on a GDP that is super charged by global economic marginalization and an unfair advantage in world markets and natural resource extraction, and this is accomplished through militarism, clandestine warfare and bloody regime pacification, which the US engages in regularly under the auspices of its rapacious foreign policy and its endless actual and notional wars, such as the war of terror and the war on drugs. A huge byproduct of this paradigm are the countless military grade weapons waiting to leak through US borders in the event of the supply vacuum caused by a new prohibition on gun ownership. Many of these weapons would be American made and our savagery on the world stage would come home to roost in an even more violent and sadly ironic way than it has with our plethora of deranged gunman. That is not a pro-gun statement. It is a pro-reality assertion. It is cheaper to jump through legal hoops and acquire a gun than it is to deal with the black market, but a gun prohibition would eradicate this cost prohibition, and just like heroin and cocaine before them, M4 rifles would make their way onto American streets. The same weapons that have killed and maimed in the hands of despots would now simply trickle into the US and continue to kill and maim in the hands of gangs or lunatics. Instead of guns flowing out and drugs flowing in, guns and drugs would flow in, because prohibition does not work. You cannot bridle supply by ignoring or legislating against demand. Guns are a symptom, not a cause, and this nation has some deep soul searching to do, about what kind of nation it wants to be and how it wants to project itself at home and abroad, and our militaristic teleology needs to be parsed before any other cultural, clinical or other contributors to these shootings can be addressed. Might I also remind this particularly tech savvy audience that 3D printers are only getting smaller and more powerful. Guns can already be "printed." The implications for this are that the 2nd Amendment is effectively redundant, and with it, law enforcement and the desire to put the genie back in the bottle. Wow, Excellent first post. Welcome to the forums. ____________ In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move. - Douglas Adams | |
| ID: 1319760 · | |
Saw a pic of the Webster Whack Job. You're right, people don't part their hair anymore. Can we keep him distracted? May the odds be ever in your favor in 2013. | |
| ID: 1319769 · | |
What happened at Sandy Hook Elementary is unthinkable. I expect people to have an emotive, visceral response to such a tragedy. I am a father. Upon hearing the news I rushed home and held my daughter tight and I wept. I am sure a lot of Americans did. But I also rushed home to hold my daughter when I saw the leaked gunship footage from the Bradley Manning bundle, which depicts a US military helicopter blowing civilian vehicles to bits, vehicles with Iraqi children in them. My fear is that that is the difference between me and most Americans. Their response to tragedy is not evenly apportioned. It is often myopic and divorced from broader acts of savagery undertaken by their own government. Their response is often simplistic, easily goaded by political leaders and the media with ad metum and ad bellum appeals. I believe that most Americans live in an infantilized, Disney-fied version of the world, where it's somehow alright to decry gun violence when a domestic shooting occurs in an American mall or school, but fail to possess the same indignation and outrage when a US military drone kills a dozen children in Pakistan. Human savagery behaves like a liquid; you cannot agitate it without causing ripples. It spills over and leaks. It gathers and concentrates in the lowest possible points, and it doesn't magically stop at fences and concertina wire. Every facet of the US economy and indeed every mainstream political agenda, liberal and conservative, is intrinsically tied to and dependent upon the culture of militarism and conquest that the United States has imbibed in since at least the Spanish American war. America spends more on its military than any other nation on earth by far. Her social policies and welfare state depend utterly on a GDP that is super charged by global economic marginalization and an unfair advantage in world markets and natural resource extraction, and this is accomplished through militarism, clandestine warfare and bloody regime pacification, which the US engages in regularly under the auspices of its rapacious foreign policy and its endless actual and notional wars, such as the war of terror and the war on drugs. A huge byproduct of this paradigm are the countless military grade weapons waiting to leak through US borders in the event of the supply vacuum caused by a new prohibition on gun ownership. Many of these weapons would be American made and our savagery on the world stage would come home to roost in an even more violent and sadly ironic way than it has with our plethora of deranged gunman. That is not a pro-gun statement. It is a pro-reality assertion. It is cheaper to jump through legal hoops and acquire a gun than it is to deal with the black market, but a gun prohibition would eradicate this cost prohibition, and just like heroin and cocaine before them, M4 rifles would make their way onto American streets. The same weapons that have killed and maimed in the hands of despots would now simply trickle into the US and continue to kill and maim in the hands of gangs or lunatics. Instead of guns flowing out and drugs flowing in, guns and drugs would flow in, because prohibition does not work. You cannot bridle supply by ignoring or legislating against demand. Guns are a symptom, not a cause, and this nation has some deep soul searching to do, about what kind of nation it wants to be and how it wants to project itself at home and abroad, and our militaristic teleology needs to be parsed before any other cultural, clinical or other contributors to these shootings can be addressed. Might I also remind this particularly tech savvy audience that 3D printers are only getting smaller and more powerful. Guns can already be "printed." The implications for this are that the 2nd Amendment is effectively redundant, and with it, law enforcement and the desire to put the genie back in the bottle. +1 ____________ | |
| ID: 1319797 · | |
Might I also remind this particularly tech savvy audience that 3D printers are only getting smaller and more powerful. Guns can already be "printed." The implications for this are that the 2nd Amendment is effectively redundant, and with it, law enforcement and the desire to put the genie back in the bottle. Actually you can rather easily make many assault rifles in a garage workshop today. See http://www.cncguns.com/ for example. Obviously drug cartels have more than enough cash to purchase equipment capable of turning out dozens of such weapons per day. They also wouldn't be bound to make them semi-auto either, or have size requirements on magazines or put serial numbers on them. No, the genie is out of the bottle forever, just like stills were out of the bottle for prohibition. ____________ | |
| ID: 1319803 · | |
Might I also remind this particularly tech savvy audience that 3D printers are only getting smaller and more powerful. Guns can already be "printed." The implications for this are that the 2nd Amendment is effectively redundant, and with it, law enforcement and the desire to put the genie back in the bottle. I do find it strange here that the pro-gun lobby here seem to getting confused with the difference between gun regulation and prohibition. Then throwing up arguments against gun regulation based on this. Even the UK doesn't have gun prohibition. They just have very strict regulation on who can have guns, what sort of guns and how they are stored. ____________ In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move. - Douglas Adams | |
| ID: 1319805 · | |
|
I cannot deny that what happened is tragic. I will not deny that I too was saddened to my core and cried. If one did not feel for the loss then one is the same as the young man who took innocent life. That was the whole point of the questions tossed at me here by a number of people. They only wanted to make a point and at any cost. Even to the point of being intellectually dishonest. | |
| ID: 1319809 · | |
|
It also surprises me that for all the guns in the US they don't seem to appear anywhere near the top in sports that use guns. | |
| ID: 1319810 · | |
|
Are you sure your understanding of ethics and morals are correct? | |
| ID: 1319816 · | |
Are you sure your understanding of ethics and morals are correct? I think that pretty much covers it. ____________ In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move. - Douglas Adams | |
| ID: 1319820 · | |
I cannot deny that what happened is tragic. I will not deny that I too was saddened to my core and cried. Sad? You should be angry. Very, very angry. ____________ In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move. - Douglas Adams | |
| ID: 1319821 · | |
|
If you only spoke the language you would know the difference. | |
| ID: 1319903 · | |
|
The moment ethics and morality are separated you have none of either. Fatwa is one result. The inquisition is another. The suspension of one because of the other. There is no suspension ever. They are identical. | |
| ID: 1319918 · | |
I do find it strange here that the pro-gun lobby here seem to getting confused with the difference between gun regulation and prohibition. Then throwing up arguments against gun regulation based on this. The proposals are prohibitions, not regulation. Regulation, you must sell a trigger lock with every gun. Regulation, you must have a gun safe. Prohibition, it is illegal to sell a 30 round magazine. Prohibition, it is illegal to own a semi-automatic weapon. ____________ | |
| ID: 1319919 · | |
I do find it strange here that the pro-gun lobby here seem to getting confused with the difference between gun regulation and prohibition. Then throwing up arguments against gun regulation based on this. But there does have to be a limit on what weapons a private citizen can own. Under your definition all weapons above that limit are prohibited, or should people be able to own grenade launchers, tanks, artillery guns etc. There is no circumstances that I can think of where 30 round magazines or assault rifles are needed. | |
| ID: 1319926 · | |
Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home. source For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides. source The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development has 31 nations it terms "High Income", they are Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime provides details of firearm homicides per 100,000 of the population here. Of the OECD High Income nations, the US has the highest firearm homicide rate at 3.2, in second place is Switzerland, with a rate of 0.8. USA #1 by a factor of 4, yay us. How the NRA operates. ____________ I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ... | |
| ID: 1319935 · | |
Under your definition all weapons above that limit are prohibited, or should people be able to own grenade launchers, tanks, artillery guns etc. This may come as a surprise to you but I know someone who does own them. ____________ | |
| ID: 1319936 · | |
Under your definition all weapons above that limit are prohibited, or should people be able to own grenade launchers, tanks, artillery guns etc. Are they modern and are they in working order. | |
| ID: 1319940 · | |
Under your definition all weapons above that limit are prohibited, or should people be able to own grenade launchers, tanks, artillery guns etc. For security reasons I shouldn't answer that. Take that non-answer as your answer. ____________ | |
| ID: 1319956 · | |
Message boards : Politics : Firearms. Who or what is dangerous?
| Copyright © 2013 University of California |