The latest school massacres
I'm surprised there is no general current event thread about school killings.
They keep happening, so we should at least acknowledge them.
Today is Oregon's 15-minutes of fame.
This is my reaction. It sounds familiar doesn't it ?
HEY HEY HEY ... N R A
How many kids did you kill today ?
Oregon: (10/1/15 3:00 pm): 13 dead and counting, with 20 wounded
.
That'll help the school overcrowding problem, and since the teachers work load is reduced cut their pay.
I'm not a gun nut, but the NRA didn't kill anyone today.
Young wippersnapper --- neither did LBJ, but that didn't mean he wasn't responsible.
[YOUTUBE]J_krQH_zZqE[/YOUTUBE]
That's what happens when a State makes euthanasia legal. Kids who don't know any better think that makes it OK to euthanize others whether they want to die or not. The shame that is Oregon's citizens-killers.
Bullshit. Having guns around doesn't stop this shit.
Here are the rules in America. These rules are followed by all media.
I didn't make the rules, the culture did, so don't blame me. The rules are racist because the culture is racist. You are racist too.
- When a white person kills a white person, it's because of guns.
- When a white person kills a black person, it's because of race.
- When a black person kills a white person, it's a terrible event.
- When a black person kills a black person, it's expected behavior and doesn't require any explanation.
NRA aren't responsible for school shootings - but they are partly responsible for the creation of a culture that glorifies, indeed all but sanctifies, guns and gun ownership.
It's a political fight, and the NRA is the largest and most powerful member of the guns rights side. That guns are so easy to obtain and so difficult to regulate is due largely to the efforts of the NRA.
The responsibility of the shootings lies with the shooters, just like the responsibility for accidents caused by drunk drivers lies with the drunk drivers. We have common sense regulations for bars regulating who they can serve, and when they can serve them, and how much they can serve them. It would be smart to have some common sense regulations for guns. I don't pretend to know what those would look like, but fighting every regulation is what the NRA does. If that organization got in front of the problem of guns being used in these mass shootings and proposed some common sense solutions, they could actually do some good. You know, like they used to when their main focus was gun safety and education instead of political fundraising. It would be nice if the NRA was part of the solution.
The problem as I see it, is less about controls (though I think some controls might be a wise move), it's the rhetoric around guns and the cultural place of guns in America.
Guns have always had an important part to play in American culture, but in recent decades the fight for gun rights -v- gun control, has over-emphasised that role. Guns are up there with Jesus - they're not just a right, they're an essential expression of patriotism and nationhood. They've become sanctified, and fetishised. Hollywood plays its part - but the NRA have done a great deal to imbue guns with far greater significance at an identity level, than they should ever have.
This issue is clearly not just about proliferation of weapons. Many countries have widespread gun ownership and minimal gun control but they don't seem to experience the same level of school massacres.
[eta] I am aware I am commenting on something I am only able to view from the outside and as such may be missing certain nuances.
Or maybe viewing from the outside allows you to see certain nuances.
You're spot on with the culture being the primary problem. The NRA could be a big help by taking the position that the laws would help the law biding gun owners by keeping the weapons out of the hands of baddies. But they've staunchly maintained a fer us or agin us position, because that makes them the most visible leader of the fight for the common man against the big bad government/eastern eggheads, which makes the money flow into their coffers.
Trump learned to tap into that same common man defense to attract the disgruntled, but for personal aggrandizement rather than wealth. While the NRA wants to turn back the clock to the 1880s, Trump's promising to turn back to the 1950s, it says so on his hat. :haha:
Of course nobody in either camp mentions the 1880s was an era of lawlessness and high personal danger, and 1950s was an era of big government, and strong unions.
NRA aren't responsible for school shootings - but they are partly responsible for the creation of a culture that glorifies, indeed all but sanctifies, guns and gun ownership.
I'll agree with that.
The NRA could be a big help by taking the position that the laws would help the law biding gun owners by keeping the weapons out of the hands of baddies.
The problem with that is determining who the "baddies" really are.
The problem with that is determining who the "baddies" really are.
Not really, "baddies" is enough to get people's support, because it instantly triggers what their own fears have determined who baddies are. Might be inner city thugs, motorcycle gangs, drug dealers, Immigrants, gangsters, etc. Promoting, if the gumint don't take your guns, you are safe and invincible, it just folly.
Perspective gets distorted by headlines.
...
The problem with that is determining who the "baddies" really are.
The problem is that they're "goodies" right up to the minute they massacre a bunch of innocents.
Public opinion doesn't seem to be swayed by mass shootings.
The problem is that they're "goodies" right up to the minute they massacre a bunch of innocents.
Isn't the definition of murder the death of innocents?
Otherwise it's manslaughter/ self-defense.
[don't slaughter me if I'm wrong, it'll be a difference in UK/ US law]
Oh, the above is simply me being anal - Spex isn't necessarily wrong.
It just occurred to me that these people are murderers. Britain's most prolific killers did not need guns. The fact that guns feature in the death of "innocents" in the US is just a blip of time and space if you're of a murderous bent IMO.
That said, much as I adore Wolf (the only non-hunting gun-toting Dwellar I can think of off the top of my head) I'd be completely weirded out by seeing any of you carrying a lethal weapon around. That's just my feelings, having not grown up with guns.
Where and when I grew up, seeing someone with a gun would be natural. Here and now I would immediately try to assess their actions and intent, because it's far less common. Spex is right, but in most cases, the post tragedy examination shows plenty of warning signs. That's why the chart of specific proposals has much higher support than the ban/not ban question PEW asked.
I feel those charts reflect my own reaction to those questions, in that my answer to should we ban guns is a sound no, as I think that's throwing out the baby with the bath water and would not solve anything. But the questions about individual initiatives, I can wholeheartedly support. This is what I mentioned earlier about the NRA being wrong in their no restrictions stance, rather than supporting some laws.
At this point, it feels like the first instinct of some folks, when hearing of any national tragedy, is to press hard for their particular political agenda.
"A terrible thing has occurred! And the most important thing is, HOW CAN WE USE IT???"
Those people going on rampages might not have done the deed if they were getting laid more often and that's why we need to legalize prostitution.
Now, what were you sayin' UT?
That won't work, it's not related closely enough. To legalize prostitution you would need a mass fucking, not a mass killing.
I don't know, I think "We the People" are taking a mass fucking every day. ;)
USE it, Bobby!
https://www.bobbyjindal.com/jindal-we-fill-our-culture-with-garbage/
What is the root cause of all these evil acts? These people who go into classrooms and churches and murder innocent people? How did we get to this place?
These shootings are a symptom of deep and serious cultural decay in our society.
Let that sink in for a minute.
These acts of evil are a direct result of cultural rot, and it is cultural rot that we have brought upon ourselves, and then we act like we are confounded and perplexed by what is happening here.
What if I told you that, over the last 25 years, as society has sunk into the abyss,
Rape, torture, murder, mass murder, all are cinematic achievements. Our music does the same thing, we promote evil, we promote the degradation of women, we flaunt the laws of God and common decency and we promote it all and we flood our young people with it, and... We have generations of young boys who were raised on video games where they compete with other young boys around the country and the world to see who can kill the most humans. We make it so fun, so realistic, so sensational.
What if I told you that after
all that...
...for the last 25 years, murders and violent crime are way way down?
America's Faulty Perception of Crime Rates
Today, the national crime rate is about half of what it was at its height in 1991. Violent crime has fallen by 51 percent since 1991, and property crime by 43 percent. In 2013 the violent crime rate was the lowest since 1970.
Do you still think it's culture?
Isn't the definition of murder the death of innocents?
Otherwise it's manslaughter/ self-defense.
[don't slaughter me if I'm wrong, it'll be a difference in UK/ US law]
Oh, the above is simply me being anal - Spex isn't necessarily wrong.
...
I say innocents because I don't think there'd be much outcry if someone killed a bunch of murderers and rapists.;)
At this point, it feels like the first instinct of some folks, when hearing of any national tragedy, is to press hard for their particular political agenda.
"A terrible thing has occurred! And the most important thing is, HOW CAN WE USE IT???"
USE it, Bobby!
https://www.bobbyjindal.com/jindal-we-fill-our-culture-with-garbage/
Et tu, Brute !
.
...for the last 25 years, murders and violent crime are way way down?
Chart is deceiving. Total number of violent crimes is irrelevant. Crimes per GDP are relevant. Relating same data to the population is number of violent crimes per citizen:
2010 0.0040
2005 0.0047
2000 0.0050
1995 0.0068
1990 0.0072
1988 0.0064
1985 0.0055
1980 0.0059
1975 0.0048
1970 0.0036
1965 0.0019
1960 0.0015
Violent crime is down significantly. But not as much as the chart would have us believe. Crime rates are similar to crime in early 1970s.
In 2013 the violent crime rate was the lowest since 1970.
Blah blah blah... Crime rates are similar to crime in early 1970s.
Is there an echo in here?
A second look at that chart - it is violent crime per GDP. But the numbers are apparently per 100,000 people. My numbers are annual violent crimes per person.
tw, there's no such thing as violent crimes per GDP. Come on, what the hell is that, really?
tw, there's no such thing as violent crimes per GDP.
Replace GDP with per person. Forgot what the technical expression is.
At this point, it feels like the first instinct of some folks, when hearing of any national tragedy, is to press hard for their particular political agenda.
"A terrible thing has occurred! And the most important thing is, HOW CAN WE USE IT???"
A competing instinct is "A terrible thing has occurred! And the most important thing is, IT'S TOO SOON TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT!!!" And every subsequent event resets the TOO SOON timer.
Yes, I forgot that. We need time to grieve. Emotions are too high right now. Let's wait till things settle down.
That runs counter to Saul Alinsky's tactics, which were required reading at UC Berkeley. "Never let a good crisis go to waste."
In 2013 there were 8,454 homicides with a gun. Cops estimates 80% of those are gang/drug related, which are mostly in urban slums. Other people have a 0.000530%, or 1:188,700, chance of being killed with gun. Each year you statistically have a greater chance dying falling down stairs 1:180,000, or riding a bicycle 1:140,000.
See the problem? Numbers can be manipulated to support any position. Gun violence is something most people only see on TV news. It couldn’t happen here in my safe town/city. When it does, it’s a horrible thing, until the media assails you with the next horrible thing.
Looking at it practically, I read the other day the US has more guns than people, worth how many Trillions of dollars? How do you get rid of them? Pass a law like prohibition? Certainly the police must be exempted, and the Secret Service, maybe politicians. How about doctors, lawyers, or Indian chiefs?
Maybe a war on guns, since the wars on drugs, poverty, etc, worked so well. Until it’s no longer a political football, fuhgedaboudit.
Nobody really cares if the gangs and thugs kill each other off, but when their warfare spills over into the world of the regular folks, then it's a problem.
If somebody is being mugged for drug money and it goes wrong and they get killed, then do the cops dismiss that as drug related, or is that a real crime?
Nobody really cares if the gangs and thugs kill each other off, but when their warfare spills over into the world of the regular folks, then it's a problem.
...
It's hard to avoid giving a very sarcastic reply; but that is just not true.
"happy" ? I don't think anyone is happy, but ...
Hang on - you don't get a choice as to whether you were born with a vagina or not.
I'm not sure the same can be said for guns.
I mean, your country, your laws, none of my business, but I just thought it was worth mentioning.
Hang on - you don't get a choice as to whether you were born with a vagina or not.
Ever heard of Caitlyn Jenner? Was she born with one? Methinks not.
I'm sorry, but those two things do not equate. If you're not a driver, you shouldn't make laws about cars? Maybe, I could go with that. If you've never taught, you sholdn't make education law? Fine.
But having a gun and having a fucking vagina are not the same thing.
One gender making laws about what the other gender can do with their body is not the same as a set of people who don't own some things, making laws about whether someone else can own those things.
There are plenty of good arguments against gun control, and clearly there is some kind of identity level shit going on with gun control, but equating rights over vaginas and rights over guns is ridiculous and icky. Seriously, that shit makes my skin crawl.
Bad example. Caitlyn still doesn't have one.
Oh, and that quote about needing guns to disarm people - seriously? You can make a massive dent in the number of guns through the use of amnesties and buy-backs. The rest happens across time as new laws begin to bed down. There will always be people for whom illegality is enough of a barrier that simply making it illegal would reduce numbers.
It then becomes unsafe to use guns because - you shouldn't have it in the first place. It becomes a less comfortable thing to have. It becomes the thing you mitght get caught out on if the police pull you over for something unrelated, or have to turn up at your house because of a burglary. You won't get rid of all of the guns - as a nation I can't see you guys ever wanting that to happen. But you could make them less ubiquitous.
It doesn't happen over night. It happens in stages. It becomes a generational change.
And most of the stuff I've seen from the pro-control camp isn;t about ridding America of guns - ot's about setting some limits on the kinds of guns and ammo that can be bought and the level of availability.
You aren't allowed to just jump in a car and drive down the freeway without having learned how to drive and passed a test to prove it.
The "New Rule" conflicts with the last one. The government owns guns, and makes laws.
I guess.
I think, where I am coming from is that I generally trust my country's soldiers and police with guns marginally more than I trust my next door neighbour or my cousin's crazy ass husband with guns.
As cynical as I am about state and the sinews of power - I don't think I have anywhere near as much distrust and fear of them as you guys seem to. I cannot imagine stockpiling weapons for the day when they send in the troops. There are odd times, during periods of great upheaval and social unrest (like during the Vietnam War in America, and the poll tax demonstrations in the UK) where battle lines seem tobe drawn - and that's when you get incidents like Berkeley campus, or the army on standby, with rubber bullets at Downing Street.
But, whilst there are governments who can rely on their armies to quell the population through brute force, fire into crowds of of their own civilians, and uphold the rule of a dictator there are many governments whose armies would balk and desert in great numbers at the idea of such an attack. I think the US is in the latter camp.
To stay fully armed against the highly unlikely and wholly hypothetical possibility of the government going to war against its own people seems kind of bizarre to me. The logic of owning a gun in case I am threatened with volence by a nutjob rapist makes way more sense. The constitutional arguments just don't work for me. You can all have guns and the army would still be better armed. Unless you're also planning on getting kitted out with full kevlar body suits and anti-tank weaponry. And even then they would still be better armed. You would still have to rely on the notion that they would be unwilling to launch an all-out fucking napalm attack - you'd still be reliant on them observing some kind of self-imposed limit to the level of violence they're willing to mete out.
There are many kinds of freedom. Freedom from an armed populace and for the most part an armed police force is something I value.
[eta] I suspect a lot of that is down to a different history. Not least the history of law enforcement. The reason we only have specialist units of police that are armed, with the majority of police unarmed is something that comes from the way in which law enforcement developed here during the early days of police forces. We have as much of a cultural inclination towards unarmed police as you have a cultural inclination to armed police. That's one of the civil freedoms that characterises british culture - for the same reason we have, for most of the early modern and modern periods, had relatively small standing armies except in times of war. Because standing armies swore their loyalty to the monarch, we have always tended to have quite a large 'militia' component to our land forces.
The "New Rule" conflicts with the last one. The government owns guns, and makes laws.
I guess.
Just to be clear; I was responding to the meme post; I agree with you 100%.
The root cause of these events isn't guns. It is a lack of empathy. Empathy developed by having real connections with people. A friend was telling me today about something the teaching staff of the school she used to work at started doing after Columbine. Every Fall they would put every kid in the schools name on a 3x5 card on a wall. The teachers would put a check mark by every kids name that they felt they had a relationship with. They took away all the names of kids with a connection to staff and focused on the remaining kids the rest of the year slowly trying to build emotional connections with every one of them. This was a huge multi-year effort, but I think much more useful than pointing fingers left or right.
The root cause of these events isn't guns. It is a lack of empathy. Empathy developed by having real connections with people.
So suddenly we no longer have sufficient empathy? Nonsense. Empathy did not change. We now openly encourage everyone to use violent tools.
The study is indeed intriguing. But it does not address what has changed. We know throughout history, more guns means increases in violent deaths. We know people today suddenly 'need' to defend themselves where it was not so necessary BEFORE propaganda promoted that need and fear (ie 1950, 1960s).
But having a gun and having a fucking vagina are not the same thing.
I agree, however to me they're equally as dangerous. :p:
To stay fully armed against the highly unlikely and wholly hypothetical possibility of the government going to war against its own people seems kind of bizarre to me.
Yeah those are nut cases. They are small but vocal, I put them in the same drawer with second coming zealots.
[eta] I suspect a lot of that is down to a different history. Not least the history of law enforcement. The reason we only have specialist units of police that are armed, with the majority of police unarmed is something that comes from the way in which law enforcement developed here during the early days of police forces.
Our history is much different, in that large swaths of the country had no police, or just a US Marshall who covered thousands of square miles, self defense was a necessity. We also have a history of hunting, first for subsistence, then mostly for sport but still tradition. (A friend in north Jersey sent me a picture of a Bobcat in her yard, today.)
...for the same reason we have, for most of the early modern and modern periods, had relatively small standing armies except in times of war. Because standing armies swore their loyalty to the monarch, we have always tended to have quite a large 'militia' component to our land forces.
I wonder about that since we've moved from citizen solders to professionals. Where is their allegiance?
The root cause of these events isn't guns. It is a lack of empathy. Empathy developed by having real connections with people. A friend was telling me today about something the teaching staff of the school she used to work at started doing after Columbine. Every Fall they would put every kid in the schools name on a 3x5 card on a wall. The teachers would put a check mark by every kids name that they felt they had a relationship with. They took away all the names of kids with a connection to staff and focused on the remaining kids the rest of the year slowly trying to build emotional connections with every one of them. This was a huge multi-year effort, but I think much more useful than pointing fingers left or right.
I think that's big step to better results. Reminds me of
this teacher.
Hang on - you don't get a choice as to whether you were born with a vagina or not.
I'm not sure the same can be said for guns.
I beg your pardon? *I* get to choose to have a vajayjay. Didn't you get your choice form in the post? ;)
Hang on - you don't get a choice as to whether you were [SIZE="4"]born[/SIZE] with a vagina or not.
I beg your pardon? *I* get to choose to have a vajayjay.
Once again, their voices are missing from the debate.
Gun owners who favor restrictions on firearms say they are in the same position after the mass shooting in Oregon as they have been following other rampages — shut out of the argument.
The pattern, they say, is frustrating and familiar: The what-should-be-done discussion pits anti-gun groups against the National Rifle Association and its allies, who are adamantly opposed to any new restrictions on weapons.
Gun owners who occupy the middle ground complain that they are rarely sought out or heard, yet polls show the majority of gun owners support universal background checks and other controversial limits. President Obama is reportedly considering using his executive authority to impose new background check requirements on high-volume dealers in private sales — and many gun owners may support that.
“There’s this perception that people are neatly divided into folks who want an M1A1 Abrams battle tank to drive to work and those who want to melt every last gun and bullet into doorstops,” said Patrick Tomlinson, a science fiction writer and gun owner in Milwaukee who favors universal background checks and longer waiting periods for gun purchases. “There seems to be no middle there, but I know there is. I’m in it.”
WaPoSorry, my amended post above looks a bit shouty.
I was simply emphasising for clarity, not shouting at the screen in rage.
You actually can use policy to impact culture.
Let's imagine a scenario where one of the states requires to pass some actual training before getting a gun license. Early on there would be a big hoopla about gun control and whether it's constitutional.
But if it stands, then over a few months you are going to have a new rising group of gun owners with an exclusive club mentality - they feel like they earned it, where gun owners in other states did not. This can be a potent viral strain to infect american gun culture with - remember how the american republicans defended the patriot act and phone tapping and so on? If you don't have anything to hide, you have nothing to worry about. Much the same can happen here internally - within the NRA culture - if you don't want the tests it's because you don't think you can pass.
I'm sorry, but those two things do not equate. If you're not a driver, you shouldn't make laws about cars? Maybe, I could go with that. If you've never taught, you sholdn't make education law? Fine.
But having a gun and having a fucking vagina are not the same thing.
One gender making laws about what the other gender can do with their body is not the same as a set of people who don't own some things, making laws about whether someone else can own those things.
There are plenty of good arguments against gun control, and clearly there is some kind of identity level shit going on with gun control, but equating rights over vaginas and rights over guns is ridiculous and icky. Seriously, that shit makes my skin crawl.
But is the point really about choice, or about impact?
We all can get hit by cars or shot by lunatics, regardless of whether we own a car or a gun. likewise, whether it is forced fatherhood against someone's will (with possible jail time) or the other way around - killing someone who they believe in and view as their living breathing child - men are affected by them. Not to mention consent laws applying to both genitalia, and unfortunately censorship laws, because of.. reasons...
Note that I am pro-choice, but I disagree that they can't be equated - The point isn't a pro life one, but rather that anything which gives us the means to impact others becomes the business of others who don't want to be negatively impacted, regardless of the level of agency in the process of acquiring it, and regardless of whether we try to deal with it on a case by case basis through life or organize around it as a society.
In 2013 there were 8,454 homicides with a gun. Cops estimates 80% of those are gang/drug related, which are mostly in urban slums. Other people have a 0.000530%, or 1:188,700, chance of being killed with gun. Each year you statistically have a greater chance dying falling down stairs 1:180,000, or riding a bicycle 1:140,000.
See the problem? Numbers can be manipulated to support any position. Gun violence is something most people only see on TV news. It couldn’t happen here in my safe town/city. When it does, it’s a horrible thing, until the media assails you with the next horrible thing.
...
That pretty much negates the claim that people need guns to protect themselves. The chance they'll need to protect themselves is very slim.
If anyone in the "I accept carnage so that I can have all the guns I want" camp offered ANY ideas for ending mass shootings that didn't include gun control laws, I would listen.
My question to all the conservatives who, in the last two days, have said "we have to fix the mental illness problem", is
will you increase taxes on the wealthy to finance the programs? The point isn't a pro life one, but rather that anything which gives us the means to impact others becomes the business of others who don't want to be negatively impacted, regardless of the level of agency in the process of acquiring it, and regardless of whether we try to deal with it on a case by case basis through life or organize around it as a society.
Since my thoughts and words can affect others, then others should have the right to regulate my thoughts and words?
That reasoning stands on a very slippery slope.
WaPo
...Gun owners who favor restrictions on firearms say
they are in the same position after the mass shooting in Oregon
as they have been following other rampages — shut out of the argument.
The pattern, they say, is frustrating and familiar:
The what-should-be-done discussion pits anti-gun groups against
the National Rifle Association and its allies, who are adamantly
opposed to any new restrictions on weapons...
I believe there are many gun owners in this situation, and I have met some at field dog trials,
I have sometimes asked if they are a member of the NRA, and do they subscribe to the various NRA magazines.
This is where the NRA gets it's "membership" numbers, and a some of it's political power.
The NRA counts
all magazine subscribers as "members" and is speaking for them.
There is a very simple and powerful way to voice opposition to NRA's political positions - write a letter to voice your opinion and
CANCEL YOUR SUBSCRIPTIONS and maybe your NRA MEMBERSHIP.
.
The Catholic Church cooks their numbers similarly. It may be a common tactic across the board to make the general public think these are not tiny minorities of people making demands.
Let's imagine a scenario where one of the states requires to pass some actual training before getting a gun license. Early on there would be a big hoopla about gun control and whether it's constitutional.
But if it stands, then over a few months you are going to have a new rising group of gun owners with an exclusive club mentality - they feel like they earned it, where gun owners in other states did not. This can be a potent viral strain to infect american gun culture with - remember how the american republicans defended the patriot act and phone tapping and so on? If you don't have anything to hide, you have nothing to worry about. Much the same can happen here internally - within the NRA culture - if you don't want the tests it's because you don't think you can pass.
Nope, I don't give a rats ass about what they do in N J, or Ohio, and certainly not NY. The argument isn't whether you can pass a test or not, it's how much information you want the government to know about you and your guns. When the government representing the "thems", come in the night to grab the guns and children, send you to the camps, and turn the elderly into soylent green, will you be prepared? :rolleyes:
That pretty much negates the claim that people need guns to protect themselves. The chance they'll need to protect themselves is very slim.
Not at all. The chances of me setting myself on fire don't dissuade me from keeping a fire extinguisher. Actually the need to defend the castle, is a slogan, a canned catch all, a conversation ender. The reality is defense is only a small part of the equation, there are other reasons and uses. Personally, I like the benefit of longer, stronger boners, but that's just me, your mileage may vary.
I believe there are many gun owners in this situation, and I have met some at field dog trials, I have sometimes asked if they are a member of the NRA, and do they subscribe to the various NRA magazines.
This is where the NRA gets it's "membership" numbers, and a some of it's political power.
The NRA counts all magazine subscribers as "members" and is speaking for them.
There is a very simple and powerful way to voice opposition to NRA's political positions - write a letter to voice your opinion and
CANCEL YOUR SUBSCRIPTIONS and maybe your NRA MEMBERSHIP.
This has always been my opposition to lifetime memberships. Once you're in, you're in. You can't quit, even if you die you're still on the books.
The Catholic Church cooks their numbers similarly. It may be a common tactic across the board to make the general public think these are not tiny minorities of people making demands.
Yes, think of all the people on the mailing list for the insurance seller, AARP. When I approached 50 they offered an 8 year membership for $40. Silly me, 15 years after it expired, they still contribute heavily to my trash. I'm sure I'm counted in their powerbase. :(
Since my thoughts and words can affect others, then others should have the right to regulate my thoughts and words?
That reasoning stands on a very slippery slope.
I am not saying it generates rights - whether your reaction to how it can effect you has a right to be forceful or part of social organized force is another matter altogether - even if only women had a vote for "womb regulations" it would still be an application of organized force by whoever side won over the side that didn't, whether they had a right to do so would still have the same questions and problems, and is not granted by the fact they'd all be women.
Rather, I am saying that the "if you aren't x you don't get to decide comment or have opinions on things related to x" line of arguments is nonsense - you don't have to be something to have invested interest in it, whether it's womb owners or gun owners.
I am not saying it generates rights - whether your reaction to how it can effect you has a right to be forceful or part of social organized force is another matter altogether - even if only women had a vote for "womb regulations" it would still be an application of organized force by whoever side won over the side that didn't, whether they had a right to do so would still have the same questions and problems, and is not granted by the fact they'd all be women.
Rather, I am saying that the "if you aren't x you don't get to decide comment or have opinions on things related to x" line of arguments is nonsense - you don't have to be something to have invested interest in it, whether it's womb owners or gun owners.
I agree - I have never really liked the 'if you don't have X experience then you don't get a view' argument. I have never been a soldier, but I'm damn sure I have an opinion on what my country's soldiers do when they are in someone else's country. I don't drive, but I have an opinion on the state of the roads.
My only real problem with the earlier points was the equating of vaginas and guns. Women's bodies are routinely objectified in a way that male bodies are not. Time and again I hear people make the argument that girls and women should take precautions against rape, for example, by equating the woman's body to an unlocked car or house risking burglary and theft.
I get what you're saying about men having a sense of the child as theirs, in arguments over abortion - but the 'get out of my vagina' argument is not just about the right to an abortion - it's about contraception, family planning, and enforced and medically unnecessary procedures for women who are seeking abortion as a way to make those abortions more difficult to obtain. And, probably more importantly, it's about recognising the awesome power over another person's body that this implies.
Self-defence is also a matter of power over one's own body - I can see that part of the equivalence - but, classic's snarky comment about transgender women aside, we don't get to choose our gender it is something we are born with. The reason the 'get out of my vagina' trope came about is that there is a profound gender imbalance at a political and law-making level. And this is just where we are now - coming from a historical perspective where that imbalance has generally been much more profound and women's bodies far more a matter for male legislation and ruling.
I don't, as it happens, believe that men should not have a say in issues around abortion. That's ludicrous - it is a thing in the world that they live in. But I am sick of women's bodies and the things that are done to them being equated with inanimate objects and the things that are done to them.
And that's why we have school massacres, because kids today can't refrain from agenda drift. Interesting demonstration.
I am saying that the "if you aren't x you don't get to decide comment or have opinions on things related to x" line of arguments is nonsense - you don't have to be something to have invested interest in it, whether it's womb owners or gun owners.
This is the first thing you've said which I agree with ... no I am questioning myself. :neutral:
This is the first thing you've said which I agree with ... no I am questioning myself. :neutral:
Awww, I am sorry, I thought of it as such a casual thing... If I knew I was taking your being right virginity I would have tried making it a little bit more special.
He didn't say he was wrong, he said you were right for a change. :p:
Back off the poor guy, he just had his first time and now your rubbing it in his face that he didn't go again? That's mean.
-.-- --- ..- / .-. . .- .-.. .-.. -.-- / .- .-. . / .- / -.. .. -.-. -.- .-.-.- / ... .-. ... .-.. -.--
.- .-.. .-.. - .... . -... . - - . .-. - --- ..-. .. - .-. .. --. .... - .. -. -.-- --- ..- .-. - .. - .-.. . -····- ... .- -.- . ..-. .-. --- -- .-.. . .- -.- .. -. --.
#FAIL
ALL THE BETTER TO FIT RIGHT IN YOUR TITLE SAKE FROM LEAKING
#FAIL
ALL THE BETTER TO FIT RIGHT IN YOUR TITLE SAKE FROM LEAKING
It's an established relationship:
[YOUTUBE]xEtGU_uNr08[/YOUTUBE]
If you guys are done?
Here is a phenomenal Malcolm Gladwell article which tells us all we need to know about how school shootings come about.
It's very long so I will sum up what this thread needs to know.
1. IT'S NOT GUNS
2. IT'S NOT (VIOLENT) CULTURE
3. IT'S NOT BAD PARENTING
4. IT'S (MOSTLY) NOT MENTAL ILLNESS
5. IT'S NOT ANYTHING SOLVED BY POLITICS
I doubt that they are done yet.
UT, you've told us what it is NOT.
Now tell us what it IS...
From the article, it does seem to have something to do with mental illness, but not necessarily an illness that can be detected until it's too late (though there was an anecdote about a potentially concerning, in hindsight, reaction to hunting).
Also, it tied into the original Dawkins concept of memes (though not by name); ie, contagious thoughts that can take hold in particular people's brains.
It's hard to say what the course of action is in that scenario. Never report on mass murder?
Read the article, it's not simple enough to explain in a paragraph.
Right, the article did such a fine job developing the point, it's really hard to sum it up. It's not exactly copycat, not exactly hero worship. And there is a social element, so strong that these guys are actually kind of going against their own norms when they end up in it. Like a slow-motion gang or a slow-motion riot.
One danger is that they go beyond guns. The article details this one shooter, caught before he could put everything into action. He had a storage locker with several pounds of ingredients to build powerful explosives. When they asked him about it:
"Sometime before the end of the school year, my plan was to steal a recycling bin from the school and take one of the pressure cookers I made and put it in the hallway and blow it up during passing period time. . . . I would detonate when people were fleeing, just like the Boston bombings, and blow them up too. Then my plans were to enter and throw Molotov cocktails and pipe bombs and destroy everyone and then when the SWAT comes I would destroy myself.”
One of his goals was to correct the mistakes Klebold and Harris made in building their explosives. But this kid also had guns:
In his bedroom, he had an SKS assault rifle with sixty rounds of ammunition, a Beretta 9-mm. handgun, a gun safe with an additional firearm, and three ready-made explosive devices. On the day of the attack, he would start with a .22-calibre rifle and move on to a shotgun, in order to prove that high-capacity assault-style rifles were unnecessary for an effective school attack.
Read the article, it's not simple enough to explain in a paragraph.
I usually do, but it's UT's posting and it would be very easy to follow up with sarcastic replies...
... it's NOT ABOUT PEPPERMINT CANDY CANES
... it's NOT ABOUT... etc.
I'd like to know first what UT thinks it's about that motivates him to make this post in this thread.
Still looking gift horses in the dentures, eh.
This posting is from the Weird News thread where it was not really appropriate
...
First we have to decide on murders versus deaths.
I think murders is the thing we really care about.
We are not trying to work out the detail of all the bad things that might go wrong in the world.
The deaths number includes suicides and accidents and criminals killed by cops.
...
As far as ghetto goes, it is not a manipulation.
The number of gun murders in the ghetto is at least 10 times higher than
in your worst Walmart Texan nightmare. Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight breaks it down for us.
He rudely breaks it down by black homicide victims in the US
(19.4 per 100,000) versus white homicide victims (2.5 per 100,000).
That's not exactly it, because that's not exactly the ghetto.
And black non-ghetto neighborhoods are not a problem anyway.
This is not a racial thing.
It is a ghetto thing.
...
UT, this is the part of your post I question most. I agree setting priorities is necessary;
but saying gun-murders vs gun-deaths are “the thing we really care about”
… ”in the ghetto” and “And black non-ghetto neighborhoods are not a problem anyway.”
make your statements highly subjective and political.
What is your basis for excluding “gun deaths” ?
And what do you mean by “It is a ghetto thing” ?
Regarding the link to Nate Silver, he is actually using homicide
rates, not
numbers of homicide victims.
Using homicide rates in different countries is an apples-and-oranges distraction to slice data
thin enough that the US does not appear to be an outlier among other countries !
How is that even relevant ?
But with respect to numbers of homicide victims, the differences in
population sizes
of the three major US ethnic groups yields a different perspective.
Whites : 318,857,056 X 77.4 % X 2.5/100k = 6,169 deaths = 36% of all homicides
Blacks : 318,857,056 X 13.2 % X 19.4/100k = 8,165 deaths = 47% of all homicides
Hispanic: 318,857,056 X 17.4 % X 5.3/100k = 2,940 deaths = 17% of all homicides
These numbers of homicides speak for themselves.
I shall quote you on that
"Blacks are only 13.2% of the population and yet responsible for 47% of all homicides" - LL
To dismiss rates is below amateurish and puts you in that ^ position
You are arguing statistics with wizard Nate Silver, infamous NY Times predictor of Obama's electoral outcomes, you may be a little out of your element
...
You are arguing statistics with wizard Nate Silver, infamous NY Times predictor
of Obama's electoral outcomes, you may be a little out of your element
Yes, I know who he is and have been familiar with his data/argument for some time.
Now please tell me how his comparison of gun-homicide rates in other countries is relevant to the US.
And pushing statistics based on rates or % can be hazardous.
Just be aware that the wording in your post was imprecise and misleading.
I agree with you that
rates are higher among the smaller Black population.
I would hope you agree that the
numbers of homicide victims in White
and Hispanic populations are large, but not 10 or 12 or 20 times higher.
If you have already decided you are willing to ignore thousands of other deaths, that's your choice.
.
This is a bit ridiculous ... it appears UT and xoB have had a knee-jerk reaction
to my use of the word "concealed". So, let's try again.
With respect to "intimidation" of a spouse/S.O./child/neighbor,
we are talking about situations where one person is using a gun
to dominate/threaten/force a family member.
... obviously... without actually firing the gun !
Such intimidation often leads to
concealment or denial of actual physical abuse.
Law Enforcement, Public Health, Social Workers, Lawyers, Medical Professionals, and family members
know this is happening, but have not had a "legal" means of intervening.
Various formal and informal groups have attempted to prevent this kind of abuse via legislation.
The NRA campaigns vigorously to stop such efforts as being "anti-gun" legislation.
But the NRA was NOT successful in California and the Governor has now signed 3 bills into law.
Here is an article describing Assembly Bill 1014, the Gun Violence Restraining Order (GVRO) Law.
California’s New Gun Violence Restraining Order Law
Posted October 30, 2014
On September 30, Governor Jerry Brown signed California AB 1014,
a new law that allows [COLOR="Red"]family members and law enforcement officers[/COLOR] to seek
a Gun Violence Restraining Order (GVRO) against people who pose a threat to themselves or others.
The GVRO law addresses this glaring problem by allowing concerned family members,
as well as law enforcement officers, to obtain a Gun Violence Restraining Order,
which is modeled on California’s effective domestic violence prevention laws.
If a judge determines someone to be a risk and issues a GVRO, that order will:
• Temporarily prohibit that person from purchasing or possessing firearms or ammunition
• Allow law enforcement to temporarily remove any firearms or ammunition already in that person’s possession
• Include procedures to allow the person have his or her guns and ammunition [COLOR="Red"]returned[/COLOR]
This is the NRA’s take on this law:
Assembly Bill 1014 authorizes a family member or law enforcement officer to file
for a restraining order against you to have your firearms [COLOR="Red"]forfeited[/COLOR].
.
So anyone who rejects your assertions is knee jerking? Why not eliminate the knee and ing. :rolleyes:
Where are the statistics in this "intimidation"? Oh that's right, they keep statistics on facts, not rumors, unproven allegations, and possible.
California's new legislation is a feel good law. In most places even an unproven allegation of abuse causes the cops to seize all guns in the house and you'll play hell trying to get them back. She, "He said he would go get the gun and shoot me". He, "No I didn't". Bam, he's out of the house, and the gun(s) are gone.
Now "Law Enforcement, Public Health, Social Workers, Lawyers, Medical Professionals, and family members can act on their suspicions, with no complaint from the suspected abused? :eek: The NRA, unfortunately, are against everything, reasonable, or in this case unreasonable, or not.
The intimidation issue is a bastard. The authorities are damned if they do and damned if they don't on that one. In the US and in the UK there has been, historically and unfortunately continuing into the present in many areas, a tendency not to act until serious or fatal violence erupts and there's a victim to carry out. Case after case of victims, mainly but not exclusively female, reporting intimidation and threat by partners or ex-partners, with sharp escalation and multiple attempts to seek help and police have done nothing. Then the victim, or victims are gone and there is an enquiry to see what more could have been done. Every time those enquiries start up it seems they find the same thing: warning sign after warning sign, reports of mild violence or serious threat dismissed or simply not acted upon, victims intimidated into silence and support authorities simply dropping away and not pursuing the case, victims and concerned third parties filing reports that were ignored, little to no attempt to seriously enforce stay away orders where they've had them.
On the other hand, an absolute assumption that the woman is right and the man is a threat puts an awful lot of power into the hands of the vindictive in an argument.
I agree with you that rates are higher among the smaller Black population.
I would hope you agree that the numbers of homicide victims in White
and Hispanic populations are large, but not 10 or 12 or 20 times higher.
Color and ethnicity are not the determining factor, being poor and forced to live in a high density crime ridden neighborhood, (can you say ghetto, boys and girls) increases the chance of being a victim by an order of magnitude. That speaks to the risk, it does not say it doesn't happen everywhere.
When the waves of immigrants came through Ellis Island, they typically sought there own kind in NY City. Also typically, they were poor and forced into that exact type of neighborhood I'd call a ghetto, and suffered high crime rates including murder, until they could manage to flee to the wide open spaces. Once there, the suffering wasn't gone completely, but decreased substantially.
So add economics to mental health, and a slew of other causes that some do-gooders wish to ignore for the convenience and easy slogans of a simple ban all guns campaign. When guns are gone, altering the lives of millions, and shit still happens, they'll find a new boogie man to chase.
The intimidation issue is a bastard. The authorities are damned if they do and damned if they don't on that one. In the US and in the UK there has been, historically and unfortunately continuing into the present in many areas, a tendency not to act until serious or fatal violence erupts and there's a victim to carry out. Case after case of victims, mainly but not exclusively female, reporting intimidation and threat...
This does not happen in the UK. The gun problem is solved there, hence there is no intimidation.
There are guns. And there is intimidation. There are also lots of other weapons.
The argument for gun control is not that it will stop murders, but that gun murders and accidental gun deaths will be reduced.
It's gotta be a ton less intimidation, like a tenth or so of what it is in the US?
I see a lot of asbos issued for possession of a knife, in the UK news. Confidence the victim isn't armed with a gun seems to have convinced assailants a knife is sufficient.
That sounds as though the biggest problem is "gun murders by Black-on-Black",
(or Hispanic-on-Hispanic, or just a "local" issue.)
That is on YOU not me. Stop projecting your bullshit in my direction.
The rest of your crap was handled well by Bruce & UT.
At what point will you realize that you are wrong? We all can see you DESPERATELY WANT to be right, but you aren't.
Remember this?
Your objection to UT's (over)use of ghetto, is probably because you don't deal with them very often... UT and I do. We know that's where the action is. There's an occasional shooting in the 'burbs/boondocks, but the almost daily action is in one of the low-rent areas of Philly, Camden, Chester, etc... the ghettos. It's not color, there's plenty of white, yellow and black folks there, it's residents are there for economic and/or mental health reasons.
Number 2 and number 4.
I specifically told people in the directions, who visiting me from over the Barry bridge, I don't care if your bladder is bursting, DO NOT stop at the Boots & Bonnets. Which is at the first stop sign after the bridge, in Chester. I would repeat the urban legend of a Chester cop stopping in to check for violations, walking in, making a quick tour inside looking for underage or out of control drinkers, then unable to open the door to leave because a dead body was against the door outside. Got their attention. :haha:
At what point will you realize that you are wrong?
This question applies to all of us.
Half of what I believe is bullshit. I just don't know which half.
Dumb people are everywhere.
You can plainly see they were painted red, so the are harmless training bullets for an automatic assault rifle. ;)
I squeeze the trigger and the little light comes on.
Then the bullet starts spinning, but it never fires.
What's wrong, are they all duds ?
No, they're all screwdriver bits, one regular, one Philips, and two torx.
I'm sure glad it was carefully researched. :rolleyes:
bruce is right. Those are screwdriver bits. Which passed me right by when I first saw that pic.
No hubcaps were lost during the filming.