The Glamorization of Murder

[Bocefish]

In regards to more gun control laws... all I ask is that people in favor of it are informed and not making decisions based on emotions.



Furthermore, Obama himself ordered this CDC study in 2013 with the following results from Slate, which is a left-oriented publication:

7. Guns are used for self-defense often and effectively. “Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year … in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008,” says the report. The three million figure is probably high, “based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys.” But a much lower estimate of 108,000 also seems fishy, “because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.” Furthermore, “Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was 'used' by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”

ETA: forgot to include the link: http://www.slate.com/articles/healt..._deaths_and_self_defense_findings_from_a.html

 

[jujoji]

This one makes me laugh. Honestly, was this even necessary?

You do know this is Marcus Lutrell, the "Lone Survivor" decorated Navy Seal, etc. etc.?? I'm guessing he's got a better understanding of Islamic extremism than you or I do

 

[justjoinedtopost]

They're not 'anti-government insurgents' until there is an anti-government insurgency. The cross-section of the population most likely to engage though, and yeah, I'd argue its far more than 1%, are going to be the well-armed folks who already dislike the government and upon whom the burden of the state largely falls already.

And how many of the armed population would rise up against the insurgency? How many would take advantage of the chaos to rape, pillage and plunder? Would racial tensions complicate things? Did you count the guns of foreign influences who would take an interest in such a thing?

I'm not accusing you of word games

I am stating that is what you do.

My statement about guns in society was understandable. You chose to make it difficult.

I was going to go in on this, but frankly, the only thing that matters is the thing you left out: it cannot be prudent, and yet not be moral and ethical. Which is to say there may be multiple options that are moral and ethical, some of which are prudent and some of which are not, but there are no options that are prudent, that are not also moral and ethical, because by its nature, for something to be prudent, it must be moral and ethical, else it is inherently corrupt from the start and cannot be prudent.

I disagree.

What does that even mean, that 'rights don't exist in a vacuum?'

It means that individual rights are part of something greater. It means that if you are going to be a member of society, they are not the only factor in the equation.

If folks are not fit to rule themselves, they're certainly not fit to rule others.

Yes, quite a conundrum, isn't it?

Your attempt at word play just marks you as being insufferable

Remember that.

No, clearly you're not thinking hard enough because you seem to not understand why folks would carry a gun. You seem to ignore that many folks already carry guns when it is vastly illegal to do so, and there are already stiff penalties.

I understand why people carry guns. Don't really have a problem with it. I don't think illegal guns are a high enough priority, and I don't consider many of the penalties I have looked at stiff enough.

Which has nothing to do with the fact that restrictions on ownership tend to foreshadow eventual seizure of arms, and further authoritarian policies.

A slippery slope. Have to be careful about that.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

In regards to more gun control laws... all I ask is that people in favor of it are informed and not making decisions based on emotions.



Furthermore, Obama himself ordered this CDC study in 2013 with the following results from Slate, which is a left-oriented publication:

ETA: forgot to include the link: http://www.slate.com/articles/healt..._deaths_and_self_defense_findings_from_a.html

The link is food for thought, though I won't waste a lot of time pondering it. The video is biased and contains a major glaring omission critical to the whole discussion.

You do know this is Marcus Lutrell, the "Lone Survivor" decorated Navy Seal, etc. etc.?? I'm guessing he's got a better understanding of Islamic extremism than you or I do

I did not, and thank you for pointing it out. An interesting story. I have deliberately shielded myself from stories such as his over the last several years. Good to read one every now and then.

However, my sentiments had little to do with Islamic extremism. I can admire his valor, and at the same time say that knowing who he is doubles what I originally expressed.

 

[Mila_]

This thread is so derailed maybe we need to create another thread to talk specifically about gun control?

 

[justjoinedtopost]

This thread is so derailed maybe we need to create another thread to talk specifically about gun control?

It's a little late for that I think. Probably better just to rename this thread. But I will make a halfhearted attempt to get us back on the path of righteousness.

I firmly believe all toy guns should be hot pink. Entirely pink, not just at the end of the muzzle. No more realistic looking toy guns. Airsoft, bb and pellet, whatever.

I also find fashionably colored firearms repulsive.

 

[Behemoth]

And how many of the armed population would rise up against the insurgency? How many would take advantage of the chaos to rape, pillage and plunder? Would racial tensions complicate things? Did you count the guns of foreign influences who would take an interest in such a thing?

None of these are at all relevant to the point except the first, and even that is dicey because the point was on the basis of 1%, and I already stated I think it would be far more. However, given the original point was based on the idea that 1% of the population would match that of the state, that is all that matters. The fact you bring up all these other, unrelated aspects speaks more to your posturing and attempting a sort of gish-gallop to distract from the original point.

I am stating that is what you do.

My statement about guns in society was understandable. You chose to make it difficult.

And I'm stating you're objectively wrong, because no, it wasn't 'understandable,' and I literally broke down, logically, why it was not. You have not bothered to address that, you've just said it's 'playing word games,' but no, it is not a word game to discuss things that exist vs abstract concepts that don't exist, and how one can have rights and the other can not because one exists and the other does not actually exist.

Things do not make sense because you say they do. You have to actually make an argument, IE: what you stubbornly seem incapable of doing.

I disagree.

Yet make no argument why. Which is a habit of yours.

It means that individual rights are part of something greater. It means that if you are going to be a member of society, they are not the only factor in the equation.

They are ultimately the only rights that exist. Societies do not have rights. Ultimately, no, everything else derives from individual rights, because breaking everything down to its source brings us to the individual as the fundamental building block OF what we call society. All rights flow from individual rights. If you disagree, make a rational argument as to why, or admit you have no desire to be rational or logical.

Yes, quite a conundrum, isn't it?

Not really, no.

I understand why people carry guns. Don't really have a problem with it. I don't think illegal guns are a high enough priority, and I don't consider many of the penalties I have looked at stiff enough.

Ok, but you're missing the point that the stiffness of the penalties are largely irrelevant, because you can't make them stiff enough to avoid folks carrying them unless you're planning to set the mere presence of an illegal gun as a right to execute someone on the spot, because that is basically what folks who most carry and use illegal guns are already facing, because it is due to high crime/violence areas and illegal enterprises that they arm themselves as such. Largely, even that would be unlikely to stop them.

A slippery slope. Have to be careful about that.

Slippery slope is only a fallacy if it is not rationally supported, whereas I can directly show a historical presence for the creep of restrictions and their link to growth of authoritarian and centralized state power.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

None of these are at all relevant to the point except the first, and even that is dicey because the point was on the basis of 1%, and I already stated I think it would be far more. However, given the original point was based on the idea that 1% of the population would match that of the state, that is all that matters. The fact you bring up all these other, unrelated aspects speaks more to your posturing and attempting a sort of gish-gallop to distract from the original point.

They are incredibly relevant. Determining who has who outgunned involves defining the state and its supporters and those willing to rise up against it. The state and the armed population are both parts of the whole.

As to your gish gallop remark: may I refer you to the point earlier in this thread where you agreed you could buy a firearm without a background check? You were quite willing to twist, and turn, and contort in an apparent effort to minimize that uncomfortable fact.

And I'm stating you're objectively wrong, because no, it wasn't 'understandable,' and I literally broke down, logically, why it was not. You have not bothered to address that, you've just said it's 'playing word games,' but no, it is not a word game to discuss things that exist vs abstract concepts that don't exist, and how one can have rights and the other can not because one exists and the other does not actually exist.

This is not understandable only if you strain to make it so: Possessing firearms in a society you don't own should be regulated as well.

There are multiple definitions for the word society. Try them out one by one. See if you can find one or more that make sense.

Yet make no argument why. Which is a habit of yours.

Because it was convoluted to the point of incoherence. Not worth deciphering, considering it pretty much amounted to nothing more than waltzing about in a land of abstractions.

They are ultimately the only rights that exist. Societies do not have rights. Ultimately, no, everything else derives from individual rights, because breaking everything down to its source brings us to the individual as the fundamental building block OF what we call society. All rights flow from individual rights. If you disagree, make a rational argument as to why, or admit you have no desire to be rational or logical.

I believe society is justified in limiting the rights of its individuals within reason.

Ok, but you're missing the point that the stiffness of the penalties are largely irrelevant, because you can't make them stiff enough to avoid folks carrying them unless you're planning to set the mere presence of an illegal gun as a right to execute someone on the spot, because that is basically what folks who most carry and use illegal guns are already facing, because it is due to high crime/violence areas and illegal enterprises that they arm themselves as such. Largely, even that would be unlikely to stop them.

The problem will always be there. You cannot eliminate it completely. I do believe you can reduce the problem.

Let us not forget, we are talking about a country where the mere fear of a gun has resulted in on the spot executions. Worth taking into consideration in our struggle to find balance.

Slippery slope is only a fallacy if it is not rationally supported, whereas I can directly show a historical presence for the creep of restrictions and their link to growth of authoritarian and centralized state power.

Agreed. I don't believe the slippery slope is always a fallacy. We don't want to slide to the bottom. Nor do we want to run straight to the top and jump off a cliff in an effort to avoid it.

 

[EspiKvlt]

I firmly believe all toy guns should be hot pink. Entirely pink, not just at the end of the muzzle. No more realistic looking toy guns. Airsoft, bb and pellet, whatever.

I support this. I have one lmao.

real guns freak me out and i don't wanna be anywhere near them

but i have a lot of airsoft guns (i throw all the pellets away - i just like taking cute sets/videos with them)

 

[Behemoth]

They are incredibly relevant. Determining who has who outgunned involves defining the state and its supporters and those willing to rise up against it. The state and the armed population are both parts of the whole.

As to your gish gallop remark: may I refer you to the point earlier in this thread where you agreed you could buy a firearm without a background check? You were quite willing to twist, and turn, and contort in an apparent effort to minimize that uncomfortable fact.

To the first point, the things you brought up were not largely relevant to that topic. You're introducing new variables that aren't necessary and distracting from the point.

To the second, attempting to shift and reframe is a very weaselly move, and this is not at all relevant. No, I did not 'twist and turn and contort,' and the don't find the fact at all 'uncomfortable,' so...?

This is not understandable only if you strain to make it so: Possessing firearms in a society you don't own should be regulated as well.

There are multiple definitions for the word society. Try them out one by one. See if you can find one or more that make sense.

No, it's a nonsense statement because NO one 'owns' society because society doesn't exist. To say nothing this was entirely built on the point that it doesn't make sense to compare how we regulate cars to how we regulate guns. Not one of the definitions of society functions here. If you've got one that does, try to throw it out. However, I can already tell you none of them work.

Because it was convoluted to the point of incoherence. Not worth deciphering, considering it pretty much amounted to nothing more than waltzing about in a land of abstractions.

This is a really bad excuse for your own inability to make an argument, and shows more your own ineptitude than any issue with the point.

I believe society is justified in limiting the rights of its individuals within reason.

And yet make no argument why, with no basis from where this justification comes from, and no definition of what 'within reason' is.

The problem will always be there. You cannot eliminate it completely. I do believe you can reduce the problem.

Let us not forget, we are talking about a country where the mere fear of a gun has resulted in on the spot executions. Worth taking into consideration in our struggle to find balance.

I'd argue it's more evidence that education and normalization of guns would be better than this constant fear, and also that more state power is not a good thing, but hey.

Incidentally, you say we can reduce the problem. I agree: decriminalize drugs and sex work, and thus reduce the violence that often goes along with those industries because they're not forced into black markets.

Agreed. I don't believe the slippery slope is always a fallacy. We don't want to slide to the bottom. Nor do we want to run straight to the top and jump off a cliff in an effort to avoid it.

I mean, this really isn't relevant to the fact that each bit of gun control is one more step, and it never stops.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

real guns freak me out and i don't wanna be anywhere near them

but i have a lot of airsoft guns (i throw all the pellets away - i just like taking cute sets/videos with them)

Real guns don't freak me out. But your mention of videos reminds me of something that does.

I don't run across it very often, but 4 or 5 times now I have stumbled upon porn involving guns (clearly props). Even though the bad acting gives it away, it still disturbs me.

 

[EspiKvlt]

Real guns don't freak me out. But your mention of videos reminds me of something that does.

I don't run across it very often, but 4 or 5 times now I have stumbled upon porn involving guns (clearly props). Even though the bad acting gives it away, it still disturbs me.

Yep, done it.

 

[JoleneBrody]

Real guns don't freak me out. But your mention of videos reminds me of something that does.

I don't run across it very often, but 4 or 5 times now I have stumbled upon porn involving guns (clearly props). Even though the bad acting gives it away, it still disturbs me.

Fun fact! Depiction of weapons is not allowed by most adult payment processors. I have had to remove old west themed photos from my website because they had a non firing replica colt 45.

 

[EspiKvlt]

Well, I have this video. Gonna put it under a spoiler in case no one wants to see me fucking a gun.

Spoiler

Hopefully none of the sites I'm on remove it.

 

[Bocefish]

The link is food for thought, though I won't waste a lot of time pondering it. The video is biased and contains a major glaring omission critical to the whole discussion.

Care to expand on those critical "major glaring omissions"?

 

[Bocefish]

And so it begins...

http://q13fox.com/2016/07/27/washin...an-high-powered-rifle-coined-west-coast-wall/

SEATTLE -- In light of the mass shootings across the country, gun control groups feel they have the momentum to make some sweeping changes regionwide.

On Wednesday, several Washington and Oregon groups announced a new campaign pushing for a ban on high-powered rifles. They hope to follow California’s lead, calling it the ‘West Coast Wall.’

But gun rights advocates say the other side is focusing on the wrong thing.

“I would rather have that as a self-defense weapon than one of these handguns if I had a choice,” Lowpriceguns.com owner Jason Cazes said.

But gun control advocates from the West Coast are banding together to call for a 10-bullet magazine restriction and a ban on all high-powered rifles they call assault weapons.

“Creating a West Coast wall of California, Oregon and Washington is necessary to stop would-be shooters to travel up and down the I-5 corridor,” Penny Okamoto of Ceasefire Oregon said.

Washington Ceasefire points to a recent poll by SurveyMonkey. Of the 310 people questioned in Washington and Oregon combined, 65% were in favor of an assault weapons ban. The poll said 43% of the 310 people owned guns in their own homes and of those people 52% supported a ban on high-powered rifles.

“To the best of our ability we believe it’s a good poll,” Ralph Fascitelli of Washington Ceasefire said.

But the Second Amendment Foundation says they don’t trust the numbers.

“I don’t think any reputable polling company would base the results of a survey of 310 people especially in a state with 7 million people,” Dave Workman with Second Amendment Foundation said.

Gun rights advocates say restricting guns and the capacity of magazines will not stop the mass shootings.

“This diverts public attention from the real problem, which is stopping criminals and stopping terrorist acts,” Workman said.

“I believe in the 2nd Amendment and constitutional right. To do nothing to what we continually witness in this country is simply not an acceptable answer,” said Democratic Washington state Sen. David Frockt.

Passionate views on both sides not just on guns but what many view as their constitutional right.

“There is simply no constitutional barrier from taking this commonsense step,” Seattle City Attorney Pete Holmes said.

“That’s my choice in my home and it’s my 2nd Amendment right to have that,” Cazes said.

Gun rights advocates say opponents coined the words "assault rifle" to demonize the guns.

They note that fully automatic guns are illegal in this country already and when it comes to semi-automatic rifles, you have to pull the trigger each time you shoot it.

They also believe even with a ban, the bad guys will find a way to get a high-powered rifle.

But the other side believes a ban would make a difference and they are hoping to gather enough signatures in the next 6 to 9 months to pressure lawmakers to vote for a ban.

 

[Guy]

Fun fact! Depiction of weapons is not allowed by most adult payment processors. I have had to remove old west themed photos from my website because they had a non firing replica colt 45.

Why do they prohibit it?

 

[JoleneBrody]

Why do they prohibit it?

Ask them

 

[justjoinedtopost]

Care to expand on those critical "major glaring omissions"?

Yes. They are omitted to present a skewed view of reality.

And so it begins...

 

[Bocefish]

Yes. They are omitted to present a skewed view of reality.

Ah, now I see...So... you reject the facts of reality and replace them with your own skewed views.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

Ah, now I see...So... you reject the facts of reality and replace them with your own skewed views.

I reject false views of reality created with carefully selected facts. Or at least I try. It is very complicated business.

A big part of this is my own biases, and the perplexing contradictions I sometimes notice in them. For instance:

• I find a video depiction of a gun (clearly fake) being used in a scene of rape (clearly fake) very disturbing
• Yet I also have spent a great deal of money over the last several decades enjoying entertainment which glamorizes other gun violence, some of which has been rollicking good fun

What are your ideas about striking a compromise between pro/anti gun views? Or are you limited to melodramatic profundities such as "And so it begins..." when posting links?

 

[Bocefish]

What are your ideas about striking a compromise between pro/anti gun views? Or are you limited to melodramatic profundities such as "And so it begins..." when posting links?

I think we both agree that firearms are to be respected at all times and considered loaded, whether they are or not. I also happen to believe new gun owners should not only take a firearms safety course but practice, practice and practice some more to be thoroughly proficient in the use and safety of said firearm.

I also believe that unless it's immediate family, or trusted close friends that have already had background checks, all firearm sales, trades... should require a background check.

As far as any compromise goes... until the anti-gun crowd gets educated and knows what the fuck they're talking about, it's a waste of time as far as I'm concerned.

I'd like to hear Obama's definition of a high powered rifle which is a term that he and the media loves to scare people with.

Not to mention that dipshit Biden's suggestion about a double barreled shotgun...

 

[justjoinedtopost]

I think we both agree that firearms are to be respected at all times and considered loaded, whether they are or not. I also happen to believe new gun owners should not only take a firearms safety course but practice, practice and practice some more to be thoroughly proficient in the use and safety of said firearm.

I also believe that unless it's immediate family, or trusted close friends that have already had background checks, all firearm sales, trades... should require a background check.

As far as any compromise goes... until the anti-gun crowd gets educated and knows what the fuck they're talking about, it's a waste of time as far as I'm concerned.

I'd like to hear Obama's...

The bold parts I agree with. The blue I also agree with, and I feel that the same applies to the gun crowd.

As far as what Biden, or Obama, or Clinton, or Trump, or Bush, or ...say about this, I honestly give .02 shits.

edit: lol at the vid

 

[Bocefish]

As far as what Biden, or Obama, or Clinton, or Trump, or Bush, or ...say about this, I honestly give .02 shits.

If they weren't in a position to sway legislation, I wouldn't care either.

I can't emphasize enough how wrong it is that SCOTUS rulings can be influenced by party lines.