The Glamorization of Murder

[Bocefish]

Check out this so-called expert...



Hard to believe these people are being paid to spew this kind of garbage as fact.

 

[JerryBoBerry]

Check out this so-called expert...



Hard to believe these people are being paid to spew this kind of garbage as fact.

Rather obvious those three know nothing about firearms at all.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

Rather obvious those three know nothing about firearms at all.

Highlights some of the problems I have with the First Amendment.

Not a swipe at Fox, but all media outlets. Mass media can easily be used to incite the herd. Though I will say, this particular example is more just "stupid as hell" than "intentionally misleading".

 

[Bocefish]

 

[JoannaBrielle]

But we have become desensitized in general to it all. The same reason I can watch The Walking Dead passively, but when my Mom watches she cringes and is far more disturbed than I am. Her generation was not exposed to all of this. Anything we are exposed to in life has an effect on our mindset.

I definitely agree with that. My mom and I can be watching a rather gory movie and she looks like she's about to throw up and I'm eating a candy bar. She's like, "How the hell can you eat while you're looking at that?" I'm like, "Mom, I've watched 5 seasons of Walking Dead. No amount of blood and guts is going to bother me anymore."

But as far as gun reform, I'll say the same thing I say every time I see that stuff. While I agree it's terrible that people capable of doing those things can get their hands on weapons the problem with gun reform is, making and/or reforming a law only affects law abiding citizens. When it comes down to it, anyone can get anything they want regardless of how illegal it is. Most drugs are illegal, yet people in every state can get their hands on them. Child pornography is illegal, yet pedophiles are able to watch it every day. Even if every type of gun is illegal, criminals will still be able to get them. The only difference will be law abiding citizens will no longer be able to defend themselves. And really, as screwed up as our government is these days, do you really want them to be able to turn this country into a dictatorship without having to raise a single gun? Well they'd be able to because oh, all our citizens have already been disarmed because we just asked politely and the sheep handed them in peacefully.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

And really, as screwed up as our government is these days, do you really want them to be able to turn this country into a dictatorship without having to raise a single gun? Well they'd be able to because oh, all our citizens have already been disarmed because we just asked politely and the sheep handed them in peacefully.

I disagree here. This has been my observation.

Guns have proven useless in stopping the erosion of our rights. Useless. I am of the opinion that as long as gun owners were allowed to keep their guns, they would be happy as clams in a dictatorship.

This is the only part of your post I outright disagree with, but I do so very strongly. "Gun ownership is a defense against tyranny" = complete bunk.

 

[mynameisbob84]

But as far as gun reform, I'll say the same thing I say every time I see that stuff. While I agree it's terrible that people capable of doing those things can get their hands on weapons the problem with gun reform is, making and/or reforming a law only affects law abiding citizens. When it comes down to it, anyone can get anything they want regardless of how illegal it is. Most drugs are illegal, yet people in every state can get their hands on them. Child pornography is illegal, yet pedophiles are able to watch it every day. Even if every type of gun is illegal, criminals will still be able to get them. The only difference will be law abiding citizens will no longer be able to defend themselves. And really, as screwed up as our government is these days, do you really want them to be able to turn this country into a dictatorship without having to raise a single gun? Well they'd be able to because oh, all our citizens have already been disarmed because we just asked politely and the sheep handed them in peacefully.

I'm guessing you wouldn't support the legalisation of child pornography and grant people unrestricted access to it though...

The problem I see with the "we need to be able to defend ourselves against the government" defence of guns is that it assumes that owning a gun will be enouh to defend yourself against a government in the highly, hugely, massively unlikely event that the government would suddenly decide to wage war against its people. I don't see how guns would be a an equalizer against an armed militia with more guns, more powerful guns, rocket launchers, grenades, tanks, helicopters, remotely detonated missiles, drones, war ships, fighter planes, and so on, all operated by trained people and commanded by people whose job it is to win wars.

 

[JoannaBrielle]

I'm guessing you wouldn't support the legalisation of child pornography and grant people unrestricted access to it though...

My point was illegal things can be obtained regardless of whether they're illegal or not. That was kind of an immature way to take it, but okay

I will say again, in all caps but not to be rude only to make sure it is read, LAWS ONLY AFFECT LAW ABIDING CITIZENS.

Now do I think guns should be available willy nilly, to anyone who wants them? Of course not but making it harder to get guns legally doesn't stop anyone from getting them illegally.

I don't see how guns would be a an equalizer against an armed militia with more guns, more powerful guns, rocket launchers, grenades, tanks, helicopters, remotely detonated missiles, drones, war ships, fighter planes, and so on, all operated by trained people and commanded by people whose job it is to win wars.

That's assuming the military would take up arms against its own citizens. While some might, every man and several women in my family have served in the military/are still serving and we've had many conversations about this. Not one of them would do that and personally I would gladly take up arms alongside them and die beside them if it came down to it. And I realize it's very unlikely to happen. It really wasn't the main point of what I was saying. Just a side thought.

My point was disarming every American citizen will make this country ten times more dangerous. A sign saying no guns is not going to stop a terrorist or crazy asshole who wants to kill everything in his path but an armed citizen could very well save your life someday.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

That's assuming the military would take up arms against its own citizens. While some might, every man and several women in my family have served in the military/are still serving and we've had many conversations about this. Not one of them would do that and personally I would gladly take up arms alongside them and die beside them if it came down to it.

All you have to do is get a military to turn on its own citizens is convince them those citizens are the enemy. Shockingly easier than familial conversations would suggest.

My point was disarming every American citizen will make this country ten times more dangerous. A sign saying no guns is not going to stop a terrorist or crazy asshole who wants to kill everything in his path but an armed citizen could very well save your life someday.

At a glance, the prevalence of armed citizens does not appear to have done much to stop terrorists or crazy asshole killers.

 

[mynameisbob84]

That's assuming the military would take up arms against its own citizens.

But if the military (or the majority of the military) refused to take up arms against its own citizens, then from what and whom would citizens need guns to defend themselves against in the event of a government show-down?

My point was disarming every American citizen will make this country ten times more dangerous. A sign saying no guns is not going to stop a terrorist or crazy asshole who wants to kill everything in his path but an armed citizen could very well save your life someday.

Right, but as has been proven time and time again, the absence of a sign saying "no guns" isn't a deterrent against "crazy assholes" either. Furthemore, theres little evidence to suggest that armed civilians prove any more effective in preventing mass shootings than unarmed civilians - http://www.courant.com/opinion/edit...-dont-stop-shooters-often-20160613-story.html

 

[JoannaBrielle]

I'm going to say one more time, the military/government was not my point. Just a SIDE thought and how I feel about gun ownership. I really hope that never does happen and I hope you're totally right. What you don't seem to get is, I'm not saying me alone with my gun is going to stop the government from doing anything. What I am saying is I WOULD die to defend my rights and I'm very aware that is likely what would happen to me if I stood against the government but I am not scared for that to happen.

My main point was:

My point was illegal things can be obtained regardless of whether they're illegal or not. That was kind of an immature way to take it, but okay

I will say again, in all caps but not to be rude only to make sure it is read, LAWS ONLY AFFECT LAW ABIDING CITIZENS.

Now do I think guns should be available willy nilly, to anyone who wants them? Of course not but making it harder to get guns legally doesn't stop anyone from getting them illegally.

I noticed you two have both ignored that statement twice now and I would really love to hear your argument on it, please.
I would like to know if you truly believe making it harder for law abiding citizens to obtain guns would stop criminals from obtaining them.

And also, I'm not saying there shouldn't be "no guns" signs anywhere, I'm just saying that sign isn't going to save your life.
Also, even if there are only 5 cases of armed citizens stopping a shooter, I'd be willing to bet the survivors of those 5 cases are pretty happy someone was there to help.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

I would like to know if you truly believe making it harder for law abiding citizens to obtain guns would stop criminals from obtaining them.

You are not going to completely stop criminals from getting guns. You can make it harder. That would mean regulations that impact law abiding citizens, yes.
So, if we can't completely eliminate criminal ownership of guns, and we have to burst the little constitutionally-protected bubble pro-gun advocates like to live in, then what is the point?
Simple...

it's terrible that people capable of doing those things can get their hands on weapons...

Besides, if someone is truly law abiding, they will accept the new laws even if they don't like them.

 

[JoannaBrielle]

Personally, I don't think they'll ever completely ban gun ownership. I'm fine with gun reform because there's nothing they could do that would prevent me from owning one.

All I'm saying is no law they make will prevent anyone who wants to shoot someone from doing it. If someone wants to hurt someone badly enough they're willing to kill them, they will find a way. End of story.

But I do agree with you, if it doesn't eliminate criminal ownership of guns then what is the point?

 

[JerryBoBerry]

I don't understand how this is possible. There wasn't even an assault rifle involved. Defies logic. Oh well, time to ban assault trucks!


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...-crowd-at-bastille-day-celebrations-in-nice2/

'60 dead' after truck crashes into crowd at Bastille Day celebrations in Nice 'terror attack'

 

[justjoinedtopost]

But I do agree with you, if it doesn't eliminate criminal ownership of guns then what is the point?

Because elimination isn't the point. Deterrence is the goal.

I don't understand how this is possible. There wasn't even an assault rifle involved. Defies logic. Oh well, time to ban assault trucks!

Or maybe just time to do away with all driving regulations.

 

[JoannaBrielle]

So deter people from buying guns legally so they can't defend themselves against illegally armed people. Got it.

 

[Bocefish]

the little constitutionally-protected bubble pro-gun advocates like to live in

Looks like that little bubble has struck again...

From the Washington Times: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/7/court-orders-chicago-pay-nra-legal-fees/#

A federal court is ordering the city of Chicago to pay the National Rifle Association nearly $1 million in legal fees.

The NRA had challenged a Chicago law banning gun sales within the city limits that a federal court ruled unconstitutional in January.

Chicago also paid the NRA $600,000 in legal fees following the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark 2010 ruling that the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms applies to the states.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Too bad the tax payers will once again have to foot that bill instead of it coming straight out of the politicians' pockets!

 

[justjoinedtopost]

So deter people from buying guns legally so they can't defend themselves against illegally armed people. Got it.

This isn't about "deterring people from buying guns legally". It's about redefining what buying guns legally means.

• Make owning a gun (of any type) serious business. License and registration (and possibly a gun safety course) required to even possess one.
• Absolutely no transfers of guns between private citizens without having to jump through the same legal hoops as gun dealers.
• If you own a gun which is used to commit a crime, and it can be shown you were negligent in securing the weapon, you get charged as well.
• If you get caught with a gun in violation of the regulations, you face the same penalties that drug dealers who are caught with firearms face now.

Now I sometimes like to fantasize about completely banning firearms, and alternatively about requiring every citizen to carry. But these are some of the policies I have settled upon in my saner moments while dreaming of becoming America's first dictator. Still a rough draft, a WIP; should have a completed version by the time I sieze power.

Looks like that little bubble has struck again...

From the Washington Times: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/7/court-orders-chicago-pay-nra-legal-fees/#

The NRA earned my contempt a few years back. And our courts are filled with absurdities.

 

[JoannaBrielle]

This isn't about "deterring people from buying guns legally". It's about redefining what buying guns legally means.

I didn't mean that literally. He said deterrence is the goal. I was just making a joke.

I wouldn't have a problem with any of those things. Like I said, I'm totally fine with gun reform. I have everything I need to legally own firearms and would be happy to do more to continue owning them. I ONLY have a problem with banning them completely.

And, as I've continually said, my point is changing laws will not affect criminals and criminal minded individuals from having guns. Anyone who thinks otherwise is seriously delusional. It may make it harder to get them but it won't stop it from happening.

Now I sometimes like to fantasize about completely banning firearms, and alternatively about requiring every citizen to carry. But these are some of the policies I have settled upon in my saner moments while dreaming of becoming America's first dictator. Still a rough draft, a WIP; should have a completed version by the time I sieze power.

That seriously made me laugh out loud

 

[Johndoe91]

Im definitely very pro gun, but I do think something should be done involving private sales. For example, if the sales had to occur at an FFL dealer, and they run the same check as if they were selling a new firearm, or if the buyer has their CCW that probably wouldn't be necessary.
Over this past weekend, I both bought and sold guns with absolutely zero checks into anyone's credentials. Mind you, as a buyer, all I would have had to do was show my CCW, and the one I sold was to my best friend, so not too many concerns there.
Personally, both times I've sold a firearm, I wrote up a bill of sale and threw them the safe just in case, even though they were both to people I know.

 

[jujoji]

I think if you want universal background checks to happen, you need to remove the structural and financial barriers to making it happen.
By forcing prospective buyers to go to a dealer you're driving up the costs of buying a gun for the economically disadvantaged; in my area dealers charge at least $75-100 for a background check involving a third party firearm.

The current system runs on paper forms and telephone calls almost exclusively.

Both of those need to change. I want a computer or mobile based background check software, that I can use for little to no cost, 24 hours a day 365.25 days a year (best effort), that spits out "Yes" "No" or "Hold". If either "No" or "Hold" it should give an error code explaining why it's not a "Yes"; so that the prospective buyer can address the government's concern.

I am willing to trade for certain things for this. Improved records, centralized database of prohibited persons. If a guy in South Carolina has a drug conviction that would prevent him from owning a gun, it goes into the system. If a guy in Chicago has a history of violence against his spouse, and has a restraining order against him, he goes into the system. If a woman in southern California is adjudicated mental unsafe to own a firearm, she goes into the system.

 

[caramia]

Apparently one doesn't need a gun to kill a bunch of people when one is determined to do so. A truck is a little better than a semi automatic weapon in the hands of a well trained person under the right circumstances (84 vs 50-70 per min?).

Anyway, youtube, coursera and edx have plenty of evolution / psychology lectures that explain why things are happening as they are. Heck, even the book The Gift of Fear touches on mass shootings brilliantly.

Humans are not as nice, civilized and rational as we would like to think we are, and the higher the world population gets, the more we are going to see the dark side surface (us vs them, hardwired in our dna) as access to resources dwindles away. Religion and guns are just surface excuses for those who let their primitive brain parts take over their existence because they feel wronged by the "out-group".

 

[JoannaBrielle]

Personally, and I know a lot of people will disagree with this, I think the time of the human species needs to be over. We, as a whole, are destructive and broken. We're destroying the earth, each other and every other living thing on it. We don't deserve this planet anymore and it would be a lot better off without us. The problem with the human race is we think we are more important than anything else. As long as humans survive it doesn't matter what happens to any other species.

It kind of makes me think of the whole kid falling into the gorilla cage. A gorilla had to die because a human child fell into his cage. The human's life was more important than the animal's. Why? Because he was "just an animal" and while I agree with what they did and would have done the same thing, the problem arises when you think about it long term. If we weren't destroying the earth and the habitats of these and other animals, there would be no good reason for that animal to have been in a zoo in the first place. Wild animals should be allowed to exist in their natural habitat and left alone so that things like this are never allowed to happen but we can't do that because if we didn't have them in zoos many animal species would go extinct due to our destroying where they are supposed to be.

The human race, as a whole, is destructive and violent and if we were wiped out all I'd have to say is we deserved it.

 

[Bocefish]

Humans are not as nice, civilized and rational as we would like to think we are, and the higher the world population gets, the more we are going to see the dark side surface (us vs them, hardwired in our dna) as access to resources dwindles away.

Well said and pretty much sums up why I believe law abiding citizens should have the right to protect themselves with firearms both near and long term. Relying on the government or armed LEOs to save your bacon should something happen, whether it be a natural or man-made occurrence, is not very wise imo.

More gun control laws will accomplish nothing except maybe giving some of the gun grabbers a false sense of accomplishment.

.02

 

[Johndoe91]

I think if you want universal background checks to happen, you need to remove the structural and financial barriers to making it happen.
By forcing prospective buyers to go to a dealer you're driving up the costs of buying a gun for the economically disadvantaged; in my area dealers charge at least $75-100 for a background check involving a third party firearm.

The current system runs on paper forms and telephone calls almost exclusively.

Both of those need to change. I want a computer or mobile based background check software, that I can use for little to no cost, 24 hours a day 365.25 days a year (best effort), that spits out "Yes" "No" or "Hold". If either "No" or "Hold" it should give an error code explaining why it's not a "Yes"; so that the prospective buyer can address the government's concern.

I am willing to trade for certain things for this. Improved records, centralized database of prohibited persons. If a guy in South Carolina has a drug conviction that would prevent him from owning a gun, it goes into the system. If a guy in Chicago has a history of violence against his spouse, and has a restraining order against him, he goes into the system. If a woman in southern California is adjudicated mental unsafe to own a firearm, she goes into the system.

I realize this something that is different from one place to another, but I can't say there's a single shop around here that charges more than $25 to receive and process a firearm you buy online, and I'd say the price would be the same if you walked in and did the transfer in person. But then again, a lot of things are cheaper ere in the boonies.

 

[Ambers Troll]

Personally, and I know a lot of people will disagree with this, I think the time of the human species needs to be over. We, as a whole, are destructive and broken. We're destroying the earth, each other and every other living thing on it. We don't deserve this planet anymore and it would be a lot better off without us.

I suspect we are playing our part before our possible extinction. Nature actually needed us to evolve to do something no animal previously was capable of in the service of the autotrophs (the real life on this planet, that all others serve and live off).

Having said all this I do think we are getting better with each other and I wouldn't underestimate the importance of our existence. We can change our fate and be such a wonderful expression of what nature can produce. When our current role of super detritivore is done, can we adjust to something new? I am hopeful that we can.

 

[Ms_Diane]

Guys, I live in Canada. We have strict gun control laws. Gun violence still happens but to a MUCH LESS extent. Our most busiest cities are so safe. And we're not the only country where this is the case.

The States seems to have a big group of people that supports the culture of guns, that purports that gun ownership is a human right. There is not a strong sentiment like that in Canada. I think that is partly because we accept gun control laws as a positive aspect of our society, not one to fight against.

But I guess in the States it is even more complicated by the pro-gun lobbyists lining the pockets of politicians and that sort of thing. I am rooting for you guys to have a country that is safe and not so fucked up. It motivates me to get involved in fixing all the shit that is effed up in my country.

**Edited to add a disclaimer that I haven't read through this whole thread and apologize if I have repeated thoughts already expressed**

 

[Osmia]

I think if you want universal background checks to happen, you need to remove the political barriers to making it happen....

FTFY

I actually agree with your overall point. I'm just saying that the structural/financial/technological barriers will fall if and only if there is the political will to do so.

 

[Ms_Diane]

Guys, I live in Canada. We have strict gun control laws. Gun violence still happens but to a MUCH LESS extent. Our most busiest cities are so safe. And we're not the only country where this is the case.

The States seems to have a big group of people that supports the culture of guns, that purports that gun ownership is a human right. There is not a strong sentiment like that in Canada. I think that is partly because we accept gun control laws as a positive aspect of our society, not one to fight against.

But I guess in the States it is even more complicated by the pro-gun lobbyists lining the pockets of politicians and that sort of thing. I am rooting for you guys to have a country that is safe and not so fucked up. It motivates me to get involved in fixing all the shit that is effed up in my country.

Also want to add that I don't mean to be smug or condescending to Americans. There are so many things about the States are so excellent. Canada has some major issue, but at least we finally ditched Harper for a handsome queer friendly guy...

 

[Behemoth]

The human race, as a whole, is destructive and violent and if we were wiped out all I'd have to say is we deserved it.

We are no more or less destructive or violent than any other animal species, we simply developed the tools that allowed us to dominate everything else. It's not as if any other animal would not, given the capabilities, do the very same things. This is a very faulty view of how humans are.

To say nothing of the fact that actually, as population has risen and development has gone on, violence has actually gone DOWN, not up. Further, this entire mindset more, found in the whole post I sort of left out, arbitrarily seems to separate out humans from the rest of the planet. But we are no less a part of the world than any other species. Nothing about what we do is any less 'natural' than the rest of the world, and it's not that we have any more or less right to things, its just that we have the same place, and we have the capabilities, and so... we do what we do.

Needless misanthropy is highly misguided.

Guys, I live in Canada. We have strict gun control laws. Gun violence still happens but to a MUCH LESS extent. Our most busiest cities are so safe. And we're not the only country where this is the case.

The States seems to have a big group of people that supports the culture of guns, that purports that gun ownership is a human right. There is not a strong sentiment like that in Canada. I think that is partly because we accept gun control laws as a positive aspect of our society, not one to fight against.

But I guess in the States it is even more complicated by the pro-gun lobbyists lining the pockets of politicians and that sort of thing. I am rooting for you guys to have a country that is safe and not so fucked up. It motivates me to get involved in fixing all the shit that is effed up in my country.

**Edited to add a disclaimer that I haven't read through this whole thread and apologize if I have repeated thoughts already expressed**

Ok, first off, that's because gun ownership is a human right. There seems to be this response to just note that folks 'believe it is,' and never address the arguments of why folks believe it is.

Incidentally, Canada's safety has not as much to do with the lack of guns, and blaming the guns is illogical. And further, again citing these 'not the only country where this is the case' misses the point that countries with strict gun control can be more violent than those without it, because the presence of guns is not at all a factor in violence, and narrowing it to 'gun violence' is, at best, silly and at worst intentionally misleading.

Furthermore, this constantly claim that it is somehow these 'pro gun lobbyists lining the pockets of politicians' is, frankly, pure ignorance. The supposed gun lobby isn't even in the top 100 of political spenders, and anti-gun groups are MASSIVELY more funded, and spend significantly more than groups like the NRA does. Further, our country IS safe. The US has less violent crime than the UK and many other countries, and the vast majority of our violent crime is, as I've said before, linked to the War on Drugs and all that goes along with that failed state program. As usual, whenever the state seems to want to declare war on something, they have the exact opposite effect of their supposed intentions. It's almost as if the state doesn't actually want to end the problem at all, like they are just using it to grow state power or something...

Also want to add that I don't mean to be smug or condescending to Americans. There are so many things about the States are so excellent. Canada has some major issue, but at least we finally ditched Harper for a handsome queer friendly guy...

Yeah, except for all those arms sales to Saudi Arabia and all those other countries that literally murder LGBT people as state policy. Pretending Justin Trudeau is anything but more of the same is exceptionally misguided.

I disagree here. This has been my observation.

Guns have proven useless in stopping the erosion of our rights. Useless. I am of the opinion that as long as gun owners were allowed to keep their guns, they would be happy as clams in a dictatorship.

This is the only part of your post I outright disagree with, but I do so very strongly. "Gun ownership is a defense against tyranny" = complete bunk.

This is sort of a bunk argument, because it basically amounts to 'because gun owners haven't risen up en masse, they should give up more rights.

It flatly is a defense against tyranny, in potentiality, and the fact is that this is not some zero sum game. The point is that it is a check, and if they did push too far, or broke down, it would all roll back, and part of that is precisely because folks have guns.

I'm guessing you wouldn't support the legalisation of child pornography and grant people unrestricted access to it though...

The problem I see with the "we need to be able to defend ourselves against the government" defence of guns is that it assumes that owning a gun will be enouh to defend yourself against a government in the highly, hugely, massively unlikely event that the government would suddenly decide to wage war against its people. I don't see how guns would be a an equalizer against an armed militia with more guns, more powerful guns, rocket launchers, grenades, tanks, helicopters, remotely detonated missiles, drones, war ships, fighter planes, and so on, all operated by trained people and commanded by people whose job it is to win wars.

Except that, even if we include pretty much all the militarized law enforcement, you're still not breaking 2 or 3 million troops in the US, and not all of those are combat troops. And even if we assume every one of those people would go along with the state, that still leaves a problem: there are more guns in the US than there are people, and 1 in 3 people have a gun. Meaning that 1% of the US population would have enough arms AND outnumber the entire armed state apparatus. Any every action the state took to suppress any group would only turn more folks into insurgents.

The state not merely cannot stop an armed insurgency, it literally will inevitable fall to one if it came to that.

The ultimate force in any armed engagement is boots on the ground. You need POLICE to enforce a POLICE STATE. Tanks are of minimal use, and are logistical nightmares, jets even more so. All of these also suffer from the fact that any conflict on our soil would instantly put the very infrastructure necessary to keep this high-tech force going in danger. To say nothing of the fact that drone operators, fighter pilots, and so on? They need to sleep, they need to be on the ground, just as much as the equipment they use does.

Besides, if someone is truly law abiding, they will accept the new laws even if they don't like them.

You seem like the sort of person that really loves the taste of boots, seeing as you lick the state's so much.