Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8937 total)
27 online now:
JoeT, kjsimons, PaulK, Theodoric (4 members, 23 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Post Volume: Total: 861,830 Year: 16,866/19,786 Month: 991/2,598 Week: 237/251 Day: 8/58 Hour: 3/0


EvC Forum Side Orders Coffee House Gun Control Again

Summations Only

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gun Control Again
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 371 days)
Posts: 1494
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


(2)
Message 3402 of 5179 (759531)
06-12-2015 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 3401 by vimesey
06-12-2015 4:23 PM


One in the chamba...or the child
Come on now. What the liberal media doesn't report is how many three-year-olds handle firearms and don't kill themselves.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3401 by vimesey, posted 06-12-2015 4:23 PM vimesey has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3403 by vimesey, posted 06-12-2015 5:33 PM MrHambre has not yet responded
 Message 3406 by NoNukes, posted 06-12-2015 11:08 PM MrHambre has not yet responded
 Message 3407 by AZPaul3, posted 06-12-2015 11:09 PM MrHambre has not yet responded

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 371 days)
Posts: 1494
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 3418 of 5179 (759576)
06-13-2015 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 3408 by vimesey
06-13-2015 12:48 AM


"Shall not be infringed!"
vimesey writes:

Americans, as a group, have a collective love affair with guns.


Yeah, it's a real embedded cultural symbol. Pandering to that phony frontier machismo puts money in the pockets of gun manufacturers and distributors.

I had no idea until after the Sandy Hook massacre that there are people in the USA, otherwise sane and functioning adults, who nonetheless have to have a loaded gun within arm's reach 24-7. Their reaction to incidents where armed assailants kill people in public is simply to have everyone armed, full stop. As you'd expect, they characterize any recommendation for tighter controls on guns (like background checks and waiting periods) as being fueled by paranoia. Obviously talking to such people about a tradeoff between personal freedom and the safety of the community is useless.

Edited by MrHambre, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3408 by vimesey, posted 06-13-2015 12:48 AM vimesey has not yet responded

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 371 days)
Posts: 1494
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 3431 of 5179 (759635)
06-13-2015 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 3423 by mikechell
06-13-2015 2:28 PM


Running the numbers
mikechell writes:

What you will never hear, because our news agencies (and yours) tend to shy away from good news, is the number of crimes that are prevented by gun owners.


No one's saying that most guns are used by children to kill themselves or others, or that there aren't instances where gun owners protect themselves against criminals. However, this study demonstrates that guns fired in the home in the USA are much more likely to be used in suicides or homicides than in justifiable self-defense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3423 by mikechell, posted 06-13-2015 2:28 PM mikechell has not yet responded

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 371 days)
Posts: 1494
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 3595 of 5179 (760376)
06-20-2015 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 3594 by Dr Adequate
06-20-2015 8:12 PM


Re: 9 dead in SC
And what are our solutions? Oh, right, we don't have any.

Well, I admit the ones I have are likely to seem impractical: Give us your guns, and stop being such hateful, paranoid assholes. What, that's not policy-ready?

But we ignore the power of American gun fetishism at our own risk. Ours is a culture that has been fighting the Civil War for over a century. Cold War triumphalism soothes our guilt over the way we denigrate left-wing politics as "bleeding heart liberalism." Our lack of empathy has long since become indistinguishable from pathology. So exactly how surprised are we supposed to pretend to be when our call for universal gun control is met with outrage?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3594 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-20-2015 8:12 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 371 days)
Posts: 1494
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 3598 of 5179 (760382)
06-21-2015 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 3597 by Faith
06-21-2015 6:26 AM


Re: 9 dead in SC
the mass shootings of black people doesn’t attract much national attention when white people aren’t involved.

Nothing demonstrates less human concern than invoking dead black people just to take a potshot at liberal guilt.

The reason things will never change for African-Americans in the USA isn't that there's too many people like the psycho shooter in Charleston. It's that there are too many like our right-wing friends here, who display a pathological indifference to the problems faced by the black community. Every time someone points out systemic inequities or conditions that disadvantage African-Americans, the voice gets drowned out by a tidal wave of white resentment. It remains to be seen whether white folks in the USA fear race war more than they fear taking responsibility for the prevailing unfairness of social conditions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3597 by Faith, posted 06-21-2015 6:26 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3599 by Faith, posted 06-21-2015 8:42 AM MrHambre has responded

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 371 days)
Posts: 1494
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 3623 of 5179 (760419)
06-21-2015 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 3599 by Faith
06-21-2015 8:42 AM


Re: 9 dead in SC
Oh right, the liberal explanation of violence (minority violence anyway, if it's white violence it's racist or some such) and every other social ill: poverty, oppression, social inequities etc.

And your explanation is what? Sin? The personal shortcomings of the nonwhites causing the violence? Why, that's just so much more persuasive.

Marx's analysis is still taken seriously. I guess that was inevitable.

I'm not a Marxist myself, but I see a lot of value in analyzing the social context of these issues. The way we define social problems is tied into how we relate to power dynamics and the narratives we find meaningful in explaining the human condition.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3599 by Faith, posted 06-21-2015 8:42 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 371 days)
Posts: 1494
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 3708 of 5179 (760651)
06-24-2015 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 3705 by Faith
06-24-2015 9:40 AM


Second Amendment
Faith actually writes:

the possibility of government tyranny is a major reason for the second amendment


When the Second Amendment was conceived, the former Colonies had no standing army. The new government was wary of the possibility of a military coup and decided to rely on non-professional militias comprised of armed citizens. That's why the wording of the amendment asserts that a well-regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state. Nowhere did the founding fathers portray gun availability as being necessary to protect citizenry from the tyranny of a democratically elected government.

And that was all well and fine when our farm-boy army was fighting alongside professional French soldiers, who helped us defeat the Brits at Yorktown. But only a few years later, our not-so-fierce fighters were getting their ass handed to them by Indians at the Wabash, and the idea of a standing army didn't seem so bad. Now that militias are not necessary to its security, it stands to reason that the right to bear arms isn't such an urgent matter for our nation.

But as long as you're rewriting history, can I please be married to Cate Blanchett?

Edited by MrHambre, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3705 by Faith, posted 06-24-2015 9:40 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3709 by Faith, posted 06-24-2015 11:12 AM MrHambre has responded
 Message 3713 by Jon, posted 06-24-2015 12:41 PM MrHambre has not yet responded

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 371 days)
Posts: 1494
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 3710 of 5179 (760654)
06-24-2015 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 3709 by Faith
06-24-2015 11:12 AM


You Stand Corrected
Faith writes:

For a corrective to your odd view of the history of these things


No, it was your view that needed the corrective. The Second Amendment has a meaning and a context that aren't contained in a bunch of factoids culled from Wikiquote and guncite, and your understanding of the phenomenon of this legislation needs to recognize this historical context.

The authors of the Constitution weren't afraid that the American government would oppress its populace through the domination of a standing army; they were afraid that the army would pose a threat to the state itself. That's why they preferred militias to a standing army, and their dependence on a citizen militia required that their citizens be armed.

Regardless of your position on gun control in 2015, you have to acknowledge the circumstances surrounding the ratification of the Second Amendment. Otherwise you're not really discussing the Constitution.

Edited by MrHambre, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3709 by Faith, posted 06-24-2015 11:12 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3711 by Faith, posted 06-24-2015 11:58 AM MrHambre has not yet responded

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 371 days)
Posts: 1494
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 3719 of 5179 (760671)
06-24-2015 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 3714 by Diomedes
06-24-2015 1:06 PM


Re: Second Amendment
Diomedes writes:

I acknowledge that the 2nd Amendment did have the concept of armed citizenry being able to defend themselves from a tyrannical government as part of its credo


Where?

This is the full text of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The context of the amendment was that the drafters' suspicion of a standing army outweighed their concerns about the ability of a militia to defend the new nation from its enemies. The amendment intended to preclude any politicized patterns of weapon possession that might jeopardize the security of the State.

That's why the amendment doesn't mention the right of the people to overthrow the government that the Constitution was being drafted to establish.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3714 by Diomedes, posted 06-24-2015 1:06 PM Diomedes has not yet responded

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 371 days)
Posts: 1494
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 3734 of 5179 (760728)
06-25-2015 5:21 AM
Reply to: Message 3733 by xongsmith
06-25-2015 12:20 AM


Truther Dare
So what's your claim here? That Cheney and his cronies knew what was going to happen on 9/11?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3733 by xongsmith, posted 06-25-2015 12:20 AM xongsmith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3736 by xongsmith, posted 06-25-2015 1:09 PM MrHambre has responded

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 371 days)
Posts: 1494
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 3737 of 5179 (760781)
06-25-2015 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 3736 by xongsmith
06-25-2015 1:09 PM


Re: Truther Dare
xongsmith writes:

the Pentagon itself was rehearsing such a scenario


I admit that I don't consider trutherism to be anything more than an online shell game: the truther baits his unwary opponent into jumping through hoops for him and providing context for weird factoids, then mocks the opponent's credulity and moves onto the next factoid.

Anyone who thinks that our white overlords in the government-military-industrial complex control every facet of human endeavor should have been disabused of that notion emphatically on the morning of 9/11. It takes a superhuman act of denial to believe that our government, military, and intelligence agencies only conspired to make it look like they were completely helpless and ineffective during the terrorist attack (as well as in the years preceding it), and no one had qualms whatsoever about sticking to that story.

Let's believe anything!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3736 by xongsmith, posted 06-25-2015 1:09 PM xongsmith has acknowledged this reply

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 371 days)
Posts: 1494
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 4297 of 5179 (770404)
10-05-2015 6:43 AM
Reply to: Message 4296 by Faith
10-05-2015 4:13 AM


The Culture of Gun Fetishism
We aren't going to eliminate the guns so it would be a good idea to think in terms of other ways to prevent the problem.

It's a moot point anyway, as humanist attorney and author David Niose points out in an article titled, Badass: The Culture that Makes Gun Reform Impossible.

There's a huge problem with the availability of guns in our society. But the worse problem is that the USA has a paranoid gun culture that defines firearms in terms of manhood, security, and power instead of as dangerous items whose use deserves to be regulated in the same way as other such implements. Until after the Sandy Hook incident, I had no idea that there were so many people in America ---otherwise functioning adults--- who had to have a gun within arm's reach 24-7. That's a sickness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4296 by Faith, posted 10-05-2015 4:13 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4303 by Faith, posted 10-05-2015 10:30 AM MrHambre has not yet responded

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 371 days)
Posts: 1494
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 4336 of 5179 (770465)
10-06-2015 6:19 AM
Reply to: Message 4328 by marc9000
10-05-2015 9:47 PM


The Literally Missing Link
marc9000 writes:

I specified in the scientific community.

And how does the supposed atheism of scientists correlate with (let alone cause) this increase in mass killings? It's not as if scientists themselves are committing these crimes, so you need to explain what persuades you that the two increases are in any way related.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4328 by marc9000, posted 10-05-2015 9:47 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 371 days)
Posts: 1494
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 4356 of 5179 (770516)
10-07-2015 7:20 AM
Reply to: Message 4344 by Percy
10-06-2015 12:48 PM


A Bullet to the Head of the Common Good
The New York Times article Percy linked is simply an extraordinary look at corporate America run amok. The gun manufacturers have a lobbying arm that has subverted the legislative process to benefit an industry that is doing an outrageous amount of damage in America.

The NRA wields such power in this country that legislators live in fear of a low NRA-rating come election time. And the gun dealers who would have benefitted from the increased foot traffic that enforced background checks would have supplied knew better than to complain when the NRA put the kibosh on the reasonable proposal. The only dealers the NRA has done anything for in recent memory are the ones selling to gun traffickers, because the organization won't allow legislation that requires dealers to report repeat sales and keep inventory records that can be audited. The NRA is quite literally aiding and abetting the crime that they use to motivate gun sales in the first place.

That's just diabolical.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4344 by Percy, posted 10-06-2015 12:48 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019