Nice Squirrel
Contributor
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2004
- Messages
- 6,083
- Location
- Minnesota
- Basic Beliefs
- Only the Nice Squirrel can save us.
-
Features
Reports of at Least 20 Victims Amid Active Shooting Incident in San Bernardino
- Thread starter AthenaAwakened
- Start date
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 47,075
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Don't be a dick.
And an extremely extraordinary squirrel.
I would love to see statistics demonstrating the existence of a "self-sufficient small town" anywhere in the country
If right, that's about 1.5% of US gun sales.
George S
Veteran Member
That is what a large number of the rural and semi-rural residents thing regardless of the facts. I know because I travel around the country all the time. It really is a common meme, even in Kentucky.
Let's pretend the US manages to ban private gun ownership and register guns like the French, so we too can stay safe from mass shootings. Is this next?
Proposed French law would block TOR and forbid free wi-fi
Maybe they'll add a ban on multi-player video game live chats too. I heard video games are dangerous terrorist tools.
Then let's create lists of prohibited people, but not charge them with anything. Lists that restrict citizens from traveling, purchases, exempt the government from needing warrants, or maybe keep "those types" from making movies or working in certain fields. The list could include muslims, then anti-government agitators, whistleblowers, minorities, activists; maybe we go old fashioned and add hippies, commies, and feminists. Expand the "free speech" zone concept to keep out the rabble in our discourse and track people questioning the government or visiting the wrong sites online. Let's offshore renditions or executive order US citizen executions in the name of national security.
So we've got the 1st, 2nd, and 4th; which others ammendments should we markup with red ink for our false sense of security?
I don't see this as a rural/urban divide. It's a Left/Right divide. Each group of authoritarians heading to the same end goal while complaining about the other. It will be interesting to see how the next Republican president builds on the foundations laid by the Democrats; with the obligatory whinging and knashing of teeth from the left.
Proposed French law would block TOR and forbid free wi-fi
Maybe they'll add a ban on multi-player video game live chats too. I heard video games are dangerous terrorist tools.
Then let's create lists of prohibited people, but not charge them with anything. Lists that restrict citizens from traveling, purchases, exempt the government from needing warrants, or maybe keep "those types" from making movies or working in certain fields. The list could include muslims, then anti-government agitators, whistleblowers, minorities, activists; maybe we go old fashioned and add hippies, commies, and feminists. Expand the "free speech" zone concept to keep out the rabble in our discourse and track people questioning the government or visiting the wrong sites online. Let's offshore renditions or executive order US citizen executions in the name of national security.
So we've got the 1st, 2nd, and 4th; which others ammendments should we markup with red ink for our false sense of security?
I don't see this as a rural/urban divide. It's a Left/Right divide. Each group of authoritarians heading to the same end goal while complaining about the other. It will be interesting to see how the next Republican president builds on the foundations laid by the Democrats; with the obligatory whinging and knashing of teeth from the left.
PyramidHead
Contributor
There is literally no proposed regulation that cannot be argued against using the tactic you are employing here, so it rings hollow. It is the same slippery-slope argument that has been used by opponents of every policy you are personally in favor of. And thankfully, it is usually the death rattle of the opposition, the last resort when rational discussion has been abandoned.
There is little rational discussion involved when it comes to guns. It's low on the lists of harming people, it's low on the list of probability of occurance, it's low on the list of voter's priorities in both parties for the upcoming election. It's high on the list for media to gain headlines, readership and clicks.
The NYT editorial board can't even be bothered to hold a coherant position on whether lists are bad or not. It shows how people will abandon principle as long as "their side" wins.
Two New York Times editorials terror watch lists run amok now lets ban gun purchases by people who are on them/
Besides the point. It would be interesting to know the percentage of Arizona purchases.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
In a similar vein to the NYT hypocrisy, http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/12/no-fly-list-inverted-politics/419172/
When you don't care about big banks, jobs, the economy, healthcare, student loans, or any of the others issues people really want solutions for; you add an outside enemy to a wedge issue and run on smoke, mirrors, and emotion.
When you don't care about big banks, jobs, the economy, healthcare, student loans, or any of the others issues people really want solutions for; you add an outside enemy to a wedge issue and run on smoke, mirrors, and emotion.
Crazy Eddie
Veteran Member
AMEN.
The gun culture of the 18th century was more similar to "sportsman/hunter" culture gun nuts currently imagine is the status quo around the country. In SOME areas, this still holds true... but this is not actually the case for a huge number of handgun owners, especially in urban areas. Young people were taught to use firearms by their parents and relatives the same way a city dweller is taught to ride a bicycle or drive a car.
Some of our papers have published it. Birthday of the Prince of Peace, eh?
It is interesting that the gun obsession took root only in US small towns. Many of my relations live in similar backwoods in Patagonia and Seskatewan, and they lack that crank entirely.
Such a weird strawman. Rural people aren't obsessed with guns as much as they use them on a regular basis for non-criminal activity. They don't want to stop using them because people in big cities can't stop shooting each other while engauging in criminal activity. They don't see someone else's problem as theirs and refuse to take ownership of it.
They get scorn and blame for high murder rates that don't occur where they live. They don't live in fear. Most still don't lock their houses or cars, they have low crime rates and low homicide rates, while simultaneously having much higher gun ownership rates, more guns per household (more guns per truck/car), and more ammunition. So I'd ask the people here why they even bother to talk about rural gun owners? They are statistically not part of the national gun problem. Focusing on them unnecessarily shifts the conversation away from root causes, leads to unnecessary division, and stifles any actual useful solutions to the problem. You'd expect more from the better educated city dwellers then finger pointing and name calling. At least be nice to them while you try to unload the blame for your city problems on them.
Making up statistics for headlines has a similar affect and should be stopped. Root causes need to be found and addressed to curb the violence and crime so that one day city people can leave their doors and cars unlocked, or go out for the night without worrying about being shot by someone. It's a nicer way to live, city people should try it out.
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/33928-why-counting-mass-shootings-is-a-bad-way-to-understand-gun-violence-in-america
Crazy Eddie
Veteran Member
That's not a strawman. I think you mean "non-sequitor" (it's not really that either, but it's close).
Indeed.
So what?
No, they get scorn and blame for cooperating with the NRA in sandbagging sensible gun control laws that WOULD actually address some of the problems going on in urban areas and, indeed, in some small towns as well. In essence, for refusing to see that something that works just fine for them doesn't work for everyone everywhere and making themselves an obstacle to progress.
:laughing-smiley-014 Have you MET city dwellers? "Finger Pointing and Namecalling" is what people in Chicago call "election season."
So there are two possible solutions to this problem:
1) Get people in the city to all be nicer to each other, eliminate the root causes of urban blight, poverty, criminality, and other related social ills, and work to promote a more egalitarian society where every single person in the community respects the rights, safety and property of their neighbors, AND create a system of checks that ensures that visitors to the community or miscreant members OF the community do not have an opportunity to deviate too far from acceptable standards of behavior
2) Pass sensible gun control laws that make it harder for criminals, assholes or lunatics to obtain and use firearms.
One of those things, we actually know how to do. Care to guess which one?
Based on past history, I'd say they don't know how to do either and will continue to accomplish nothing. If you look at polls of likely voters and the issues they actually care about most of them are included in 1) Jobs, education, welfare, police, etc.. Fewer people agree with 2) because sensible to some is complete ban. Which is a non-starter. The answer they get back depends on the question they ask. A majority supports backgrounds checks, a majority doesn't support registration. Up to 25 percent of recent gun sales are to new gun owners.
I grew up in the country and live in the city now. But it's clearly blacks that are having the problem. truth-out.org Why counting mass shootings is a bad way to understand gun violence in america
I'd start by a much more focused approach on those communities with something like the Cure Violence programs http://cureviolence.org/. Followed closely with the Justice department working with local law enforcement to figure out how to keep the approximately 1000-1200 people killed by police this year; from being killed by the police.
But, they'll continue to beat the drums of ineffective policies, maybe even pass an assault weapon ban like Clinton the First in the 90s. In the mean time 1000s more will die due to draconian policing, a foolish drug war, poverty, and terrorism. Because doing something is the politicans answer to a problem. Doing something effective isn't.
Ya, but doing those effective things doesn't mean you have to avoid doing other effective things like cutting down the number of guns that crazy groups of lunatics like Americans have.