Guns (Yawn)

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Guns (Yawn)

Postby stillrobertpaulsen » Thu Feb 22, 2018 7:51 pm

This whole sad Parkland shooting episode (I'm sure HMW would have put out an OP on the memetic connection with JFK) really illustrates the disparity between the USA's democratic ideals and its cronyistic plutocratic reality, as does every other school shooting resulting in mass casualties. The majority of American citizens want gun control. Always have, but in the wake of tragedy, their voices become more pronounced. Politicians in the pockets of the NRA struggle to find right tone, say they will eventually do something, but keep taking the money and ultimately do nothing. Even if some legislation is passed, it will be neutered and eventually made ineffective, then more school shootings result in the same vicious cycle.

I echo your yawn, Jack.
"Huey Long once said, “Fascism will come to America in the name of anti-fascism.” I'm afraid, based on my own experience, that fascism will come to America in the name of national security."
-Jim Garrison 1967
User avatar
stillrobertpaulsen
 
Posts: 2414
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 2:43 pm
Location: California
Blog: View Blog (37)

Re: Guns (Yawn)

Postby seemslikeadream » Thu Feb 22, 2018 10:43 pm

I believe in the children are our future ....and big banks :P


no yawning!

you see it was Vietnam that was killing my friends......now it is the NRA that is killing high school seniors and the ones that are alive are going to be voting in Nov.

but they are setting the bar too low

and the states are going to do something about that they will not wait for the fed gov to act

just like pot :leprechaun:

soon Omaha Bank will be giving out Cannabis Cards :yay

Pot Leads the Way to the NRA!

oh I know I know it only took 80 years :crybaby

The bank, which is the largest privately held bank in the United States, previously issued NRA-branded credit cards as part of a its business issuing branded cards for multiple U.S. brands

Omaha bank ends business relationship with NRA
BY BRANDON CARTER - 02/22/18 03:51 PM EST 252


Omaha bank ends business relationship with NRA

First National Bank of Omaha said Thursday that it would end its business relationship with the National Rifle Association (NRA) after feedback from customers.

In a post on its official Twitter account Thursday, the bank announced it would no longer renews its contract with the NRA.

“Customer feedback has caused us to review our relationship with the NRA,” the bank wrote. “As a result, First National Bank of Omaha will not renew its contract with the National Rifle Association to issue the NRA Visa Card.”

The bank, which is the largest privately held bank in the United States, previously issued NRA-branded credit cards as part of a its business issuing branded cards for multiple U.S. brands.
The Omaha World-Herald reports the bank wouldn’t disclose any details about its relationship with the NRA or confirm when the contract with the organization would expire.

ThinkProgress, a liberal news outlet, reported Wednesday that the website advertising the NRA credit card was no longer online after naming First National Bank on a list of businesses that support the organization.

The move comes as the NRA faces increased scrutiny in the wake of a deadly mass shooting at a Florida high school last week. Survivors of the attack have called on politicians to refuse future donations from the organization, and an NRA spokeswoman was challenged by the parent of one of the people killed in the shooting at a town hall event Wednesday.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing- ... nship-with
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Guns (Yawn)

Postby DrEvil » Thu Feb 22, 2018 11:47 pm

Karmamatterz » Thu Feb 22, 2018 1:06 am wrote:
You're arguing that Americans as a people are so completely fucked up that you will have mass murders left an right no matter what, which I disagree with. You're not that fucked up.


Oh yeah? LOL...we are totally fucked up! Yes, it's a screwy country. Democracy, eerrrrrr pseudo democrazy is messy. The guns aren't going away. People are just fantasizing about that and making themselves miserable because reality doesn't match what they want.

If you take away the guns there isn't going to suddenly be cars ramming into people left and right.


Ask the people that got plowed over in France and New York City last year. Then read this:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/201 ... 819485001/
A terrorist plowed through a busy bicycle path near the World Trade Center memorial in Lower Manhattan on Tuesday and fatally struck eight people — the latest incident in which a vehicle (in this case, a rented truck) has been used as a weapon.

Here's a look at the disturbing trend that requires little organization, manpower or technological know-how.

Barcelona, Spain
In August, a terrorist driving a van killed 14 people and injured at least 100 on Barcelona's heavily touristed pedestrian area of La Ramblas.


I would have to say all mass murderers are fucking cowards, not just the loons who use guns. They are all sick fuckers that have messed up antisocial or psychopathic mental illness(es).

Go back and read the list I posted yesterday. There are mass murders all over the globe. The U.S. just seems to have it's own unique fucked up way of going about it and the frequency is insane. The U.S. is not some other country. And frankly it's getting old that you're constantly trying to convince us we should be just like everybody else. The U.S. is not like Finland or Sweden, and I don't think most people here want to model America after them. Lots of people here do like guns and are not going to part with them. I'm not you're audience obviously. Others on RI will agree with you. But take a step outside of the RI bubble and into "normal" America and plenty of people aren't interested in what you're selling. I had to laugh this morning when the very Left local newspaper ran a poll this week and 80% of respondents voted for less gun control. This is a blue county by the way, not your typical rural Ohio red. Polls, pretty much garbage in, garbage out.

A few weeks ago you were complaining about free speech in America. You know, we kinda like free speech, it keeps things spicy.


I'm not trying to convince you to be like Finland or Sweden, I'm trying to convince you that having mass murder be a normal thing to happen is pretty damned fucked up and you should want to do something about it, and by something I mean not repeatedly engaging in whataboutism and irrelevant sidetracking (what does my opinions on hate speech have to do with this?).

You sound almost proud of your track record in mass murder. 'MERICA! FUCK YEAH! Nobody tell us what we can't do!
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 3972
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Guns (Yawn)

Postby Burnt Hill » Thu Feb 22, 2018 11:48 pm

stillrobertpaulsen wrote:(I'm sure HMW would have put out an OP on the memetic connection with JFK)


What an impact HMW had on my thinking here.
And i had to worry a bit about viral schizophrenia when I realized I used it out side of here.
Hugh was wrong about a lot of things,
But he was right about everything.
* okay not everything. But a lot of important things.
shoot now that I have a disclaimer I want to delete the post.
Last edited by Burnt Hill on Fri Feb 23, 2018 12:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Burnt Hill
 
Posts: 2584
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2006 7:42 pm
Location: down down
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Guns (Yawn)

Postby seemslikeadream » Fri Feb 23, 2018 12:02 am

Three major car rental companies dump the NRA

The backlash is growing.
LUKE BARNES
FEB 22, 2018, 8:20 PM


A major car rental conglomerate which operates three prominent national brands is ending its corporate relationship with the National Rifle Association, as backlash grows in the wake of the Parkland mass shooting.

Until Thursday, Enterprise Holdings, which operates Enterprise, Alamo, and National, had a partnership with the NRA to provide discounts to members of the gun lobby. The discounts were available to NRA members once they paid the $40 annual fee, and the companies were among the 22 corporations offering discounts and “five star savings” to the gun lobby’s members.

On Thursday, however, all three brands announced that they would be ending the program on March 26.


The announcement follows close on the heels of First National Bank of Omaha’s decision to end its relationship with the NRA. For more than a decade the bank has offered NRA members specially branded Visa credit cards, but in a tweet Thursday the bank said that “customer feedback has caused us to review our relationship with the NRA.” The bank did not respond to multiple inquiries by ThinkProgress asking for a more detailed explanation of its decision.
https://thinkprogress.org/alamo-nationa ... 326965744/
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Guns (Yawn)

Postby mentalgongfu2 » Fri Feb 23, 2018 5:40 am

I can't be the only one who finds the NRA horrible and the idea of arming teachers ludicrous (for oh so many reasons), who also grimaces when watching clips of the town hall with Rubio, can I?

Maybe it's just the clapping and cheers for anything the students say, that bothers me so. The audience is clearly of one mind, and that mind is ready to cheer anything that says 'No' to guns. While I appreciate the spirit behind it, something about this display rubs me wrong.

I think something should be done about firearms access in America.

I think the excuses offered by the pro-gun lobby are often just that - lame, sad excuses.

I think many of the platitudes and solutions offered by the gun control crowd are equally sad and poorly thought out.


America loves guns. It is part of our national identity, for better or worse. I'm not sure if it stems from the wild west frontier bullshit, or just the narratives that have glorified the idea of the gun-wielding hero, but it isn't disappearing. Any improvement must be measured by its ability to stop would-be murderers from gaining access to tools that aid them in psychotic rampages while not overly frightening reasonable people who wish to own guns. It must find a balance, some medium, to have any chance of gaining currency. And it will only be an improvement, not a complete solution.

Clearly, I speak as one who has not been personally impacted by gun violence. I think this detachment can be an advantage in some cases. If I were speaking under other circumstances, they would surely color my views and words, as it must with everyone associated with Parkland. Comparatively, my lack of personal tragedy in this vein also colors my experience, as does my childhood growing up in a home where guns were present, where I was taught to use them in my teen years, where I was warned to never point them at anything I didn't wish to kill, and where I never dared to touch them despite knowing they were in an unlocked location in my home.
[I also played violent video games, watched movies, and listened to rap and rock 'n' roll music. None ever made me want to shoot someone]

None of the weapons in my home could have been considered assault rifles. The NRA lobby and those who subscribe to it consider 'assault rifle' a bullshit term, but they are dissembling. They focus on the confusion among the general public between automatic and semi-automatic. The difference is negligible, and there are lots of semi-auto rifles that are not in the same category as the AR 15 and similar rifles used in these mass murders.

A good starting point, in the idea of finding a middle ground, would be to restrict these style semi-auto weapons. I would urge anyone on the gun control side to to learn more about guns and to stick to a simple proposal like that rather than running wild on the idea that no one needs handguns, etc., if for nothing else than strategic practicality.

I may not be able to go all the way with some gun control ideas, but I think enough voting Americans will go along with something like that to make it actually achievable, unlike some of the rhetoric currently bandied about that will lose a big chunk of voters simply due to the attitude that comes with its presentation.
"When I'm done ranting about elite power that rules the planet under a totalitarian government that uses the media in order to keep people stupid, my throat gets parched. That's why I drink Orange Drink!"
User avatar
mentalgongfu2
 
Posts: 1966
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 6:02 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Guns (Yawn)

Postby Sounder » Fri Feb 23, 2018 6:29 am

Those are sensible thoughts on the matter mentalgongfu2.

And good, simple, clear writing, Thanks.

Strident positions either way are not productive.
Sounder
 
Posts: 4054
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Guns (Yawn)

Postby seemslikeadream » Fri Feb 23, 2018 7:44 am


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yp81OYCjXtU&t=648s

THE FBI IS INVESTIGATING THE NRA

Oregon legislature passes bill strengthening state's gun laws
BY JACQUELINE THOMSEN - 02/22/18 04:04 PM EST

The Oregon legislature passed a bill Thursday banning anyone with a domestic violence conviction from owning a firearm, according to KOIN 6 local news station.

The state has banned those with domestic violence or stalking convictions from owning guns since 2015, but a loophole in the law allowed abusers who aren’t living with, married to or have children with the victim to have their guns, according to OregonLive.

The state’s House of Representatives passed the bill 37-23 last week — one day after the mass shooting at a Florida high school. The state Senate approved it 16-13 on Thursday.

Advocates for the new bill say that closing the loophole will protect women who could shot by abusive partners they are not married to.

"A person who assaults their boyfriend or girlfriend is no less guilty of domestic violence than someone who assaults their husband or wife," House Majority Leader Jennifer Williamson (D) told OregonLive.

The bill will now go to Gov. Kate Brown’s (D) desk, who has said the legislation is a major priority for her. She tweeted that she will sign the bill into law.

The measure comes amid a national conversation about adding gun restrictions in the wake of the Parkland, Fla., high school shooting that left 17 people dead.

President Trump has signaled that he’s willing to work on new gun restrictions, and has backed improved background checks, a ban on bump stocks and a minimum age for gun purchases.
http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch ... c-violence



What I Saw Treating the Victims From Parkland Should Change the Debate on Guns

They weren’t the first victims of a mass shooting the Florida radiologist had seen—but their wounds were radically different.

HEATHER SHER FEB 22, 2018 POLITICS

As I opened the CT scan last week to read the next case, I was baffled. The history simply read “gunshot wound.” I have been a radiologist in one of the busiest trauma centers in the nation for 13 years, and have diagnosed thousands of handgun injuries to the brain, lung, liver, spleen, bowel, and other vital organs. I thought that I knew all that I needed to know about gunshot wounds, but the specific pattern of injury on my computer screen was one that I had seen only once before.

In a typical handgun injury that I diagnose almost daily, a bullet leaves a laceration through an organ like the liver. To a radiologist, it appears as a linear, thin, grey bullet track through the organ. There may be bleeding and some bullet fragments.

I was looking at a CT scan of one of the victims of the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, who had been brought to the trauma center during my call shift. The organ looked like an overripe melon smashed by a sledgehammer, with extensive bleeding. How could a gunshot wound have caused this much damage?

The reaction in the emergency room was the same. One of the trauma surgeons opened a young victim in the operating room, and found only shreds of the organ that had been hit by a bullet from an AR-15, a semi-automatic rifle which delivers a devastatingly lethal, high-velocity bullet to the victim. There was nothing left to repair, and utterly, devastatingly, nothing that could be done to fix the problem. The injury was fatal.

A year ago, when a gunman opened fire at the Fort Lauderdale airport with a 9mm semiautomatic handgun, hitting 11 people in 90 seconds, I was also on call. It was not until I had diagnosed the third of the six victims who were transported to the trauma center that I realized something out-of-the-ordinary must have happened. The gunshot wounds were the same low velocity handgun injuries as those I diagnose every day; only their rapid succession set them apart. And all six of the victims who arrived at the hospital that day survived.

Routine handgun injuries leave entry and exit wounds and linear tracks through the victim's body that are roughly the size of the bullet. If the bullet does not directly hit something crucial like the heart or the aorta, and they do not bleed to death before being transported to our care at a trauma center, chances are, we can save the victim. The bullets fired by an AR-15 are different; they travel at higher velocity and are far more lethal. The damage they cause is a function of the energy they impart as they pass through the body. A typical AR-15 bullet leaves the barrel traveling almost three times faster than, and imparting more than three times the energy of, a typical 9mm bullet from a handgun. An AR-15 rifle outfitted with a magazine with 50 rounds allows many more lethal bullets to be delivered quickly without reloading.

I have seen a handful of AR-15 injuries in my career. I saw one from a man shot in the back by a SWAT team years ago. The injury along the path of the bullet from an AR-15 is vastly different from a low-velocity handgun injury. The bullet from an AR-15 passes through the body like a cigarette boat travelling at maximum speed through a tiny canal. The tissue next to the bullet is elastic—moving away from the bullet like waves of water displaced by the boat—and then returns and settles back. This process is called cavitation; it leaves the displaced tissue damaged or killed. The high-velocity bullet causes a swath of tissue damage that extends several inches from its path. It does not have to actually hit an artery to damage it and cause catastrophic bleeding. Exit wounds can be the size of an orange.

With an AR-15, the shooter does not have to be particularly accurate. The victim does not have to be unlucky. If a victim takes a direct hit to the liver from an AR-15, the damage is far graver than that of a simple handgun shot injury. Handgun injuries to the liver are generally survivable unless the bullet hits the main blood supply to the liver. An AR-15 bullet wound to the middle of the liver would cause so much bleeding that the patient would likely never make it to a trauma center to receive our care.

One of my ER colleagues was waiting nervously for his own children outside the school. While the shooting was still in progress, the first responders were gathering up victims whenever they could and carrying them outside the building. Even as a physician trained in trauma situations, though, there was nothing he could do at the scene to help to save the victims who had been shot with an AR-15. Most of them died on the spot, with no fighting chance at life.


As a doctor, I feel I have a duty to inform the public of what I have learned as I have observed these wounds and cared for these patients. It’s clear to me that AR-15 or other high-velocity weapons, especially when outfitted with a high-capacity magazine, have no place in a civilian’s gun cabinet. I have friends who own AR-15 rifles; they enjoy shooting them at target practice for sport, and fervently defend their right to own them. But I cannot accept that their right to enjoy their hobby supersedes my right to send my own children to school, to a movie theater, or to a concert and to know that they are safe. Can the answer really be to subject our school children to active shooter drills—to learn to hide under desks, turn off the lights, lock the door and be silent—instead of addressing the root cause of the problem and passing legislation to take AR-15-style weapons out of the hands of civilians?

But in the aftermath of this shooting, in the face of specific questioning, our government leaders did not want to discuss gun control even when asked directly about these issues. Florida Senator Marco Rubio warned not to “jump to conclusions that there’s some law we could have passed that could have prevented it.” A reporter asked House Speaker Paul Ryan about gun control, and he replied, “As you know, mental health is often a big problem underlying these tragedies.” And on Tuesday, Florida’s state legislature voted against considering a ban on AR-15-type rifles, 71 to 36.

If politicians want to back comprehensive mental-health reform, I am all for it. As a medical doctor, I’ve witnessed firsthand the toll that mental-health issues take on families and the individuals themselves who have no access to satisfactory long-term mental-health care. But the president and Congress should not use this issue as an excuse to deliberately overlook the fact that the use of AR-15 rifles is the common denominator in many mass shootings.

A medical professor taught me about the dangers of drawing incorrect conclusions from data with the example of gum chewing, smokers, and lung cancer. He said smokers may be more likely to chew gum to cover bad breath, but that one cannot look at the data and decide that gum chewing causes lung cancer. It is the same type of erroneous logic that focuses on mental health after mass shootings, when banning the sale of semi-automatic rifles would be a far more effective means of preventing them.

Banning the AR-15 should not be a partisan issue. While there may be no consensus on many questions of gun control, there seems to be broad support for removing high-velocity, lethal weaponry and high-capacity magazines from the market, which would drastically reduce the incidence of mass murders. Every constitutionally guaranteed right that we are blessed to enjoy comes with responsibilities. Even our right to free speech is not limitless. Second Amendment gun rights must respect the same boundaries.

The CDC is the appropriate agency to review the potential impact of banning AR-15 style rifles and high-capacity magazines on the incidence of mass shootings. The agency was effectively barred from studying gun violence as a public-health issue in 1996 by a statutory provision known as the Dickey amendment. This provision needs to be repealed so that the CDC can study this issue and make sensible gun-policy recommendations to Congress.

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) of 1994 included language which prohibited semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15, and also large-capacity magazines with the ability to hold more than 10 rounds. The ban was allowed to expire after 10 years on September 13, 2004. The mass murders that followed the ban’s lapse make clear that it must be reinstated.

On Wednesday night, Rubio said at a town-hall event hosted by CNN that it is impossible to create effective gun regulations because there are too many “loopholes” and that a “plastic grip” can make the difference between a gun that is legal and illegal. But if we can see the different impacts of high- and low-velocity rounds clinically, then the government can also draw such distinctions.

As a radiologist, I have now seen high velocity AR-15 gunshot wounds firsthand, an experience that most radiologists in our country will never have. I pray that these are the last such wounds I have to see, and that AR-15-style weapons and high-capacity magazines are banned for use by civilians in the United States, once and for all.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... ns/553937/


Northeast governors announce gun control initiative
By EDWARD-ISAAC DOVERE 02/22/2018 11:48 AM EST

Not counting on Washington to take action on gun laws, four Northeast Democratic governors on Thursday announced the formation of a state-based alliance to beef up gun controls. It's modeled on the Climate Alliance formed by Democratic governors after President Donald Trump announced he’d withdraw from the Paris climate agreement.

Govs. Phil Murphy of New Jersey, Andrew Cuomo of New York, Dan Malloy of Connecticut and Gina Raimondo of Rhode Island said the initiative would share information on top of what’s in the federal background-check system, trace guns across state lines and create a regional consortium to share policy studies being done at universities and elsewhere.


In an interview earlier this week for POLITICO’s Off Message podcast, Murphy had teased that this group was coming.

“This notion of a coalition of states, of like-minded states, that share best practices to me is a very smart interim step toward a national solution,” he said in the interview.

Murphy has already announced a raft of new gun regulations he wants to sign into law, with the support of the New Jersey Legislature.

“Rather than wait for the federal government to come to its senses,” Cuomo said in a statement announcing the initative, the states are going “to take matters into our own hands.” New York has passed a series of gun laws since the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in 2012.

Raimondo added: “Kids in Florida and across the nation are taking action, and it's not a surprise: We've forced them to lead because for years elected officials in Washington have refused to.”

Murphy was elected to a first term by a wide margin last year, and Cuomo and Raimondo are running for reelection. Malloy’s term ends this year.
This is what Google searches for "gun control" looked like in June 2016, the week after the mass shooting at Pulse Nightclub in Orlando, FL.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/ ... nce-421728



Image
This is what Google searches for "gun control" looked like after the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School. This made international headlines for days. And even then, interest in gun control faded fast.
Image
This is what Google searches for "gun control" looked like In October, the week after the Las Vegas shooting — the deadliest in U.S. history. Back down to baseline w/in a week.
Image
This is what Google searches for "gun control" looked like in November, the week after the mass shooting at a church in Sutherland Springs, TX.
Image
Eight days after the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, Google searches for "gun control" aren't dropping off.
Image



Image
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Guns (Yawn)

Postby Karmamatterz » Sat Feb 24, 2018 11:06 am

Mentalgong,

Appreciate you sharing that you have some background and used firearms so you know a few things. It's incredibly difficult to have a discussion with people who haven't fired, been trained or exposed to guns. I'll save the bit on semi/assault etc...for a later time. It should be discussed with some detail though, at least for differing sides to understand terminology and "language."

I'm not trying to convince you to be like Finland or Sweden, I'm trying to convince you that having mass murder be a normal thing to happen is pretty damned fucked up and you should want to do something about it, and by something I mean not repeatedly engaging in whataboutism and irrelevant sidetracking (what does my opinions on hate speech have to do with this?).

You sound almost proud of your track record in mass murder. 'MERICA! FUCK YEAH! Nobody tell us what we can't do!


Dr. Evil, whatever dude.

You love projecting shit and trying to force fit your views onto others or twist words around to make it appear someone wrote something they didn't. What kind of douchie-ness is that where somebody claims someone else is "almost proud" of mass murder? Go fuck yourself. But you know what? I am proud of the Bill of Rights. I LOVE free speech! I'm quite happy with the 2nd, 3rd and so on and so forth. Never really considered the 3rd and what it would mean to deal with that. I suppose we're lucky. No. 4 is a biggie and very important as well. Anyhow, just because someone is proud of their nation's fundamental laws doesn't make them a loony flag waving nationalist. Binary thinking limits your ability to understand the diversity of what it is to be human. We're not one dimensional creatures. And if someone does want to wave their flag(s) like a loon I don't care. It's called freedom of speech. Doesn't mean I like their flag waving or agree with their ideology, but I respect their right to do so. What the hell has happened with tolerance and respect for your neighbors views and values?

You don't need to try and convince any of us that mass murder is fucked up. Are we clear on that?

Getting to the root of the problem is the solution. Window dressing with more legislation does little or nothing. Emotional expression is what we are experiencing and seeing following this latest mass killing. It would be heartless to not be aware or have any compassion for the grief and suffering of the victims, their families and friends. The community of Parkland has had their collective psyche rattled, and for some people (the living) likely, and sadly, crushed for life. If people weren't upset then it would be very weird and a sign of something else disturbing. We all express ourselves differently. https://personalityjunkie.com/more-type-profiles/

Emotional expressions aren't what will create a solution. Emotional expressions may provide some drive and fuel determination, but rational thought and dialogue is what is needed. If you expect gun owners to give up their firearms then you're living a fantasy. There are many gun laws already in place. You can't just walk into a store and buy a gun like you purchase a gallon of milk or six-pack of beer. Automatic weapons are outlawed and with very rare exceptions only law enforcement or military can purchase them. There will always be guns.

The question nobody wants to address is: Why are these kids (and young men) so frequently becoming antisocial or developing mental illnesses that they lose control and want to kill?

To link up with SLAD's latest thread on opioids, why would someone become so depressed or messed up they would choose a life of being addicted and living like a zombie?

They are two different topics and issues but related to each other because they are about human choice and behavior.
User avatar
Karmamatterz
 
Posts: 828
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 10:58 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Guns (Yawn)

Postby stefano » Sat Feb 24, 2018 3:54 pm

I don't think anyone would argue that banning guns would end mass murder. It's not an argument I've seen on here, at any rate. I do agree with the pro-stronger regulation current on here, though, that making it harder to obtain machines of which the only purpose is to kill many people in a short space of time, will tend to lead to fewer people getting killed. Maybe just as many maniacs will think about mass murder (though I believe there's something about the killing machine itself that brings the thought into the world), but fewer will move to the act.

For purposes of comparison, here is a pretty rigorous study (at first glance) of the way in which the banning of certain kinds of lethal pesticides in Sri Lanka reduced the overall suicide rate. Suicide by pesticide came off 50%, while suicides by other means went up 2%, and all suicides together fell 21%. That is, some suicidal people were determined to kill themselves by any means, as you might put it, and did; but many more others dropped the idea when the easiest means was no longer at hand.

The way you use 'ban guns' is also tendentious in the extreme (and it cost a lot of bucks to wedge that frame into the discourse). No one's talking about banning guns or taking away your guns. The regulations under consideration are about controlling the trade in certain kinds of firearms that are designed specifically to kill lots of people and which are the ones that get used in these spree killings many times more frequently than any other.

Karmamatterz wrote:The question nobody wants to address is: Why are these kids (and young men) so frequently becoming antisocial or developing mental illnesses that they lose control and want to kill?


This is a good, and very big question. I'm reading a great book right at the moment about gangs here in Cape Town, which I would recommend to anyone interested in the way in which modern society fails its young men when it comes to initiatory traditions and making room for the nonconformists and underperformers. But I think in America (the way I think I understand it) that is a much more complicated ask than making it less easy to get guns. That kind of hypercompetitive, conformist superstructure is something late-stage capitalism needs, and I think it will only be possible to question that once there has been progress on more basic shit, like a general agreement that it would be better for machines of mass murder not to be easily obtainable.
User avatar
stefano
 
Posts: 2672
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 1:50 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Guns (Yawn)

Postby DrEvil » Sat Feb 24, 2018 6:32 pm

Karmamatterz » Sat Feb 24, 2018 5:06 pm wrote:
..snip..

I'm not trying to convince you to be like Finland or Sweden, I'm trying to convince you that having mass murder be a normal thing to happen is pretty damned fucked up and you should want to do something about it, and by something I mean not repeatedly engaging in whataboutism and irrelevant sidetracking (what does my opinions on hate speech have to do with this?).

You sound almost proud of your track record in mass murder. 'MERICA! FUCK YEAH! Nobody tell us what we can't do!


Dr. Evil, whatever dude.

You love projecting shit and trying to force fit your views onto others or twist words around to make it appear someone wrote something they didn't. What kind of douchie-ness is that where somebody claims someone else is "almost proud" of mass murder? Go fuck yourself. But you know what? I am proud of the Bill of Rights. I LOVE free speech! I'm quite happy with the 2nd, 3rd and so on and so forth. Never really considered the 3rd and what it would mean to deal with that. I suppose we're lucky. No. 4 is a biggie and very important as well. Anyhow, just because someone is proud of their nation's fundamental laws doesn't make them a loony flag waving nationalist. Binary thinking limits your ability to understand the diversity of what it is to be human. We're not one dimensional creatures. And if someone does want to wave their flag(s) like a loon I don't care. It's called freedom of speech. Doesn't mean I like their flag waving or agree with their ideology, but I respect their right to do so. What the hell has happened with tolerance and respect for your neighbors views and values?


I wasn't accusing you of actually being proud of it, just pointing out that your post came across (to me at least) as a "don't tell us what to do" rant, which in the context of reducing mass shootings made it sound like you were defending the status quo (which I don't think you are).

And again: what does free speech have to do with this? Shooting people isn't free speech, and for the record, no, I don't tolerate Nazis or people arguing for genocide. Their speech is poison and has zero value. They had their chance and literally became the poster boys for evil empire.

You don't need to try and convince any of us that mass murder is fucked up. Are we clear on that?


I'm perfectly clear on that and always have been. We disagree on how to go about it. I think stricter regulations on guns is one part of how to fix it, you keep bringing up knife and truck attacks, which I think are irrelevant to the discussion.

Another aspect I haven't touched on where I agree with you is mental health care. There needs to be better access to good mental health care for more people. The current for-profit system essentially locks out those most likely to blow up. It doesn't help that Trump made it easier for mentally ill people to buy guns (or that blind people(!) can buy guns in some states).

Getting to the root of the problem is the solution. Window dressing with more legislation does little or nothing. Emotional expression is what we are experiencing and seeing following this latest mass killing. It would be heartless to not be aware or have any compassion for the grief and suffering of the victims, their families and friends. The community of Parkland has had their collective psyche rattled, and for some people (the living) likely, and sadly, crushed for life. If people weren't upset then it would be very weird and a sign of something else disturbing. We all express ourselves differently. https://personalityjunkie.com/more-type-profiles/

Emotional expressions aren't what will create a solution. Emotional expressions may provide some drive and fuel determination, but rational thought and dialogue is what is needed. If you expect gun owners to give up their firearms then you're living a fantasy. There are many gun laws already in place. You can't just walk into a store and buy a gun like you purchase a gallon of milk or six-pack of beer. Automatic weapons are outlawed and with very rare exceptions only law enforcement or military can purchase them. There will always be guns.


Yes, there will always be guns. That doesn't mean you can't do your utmost to keep them out of the hands of people not fit to own them, or restrict or ban the sale of guns and gun accessories only suited for mass shootings. You don't need a semiautomatic rifle with a bump stock and an extended magazine to go hunting or do target practice or defend your home.

Just because there's lots of guns out there now doesn't mean you have to keep the flood gates open. You close the gates and then slowly drain the swamp. Getting to a sensible level will probably take decades, but I still think you should try.

The question nobody wants to address is: Why are these kids (and young men) so frequently becoming antisocial or developing mental illnesses that they lose control and want to kill?

To link up with SLAD's latest thread on opioids, why would someone become so depressed or messed up they would choose a life of being addicted and living like a zombie?

They are two different topics and issues but related to each other because they are about human choice and behavior.


That is a good question. What you should look at is if that kind of behavior is exclusive to the US, or if it's common in other countries, with the only difference being the access to guns. If it's the latter then stricter gun laws is an obvious answer, if not you need to figure out what makes the US so unique and try to fix that.

Some possibilities that come to mind are poor access to mental health care for those most in need, the polarization and subsequent alienation of society, inequality and poverty, and toxic masculinity (emphasis on toxic).
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 3972
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Guns (Yawn)

Postby Cordelia » Sat Feb 24, 2018 7:18 pm

Karmamatterz wrote:

The question nobody wants to address is: Why are these kids (and young men) so frequently becoming antisocial or developing mental illnesses that they lose control and want to kill?


But are they any more mentally ill than a nation that, post WW2, routinely maims and kills innocents (must be millions), under the guise of war?

They're like drones, but still human beings, violently acting out the deeds of a country growing more savage and ruthless in its attacks on the people of other countries. imo, all controlled/out-of-control methodical killing is antisocial; insane, blood lust. Paid for by all of us. :cry:
The greatest sin is to be unconscious. ~ Carl Jung

We may not choose the parameters of our destiny. But we give it its content. ~ Dag Hammarskjold 'Waymarks'
User avatar
Cordelia
 
Posts: 3697
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 7:07 pm
Location: USA
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Guns (Yawn)

Postby norton ash » Sat Feb 24, 2018 10:32 pm

I can understand guns for personal-home protection or hunting. Assault/semi-automatic weapons/machine guns don't qualify. If you want one, join the fucking army.
Zen horse
User avatar
norton ash
 
Posts: 4067
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 5:46 pm
Location: Canada
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Guns (Yawn)

Postby seemslikeadream » Sun Feb 25, 2018 12:04 pm

Image


Is the NRA a Tax-Exempt Nonprofit Organization?
A Facebook meme gets the basic facts right about the gun lobby's status as a social welfare organization.


CLAIM
The NRA is a tax-exempt nonprofit organization.

RATING

TRUE

ORIGIN

The February 2018 shooting deaths of seventeen people at a high school in Parkland, Florida and a subsequent, charged town hall meeting about gun safety with some of the mass shooting’s survivors and their families has put the National Rifle Association under intense scrutiny for its opposition to gun control.

Against this background, many were surprised to discover that the NRA, despite being well known for its political lobbying and ties to the gun industry, is in fact a tax-exempt nonprofit organization. On 22 February 2018, the “Really American” Facebook page posted a meme that showed President Donald Trump holding a rifle, along with this message:

The NRA has non-profit, tax-exempt status. Even though they transformed from an organization for gun owners to an organization for gun manufacturers, and donate millions of dollars to politicians to make sure they vote the “right way.” Corruption in action.

Image
The National Rifle Association is indeed a tax-exempt nonprofit organization. To be specific, it has 501(c)(4) status, meaning it is regarded as a “social welfare organization” by the Internal Revenue Service:

To be operated exclusively to promote social welfare, an organization must operate primarily to further the common good and general welfare of the people of the community (such as by bringing about civic betterment and social improvements.)
A 501(c)(4) organization like the NRA is allowed to engage in political lobbying and advocacy, but this cannot be its main activity, and it must be related to the group’s primary mission and the issue upon which its tax exemption is based, according to the IRS. Social welfare organizations may also get involved in political campaigns and elections, provided their involvement is related to the group’s mission, and again, only if this does not constitute their primary activity.

Critics of the NRA have claimed that the organization’s tax exemption should be taken away, because, roughly speaking, the NRA spends less time and money providing a genuine service to the public at large than it does on political lobbying, and because the NRA’s activities benefit the private gun industry.

In its 2015 tax return, the NRA described its mission as “Firearms safety education and training and advocacy on behalf of safe and responsible gun owners.” In April 2016, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence published a report on this very issue, labelling the NRA “a tax-exempt [organization] loaded with private interest.” The authors — attorneys Alexandra O’Neill and Daniel O’Neill — wrote:

…The majority of the NRA’s lobbying, education, training and publication activities operate to benefit a private interest: the firearms and ammunition industry. As a result, under the cases and rulings interpreting section 501(c)(4), the NRA does not primarily serve the community interest and should not qualify as a tax-exempt social welfare organization.

Instead, the NRA should operate as a political lobbying organization to be accountable for its key interests: the firearms and ammunition industry.
A spokesperson for the NRA rejected this, telling us in an e-mail that the group’s legislative lobbying was “textbook social welfare activity,” and that any benefits that accrued to gun manufacturers from the NRA’s activities were “incidental”:

The assertion that the NRA is not operated for tax-exempt purposes is false because legislative lobbying to protect the Second Amendment freedoms of Americans is social welfare activity. The defense of civil rights secured by law is textbook social welfare activity, regardless of the size and extent of such activity….
It was established in case law, the spokesperson argued, that “occasional” private financial benefits resulting incidentally from a nonprofit group’s activities are allowed:

Just as newspapers and other information sources incidentally benefit from the ACLU’s advocacy about the First Amendment, gun manufacturers incidentally benefit from the NRA’s advocacy about the Second.
https://www.snopes.com/nra-tax-exempt-n ... aQ.twitter


NRA BOYCOTT: FULL LIST OF COMPANIES THAT CUT TIES WITH GUN LOBBY OVER FLORIDA SHOOTING

Alamo Rent a Car

Avis

Allied Van Lines

Bestwestern

Budget

Chubb Insurance

Delta Air Lines

Enterprise Rent-a-Car

First National Bank of Omaha

Hertz

MetLife

North American Van Lines

Paramount Rx

SimpliSafe

Symantec

TrueCar
http://www.newsweek.com/nra-boycott-ful ... ing-819050
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Guns (Yawn)

Postby Karmamatterz » Sun Feb 25, 2018 1:49 pm

Stricter drug laws have really helped, haven't they?

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40867&start=15

Data: Opioid epidemic driving more children into foster care
Originally published February 5, 2018
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... n-into-fo/

Prohibition did wonders to eliminate alcohol for our culture. Right?

The cognitive dissonance is rampant.

Yes, there will always be guns. That doesn't mean you can't do your utmost to keep them out of the hands of people not fit to own them, or restrict or ban the sale of guns and gun accessories only suited for mass shootings. You don't need a semiautomatic rifle with a bump stock and an extended magazine to go hunting or do target practice or defend your home.


You obviously did not read the list of mass shootings I posted a few days ago which highlight shootings where semi-auto rifles were not used. Who the hell are you to tell someone what kind of weapon they need or want for personal protection? Being a advocate of free speech you have a right in the U.S. to speak freely about your views, doesn't mean you get to determine what someone thinks is a good solution for home protection, sport target practice or hunting.

Some possibilities that come to mind are poor access to mental health care for those most in need, the polarization and subsequent alienation of society, inequality and poverty, and toxic masculinity (emphasis on toxic).


If what you mean is this emphasis of making boys feel shamed for having testosterone and being aggressive, then yes, that is toxic for young boys. Letting boys be boys and not shaming them for being boys is what's needed, not brainwashing them into thinking that being a boy is toxic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFpYj0E ... e=youtu.be

These things are not healthy for raising children. Yes, each can be picked apart, but as whole, they all lead in some fashion, to problems for youth.

    Divorce
    Foster care
    Single parent families
    No good role models in their lives
    Societal changes with more focus on extreme validation (social media)
    Shaming boys for being aggressive

Stefano wrote:
The way you use 'ban guns' is also tendentious in the extreme (and it cost a lot of bucks to wedge that frame into the discourse). No one's talking about banning guns or taking away your guns. The regulations under consideration are about controlling the trade in certain kinds of firearms that are designed specifically to kill lots of people and which are the ones that get used in these spree killings many times more frequently than any other.

You make a good point.
If we are to have rational discussions about solutions then there need to be truthful and accurate information comprehended on both sides. There is rampant misinformation, ignorance and just outright lies about guns in general.
The Armalite 15 (AR-15) is not a new rifle. The AR does not refer to "assault rifle." It was invented back in 1959. It was developed as an assault rifle. It is a powerful weapon and like any gun should be used carefully. People with serious mental illnesses should not be able to purchase guns. Soooooo....now we need to define which mental illnesses are applicable.

Mass shootings are a new thing, relatively speaking. When mass shooting are discussed, and regulation of gun purchasing and ownership is the topic, it is relevant to address what types of weapons are used in these mass killings. The rhetoric about the AR-15 being the primary and sole problem exemplifies this ignorance. Not being dickish about using the word ignorance, it just means lacking information. I'm ignorant about particle physics, because I lack information. Handguns have been used in mass shootings, the list is there. Repeating myself again, vehicles and knives are used in mass shootings. Weapons are the topic. Weapons are used by humans to harm or kill others.

If we're going to discuss gun control then let's stop acting like there isn't already a ton of gun control laws in place. The entire gun control issue is circularly looping into nothing productive. Thus the "Yawn." Getting back to the root of the problem would be more productive.

I wasn't accusing you of actually being proud of it, just pointing out that your post came across (to me at least) as a "don't tell us what to do" rant, which in the context of reducing mass shootings made it sound like you were defending the status quo (which I don't think you are).

And again: what does free speech have to do with this? Shooting people isn't free speech, and for the record, no, I don't tolerate Nazis or people arguing for genocide. Their speech is poison and has zero value. They had their chance and literally became the poster boys for evil empire.


You were being a dick. Yes, you're coming off as you're special enough to think you can tell someone what to do, or not do. Dr. Evil gets to decide how people in America should live? You're funny. It's not just you Dr. Evil, plenty of other people believe they should have the right to tell others how to live as well.
The free speech reference was about the Bill of Rights. It was mentioned in the context. Free speech and guns have been protected in the U.S. for many generations, it's not something new. They are #1 & 2 in the Bill of Rights. Something to consider when attacking our laws and way of life.
User avatar
Karmamatterz
 
Posts: 828
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 10:58 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 44 guests