bam0813
Well-Known Member
Leave chicago out of this
Gun control is coming
- Thread starter UncleBuck
- Start date
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
I find it odd that people point to gun deaths done by free lance criminals, while skipping right over two other important categories of gun violence.
The first are the gun deaths caused directly by governments against their own people or people from other places. They number in the hundreds of millions. Do THOSE lives matter?
Death by government, democide or genocide and "collateral damage" (a euphemism for murder by military) far outnumber freelance gun deaths. Yet, crickets. Odd. It's as if people are unable or unwilling to consider those deaths in the discussion of who should and shouldn't have guns.
The second is the embedded violent threats of gun use that are omnipresent in all government laws, edicts, and policy.
Meaning, while citizens weren't killed directly by their "public servants", but the real threat of them being killed is ALWAYS just below the surface.
Would guns be used violently if you fail to comply with any number of draconian policies every government uses to extract and redistribute wealth or to control behavior of otherwise peaceful people? Certainly, they will. They'll even shoot your dog just for fun.
For instance "school shootings" are horrible. Yet, few people consider and even fewer will have a rational discussion about the guns used to fund those same schools. Again, odd. Kids brought up in that kind of contradictory culture are bound to be affected.
I suggest one of the causes of this learned flawed bias is many people remain ignorant or are inerred to the differences between the two kinds of uses of force. Using guns to apply offensive force and using guns to apply defensive force. The concepts are distinctly separate. One is bad, one is not.
It's like people are trained to default to the idea the only people who should use or threaten to use offensve force are those that rule them, cutely referred to as "their representatives". That's a sign of mental capture, a kind of mass stockholm syndrome.
Most people correctly know when free lance criminals use offensive force, it's wrong, but they ignore it when it comes from people they've grown up thinking have some kind of special rights, and who claim the power to invert logic.
I suggest that any discussion of "gun control" is incomplete if it ignores ALL of the data and ALL of the embedded threats of the use of OFFENSIVE force people are under every day.
If you want to reduce gun violence, there should be no sacred cows.
The first are the gun deaths caused directly by governments against their own people or people from other places. They number in the hundreds of millions. Do THOSE lives matter?
Death by government, democide or genocide and "collateral damage" (a euphemism for murder by military) far outnumber freelance gun deaths. Yet, crickets. Odd. It's as if people are unable or unwilling to consider those deaths in the discussion of who should and shouldn't have guns.
The second is the embedded violent threats of gun use that are omnipresent in all government laws, edicts, and policy.
Meaning, while citizens weren't killed directly by their "public servants", but the real threat of them being killed is ALWAYS just below the surface.
Would guns be used violently if you fail to comply with any number of draconian policies every government uses to extract and redistribute wealth or to control behavior of otherwise peaceful people? Certainly, they will. They'll even shoot your dog just for fun.
For instance "school shootings" are horrible. Yet, few people consider and even fewer will have a rational discussion about the guns used to fund those same schools. Again, odd. Kids brought up in that kind of contradictory culture are bound to be affected.
I suggest one of the causes of this learned flawed bias is many people remain ignorant or are inerred to the differences between the two kinds of uses of force. Using guns to apply offensive force and using guns to apply defensive force. The concepts are distinctly separate. One is bad, one is not.
It's like people are trained to default to the idea the only people who should use or threaten to use offensve force are those that rule them, cutely referred to as "their representatives". That's a sign of mental capture, a kind of mass stockholm syndrome.
Most people correctly know when free lance criminals use offensive force, it's wrong, but they ignore it when it comes from people they've grown up thinking have some kind of special rights, and who claim the power to invert logic.
I suggest that any discussion of "gun control" is incomplete if it ignores ALL of the data and ALL of the embedded threats of the use of OFFENSIVE force people are under every day.
If you want to reduce gun violence, there should be no sacred cows.
Last edited:
bam0813
Well-Known Member
Now look up how many ODd
bam0813
Well-Known Member
-What a neighbor thinks of me? Wether its an opinion or feeling? Maybe what an employer who you walked out on thinks?Maybe something you’ve said in the past? Acted on or not? Yep, if both my neighbour and former employer say I have shown uncontrollable rage and threatened people, maybe I shouldn't have access to certain firearms. If I have acted on threats I have made in the past, I shouldn't have access to certain firearms for sure.
Certain?
No reasonable person is saying that a neighbour or former boss or any other single individual should prevent someone from possessing certain firearms. Prove it in court is what im saying . Sad world with no burden of proof . Ive already said people who have acted should be barred
Highway61
Well-Known Member
Guns are now a symbol of the Culture War. A fashion statement. "Gunpowder makes all men tall". The NRA is a marketing agency for gun manufacturers and they rely on the Culture War to make money without regard to how our children and grandchildren are learning how to deal with mass shooters in school. Definitely a reason for concern because there is too much overlap, in my opinion, among gun "enthusiasts", law enforcement, election deniers, the Christian Taliban, and white nationalist insurrectionists. Vladimir Putin supports the NRA because he knows that they are bad for America. Gun enthusiasts are being played.
Highway61
Well-Known Member
Do your own research, Dude. I ain't your assistant.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Mine aren't.
They are useful tools I can use to get rid of varmints killing livestock or discourage thugs stealing catalytic converters. The junkie hack saw using Bastards! Guns are inert until they get put to use.
I'm concerned about guns being used to fund schools, that kind of behavior teaches kids to bully. You reap what you sow.
bam0813
Well-Known Member
Thats what I thought
Nothing to do with spending 100x the next closest country in military budget
That's a really fucked up thing to say..expansion, unnecessary.
HGCC
Well-Known Member
Kind of a testament to gun control working when there isn't the obvious failing of Indiana being next to Chicago, isnt it. You have no idea how refreshing it was to be a place where everyone wasn't walking around strapped all day when that's what you grew up around. It was nice and something that was super noticeable when you aren't from there.
HGCC
Well-Known Member
Sorry, started that reply yesterday and then there were pages of responses before I hit post.
I moved from middle America where everyone carried a gun to Massachusetts, where they don't. It was wild how safe everywhere felt there (all of new england really). Never worried about some yahoo pulling a gun on me living in the northeast, people weren't armed at the grocery store. To me, it was an example of gun control done right. I point at the Chicago/Indiana thing because that is an example of it done wrong, Chicago has strict laws but you can get around them with a short drive and there isn't really a big broad appetite for something better.
I'm always civil man, if not, there's normally a very good reason. Being a dick gets us nowhere. I applaud folks that have different views and stick up for them, assuming they aren't asses about it.
*I can only think of once where I was a real dick to someone and it was uncalled for, was having a bad day and went overboard.
I moved from middle America where everyone carried a gun to Massachusetts, where they don't. It was wild how safe everywhere felt there (all of new england really). Never worried about some yahoo pulling a gun on me living in the northeast, people weren't armed at the grocery store. To me, it was an example of gun control done right. I point at the Chicago/Indiana thing because that is an example of it done wrong, Chicago has strict laws but you can get around them with a short drive and there isn't really a big broad appetite for something better.
I'm always civil man, if not, there's normally a very good reason. Being a dick gets us nowhere. I applaud folks that have different views and stick up for them, assuming they aren't asses about it.
*I can only think of once where I was a real dick to someone and it was uncalled for, was having a bad day and went overboard.