Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action.
On January 16 2013 09:26 Kimaker wrote: General observation: over the course of the last 20 or so pages, guess which side was able to provide statistical evidences and citation with surprising regularity whereas all I saw from the other side were whines and emotional appeals?
You know what, screw it, don't guess, go count. Seriously.
i said that, somewhere in this thread, after observing gun debate for a long time in various forums, gun ban advocates never win, never.
i personally started as gun hater many years ago while debating on a forum (i-club.com)...then i got called out, so i studied, researched, then the result(of research and critical thinking) converted me.
Coming from a country where they ban blades longer than 3 inches, I understand your fear. It's probably best you stay on that side of the Atlantic if you're so scared. Leave the preservation of constitutional principles to the Americans
You're going to warn me for country bashing, micronesia? Nagano if you want to talk about fear, try living in my town without your gun.
So you're saying you'd prefer to have one?
I'm saying I'd rather face every drunk, abusive thug in the country than have a gun at the expense of children's lives.
Just FYI, I don't care about your distinction between assault rifles and pistols. All guns should be restricted. Single shot rifles for hunters as a possible exception.
What about all the drunks that cause traffic accidents that kill children? Don't you care about them? How about all the kids who grow up with drunken, abusive parents?
Honestly, the parents are to blame for most gun deaths involving children. Either they were not taught proper gun safety, or the kids were suicidal and the parents should've known, and both gotten the kid help and kept their guns locked up. Very few are murders.
But there's nothing parents can do to prevent a drunk from running their kid down.
You know nothing about me. I care more about protecting those children than you know. It plays a far bigger role in my life than any gun discussion.
Compared to guns, swimming pools are 100x more deadly to children. http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2001/07/27/levittpoolsvsguns/ Obama plans to surround himself with children when he talks about issuing his executive orders tomorrow. The "think of the children" is a tired mantra. We need to look at the cold facts regarding this issue instead of resorting to our emotions.
Benjamin Franklin said it best: They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
I cannot handle the ignorance in this thread, and arguing with people who won't listen is senseless. If you think pushing someone out of the discussion by completely avoiding any sensible points is a victory, then congratulations.
I'm abandoning ship.
"I cannot handle ignorance in this thread"= My bleeding heart is unable to comprehend cold hard facts.
There are some good sources and numbers going around. It would be cool if someone compiled all of these(both for and against the gun control) as most of the discussion now is about how peoples feels are hurt.
Absolutely tired as fuck right now, but I fully intend on making a comprehensive list of the citations and sources provided over the course of the last 50 or so pages with a short comment on their credibility for each side tomorrow afternoon. You know. Just so we can show for all the world to see exactly who is the one living in fantasy land. Could be interesting?
God, please do. I have many, many, MANY posts in this thread especially around 260-310 or so, all with many citations and stuff. If you need a place to start:
On January 16 2013 01:21 micronesia wrote:11 This is what happened in Britain, as they promised guns wouldn't be unilaterally taken away, right before they unilaterally took them away... and many Americans know this).
Farmers/game hunters all over the country still have guns.
I think gun owners need to take responsibility. I'm sorry that it's a sacrifice to have to give up your hobby and a strangely embedded part of your culture, but the legality and culture of gun ownership is partly to blame for child killings throughout the country (as well as a lot more murder). I'll say it again, idolising items designed to take lives will result in lives being taken.
How your hobby can be worth that much to you is beyond me. Abandon the human instinct to pass on the blame, accept that gun culture is a part of the cause, abandon that culture.
The thing is most Americans don't view "gun culture" as the problem, because it is not. Hunters and gun enthusiasts are responsible for hardly any of the gun deaths within the US. Handguns are used to kill in something like 85% or higher of gun murders. And anyone who has used a so called assault weapon knows that mechanically there is no difference between the semi-auto AR-15 used in the Sandy Hook murders, and their dad's deer hunting rifle. If the US wants to address it high murder rates by firearms then it needs to look at the weapons that cause a disproportionate number of deaths.
The AR-15 style weapon is targeted because it looks frightening, but assault weapons are not America's true issue. Ultimately to have a meaningful impact on the gun death rates the US is going to have to address the proliferation and availability of handguns, which will be difficult as so many people claim that their need handguns is for self defense.
Also the NRA is so far off base from its members at this point that it is going to be hard to get anything done at a national level despite the fact that the majority of NRA members are in favor of tighter gun control in at least some ways. Stuff like Sandy Hook and the Colorado gunman tend to be blown out of proportion cause of the large numbers at once, but around 25 people are murdered with a gun every day. The NRA wants to spend something like $4 Billion per year to place an armed guard in every school, at some point you have to look at the cost effectiveness of a proposal and solve problems in a way were each life potentially saved isn't costing in the hundreds of millions. I know school shootings are terrible, but you are more likey to kill your kid driving them to school, why aren't we proposing to have dormitories at schools to limits kids exposure to being driven to school every day.
According to the Victim Survey (NCVS), 25% of the victims of rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault in 1993 faced an offender armed with a handgun. Of all firearm-related crime reported to the survey, 86% involved handguns.
The FBI's Supplemental Homicide Reports show that in 1993 57% of all murders were committed with handguns, 3% with rifles, 5% with shotguns, and 5% with firearms where the type was unknown.
The 1991 Survey of State Prison Inmates found that violent inmates who used a weapon were more likely to use a handgun than any other weapon; 24% of all violent inmates reported that they used a handgun. Of all inmates, 13% reported carrying a handgun when they committed the offense for which they were serving time.
On January 16 2013 10:19 BluePanther wrote: I have determined that there is only one solution to solve this debate....
BULLETPROOF BUBBLE-BALLS FOR EVERYONE!!!!
Seriously, there is a point here. You cannot stop every random act of violence. Don't let fear dictate your life.
Too bad all the anti-gun people have fled, none to hear your point and tell you it's wrong. I imagine that someone will come in here with the St. Louis shooting soon and try and parade that as more evidence that we need gun-control.
On January 16 2013 01:21 micronesia wrote:11 This is what happened in Britain, as they promised guns wouldn't be unilaterally taken away, right before they unilaterally took them away... and many Americans know this).
Farmers/game hunters all over the country still have guns.
I think gun owners need to take responsibility. I'm sorry that it's a sacrifice to have to give up your hobby and a strangely embedded part of your culture, but the legality and culture of gun ownership is partly to blame for child killings throughout the country (as well as a lot more murder). I'll say it again, idolising items designed to take lives will result in lives being taken.
How your hobby can be worth that much to you is beyond me. Abandon the human instinct to pass on the blame, accept that gun culture is a part of the cause, abandon that culture.
Stuff like Sandy Hook and the Colorado gunman tend to be blown out of proportion cause of the large numbers at once, but around 25 people are murdered with a gun every day.
You brought up very many good points. I just had an interesting point I wanted to add to this particular comment. It kind of reminds me of the scene in The Dark Knight where the Joker gives a speech to Dent. Many people die every day to gun violence, most of then being gang-related. People don't focus on the real issues underlying gun violence, which are socioeconomic, cultural, and mental health issues. So what happens when an event like Newtown happens is that people freak out not remembering that gun violence happens every day, but no one freaks out about it because a bunch of poor black youth killing each other is, frankly, something this country doesn't care about and is "all part of the plan", or expected, more or less. It's better to blame the guns than the real issues.
On January 16 2013 10:31 Nagano wrote: You brought up very many good points. I just had an interesting point I wanted to add to this particular comment. It kind of reminds me of the scene in The Dark Knight where the Joker gives a speech to Dent. Many people die every day to gun violence, most of then being gang-related. People don't focus on the real issues underlying gun violence, which are socioeconomic, cultural, and mental health issues. So what happens when an event like Newtown happens is that people freak out not remembering that gun violence happens every day, but no one freaks out about it because a bunch of poor black youth killing each other is, frankly, something this country doesn't care about and is "all part of the plan", or expected, more or less. It's better to blame the guns than the real issues.
Amusingly, the Joker's speech only works on an emotionally distraught man who is doped up on painkillers. Most everyone else realizes that the whole thing is a load of crock, because people freak about all that stuff that's "part of the plan" all the time, on a constant basis...and often on a national level.
I found this nice gem that I had no idea about. While I completely opposed Obamacare, there is one provision that put I didn't know about that puts a smile on my face. For those who don't feel like reading through the whole thing, basically Obamacare has a provision that protects the 2nd Amendment.
Gun Advocates Celebrate 'Secret' Obamacare Provision Forbidding Exec Order To Regulate Guns And Ammo
In a shot heard ’round the blogosphere, Vice President Joe Biden’s suggestion that the administration might bypass Congressional participation to regulate guns in favor of using the executive order produced the inevitable choirs of “I told ya so” as Biden’s sound bite appeared to provide the proof that Obama was, indeed, coming for your guns.
But this time, the gun advocates were ready with more than just angry recriminations.
Acting with an assist from CNN, right-wing bloggers and gun advocates in the know, let loose with a tidbit of information they have, no doubt, been long chomping at the bit to unleash—the revelation that there is already a law on the books that would prevent the government from making good on Biden’s tantalizing suggestion, a law that would actually prevent the government from collecting data on firearm ownership and more.
And what might that law be?
Obamacare.
That’s right—it turns out that there is, indeed, a provision buried deep in the thousands of pages that is the Affordable Care Act entitled, “Protection of Second Amendment Rights”. You’ll find it in Section 2716 part c of the Affordable Care Act although, to save you the trouble, I have re-printed the provision below for your perusal.
Certainly, one strains to imagine how anything touching on gun ownership, the Second Amendment, etc. could find its way into a health care reform bill just as it confounds the imagination to contemplate who might have been responsible for adding such a clause in the first place. Obamacare is, after all, primarily the creation of a President who gun advocates have long believed is out to strip them of their firearms—not to mention a law written, supported and passed by those in Congress identified as coming from the “far left” of the political spectrum under the leadership of Nancy Pelosi.
So, how did such a strange provision find its way into health care reform?
You might be surprised to learn that the language was offered in a Senate amendment proposed by none other than Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid. While this news may come as a shock to those who view Reid as a leader of the left, politics will always trump ideology and—in the State of Nevada—politics dictates that running for office as a gun supporter is a way better idea than seeking office as a gun regulator. So, it should shock nobody that Senator Reid is a long-time gun rights advocate who has consistently counted upon the support of the NRA when running for election in his home state.
As for Reid’s reasons for burying a pro-gun measure into the body of the Affordable Care Act, the Majority Leader is said to have been concerned that the NRA planned to take an active position against the passage of Obamacare and decided, no doubt with the permission of Reid’s friend, NRA boss Wayne LaPierre, to head the problem off at the pass by putting language in the bill that would mollify the gun lobby.
Further, there was concern that a conspiracy theory then in circulation among right-wing circles—a meme suggesting that the Obama Administration had cleverly planted language in the ACA that could be used as a tool to get to the guns—would further erode public support for the legislation. For these reasons, Reid determined to insert some cozy language for the gun people into the Senate version of the ACA—language certain to escape public review at a time when the conversation was far more focused on hot button subjects like death panels, taxes and mandates.
For these reasons, the following language did, indeed, become a part of the nation’s controversial health care reform law:
(c) PROTECTION OF SECOND AMENDMENT GUN RIGHTS.—
‘‘(1) WELLNESS AND PREVENTION PROGRAMS.— A wellness and health promotion activity implemented under subsection (a)(1)(D) may not require the disclosure or collection of any information relating to—
‘‘(A) the presence or storage of a lawfully- possessed firearm or ammunition in the residence or on the property of an individual; or
‘‘(B) the lawful use, possession, or storage of a firearm or ammunition by an individual. ‘‘
(2) LIMITATION ON DATA COLLECTION.—None of the authorities provided to the Secretary under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that Act shall be construed to authorize or may be used for the collection of any in- formation relating to—
‘‘(A) the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition;
‘‘(B) the lawful use of a firearm or ammunition; or
‘‘(C) the lawful storage of a firearm or ammunition.
‘‘(3) LIMITATION ON DATABASES OR DATA BANKS.—None of the authorities provided to the Secretary under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that Act shall be construed to authorize or may be used to maintain records of individual ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition.
If you count yourself among those who object to any legislation or executive order that could limit or delay your ability to buy a flamethrower at the local gun show, this is certainly language that will put a smile on your face as this provision limits opportunities to collect and keep data on those who own firearms while creating some roadblocks when it comes to government’s ability to track whether or not you keep a weapon in your home, etc.
However, before you fire off a few rounds in celebration, you might want to take a good hard look at the actual draft of this section of the health care reform law because, unless you suspect that the President plans to put any newly proposed controls over firearms under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Health and Human Services, I’m afraid you don’t really have much to celebrate.
The provision in question bars the HHS Secretary, anyone in the Secretary’s ‘chain of command’, and health professionals covered by this section of the ACA, from engaging in the collection of gun data through the ordinary course of the services they provide. By way of example, were someone to come into the emergency room for treatment of a nasty gunpowder burn, the attending physician would likely ask how the injury took place. When the injured answers by noting that something went wrong when firing his Bushmaster at the target range, this law prevents the physician, hospital or anyone else from feeding the information to a government data base and further prevents the HHS Department from collecting such data.
The law additionally prohibits the government from making the argument that, since guns can be deleterious to the health and wellness of people, it would be within the goals and objectives of the ACA to collect data on who has weapons in the effort to protect the health and wellness of of Americans. In other words, HHS cannot create a data base to collect info on guns under the theory that guns injure people’s health so they need to know where the guns are.
So, the good news for the gun folks is that the ACA is, indeed, prevented from being used as a weapon in the ‘War on Guns’ under the guise that guns are bad for people’s health. They can also take solace in the fact that the law prevents government from collecting any gun data resulting from information obtained in the course of medical providers doing their thing—much as HIPAA prevents such information from being used for a variety of purposes.
Beyond that, if you imagine that this obscure section of the Affordable Care Act is going to block the Administration from exercising whatever legal authority it may have to regulate guns in America, I’m afraid you will be quite disappointed.
I think all would agree that should the President resolve to use his executive powers to create a data base or any other regulatory provision, it is far more likely that such regulation would fall within the ambit of the Justice Department—not Health & Human Services—and nothing in the ACA prevents such data collection, or any other regulatory efforts, which would fall outside the limited jurisdiction created in Obamacare with respect to firearms.
So, to our friends at Breitbart and the others who believe they have discovered gold in their effort to prevent the administration from acting on its desire to bring sanity to our gun laws, I’m afraid you are going to have to reload as Obamacare is just not the magic bullet you are looking for.
The only gun control worth implementing is better background checks and mental screenings... it's ridiculous that you can go into a gun show and literally walk out with any kind of weapon and not be checked for mental health or criminal records.
Also better safety when it comes to housing weapons.... Adam Lanza shouldn't be allowed to take his mothers AR-15 and her hand guns that easily... need to keepsake the weapon in a proper and responsible manner.
Guns are not the problem people.... you're more likely to die from a thousand other things than a gun, so why this gun control mass hysteria?
As a gun owner, I'm going to post something I think everyone should read.
Assault Rifle - A rifle capable of select fire between semi automatic AND Burst or fully automatic fire.
That said, an AR-15, being no different than a semi-automatic rifle developed in 1885, is not an assault rifle. My AR-15 has the same functionality as my Mini-14, and they're chambered in the same cartridge and fire at the same rate. But the mini-14 is usually dismissed as a rifle meant for hunting prairie dogs, so, y'know.
On January 16 2013 10:19 BluePanther wrote: I have determined that there is only one solution to solve this debate....
BULLETPROOF BUBBLE-BALLS FOR EVERYONE!!!!
Seriously, there is a point here. You cannot stop every random act of violence. Don't let fear dictate your life.
Too bad all the anti-gun people have fled, none to hear your point and tell you it's wrong. I imagine that someone will come in here with the St. Louis shooting soon and try and parade that as more evidence that we need gun-control.
What do you mean by anti-gun? I'm not particularly opposed to people having guns, though I do question why someone would need military grade assault rifles, but that's another story. My only concern is trying to keep guns out of the hands of irresponsible people. At the moment, I don't have any idea on how to do that while not infringing the rights of legitimate gun owners, which is the real perplexing part of the debate.
I think having good solid background checks with solid data is a good start. There was an article this morning in the WSJ talking about how so many people with mental health problems or criminal behavior aren't reported and put on do-not-sell-to lists. Sure background checks are arbitrary and subjective in nature, but I think there are bright lines in the discussion. I'm sure most people will agree that convicted felons should probably have no right to a gun, or someone with mentally ill problems might pose problems to himself/herself and others if he/she had a gun.
Beyond that? Taking away guns (which no one had proposed)? Limiting guns? I'm not sure those things help.
On January 16 2013 10:19 BluePanther wrote: I have determined that there is only one solution to solve this debate....
BULLETPROOF BUBBLE-BALLS FOR EVERYONE!!!!
Seriously, there is a point here. You cannot stop every random act of violence. Don't let fear dictate your life.
Too bad all the anti-gun people have fled, none to hear your point and tell you it's wrong. I imagine that someone will come in here with the St. Louis shooting soon and try and parade that as more evidence that we need gun-control.
The tone of this thread makes it very difficult to have a reasonable conversation. It's turned into one of those general forums threads that one side has "won" just by being louder and having more people.
I got told I was wrong multiple times with no argument, just "you're wrong," and then had my points strawmanned when I was trying to point out that guns are intended for killing. This is something I learned as a hunter, coming from a family of hunters. The cavalier attitude some people in this thread seem to have towards guns scares me and I hope you all keep proper gun safety in mind at all times, all it takes is one small slip up.
Edit: The gun safety comment wasn't directed at anyone in particular, so nobody take it personally please.
On January 16 2013 10:19 BluePanther wrote: I have determined that there is only one solution to solve this debate....
BULLETPROOF BUBBLE-BALLS FOR EVERYONE!!!!
Seriously, there is a point here. You cannot stop every random act of violence. Don't let fear dictate your life.
Too bad all the anti-gun people have fled, none to hear your point and tell you it's wrong. I imagine that someone will come in here with the St. Louis shooting soon and try and parade that as more evidence that we need gun-control.
The tone of this thread makes it very difficult to have a reasonable conversation. It's turned into one of those general forums threads that one side has "won" just by being louder and having more people.
I got told I was wrong multiple times with no argument, just "you're wrong," and then had my points strawmanned when I was trying to point out that guns are intended for killing. This is something I learned as a hunter, coming from a family of hunters. The cavalier attitude some people in this thread seem to have towards guns scares me and I hope you all keep proper gun safety in mind at all times, all it takes is one small slip up.
Edit: The gun safety comment wasn't directed at anyone in particular, so nobody take it personally please.
But saying guns are intended for killing IS a strawman...and it fails to represent that not all shots are to kill and that some guns are bought for self defense. A gun without ammunition is pretty useless, but it certainly could scare off an attacker.
On January 16 2013 10:19 BluePanther wrote: I have determined that there is only one solution to solve this debate....
BULLETPROOF BUBBLE-BALLS FOR EVERYONE!!!!
Seriously, there is a point here. You cannot stop every random act of violence. Don't let fear dictate your life.
Too bad all the anti-gun people have fled, none to hear your point and tell you it's wrong. I imagine that someone will come in here with the St. Louis shooting soon and try and parade that as more evidence that we need gun-control.
What do you mean by anti-gun? I'm not particularly opposed to people having guns, though I do question why someone would need military grade assault rifles, but that's another story. My only concern is trying to keep guns out of the hands of irresponsible people. At the moment, I don't have any idea on how to do that while not infringing the rights of legitimate gun owners, which is the real perplexing part of the debate.
I think having good solid background checks with solid data is a good start. There was an article this morning in the WSJ talking about how so many people with mental health problems or criminal behavior aren't reported and put on do-not-sell-to lists. Sure background checks are arbitrary and subjective in nature, but I think there are bright lines in the discussion. I'm sure most people will agree that convicted felons should probably have no right to a gun, or someone with mentally ill problems might pose problems to himself/herself and others if he/she had a gun.
Beyond that? Taking away guns (which no one had proposed)? Limiting guns? I'm not sure those things help.
The real problem with keeping them out of the hands of criminals is that they're not buying them or owning them legaly as is. Making it harder to buy guns won't change much whe there isn't anything to make harder. An idea that I heard was have ever gun manufacurer create a balistic signature as a part of making the gun and then handing said records to the govt. This way when the gun is used in a crime the bullet would carry this signature the govt would ask a judge t forc a company to preset where the gun was sold to.
Basicaly guns do kill people as people kill people but companies made those guns so get after them not people.
On January 16 2013 10:19 BluePanther wrote: I have determined that there is only one solution to solve this debate....
BULLETPROOF BUBBLE-BALLS FOR EVERYONE!!!!
Seriously, there is a point here. You cannot stop every random act of violence. Don't let fear dictate your life.
Too bad all the anti-gun people have fled, none to hear your point and tell you it's wrong. I imagine that someone will come in here with the St. Louis shooting soon and try and parade that as more evidence that we need gun-control.
The tone of this thread makes it very difficult to have a reasonable conversation. It's turned into one of those general forums threads that one side has "won" just by being louder and having more people.
I got told I was wrong multiple times with no argument, just "you're wrong," and then had my points strawmanned when I was trying to point out that guns are intended for killing. This is something I learned as a hunter, coming from a family of hunters. The cavalier attitude some people in this thread seem to have towards guns scares me and I hope you all keep proper gun safety in mind at all times, all it takes is one small slip up.
Edit: The gun safety comment wasn't directed at anyone in particular, so nobody take it personally please.
But saying guns are intended for killing IS a strawman...and it fails to represent that not all shots are to kill and that some guns are bought for self defense. A gun without ammunition is pretty useless, but it certainly could scare off an attacker.
Meh, your argument against him isn't the correct tack. Arguing semantics against semantics won't get anywhere. Instead, since he's pointing to original intent, as opposed to common use, the correct way to demonstrate the fallacy is to point to linguistics.
Just as the meanings of a word can change over time, with use, so can the use of an object. The intent of the designer, and the intent of the owner, can easily be two entirely different things, and to say one or the other is a be-all, end-all is ludicrous.
In fact, the effort to demonize the object, and remove all consideration from the people who own or use the object, is part of the problem. It ignores all of the underlying issues that lead people to commit atrocities. "Ah", the anti-gun proponents will say, "but the gun makes it more efficient, so isn't one death to a gun too many?"
Well, for my answer, one death caused by a murderous individual is too many. However, if we fix the societal roots of the problem, we can likely reduce the deaths caused by all kinds of trauma. After all, isn't one death by blunt trauma, strangling, or stabbing too many?
On January 16 2013 10:19 BluePanther wrote: I have determined that there is only one solution to solve this debate....
BULLETPROOF BUBBLE-BALLS FOR EVERYONE!!!!
Seriously, there is a point here. You cannot stop every random act of violence. Don't let fear dictate your life.
Too bad all the anti-gun people have fled, none to hear your point and tell you it's wrong. I imagine that someone will come in here with the St. Louis shooting soon and try and parade that as more evidence that we need gun-control.
What do you mean by anti-gun? I'm not particularly opposed to people having guns, though I do question why someone would need military grade assault rifles, but that's another story. My only concern is trying to keep guns out of the hands of irresponsible people. At the moment, I don't have any idea on how to do that while not infringing the rights of legitimate gun owners, which is the real perplexing part of the debate.
I think having good solid background checks with solid data is a good start. There was an article this morning in the WSJ talking about how so many people with mental health problems or criminal behavior aren't reported and put on do-not-sell-to lists. Sure background checks are arbitrary and subjective in nature, but I think there are bright lines in the discussion. I'm sure most people will agree that convicted felons should probably have no right to a gun, or someone with mentally ill problems might pose problems to himself/herself and others if he/she had a gun.
Beyond that? Taking away guns (which no one had proposed)? Limiting guns? I'm not sure those things help.
Almost no one has "Military grade assault rifles". They're already extremely hard to get, and aren't even legal at all in some states. The media constantly uses the term "Assault weapon" when there are plenty of guns that do not get called that which have the exact same functionality. The Mini-14 fires the same cartridge at the same rate as the AR15, but nobody calls the Mini-14 an "Assault Weapon". The AR15 is not military grade. It does not fire in burst or fully automatic modes, and any truly military attachments (grenade launchers, underslung shotguns, etc) are already extremely regulated.
I'm all for background checks, but completely against banning certain weapons or features, because its totally arbitrary.
On January 16 2013 10:31 Nagano wrote: You brought up very many good points. I just had an interesting point I wanted to add to this particular comment. It kind of reminds me of the scene in The Dark Knight where the Joker gives a speech to Dent. Many people die every day to gun violence, most of then being gang-related. People don't focus on the real issues underlying gun violence, which are socioeconomic, cultural, and mental health issues. So what happens when an event like Newtown happens is that people freak out not remembering that gun violence happens every day, but no one freaks out about it because a bunch of poor black youth killing each other is, frankly, something this country doesn't care about and is "all part of the plan", or expected, more or less. It's better to blame the guns than the real issues.
Amusingly, the Joker's speech only works on an emotionally distraught man who is doped up on painkillers. Most everyone else realizes that the whole thing is a load of crock, because people freak about all that stuff that's "part of the plan" all the time, on a constant basis...and often on a national level.
I disagree. Don't want to sound like a TDK fanboy here, but the Joker is spot on right there. Bad stuff happens every day but people filter most of it out. Car bombings killed at least twenty people in Syria today; at least 87 people died there yesterday in an attack at a university. But I'm willing to bet that, family ties aside, this doesn't really affect you on an emotional level, because it certainly won't for most people in, say, America. You might think, "oh, that's too bad", or "my, how tragic", but then go on to rationalise it: "it's a civil war, of course people are going to die" or "it's the Middle East, there's always conflict going on".
What if those car bombs went off in an American town? What if, maybe "just" a dozen people were killed at a Canadian university? It would be on the news for weeks. Why? Because car bombs and shootings are "supposed" to happen in Syria, or Iraq, or some other poor third world locale in constant turmoil. That's "part of the plan".They're not supposed to happen in America, or Canada. Dozens beheaded in Mexico? Sad, but that's gang violence and the drug war for you. Someone beheaded in your neighbourhood? Front page guaranteed, how terrible, people will be freaking out. And so on.
On January 16 2013 10:31 Nagano wrote: You brought up very many good points. I just had an interesting point I wanted to add to this particular comment. It kind of reminds me of the scene in The Dark Knight where the Joker gives a speech to Dent. Many people die every day to gun violence, most of then being gang-related. People don't focus on the real issues underlying gun violence, which are socioeconomic, cultural, and mental health issues. So what happens when an event like Newtown happens is that people freak out not remembering that gun violence happens every day, but no one freaks out about it because a bunch of poor black youth killing each other is, frankly, something this country doesn't care about and is "all part of the plan", or expected, more or less. It's better to blame the guns than the real issues.
Amusingly, the Joker's speech only works on an emotionally distraught man who is doped up on painkillers. Most everyone else realizes that the whole thing is a load of crock, because people freak about all that stuff that's "part of the plan" all the time, on a constant basis...and often on a national level.
I disagree. Don't want to sound like a TDK fanboy here, but the Joker is spot on right there. Bad stuff happens every day but people filter most of it out. Car bombings killed at least twenty people in Syria today; at least 87 people died there yesterday in an attack at a university. But I'm willing to bet that, family ties aside, this doesn't really affect you on an emotional level, because it certainly won't for most people in, say, America. You might think, "oh, that's too bad", or "my, how tragic", but then go on to rationalise it: "it's a civil war, of course people are going to die" or "it's the Middle East, there's always conflict going on".
What if those car bombs went off in an American town? What if, maybe "just" a dozen people were killed at a Canadian university? It would be on the news for weeks. Why? Because car bombs and shootings are "supposed" to happen in Syria, or Iraq, or some other poor third world locale in constant turmoil. That's "part of the plan".They're not supposed to happen in America, or Canada. Dozens beheaded in Mexico? Sad, but that's gang violence and the drug war for you. Someone beheaded in your neighbourhood? Front page guaranteed, how terrible, people will be freaking out. And so on.
......Don't you think that US citizens caring more about violence on US soil has something to do with the violence occurring......you know.......in the US? I mean, it's nice to be able to use quotes from popular movies to make a point, but a critique of our "society of the spectacle" is probably better founded in something a little more concrete.
EPT
