EPTNSFW image:
+ Show Spoiler +
![[image loading]](https://www.courant.com/resizer/Xi6hY50yGNTDrnapkYzw-ru3jqg=/fit-in/800x600/top/filters:fill(black)/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-tronc.s3.amazonaws.com/public/66CCOATENNGPRKGKUZARSBT77A.jpg)
I also wonder if he is still alive.
User was warned for this post.
If you're seeing this topic then another mass shooting hap…
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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. | ||
|
ShambhalaWar
United States930 Posts
NSFW image: + Show Spoiler + I also wonder if he is still alive. User was warned for this post. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23222 Posts
On June 01 2019 12:38 ShambhalaWar wrote: I wonder if this dude thinks America is a safer place now that we have all these guns to defend ourselves with. I also wonder if he is still alive. As someone harping on the existential threat to humanity presented by climate change to get people to so much as consider the parties ineffectual at confronting serious issues (and the problem that presents) I can assure you a "graphic" picture and silly speculation isn't going to get you anywhere. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
| ||
|
Simberto
Germany11507 Posts
On June 01 2019 14:43 Danglars wrote: America isn’t just one picture of a guy in a bloody shirt away from the reforms you desire. It likewise is not an NRA video away from pro-gun rights reform. I include with that the little quips on gun defense and alive/dead. How would "pro-gun rights reforms" even look like? You can now buy a tank without ID? | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23222 Posts
On June 01 2019 18:28 Simberto wrote: How would "pro-gun rights reforms" even look like? You can now buy a tank without ID? That's gotta be something cooked up by a knockoff Frank Luntz honestly. Caught my attention too. But it's basically stuff like interstate validity for gun licencing for sellers and buyers. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
ShambhalaWar
United States930 Posts
On June 01 2019 12:42 GreenHorizons wrote: + Show Spoiler + On June 01 2019 12:38 ShambhalaWar wrote: I wonder if this dude thinks America is a safer place now that we have all these guns to defend ourselves with. I also wonder if he is still alive. As someone harping on the existential threat to humanity presented by climate change to get people to so much as consider the parties ineffectual at confronting serious issues (and the problem that presents) I can assure you a "graphic" picture and silly speculation isn't going to get you anywhere. Welcome to the club then? Do you really have an idea of what will get us somewhere, as far as convincing someone in this thread to have a different opinion or come to a compromise? On June 01 2019 14:43 Danglars wrote: America isn’t just one picture of a guy in a bloody shirt away from the reforms you desire. It likewise is not an NRA video away from pro-gun rights reform. I include with that the little quips on gun defense and alive/dead. I think for every picture of a bald eagle flying with an ammo belt around it's neck, a torn flag in the background, and a woman in a bikini aiming an AR15 superimposed on top of them all, we should be required to also post a picture of a victim of gun violence. Actual broken lifeless bodies of people who died for no reason at all. I'm pretty sure that's what Australia did, actually published the photos of the dead victims of their last mass shooting. My understanding is that it shifted the public opinion so widely, that it actually sparked change. I think because it exposed a piece/picture of the reality of guns that we aren't exposed to. Most gun owners have no idea what a 45 with a hollow point with do to a body, and most would be horrified if they actually did know. I agree America is more than just one picture, but that picture of the bloody victim is the picture that rarely or never gets shown. Even that is extremely toned down from what actual death looks like, instead we get mind warping pictures like the one below. The first is from the daily stormer. With the caption, "Obama Vows to Shut Down Guns in Final Year of Hate – Daily Stormer" ![[image loading]](https://dailystormer.name/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/american-eagle-gun.jpg) The second is from the NRA website with the caption reading, "Eddie Eagle GunSafe® Program Reaches 30 Million Children!" I honestly don't know which I find more disturbing. At least the NRA one is trying to promote gun safety, but why do 30 million children need gun safety? | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On June 01 2019 12:38 ShambhalaWar wrote: I wonder if this dude thinks America is a safer place now that we have all these guns to defend ourselves with. I also wonder if he is still alive. Gun control riff against self-defense, man with bloodied tshirt at tragedy, open wonder if he lived. Your post is a perfect parody that gun rights groups historically put on gun control groups. They'll pull up an image of a tragedy and remark, "Ha! Self defense didn't work out so well for that guy's safety!" It's meant to disgust people viscerally. It will work with people that already agree with you, that tragedies are a direct result of bad gun policy, but for others, it will further cement them against those that politically use tragedies and that will end up taking your guns. Maybe that's the farthest thing from your purposes, but I don't think that method conveys it. | ||
|
Rowrin
United States280 Posts
On June 01 2019 14:43 Danglars wrote: I honestly don't know which I find more disturbing. At least the NRA one is trying to promote gun safety, but why do 30 million children need gun safety? Because laws don't address the reasons why things happen. No matter what gun laws get passed, and no matter if you make it double, triple, or infinity + 1 times illegal to give children access to firearms, none of that resolves the root of the problem: irresponsible parents/adults will leave firearms in places that curious and naive/uneducated children will find them. And lets face it, it's one thing for a kid who goes hunting/shooting every season with his parents and a completely different situation when some suburban kid's first encounter is finding his dad's 1911 in the nightstand. You can't fix ignorant gun ownership by making it illegal to be ignorant; you fix ignorance with education. It should be looked at the same way we teach kids to avoid strangers, don't get into people's cars, not to fall for the "Your parents got hurt and I'll drive you to the hospital" etc. It's not the kids' fault that predators exist and it's already several types of illegal. It's a problem that exists and will likely always exist, the least we can do address the issue education and awareness. | ||
|
ShambhalaWar
United States930 Posts
On June 02 2019 12:52 Danglars wrote: I'm referring specifically to the construction you used. Gun control riff against self-defense, man with bloodied tshirt at tragedy, open wonder if he lived. Your post is a perfect parody that gun rights groups historically put on gun control groups. They'll pull up an image of a tragedy and remark, "Ha! Self defense didn't work out so well for that guy's safety!" It's meant to disgust people viscerally. It will work with people that already agree with you, that tragedies are a direct result of bad gun policy, but for others, it will further cement them against those that politically use tragedies and that will end up taking your guns. Maybe that's the farthest thing from your purposes, but I don't think that method conveys it. It's meant to expand one's view of the issue, by giving them a clearer picture of that reality. I don't think the text above and below the picture are probably effective, I'll agree with you there. Sometimes I could find better words, though I think the picture speaks for itself. And the bottom caption was from the article. The woman who took the photo and was interviewed didn't know if the man was shot or if he lived, so it isn't something I just made up. It contrast to what the NRA presents as a cartoon version of guns for kids, actually distorts the reality of what guns are and what they do to people. Adults have their own version of this in action movies, but they are adults and can make some discernment (even know I would still argue adults have extremely distorted views of firearms). It's like the joe camel ads of old and cigarettes. The gun industry has been doing this for a while now, cool colored gun grips of which the only functionality of a "pink" colored rifle is to confuse police into thinking it's a toy and attracting kids to buy guns. Not to mention that continued firing of guns increases risk of exposure to lead, which in children is extremely toxic (as it is in adults) and is likely to cause lasting and irreversible damage to body systems overtime, especially of exposure is extreme. Does joe camel remind the kids not to touch their face because the little particles will get in their tummy? I imagine if you showed a child (or really most adults) what guns do to a human body, or a grieving mother crying for her lost child... most kids wouldn't want to have anything to do with guns. Out of all the things kids could be doing, being around guns probably isn't high up on their list. I get the comment that "if guns are around the house a responsible parent will teach their kid about guns" and I agree with that. But I don't think that's what the nra program does. Parents need to sit with their kids and impress upon them the seriousness of what guns are... not dress up like a fucking eagle and sing a song about it. That is a distortion of reality. | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
On June 02 2019 13:03 Rowrin wrote: Because laws don't address the reasons why things happen. No matter what gun laws get passed, and no matter if you make it double, triple, or infinity + 1 times illegal to give children access to firearms, none of that resolves the root of the problem: irresponsible parents/adults will leave firearms in places that curious and naive/uneducated children will find them. And lets face it, it's one thing for a kid who goes hunting/shooting every season with his parents and a completely different situation when some suburban kid's first encounter is finding his dad's 1911 in the nightstand. You can't fix ignorant gun ownership by making it illegal to be ignorant; you fix ignorance with education. It should be looked at the same way we teach kids to avoid strangers, don't get into people's cars, not to fall for the "Your parents got hurt and I'll drive you to the hospital" etc. It's not the kids' fault that predators exist and it's already several types of illegal. It's a problem that exists and will likely always exist, the least we can do address the issue education and awareness. American gun culture is predicated on guns being a "right". Irresponsibility comes with it when you make the bar for owning a gun so low. Actually making educational and storage requirements to gun ownership tend to be challenged due to that. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23222 Posts
On June 04 2019 11:49 semantics wrote: American gun culture is predicated on guns being a "right". Irresponsibility comes with it when you make the bar for owning a gun so low. Actually making educational and storage requirements to gun ownership tend to be challenged due to that. America's gun culture is mostly an outgrowth of the mobster era and capitalism imo. The mobster era demonstrated the limit of the powers of the federal government with the attempted prohibition of alcohol. They could have tried banning guns too but I don't think that would have went over well for pretty good reasons. Capitalism (besides fueling the mobster era) further exacerbates everything including having to overcome a huge hurdle in guns being one of few items where people don't accept ridiculous functional obsolescence thresholds. EDIT: Important to note the frequency of mass shootings of innocent/unrelated people (I know the stats on "mass shootings" are flawed btw) and suicides is mostly new. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
Falling
Canada11350 Posts
America's gun culture is mostly an outgrowth of the mobster era and capitalism imo. I sincerely doubt that. Mobsters mostly operated in the cities and cities are where gun restrictions are the most popular. I'd think America's frontier/ homesteader culture had far more to do with US gun culture. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23222 Posts
On June 04 2019 13:01 Falling wrote: I sincerely doubt that. Mobsters mostly operated in the cities and cities are where gun restrictions are the most popular. I'd think America's frontier/ homesteader culture had far more to do with US gun culture. Depends on what you're trying to describe with the term "gun culture" I'd agree that your description is certainly fair into the early 1900's (maybe lacking a mention of colonialism/imperialism), I was more describing modern "gun culture" which typically isn't attempting to describe/include you're average country living folk with a shotgun, rifle, and pistol but rather your Rambo/Scarface wannabe's and such. To the era thing, we could probably link a lot of this stuff to the epic tales of people like Wyatt Earp, Davy Crockett, Billy the Kid and the rest if we tried. But I'd agree it didn't quite seem to have the same prevalence to the discussion on gun ownership as a right. The idea that a government would take your gun was absurd to the colonists of the "frontier". | ||
|
Excludos
Norway8075 Posts
Meanwhile there's a bunch of people here saying that the constitutions is gods word and can not be rectified (In context with gun rights), but I don't suspect many people here don't support the rectification of women's rights. Why, in your opinion, is it ok to update the constitution for one thing, while in the other it's suddenly a holy book with the fundamentals for the country that can never be changed? Now if you haven't caught on, I'm trying to highlight the hypocrisy. For most people, it's unthinkable that women shouldn't have equal rights, and it's fine to modernise the constitution for that purpose. They aren't second rate citizens after all. But then please stop using the "but it's constitution!" excuse for other cases. if it can be modernised for one, it can be modernised for another. We're an evolving species, and laws exist to be updated as our views and values does. I'm not saying you can't be for/against what those values are going to be, but it's wildly hypocritical to be against updating values based on the fact that values should never be updated, but then only use that argument for cases you don't support. | ||
|
Trainrunnef
United States599 Posts
On June 10 2019 20:40 Excludos wrote: This is a bit on the side, but I'm genuinely curious after watching today's LWT. Women still does not have equal rights in the constitution (Needing exactly one more state to ratify it, which has been an ongoing battle since 1972). Meanwhile there's a bunch of people here saying that the constitutions is gods word and can not be rectified (In context with gun rights), but I don't suspect many people here don't support the rectification of women's rights. Why, in your opinion, is it ok to update the constitution for one thing, while in the other it's suddenly a holy book with the fundamentals for the country that can never be changed? Now if you haven't caught on, I'm trying to highlight the hypocrisy. For most people, it's unthinkable that women shouldn't have equal rights, and it's fine to modernise the constitution for that purpose. They aren't second rate citizens after all. But then please stop using the "but it's constitution!" excuse for other cases. if it can be modernised for one, it can be modernised for another. We're an evolving species, and laws exist to be updated as our views and values does. I'm not saying you can't be for/against what those values are going to be, but it's wildly hypocritical to be against updating values based on the fact that values should never be updated, but then only use that argument for cases you don't support. Its much easier to convince people to add more freedom than it is to convince them to take it away. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44317 Posts
On June 11 2019 01:36 Trainrunnef wrote: Its much easier to convince people to add more freedom than it is to convince them to take it away. Tell that to the people who are against universal healthcare or universal higher education or women's bodily autonomy or gay marriage or the ability to go to the bathroom or fight in the military or celebrate non-Christian traditions or speak Spanish or literally just exist as a black guy or...  Republicans are just as much for government regulations and infringement of certain freedoms as Democrats are; they just focus on a different set of things they want regulated or prohibited. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
Just to be perfectly clear: sloganeering, like "how can people be against equal rights" and "how can people be against life" and "how can people be against self defense," is overused. | ||
|
Excludos
Norway8075 Posts
On June 11 2019 05:11 Danglars wrote: With no exploration of the history of the ERA/opposed, and no discussion of how the constitution privileges men, this will go nowhere. I don't really see hypocrisy, other than adopting a very slanted perspective and expecting everybody to agree with something obvious. That's a little hypocritical. Just to be perfectly clear: sloganeering, like "how can people be against equal rights" and "how can people be against life" and "how can people be against self defense," is overused. You do know what the word Hypocritical means, right? Because it's not what you just stated. Meanwhile I gave a very cut and dry example of hypocrisy, and you somehow "don't see it", not that you disagree or gave any reason why it's not, you just "don't see it". I think you might want to look the word up | ||
| ||
