(February 24, 2018 at 7:06 am)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(February 24, 2018 at 6:52 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Number Of Mass School Shootings In New Zealand (a country of less than 5 million people with 1.4 million firearms in private hands)

2000:  nil
2001: nil
2002:  nil
2003:  nil
2004:  nil
2005:  nil
2006:  nil
2007:  nil
2008:  nil
2009:  nil
2010:  nil
2011:  nil
2012:  nil
2013:  nil
2014:  nil
2015:  nil
2015:  nil
2017:  nil
2018 (year to date):  nil
2019 (projected):  nil

The above figures are confounding researchers, as New Zealanders are purported to have access to violent video games and violent films.  Even more puzzling is the fact that New Zealand has mentally unstable citizens, schools that do not resemble armed caps, and teachers who do not bring firearms into classrooms.

Boru

Part of the problem is not just the firearms but the sort of firearms and how they are perceived. In the US they are fetishized, elsewhere they are a tool for hunting. Its very strange and has the rest of the world perplexed.

BINGO!

If the nutters want to claim it isn't the object, I can agree with that, but it is the fetish of the object, literally to the psychology of giving human rights to the object. 

It isn't for the sane about becoming a 1 party fascist state. That is bullshit fear mongering perpetuated by the NRA leadership, and a money laundering racket paid for by the manufacturers to maintain and expand their market. A firearm is not a living human, and should not be put above public safety. What New Zealand and Australia don't have that far too many in America have, is an unhealthy obsession with firearms. 

Firearms are not banned in Australia, and despite what some might think, not even banned in Japan. But in those countries, they don't make them like candy or hand them out like candy, they have far better regulations to prevent them from ending up in the wrong hands.

Quote:Part of the problem is not just the firearms but the sort of firearms and how they are perceived. In the US they are fetishized, elsewhere they are a tool for hunting. Its very strange and has the rest of the world perplexed.

Precisely my point.  There are plenty of heavily armed countries in the world where schoolkids are not - with heartbreaking frequency - shot to pieces.  I've lately come to the realization that the problem in the US isn't so much guns as it is gun culture.  It isn't mental health or violence in entertainment media or ( ) wealth disparity or immigration or any of the dozens of other things that gun rights advocates are constantly harping about.  The core of the issue is what appears to be an ingrained belief among some in the US that any restrictions on firearms equates to 'no guns for anybody, ever'.  Until and unless this changes, nothing else will.

Kiss your kids - they could be next.

Boru

(February 24, 2018 at 8:26 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

Quote:Part of the problem is not just the firearms but the sort of firearms and how they are perceived. In the US they are fetishized, elsewhere they are a tool for hunting. Its very strange and has the rest of the world perplexed.

Precisely my point.  There are plenty of heavily armed countries in the world where schoolkids are not - with heartbreaking frequency - shot to pieces.  I've lately come to the realization that the problem in the US isn't so much guns as it is gun culture.  It isn't mental health or violence in entertainment media or ( ) wealth disparity or immigration or any of the dozens of other things that gun rights advocates are constantly harping about.  The core of the issue is what appears to be an ingrained belief among some in the US that any restrictions on firearms equates to 'no guns for anybody, ever'.  Until and unless this changes, nothing else will.

Kiss your kids - they could be next.

Boru

But it is precisely because of our attitude about firearms, that has lead to an ease of access problem that has created our epidemic of injury and death. 

Saying makers and shops DON'T do enough to care about where their products end up, IS NOT a call to ban every single firearm. If you sell them, just like a bar should take the responsibility to not sell booze to the under age, if you care, then you should not mind making your customers wait, and your customers should not mind waiting. And saying you don't need battle weapons or big clips, are also not a call for a 100% ban.

But I am not so pessimistic about our ability to change. I have seen a growing number of safety orgs pop up.  Newtown Action, CSGV, Mom's Demand, Sandy Hook Promise, Every Town. And I am sure a new Parkland org will result too. The key for success is to speak out every day, get involved, and think and plan long term.

I thin the NRA if it wants to survive, has to get back to being a safety org. But if it's leadership thinks the victims of these shootings who want change are going to back down, they are making a fatal mistake.

(February 23, 2018 at 11:55 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:

(February 23, 2018 at 11:23 pm)wallym Wrote: Yeah, if it was 1740, and your brother lined up in a field across from the US Army, best team wins situation, it'd be nothing.  Just like we'd have been out of Iraq in a week playing by those rules.  Using Iraq again as an example, there's never any doubt the US could conquer Iraq.  The insurgency wasn't thinking "Maybe we'll kill all of them before they kill all of us!"  It's about the price.  Can you make it so expensive that it's not worth it.  And if the US had a rough expensive go of it in Iraq, imagine trying to deal with the continental United States filled with millions of reasonably well armed civilians.  Where would you even begin? An urban gorilla war in a 3.8 million square mile expanse of land?  Iraq was 170k for comparison.

The way to win a war against civilians is to poison the water and cutoff the food.  It helps to mount constant attacks 24-7 even if they are low-level.

You don't want to kill off all your civilians.  You want to kill off the armed insurgency.  An armed insurgency that is going to hide among the civilians.  

If you kill off all the civilians, you'll be left with a shell of a country with no value.  The whole point of running the US is that it's rich and powerful.  If you use your military to endlessly fight your own populace, it'll be neither rich nor powerful real quick.  Which was the original counterpoint to someone saying an armed population doesn't matter if the government goes totalitarianist on us, or something to that effect.  Not that I think the government is ever going to  attempt such a thing.  But practically speaking, there'd be no reason to try because you'd have to burn the whole country to the ground.

---

(February 24, 2018 at 8:26 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Kiss your kids - they could be next.

Boru

You should kiss your kids a anyway, because there's a bunch of drunk and distracted drivers on the road.  That's the real threat to your children, not the millions to one chance they are shot at school.

And how many American Tyrants have guns defeated in the past 231 years? I mean here you are in one breath talking about the importance of guns against tyranny, and in the next talking about how unlikely it is for your kids to get killed in a mass shooting.

Quote:You should kiss your kids a anyway, because there's a bunch of drunk and distracted drivers on the road.  That's the real threat to your children, not the millions to one chance they are shot at school.

If you want to start a thread on the topic of safe driving, by all means do so.  I strongly suspect that we'd be of one mind about that.

But the topic here is school shootings.

Boru

(February 24, 2018 at 10:27 am)wallym Wrote: If you kill off all the civilians, you'll be left with a shell of a country with no value.  The whole point of running the US is that it's rich and powerful.  If you use your military to endlessly fight your own populace, it'll be neither rich nor powerful real quick.  Which was the original counterpoint to someone saying an armed population doesn't matter if the government goes totalitarianist on us, or something to that effect.  Not that I think the government is ever going to  attempt such a thing.  But practically speaking, there'd be no reason to try because you'd have to burn the whole country to the ground.

It's never going to be the whole government against the people. Governments can only become totalitarian if a large proportion of the population agrees with it. Unfortunately this is beginning to happen now and it's the gun toting part of the population that are on the totalitarian side.

Even if they did arm teachers I don't imagine they'd allocate any more money for bullets than they do for paper and other supplies. Still I suppose you could use them as hall passes.

How exactly is a government supposed to turn on you? Can a conservative explain this? I mean, the government IS you. So you are going to turn on yourself? Or does it mean as a sort or insurance for if democracy goes sideways? I mean, even then, let's say a aggression does happen, how exactly is Tim going to defend against the world's strongest military? In that case shouldn't citizens be allowed to own fighter jets as well? I mean, guns aren't the only thing the American government has. It has submarines, tanks, fighter jets, like damn, the more and more I think about it the more and more of a stupid fucking idea it sounds.

(February 24, 2018 at 10:47 am)Cecelia Wrote: And how many American Tyrants have guns defeated in the past 231 years?  I mean here you are in one breath talking about the importance of guns against tyranny, and in the next talking about how unlikely it is for your kids to get killed in a mass shooting.

The tyranny talk is the worst part of our gun problem.  These bozos seem to think the day will come when they'll have to decide to reset the government by firing a gun.  It isn't just the unfeasibility of attacking the actual military which is bonkers.  There is also the matter of reaching a consensus regarding when to start.  Can't exactly have an open and fair election over a thing like that.  So what's the alternative, just start shooting when you've had enough?  Crazy motherfuckers.