Again....But it's never the guns!

[Minimalist]

We have people who think there should be no guns at all in citizens hands, which is really frightening

Not as frightening as some of the dickheads walking around with guns, Shel.

[Shell B]

Easy, friendly police. Most of it is the same thing. The problem is the strawmen. It really fucking convolutes the situation. If everyone would stop fucking arguing things other people didn't say, there would be no conversation. As for it being vitriolic, this is peanuts compared to other threads here. Relax. If people can't handle a little bullshit, they shouldn't pull arguments out of their asses.

---

We have people who think there should be no guns at all in citizens hands, which is really frightening

Not as frightening as some of the dickheads walking around with guns, Shel.

I would say it is pretty close, Min.

[Minimalist]

A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to be used against a family member or acquaintance than any "armed intruder," Shel. The NRA tries to stir up the fear in order to keep gun sales up. They are, after all, mainly funded by the Death Merchants.

http://www.vpc.org/press/1104blood.htm

Despite the NRA's historical claims that it is not financially allied with the gun industry, including the current disclaimer on its website that it “is not affiliated with any firearm or ammunition manufacturers or with any businesses that deal in guns and ammunition,” NRA "corporate partners" include many of the world's best known gunmakers as well as such companies as Xe, the new name of the now infamous Blackwater Worldwide--known for its abuses in the Iraq war--which alone contributed between $500,000 and $999,999 to the NRA since 2005.

[The Grand Nudger]

A large number of gunshot wounds can be attributed to the wounded's own firearm as well. All the more reason to require gun safety courses as a prerequisite for firearm purchase. Guns are used against an alarming number of family members, which is why a conviction in the case of domestic violence triggers a federal law allowing you to own precisely -zero- firearms during the proceedings and during your probation (unless it's a felony offense - at which point the ban continues on to your death).

[Minimalist]

[Autumnlicious]

You know, I was reflecting on Columbine the other day.

So I read some of the testimony by the "Jocks" that the two Columbine killers specifically targeted.

They whiled on about how if you didn't like someone and wanted them to go away, you'd tease them.

I noted that there was no immediate way "out" for either of the two killers, one whom was psychopathic and the other who was manic depressive.

It made me wonder, if a person really has no way out, they're forced to either endure it or take action.

I realized then this:
It often takes two to start a fight.

Does that condone or excuse the Columbine killers? Not the slightest.

But ask yourselves this:

After Columbine did we:

1) Increase mental healthcare and awareness for at-risk teenagers?

2) Do away with the social stratification of high schools (break down the special privileges, etc for the Jocks, etc?)

3) Create a method for teenagers to reliably report bullying and deal with it, going so far as to conduct formal investigations?

No.

We did not.

Points 1-3 all disappeared, like the fashion craze for a Furby, in a matter of months.


So, I conjecture this:

...


No matter how much we agonize over the recent massacre, Nothing Will Change.

Why?

Because everyone is bought into an either/or situation of guns, mental healthcare, budgets and political alliances.

Some people reject any attempt at regulation, fearing it is "blaming" their weapons. Others rail about the "fiscal cliff" while targeting the weak, the helpless, the hopeless.

Schools will continue to live in a boom-bust economy of bonds and starvation rations, all while responding to a demand for "security" instead of a demand for raising their communities.

Nothing will change.

Because our politics of "Who gets the #1" seat overrides a holistic, gradient-based solution that addresses mental health, weapon regulation and proper responsible upkeep, tax collection and redevelopment of dying communities.

The mentally ill will continue to be untreated, with the right to refuse treatment even if there is prior criminal history, the schools will continue to cut back on education and thus hire substandard teachers along with substandard materials to "save money" (while ironically getting bonds that come with a provision of "spend it or lose it"), and guns will be easy to obtain from relaxed gun-restriction States.

[Shell B]

A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to be used against a family member or acquaintance than any "armed intruder," Shel. The NRA tries to stir up the fear in order to keep gun sales up. They are, after all, mainly funded by the Death Merchants.

http://www.vpc.org/press/1104blood.htm

Despite the NRA's historical claims that it is not financially allied with the gun industry, including the current disclaimer on its website that it “is not affiliated with any firearm or ammunition manufacturers or with any businesses that deal in guns and ammunition,” NRA "corporate partners" include many of the world's best known gunmakers as well as such companies as Xe, the new name of the now infamous Blackwater Worldwide--known for its abuses in the Iraq war--which alone contributed between $500,000 and $999,999 to the NRA since 2005.

I'm not talking about armed intruders or the NRA. I have made no comments on either, so I find it weird that these are the counterarguments I hear. What I am arguing is that eliminating all citizen gun ownership is bad. I'm not saying rampant ownership is good.

---

This is the second time I have seen this. Firstly, it was not specifically meant to deal with tyrannical leaders. The tally is much different. Furthermore, that cartoon fails to recognize that there would have been no amendment were it not for . . . an overthrown tyrant.

[Autumnlicious]

Predictably, the outrageous demands (and gets!) a response.

But does anyone ever wonder why nothing really changes?

[Aractus]

The fact is that everything I've suggested is that guns don't kill people; Americans do. Even though countries like Switzerland have alarmingly high gun possession rates, they seem to have far fewer murders with guns than we do; in fact, in 2006 the entire Swiss nation had a total of 34 gun-related homicides. The US? 12,632. Hell, in my home state of Illinois alone there were 625. Hell, in Chicago there were 373.

You know, the more I think about it, the more I think that Americans are being subjected to something like sick-building syndrome, except that it's the entire country, which causes us to be violent instead of sick.

Probably the Swiss actually know how to use their guns and respect them for what they are. Different lifestyles necessitate the need for different things, in practise guns don't have a place in our cities. That's not to say they can't be used in war, in hunting and in sport - but that's a far cry short of carrying them in society and public use. Something like 80-90 yanks a year die in hunting accidents. That just goes to show that even with their indended use the yanks don't know how to use the guns properly!

The government also has tanks and nuclear weapons. Should we have those, too?

Yes and some of those things are filled with asbestos - even though we aren't allowed to use asbestos generally in society. Just because something should be used in a certain context or "has to be used" for a certain purpose doesn't mean we should be allowed free reign to use them whenever and for whatever we want. The same I think applies to drug use (/pharmaceuticals), and is why we don't allow just anyone to purchase specific meds with no prescription - we want to make sure that potentially dangerous things are being used correctly, or at least do the best that we can.

[Minimalist]

What I am arguing is that eliminating all citizen gun ownership is bad.

And what I'm not seeing is any reason why you think that is so.


The chart stands. The Founding Fathers knew what they meant by a well-regulated militia.

They did not mean every shithead walking around blasting whatever the fuck he felt like.