Guns in the USA | Shooting the news

User avatar
NapLajoieonSteroids
Posts: 8390
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 7:04 pm

Re: Guns in the USA | Shooting the news

Post by NapLajoieonSteroids »

noddy wrote:the only thing that i dont get about merkin gun culture is the vehement linkage to freedom.

everything else is just local flavour but that particular item doesnt even stand up to the slightest scrutiny.
oh come now.

This is complaining about attitudinal poses, whatever their wisdom or merit, which mirror their opponents.

or is this another, "Poses for me but not for thee" thing?
User avatar
NapLajoieonSteroids
Posts: 8390
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 7:04 pm

Re: Guns in the USA | Shooting the news

Post by NapLajoieonSteroids »

YMix wrote:as long as people don't try to abuse the system.
and as long as it never rains, I won't need an umbrella.
noddy
Posts: 11322
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Guns in the USA | Shooting the news

Post by noddy »

NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:
noddy wrote:the only thing that i dont get about merkin gun culture is the vehement linkage to freedom.

everything else is just local flavour but that particular item doesnt even stand up to the slightest scrutiny.
oh come now.

This is complaining about attitudinal poses, whatever their wisdom or merit, which mirror their opponents.

or is this another, "Poses for me but not for thee" thing?
not really.

its like being an atheist in a room full of the crudest type of born again evangelicals, you can be accused of being all sorts of tedious things if you dont agree on the dogma and signalling.

call it what you like, its tedious.
ultracrepidarian
noddy
Posts: 11322
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Guns in the USA | Shooting the news

Post by noddy »

NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:
YMix wrote:as long as people don't try to abuse the system.
and as long as it never rains, I won't need an umbrella.
i read it as 'get a magority and change things to suit themselves'
ultracrepidarian
User avatar
NapLajoieonSteroids
Posts: 8390
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 7:04 pm

Re: Guns in the USA | Shooting the news

Post by NapLajoieonSteroids »

YMix wrote:
NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:So you advocate unequal laws and special privileges for some groups of people over other groups. Interesting.
I'm not a fan of that, but I'm not a fan of cultural wars either. Your country should have updated that bill of rights many years ago. And its party system. As things stand now, the only options seem to be a decisive conflict that would see one side defeated or a stalemate that just keeps poisoning the atmosphere.

Also, I don't endorse privileges in general. Making adjustments for various groups of people is quite common. It depends on what kind of privileges we're talking about. Allowing the rurals to keep their guns doesn't seem to be hurting the nation, just as letting Sikhs walk around with knives is not a problem. As I've mentioned before, the ethnic minorities of my own country have their own political parties even though the law explicitly bans political association based on ethnic criteria. It's not ideal, but it's not a problem either as long as people don't try to abuse the system.
I can't argue with updating the bill of rights or party system because whether I agree or not with you there, those are huge undertakings that open up a whole lot more than just 'issue x, y and z'.

But when it comes to the 'culture wars' about guns, I don't see why the non-aggressive side (the pro-gun nuts) have to compromise here. They are supposed to give in because a group of people hold conflicting values with them? And on top of that, dropping all pretenses, that same group will not stop advocating for their position (nothing wrong with that) until they completely eliminate their opponents. They are not interested in compromises here- and the gun nuts are supposed to work with them?

Why?

I've never owned a gun, fired one; didn't grow up around them- I've no interest- but I know a lousy deal when I see one. When we talk about getting the guns out of people's hands, it's those rural hicks who will be targeted most harshly, even though, for all intents and purposes, they pose an almost zero threat to my safety. (The same goes for those guys who get really into open carry laws as far as I'm concerned.)

This is the equivalent of someone coming up to you, punching you in the nose, and then having a third party show up telling you to make nice with your attacker because the threat of a fistfight breaking out is a more worrisome proposition than an actual, violent fisticuffs.
User avatar
NapLajoieonSteroids
Posts: 8390
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 7:04 pm

Re: Guns in the USA | Shooting the news

Post by NapLajoieonSteroids »

noddy wrote:
NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:
noddy wrote:the only thing that i dont get about merkin gun culture is the vehement linkage to freedom.

everything else is just local flavour but that particular item doesnt even stand up to the slightest scrutiny.
oh come now.

This is complaining about attitudinal poses, whatever their wisdom or merit, which mirror their opponents.

or is this another, "Poses for me but not for thee" thing?
not really.

its like being an atheist in a room full of the crudest type of born again evangelicals, you can be accused of being all sorts of tedious things if you dont agree on the dogma and signalling.

call it what you like, its tedious.
I'd love to meet a group of people who don't suffer from this tendency.
noddy
Posts: 11322
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Guns in the USA | Shooting the news

Post by noddy »

NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:I'd love to meet a group of people who don't suffer from this tendency.
i was just commenting on the aspect of the argument that felt alien to me - america is unique in its gun dogma and the religious nature of it.
ultracrepidarian
User avatar
NapLajoieonSteroids
Posts: 8390
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 7:04 pm

Re: Guns in the USA | Shooting the news

Post by NapLajoieonSteroids »

noddy wrote:
NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:I'd love to meet a group of people who don't suffer from this tendency.
i was just commenting on the aspect of the argument that felt alien to me - america is unique in its gun dogma and the religious nature of it.
Understood, and I'm being argumentative 'cause it's good to mix it up, and while a lot of it is alien to me too; I do not think it an indefensible position.

And I still maintain that in today's climate where gov't have super elephant hunting type weaponry, they find it harder and harder to deal with the flies....

...they don't have the stomachs to turn the cannons on the people...and just the fact of gun possession in such a climate is indeed a sovereignty protector.
noddy
Posts: 11322
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Guns in the USA | Shooting the news

Post by noddy »

NapLajoieonSteroids wrote: I still maintain that in today's climate where gov't have super elephant hunting type weaponry, they find it harder and harder to deal with the flies....

...they don't have the stomachs to turn the cannons on the people...and just the fact of gun possession in such a climate is indeed a sovereignty protector.
maybe for the redneck in the bush, however being 99% irrelevant and invisible is the real protector, the gun just helps with food.

you give up sovereignty when you participate in the city complex, the swat team will come in a clean you up like a dog poop.

if the city is littered with violent drug gangs and if im somehow stuck there without options to be elsewhere, i can imagine wanting a gun for self protection.
ultracrepidarian
User avatar
NapLajoieonSteroids
Posts: 8390
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 7:04 pm

Re: Guns in the USA | Shooting the news

Post by NapLajoieonSteroids »

Well, yeah, if you are survivalist man in a suburb of Pittsburgh on the weekends and an insurance salesman through the rest of the week.

But the 'Tea Party' was at its most effective when people were carrying around signs saying that if they couldn't exercise their first amendment rights, they'd use their second.

The same dynamics applied to the situation during the Million Man March, Occupy Wall Street and the list goes on....

and I don't think the powers that be [our reptilian overlords obviously] have the stomach to use all their fancy super technology to wipe out the dissenters- which as an aside is as much as a good thing as it is a bad thing- making the ambient floating weapons culture a very nice check on their lizard brains. :)
Simple Minded

Re: Guns in the USA | Shooting the news

Post by Simple Minded »

noddy wrote:
NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:
YMix wrote:as long as people don't try to abuse the system.
and as long as it never rains, I won't need an umbrella.
i read it as 'get a magority and change things to suit themselves'
I read it as inanimate objects ain't the problem, people is. Why should privileged people be allowed to buy umbrellas?
User avatar
NapLajoieonSteroids
Posts: 8390
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 7:04 pm

Re: Guns in the USA | Shooting the news

Post by NapLajoieonSteroids »

Simple Minded wrote:
noddy wrote:
NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:
YMix wrote:as long as people don't try to abuse the system.
and as long as it never rains, I won't need an umbrella.
i read it as 'get a magority and change things to suit themselves'
I read it as inanimate objects ain't the problem, people is.
And what about all those characters who make it hard to tell the difference between inanimate objects and people? :D
Simple Minded

Re: Guns in the USA | Shooting the news

Post by Simple Minded »

NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:
I can't argue with updating the bill of rights or party system because whether I agree or not with you there, those are huge undertakings that open up a whole lot more than just 'issue x, y and z'.

But when it comes to the 'culture wars' about guns, I don't see why the non-aggressive side (the pro-gun nuts) have to compromise here. They are supposed to give in because a group of people hold conflicting values with them? And on top of that, dropping all pretenses, that same group will not stop advocating for their position (nothing wrong with that) until they completely eliminate their opponents. They are not interested in compromises here- and the gun nuts are supposed to work with them?
amen Bro, the anti-guns nuts and the anti-abortion nuts are the aggressors.

If the Dems ever decide to not pay attention to guns, they will become the dominant party. If the Repubs ever decide to not pay attention to abortion, they will become the dominant party. Both are held captive by their bases, and the fact that both issues are excellent fundraising vehicles.
Simple Minded

Re: Guns in the USA | Shooting the news

Post by Simple Minded »

NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:
Simple Minded wrote:
noddy wrote:
NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:
YMix wrote:as long as people don't try to abuse the system.
and as long as it never rains, I won't need an umbrella.
i read it as 'get a magority and change things to suit themselves'
I read it as inanimate objects ain't the problem, people is.
And what about all those characters who make it hard to tell the difference between inanimate objects and people? :D
:lol: As long as they are truly inanimate, they're just..... good citizens! ;)
Simple Minded

Re: Guns in the USA | Shooting the news

Post by Simple Minded »

noddy wrote:
NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:I'd love to meet a group of people who don't suffer from this tendency.
i was just commenting on the aspect of the argument that felt alien to me - america is unique in its gun dogma and the religious nature of it.
We're the land of fanatics. Everything is either status or a life and death, Apocalyptic, existential threat.

Your talking about a very small (but loud) segment of the gun owners and religious people.

Other people worship their kids, their dogs, their front lawn, their car, their motorcycle, their football team, their race, somebody else's race, virtual boobies, real boobies, etc.

Freedom Rocks! It's like opinions, mine's good, theirs, not so much! :D
Simple Minded

Re: Guns in the USA | Shooting the news

Post by Simple Minded »

noddy wrote:
NapLajoieonSteroids wrote: I still maintain that in today's climate where gov't have super elephant hunting type weaponry, they find it harder and harder to deal with the flies....

...they don't have the stomachs to turn the cannons on the people...and just the fact of gun possession in such a climate is indeed a sovereignty protector.
maybe for the redneck in the bush, however being 99% irrelevant and invisible is the real protector, the gun just helps with food.

you give up sovereignty when you participate in the city complex, the swat team will come in a clean you up like a dog poop.

if the city is littered with violent drug gangs and if im somehow stuck there without options to be elsewhere, i can imagine wanting a gun for self protection.
Good reasons why the whole gun focus is fighting the past wars. Computers and flow of information are the new frontiers of battle. Electronic erasing is probably as bad as getting shot.

Still looks a lot like a fund raising issue to me. Creating dragons, and then selling dragon repellent is a good business model.
User avatar
NapLajoieonSteroids
Posts: 8390
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 7:04 pm

Re: Guns in the USA | Shooting the news

Post by NapLajoieonSteroids »

Simple Minded wrote: We're the land of fanatics.
Can't spell fantastic without all the letters in 'fanatics.'

...so 'Merica #1? :D
Simple Minded

Re: Guns in the USA | Shooting the news

Post by Simple Minded »

NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:
Simple Minded wrote: We're the land of fanatics.
Can't spell fantastic without all the letters in 'fanatics.'

...so 'Merica #1? :D
As long as they don't try to take away virtual (root word: virtue) boobies, I'm good! :)

as the old saying goes, "those things hardest to bear, never happened!"
Simple Minded

Re: Guns in the USA | Shooting the news

Post by Simple Minded »

YMix wrote:
Simple Minded wrote:I must not be reading this properly. Please explain. Gun laws vary all over the US in response to the will of the locals. What is the inelastic piece of legislation? And what is a reasonable compromise?
The piece of legislation is the Second Amendment. A reasonable compromise would allow the rurals to keep their weapons and the cities to ban them.
My favorite dinner party, gun discussion question:

"Tomorrow morning, you decide to switch careers and become a human predator. County X & County Y are equal driving distance from your house. County X has very strict gun ownership laws, and very few gun owners. County Y has very loose gun ownership laws, and lots of gun owners. Would you practice your new trade in County X or County Y?

Takes the discussion out of the legal arena and puts it into the human nature arena.

Your answer puts it into the "some animals are more equal than other animals" arena.
noddy
Posts: 11322
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Guns in the USA | Shooting the news

Post by noddy »

that argument only makes sense in murkia.

in my country we just dont have the same levels of violence to make it work - our criminals nearly always only kill other criminals and when they cockup and kill joe pulbic the police swat teams swat them

not freedom (tm) and yes, if we had a megalomaniac takeover it might be of concern, however we havent had one of those, so its not.

im not convinced me owning a gun would make that big a difference and im also not convinced i couldnt get one if and when i felt like i actually needed/wanted one.

the other argument americans like is if guns are banned only criminals have guns, well, thats true, and megalomaniac takeover makes criminals of us all.
ultracrepidarian
User avatar
YMix
Posts: 4631
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:53 am
Location: Department of Congruity - Report any outliers here

Re: Guns in the USA | Shooting the news

Post by YMix »

NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:I can't argue with updating the bill of rights or party system because whether I agree or not with you there, those are huge undertakings that open up a whole lot more than just 'issue x, y and z'.
Yes, I realize that. :)
But when it comes to the 'culture wars' about guns, I don't see why the non-aggressive side (the pro-gun nuts) have to compromise here.
From their point of view, I'm sure there's no reason to give up what they already have.
“There are a lot of killers. We’ve got a lot of killers. What, do you think our country’s so innocent? Take a look at what we’ve done, too.” - Donald J. Trump, President of the USA
The Kushner sh*t is greasy - Stevie B.
User avatar
YMix
Posts: 4631
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:53 am
Location: Department of Congruity - Report any outliers here

Re: Guns in the USA | Shooting the news

Post by YMix »

noddy wrote:i read it as 'get a magority and change things to suit themselves'
Or a vocal minority and cause all sorts of trouble by attempting to change things to suit themselves.
“There are a lot of killers. We’ve got a lot of killers. What, do you think our country’s so innocent? Take a look at what we’ve done, too.” - Donald J. Trump, President of the USA
The Kushner sh*t is greasy - Stevie B.
User avatar
NapLajoieonSteroids
Posts: 8390
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 7:04 pm

Re: Guns in the USA | Shooting the news

Post by NapLajoieonSteroids »

noddy wrote:that argument only makes sense in murkia.

in my country we just dont have the same levels of violence to make it work - our criminals nearly always only kill other criminals and when they cockup and kill joe pulbic the police swat teams swat them

not freedom (tm) and yes, if we had a megalomaniac takeover it might be of concern, however we havent had one of those, so its not.

im not convinced me owning a gun would make that big a difference and im also not convinced i couldnt get one if and when i felt like i actually needed/wanted one.

the other argument americans like is if guns are banned only criminals have guns, well, thats true, and megalomaniac takeover makes criminals of us all.
What is the cop reach per square foot like there? How long would you wait for some kind of emergency service to get from Point A to the Point You're At?

'Round here, it would take an half and hour to 45 minutes for an ambulance to arrive. It'd probably take the police about an hour to get here.

How much does that effect the gun debate?
noddy
Posts: 11322
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Guns in the USA | Shooting the news

Post by noddy »

NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:
noddy wrote:that argument only makes sense in murkia.

in my country we just dont have the same levels of violence to make it work - our criminals nearly always only kill other criminals and when they cockup and kill joe pulbic the police swat teams swat them

not freedom (tm) and yes, if we had a megalomaniac takeover it might be of concern, however we havent had one of those, so its not.

im not convinced me owning a gun would make that big a difference and im also not convinced i couldnt get one if and when i felt like i actually needed/wanted one.

the other argument americans like is if guns are banned only criminals have guns, well, thats true, and megalomaniac takeover makes criminals of us all.
What is the cop reach per square foot like there? How long would you wait for some kind of emergency service to get from Point A to the Point You're At?

'Round here, it would take an half and hour to 45 minutes for an ambulance to arrive. It'd probably take the police about an hour to get here.

How much does that effect the gun debate?
they would take forever, it would be over long before they arrived but it doesnt effect the debate because its so rare - my area is quite violent and on the edge of the middle class belt, i might get a home invasion, without guns and i might end up beaten up on the floor - it happens.

i also have a big meat cleaver (aka battle axe) and cast iron frypan (aka war hammer) hanging in the kitchen, for when im not liking whats knocking at the door.

Image

the murder rate is very low and once you get rid of the crimes of passion and the criminal upon criminal stats, its almost irrelevant.
Last edited by noddy on Wed Jan 13, 2016 3:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ultracrepidarian
User avatar
YMix
Posts: 4631
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:53 am
Location: Department of Congruity - Report any outliers here

Re: Guns in the USA | Shooting the news

Post by YMix »

noddy wrote:that argument only makes sense in murkia.

in my country we just dont have the same levels of violence to make it work - our criminals nearly always only kill other criminals and when they cockup and kill joe pulbic the police swat teams swat them
Same thing here.
the other argument americans like is if guns are banned only criminals have guns
As long as they use those guns to kill each other, I don't see the problem.
“There are a lot of killers. We’ve got a lot of killers. What, do you think our country’s so innocent? Take a look at what we’ve done, too.” - Donald J. Trump, President of the USA
The Kushner sh*t is greasy - Stevie B.
Post Reply