[ ]   [ ]   [ ]                        [ ]      [ ]   [ ]

Wordle - daily game - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Jan 29, 2023 - 11:41pm
 
Ukraine - Steely_D - Jan 29, 2023 - 9:45pm
 
USA! USA! USA! - KurtfromLaQuinta - Jan 29, 2023 - 9:07pm
 
NASA & other news from space - kurtster - Jan 29, 2023 - 8:05pm
 
Things I Saw Today... - KurtfromLaQuinta - Jan 29, 2023 - 7:36pm
 
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos - KurtfromLaQuinta - Jan 29, 2023 - 7:35pm
 
Are you ready for some football? - JrzyTmata - Jan 29, 2023 - 7:32pm
 
Radio Paradise Comments - onlylynne - Jan 29, 2023 - 6:26pm
 
Things You Thought Today - miamizsun - Jan 29, 2023 - 2:52pm
 
SCOTUS - Red_Dragon - Jan 29, 2023 - 2:43pm
 
Beer - DaveInSaoMiguel - Jan 29, 2023 - 2:00pm
 
New Music - haresfur - Jan 29, 2023 - 12:34pm
 
Today in History - Red_Dragon - Jan 29, 2023 - 9:54am
 
Pretty Darn Good Bass Lines - among the best.... - miamizsun - Jan 29, 2023 - 8:28am
 
Outstanding Covers - Coaxial - Jan 29, 2023 - 7:56am
 
Bad Poetry - miamizsun - Jan 29, 2023 - 7:41am
 
The Obituary Page - GeneP59 - Jan 29, 2023 - 6:58am
 
Audials - roger.holroyd1217 - Jan 29, 2023 - 3:31am
 
The strange tale of KFAT - oldviolin - Jan 28, 2023 - 8:57pm
 
Sunrise, Sunset - islander - Jan 28, 2023 - 6:25pm
 
What Did You Do Today? - Bill_J - Jan 28, 2023 - 6:24pm
 
Strange signs, marquees, billboards, etc. - Isabeau - Jan 28, 2023 - 1:34pm
 
Economix - R_P - Jan 28, 2023 - 12:07pm
 
Guns - R_P - Jan 28, 2023 - 10:57am
 
Bug Reports & Feature Requests - geoff_morphini - Jan 28, 2023 - 7:43am
 
Music Requests - Ralf - Jan 28, 2023 - 7:39am
 
last.fm-scrobbling - hans-juergen - Jan 28, 2023 - 12:25am
 
Immigration - westslope - Jan 27, 2023 - 4:13pm
 
Mixtape Culture Club - Steely_D - Jan 27, 2023 - 3:39pm
 
Linking to "What's Playing" - fraenki - Jan 27, 2023 - 2:18pm
 
What Makes You Cry :) ? - black321 - Jan 27, 2023 - 12:42pm
 
Talk Behind Their Backs Forum - GeneP59 - Jan 27, 2023 - 10:19am
 
The Monks of Zagorsk - cathyetsylvain - Jan 27, 2023 - 9:16am
 
Having a Bad Day??? - GeneP59 - Jan 26, 2023 - 8:27pm
 
Living in America - Red_Dragon - Jan 26, 2023 - 8:16pm
 
Things for which you would sell ManBird's soul - GeneP59 - Jan 26, 2023 - 7:53pm
 
Upcoming concerts or shows you can't wait to see - Steely_D - Jan 26, 2023 - 4:58pm
 
Trump - haresfur - Jan 26, 2023 - 3:59pm
 
OUR CATS!! - Isabeau - Jan 26, 2023 - 3:02pm
 
Oil, Gas Prices & Other Crapola - black321 - Jan 26, 2023 - 12:44pm
 
RightWingNutZ - R_P - Jan 26, 2023 - 12:20pm
 
Anti-War - R_P - Jan 26, 2023 - 10:07am
 
21st century technology - black321 - Jan 26, 2023 - 9:44am
 
Florida - black321 - Jan 26, 2023 - 7:10am
 
The end of the world - miamizsun - Jan 26, 2023 - 6:38am
 
Joe Biden - kcar - Jan 25, 2023 - 9:21pm
 
Love is... - Isabeau - Jan 25, 2023 - 6:03pm
 
Least Successful Phishing Scams - Proclivities - Jan 25, 2023 - 6:35am
 
Poetry Forum - ScottN - Jan 25, 2023 - 5:12am
 
a thank you for the team - guy-wernher - Jan 25, 2023 - 3:05am
 
COVID-19 - thisbody - Jan 24, 2023 - 3:41pm
 
Todd Rundgren - Steely_D - Jan 24, 2023 - 11:08am
 
Republican Party - ScottFromWyoming - Jan 24, 2023 - 8:35am
 
Nuclear power - saviour or scourge? - miamizsun - Jan 24, 2023 - 6:44am
 
Surfing! - thisbody - Jan 24, 2023 - 2:15am
 
::odd but intriguing:: - KurtfromLaQuinta - Jan 23, 2023 - 9:00pm
 
Manbird's Episiotomy Stitch Licking Clinic - KEEP OUT - miamizsun - Jan 23, 2023 - 3:09pm
 
Way Cool Video - miamizsun - Jan 23, 2023 - 2:00pm
 
Russia - cc_rider - Jan 23, 2023 - 8:14am
 
NOT Main Mix - ScopPics - Jan 23, 2023 - 4:25am
 
Memorials - Remembering Our Loved Ones - GeneP59 - Jan 22, 2023 - 9:14am
 
News of the Weird - Bill_J - Jan 20, 2023 - 7:51pm
 
Breaking News - ScottFromWyoming - Jan 20, 2023 - 2:57pm
 
Philosophy (Meaty Metaphysical Munchables!) - R_P - Jan 20, 2023 - 1:48pm
 
The Bucket List - miamizsun - Jan 20, 2023 - 10:38am
 
Derplahoma! - Red_Dragon - Jan 20, 2023 - 10:02am
 
Things that make you go Hmmmm..... - haresfur - Jan 19, 2023 - 8:14pm
 
What music have you paid real money for recently? - kurtster - Jan 19, 2023 - 7:30pm
 
Twitter's finest moment - westslope - Jan 19, 2023 - 7:03pm
 
Tidal / Spotify - bigbargain - Jan 19, 2023 - 2:33pm
 
Is there any GOOD news out there? - black321 - Jan 19, 2023 - 2:06pm
 
Tesla (motors, batteries, etc) - Steely_D - Jan 19, 2023 - 11:17am
 
Baseball, anyone? - ScottFromWyoming - Jan 19, 2023 - 11:13am
 
Covers that are better than the original - ScottFromWyoming - Jan 19, 2023 - 9:01am
 
Wardrobe malfunction - miamizsun - Jan 19, 2023 - 8:42am
 
Index » Regional/Local » USA/Canada » Guns Page: 1, 2, 3 ... 482, 483, 484  Next
Post to this Topic
R_P

R_P Avatar



Posted: Jan 28, 2023 - 10:57am

 rgio wrote:
Movies are not the problem.  (...)

Teens around the globe are playing at similar levels, but the murders are almost all in the US.  Guns don't kill people, but access sure does

Seems pretty obvious, except to the Manichean gymnasts.

Might want to make Sesame Street R-rated so 6-year olds won't shoot their teacher.

PS: There's an amazing (OTT) violent climax in Tarantino's last movie. I don't think many are repelled by it, but rather vicariously get a thrill from it (due to a setup).
Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Jan 28, 2023 - 9:25am

 westslope wrote:
There might be a few measures that could be contemplated in the USA and other countries.

1.  Start a debate on political violence and politically punish political leaders that support political violence. Socially trash celebrity narcissists like Elon Musk who support political violence.

2.  Educate people about security and the limitations of firearms.   Propose alternatives to firearms such as excellent physical conditioning, knives, mace, pens, pencils, knuckles, heels of the hand, knees, etc.  

During half a decade of hitchhiking and backpacking through South American and Africa, the only people who asked and then expressed shock that I was unarmed were Americans.  These well intentioned individuals had no understanding of how dangerous it would be to pack a firearm while travelling, let alone the challenges of illegally crossing borders with the weapon.   The whole notion of strategic interactions never occured.   

The problems:

- the usefulness of firearms can be severely limited in close quarter conflict. 
- uneducated and poorly trained security forces in low-resource countries can be nervous and trigger happy 
- popular American cultural imports exhort people to shoot first and ask questions later.    
- a hidden firearm takes time and effort to access.

3.   Teach people how to read a street.    Teach people how to avoid gratuitously antagonizing someone carrying a firearm or other deadly weapon.  

4.   Invade and occupy the problem areas in Chicago and Washington DC.  Completely sweep all homes and buildings for weapons.  Establish the equivalent of Martial Law for a period.   Ignore non-violent narcotics offenses while providing increased levels of public health services.    Ramp up capital available for local entrepreneurs.

Turn the neighbourhoods into weapons-free zones.  Use a massive police and military presence in order to accomplish that.    Make sure key Black American leaders and communities are on side before proceeding.  Evacuate the area of unarmed civilians before sending armed units in.    Clean house.   Setup community-based security organizations that share the function with municipal police forces going forward.  

Set up a perimeter and keep the weapons out, at least until the court issues an injunction.  


My suggestions are silly and they have no hope of being realized.        Next?  

Your suggestion 1 is ongoing. We don't have a consensus on what counts as political violence: it's a protest if it comes from our tribe, it's a riot/insurrection if it comes from The Other.

Suggestion 2 is a mixture of good and awful. We have really good non-lethal weapons now, but where they are needed most they're banned. Which predictably disadvantages the law-abiding.

Teaching people to carry knives and brass knuckles? Seriously? Knives as fighting tools are for experts and pretty useless against anyone armed with something with more range,. I don't expect we'll convince people to become experts at hand-to-hand combat any more than we'll get 80 year old grandmothers into excellent physical condition. You can use pepper spray or a taser from a wheelchair tho,

Suggestion 3: Instead of surrendering the streets to violent elements how about we try and have fewer violent elements? We will never appease our way out of violence.

Suggestion 4: You start out condemning political violence and end by proposing it on a massive scale. Yeah, tell me how safe the streets are in North Korea. Now go negotiate with those black leaders about how their neighborhood needs all its doors kicked in to sweep for contraband, but the suburb where the white people live doesn't and see how quick you get buy-in. Not interested.




rgio

rgio Avatar

Location: West Jersey
Gender: Male


Posted: Jan 28, 2023 - 8:52am

 Proclivities wrote:

Yes, smoking still appears in some films but I wouldn't say it's being "glorified".  The amount of smoking shown in films in the last 20 or 30 years is dramatically lower than it was before (compared to the 1940s-1960s when everyone smoked in movies) - and most of it appears in R-rated films, not youth-oriented films.  Smoking on television has been almost non-existent for about 40 years.


Movies are not the problem.  

20% of teenage males are addicted to video games (now a clinically defined and diagnosable mental disorder).  

In case you haven't picked up a handset in a while, here's a look at what you're missing.  Pay attention to the weapons being used and the rounds fired (bottom right).

Adam Lanza (Sandy Hook), James Holmes (Aurora, CO), and Jared Lee Loughner (Tucson - shot Gabby Giffords and killed six others) are just a few among a long list of mass murderers who spent a tremendous amount of time playing first-person shooter video games.

Teens around the globe are playing at similar levels, but the murders are almost all in the US.  Guns don't kill people, but access sure does. 



Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Jan 28, 2023 - 8:19am

 haresfur wrote:
I think you have it backwards - at least for the people most at risk of becoming extremely violent. Sure, wimps like myself can't deal with seeing lots of violence, or actually more to the point, lots of cruelty, but many people brought up or exposed to a culture of violence become hardened to it and become extremely violent, too. Look at how people come out of prison after years of living in a violent environment. They are the recidivists. Especially sexual violence - many men who were assaulted in prison come out and commit violence on their partners. (Sorry, I can't cite statistics so if you doubt it you will have to read up yourself.)

Look at the people who hold dog fights and cock fights. Look at the men subjected to violence in their homes and witnessing violence against their mothers. They are the most likely to follow in their father's footsteps. Look at combat veterans who have a higher than average rate of becoming abusers. Hollywood gore isn't going to change that and I believe it in fact makes it worse.

I'm not claiming one social change will cure psychopaths or end cruelty. It also won't brighten your teeth or cure baldness, and if this were all that changed I doubt it would have the effect we're looking for. It's one piece of the puzzle.


Proclivities

Proclivities Avatar

Location: Paris of the Piedmont
Gender: Male


Posted: Jan 28, 2023 - 5:06am

 westslope wrote:

..- the entertainment industry (Hollywood for short) would stop glorifying tobacco.  All kinds of characters smoke tobacco on screen these days that one would not expect to see addicted to tobacco in 'real life'.  This glorification of tobacco risks hurting those of low and modest socio-economic status more than others.  Not cool.  ...

Yes, smoking still appears in some films but I wouldn't say it's being "glorified".  The amount of smoking shown in films in the last 20 or 30 years is dramatically lower than it was before (compared to the 1940s-1960s when everyone smoked in movies) - and most of it appears in R-rated films, not youth-oriented films.  Smoking on television has been almost non-existent for about 40 years.

haresfur

haresfur Avatar

Location: The Golden Triangle
Gender: Male


Posted: Jan 27, 2023 - 8:20pm

 Lazy8 wrote:

I think I heard my cue. I know you were just being snidely dismissive, but I'm going to take this response seriously for a moment.

This may not make sense to most of you reading this, but you can apply moral suasion without coercion. Something can be a good idea and not be mandatory,

Tarantino, I'd submit, is not part of the problem I'm talking about. Violence in his films is shocking. It hurts. There are consequences.

Take, for instance, Pulp Fiction. Two of the protagonists (unintentionally) shoot someone inside a car. The scene is bloody, and they spend a good part of the film figuring out how to hide and then dispose of the body. One of them decides to give up the gangsta life in the process.

Or the cartoonish revenge fantasy Inglorious Basterds. The protagonists beat captured prisoners to death with a baseball bat in realistic detail and carve swastikas into the foreheads of others. Never mind how absurd it is that they carried a baseball bat into a secret mission behind enemy lines (or Brad Pit's awful allegedly Tennessee Jewish accent), or the ridiculous counterhistorical plot, he depicts violence without sanitizing it. Or consider Django Unchained. Or just skip it. Whatever.

My point is that his work stands counter to the normal depictions of violence, the tidy deaths of most war films/westerns/gangster movies. You could watch Arnold Schwarzenegger's complete ouvre (save, perhaps, for the Terminator franchise) without seeing anyone actually suffer in a gunfight. They get shot and they drop, mostly without blood. The body counts would be appalling if you ever saw the bodies to count them. Gunshot wounds are gruesome, but you'd hardly know that from TV and cinema.

All that said...I would never propose forcing Ahnold to make movies like Quentin, and you don't have too.

Going back to the example of gay marriage (and acceptance of gays generally) you don't have to go back very far to see gay people caricatured as buffoons or depicted strictly as villains in Hollywood movies. That still happens now and then but for the most part Hollywood is over that stereotype. And that transition happened on the way to getting Prop. 8  overturned. That happened without legal stricture, it just became...uncool.

And the same thing could happen with violence.  Sanitized violence could become uncool. And it would, for the most part, stop.

This thought first came to me as a teenager when I saw a showing of Scorsese's Taxi Driver. I was no stranger to the genre of action movies where the hero blasts all the bad guys in the finale, saving the heroine. Scorsese made me reassess that ending by showing what that would actually mean to the human beings those bad guys are, what a toll it would take on the hero of that vignette, and how actually crazy the idea is. I'd like to see more Scorsese and less Schwarzenegger. And I'd like to see us repelled (rather than entertained) by violence.


I think you have it backwards - at least for the people most at risk of becoming extremely violent. Sure, wimps like myself can't deal with seeing lots of violence, or actually more to the point, lots of cruelty, but many people brought up or exposed to a culture of violence become hardened to it and become extremely violent, too. Look at how people come out of prison after years of living in a violent environment. They are the recidivists. Especially sexual violence - many men who were assaulted in prison come out and commit violence on their partners. (Sorry, I can't cite statistics so if you doubt it you will have to read up yourself.)

Look at the people who hold dog fights and cock fights. Look at the men subjected to violence in their homes and witnessing violence against their mothers. They are the most likely to follow in their father's footsteps. Look at combat veterans who have a higher than average rate of becoming abusers. Hollywood gore isn't going to change that and I believe it in fact makes it worse.
Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Jan 27, 2023 - 7:50pm

 R_P wrote:
In short, "Hollywood" needs to get woke on violence (and vices). "Listen, Mr. Tarantino..."


Cue free speech proponents & artists. And Marvel/Di$ney.

I think I heard my cue. I know you were just being snidely dismissive, but I'm going to take this response seriously for a moment.

This may not make sense to most of you reading this, but you can apply moral suasion without coercion. Something can be a good idea and not be mandatory,

Tarantino, I'd submit, is not part of the problem I'm talking about. Violence in his films is shocking. It hurts. There are consequences.

Take, for instance, Pulp Fiction. Two of the protagonists (unintentionally) shoot someone inside a car. The scene is bloody, and they spend a good part of the film figuring out how to hide and then dispose of the body. One of them decides to give up the gangsta life in the process.

Or the cartoonish revenge fantasy Inglorious Basterds. The protagonists beat captured prisoners to death with a baseball bat in realistic detail and carve swastikas into the foreheads of others. Never mind how absurd it is that they carried a baseball bat into a secret mission behind enemy lines (or Brad Pit's awful allegedly Tennessee Jewish accent), or the ridiculous counterhistorical plot, he depicts violence without sanitizing it. Or consider Django Unchained. Or just skip it. Whatever.

My point is that his work stands counter to the normal depictions of violence, the tidy deaths of most war films/westerns/gangster movies. You could watch Arnold Schwarzenegger's complete ouvre (save, perhaps, for the Terminator franchise) without seeing anyone actually suffer in a gunfight. They get shot and they drop, mostly without blood. The body counts would be appalling if you ever saw the bodies to count them. Gunshot wounds are gruesome, but you'd hardly know that from TV and cinema.

All that said...I would never propose forcing Ahnold to make movies like Quentin, and you don't have too.

Going back to the example of gay marriage (and acceptance of gays generally) you don't have to go back very far to see gay people caricatured as buffoons or depicted strictly as villains in Hollywood movies. That still happens now and then but for the most part Hollywood is over that stereotype. And that transition happened on the way to getting Prop. 8  overturned. That happened without legal stricture, it just became...uncool.

And the same thing could happen with violence.  Sanitized violence could become uncool. And it would, for the most part, stop.

This thought first came to me as a teenager when I saw a showing of Scorsese's Taxi Driver. I was no stranger to the genre of action movies where the hero blasts all the bad guys in the finale, saving the heroine. Scorsese made me reassess that ending by showing what that would actually mean to the human beings those bad guys are, what a toll it would take on the hero of that vignette, and how actually crazy the idea is. I'd like to see more Scorsese and less Schwarzenegger. And I'd like to see us repelled (rather than entertained) by violence.
kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male


Posted: Jan 27, 2023 - 7:15pm

 steeler wrote:
 kurtster wrote:

Arrests are being made, but there is little follow through with prosecutions anymore.  Sentences with any meaningful incarceration are shrinking, thus reducing the incentive to not commit crimes in the first place. We used to have a mantra of don't do the crime if you can't do the time.  Now there is no time to worry about anymore if you are caught.
Those arrested for murder almost always are prosecuted and, if convicted, are sentenced to meaningful periods of incarceration. 
 
Murder isn't the only crime committed with guns.
R_P

R_P Avatar



Posted: Jan 27, 2023 - 5:20pm

 westslope wrote:
Odd comment.

Not really.

I suppose I could have used: "Hollywood" needs to get real...
westslope

westslope Avatar

Location: BC sage brush steppe


Posted: Jan 27, 2023 - 4:15pm

 R_P wrote:
In short, "Hollywood" needs to get woke on violence (and vices). "Listen, Mr. Tarantino..."
...

Odd comment.  I would have stated the opposite.  

R_P

R_P Avatar



Posted: Jan 27, 2023 - 2:52pm

In short, "Hollywood" needs to get woke on violence (and vices). "Listen, Mr. Tarantino..."

Cue free speech proponents & artists. And Marvel/Di$ney.
westslope

westslope Avatar

Location: BC sage brush steppe


Posted: Jan 27, 2023 - 2:42pm

 Lazy8 wrote:

.....
But you wanted a proposal. I'll give you a half-dozen, and the list won't be anything like complete. It also won't necessarily address violence directly, but address the root causes of what persuades people to accept violence as a first-resort solution to problems.

Convince the entertainment industry to accompany depictions of violence with depictions of the consequences. On-screen deaths shouldn't be neat and tidy, they should be horrifying. Bodies shouldn't vanish from the frame, they should stick around to remind the viewer that a character has been converted to a corpse. A wounded character shouldn't be fine in the next scene, s/he should be realistically debilitated. Violence should hurt.

.......


I like the suggestions.  If I can focus on the entertainment industry.

I wish:    

- the entertainment industry (Hollywood for short) would stop glorifying tobacco.  All kinds of characters smoke tobacco on screen these days that one would not expect to see addicted to tobacco in 'real life'.  This glorification of tobacco risks hurting those of low and modest socio-economic status more than others.  Not cool.  

- Hollywood would deromanticize death, especially death by firearms.    The European and Latin American film makers are typically better at this.  

For a recent television series that directly confronts the horrors of violence, see Echo 3.   

black321

black321 Avatar

Location: An earth without maps
Gender: Male


Posted: Jan 27, 2023 - 12:56pm


rgio

rgio Avatar

Location: West Jersey
Gender: Male


Posted: Jan 27, 2023 - 7:30am

Listening to a podcast this morning where one of the hosts has moved with his family to London from NY.  While discussing what he misses in the US, he noted the decrease in fear of his kids roaming around the city (London).  He pointed out that 79% of homicides in the US involve a gun, versus 4% in the UK.   The homicide rate in the US is also 4X higher per resident.  

rgio

rgio Avatar

Location: West Jersey
Gender: Male


Posted: Jan 27, 2023 - 6:42am

 Isabeau wrote:

Do we realy need semi automatic, multi-round AK 47 and AR 15s?  Other than the "I gots ta shoot them Hogs," what do people use them for? They obliterate the animal they are shot at, so not effective for hunting. Many of the kids shot in Uvalde were unidentifiable and DNA along with clothing were the only way to identify them.
Here in Texas, the parents are considering laws that can sue the state for the death of a child while in the care of the state - at school.
77 minutes those 200+ DPS officers milled about in confusion before breaching the doors to get to the kids. It wasn't the 18 year old they were afraid of, it was the Gun.


I couldn't agree more.  Military weapons do not need to be in private hands.  Buy too much fertilizer, and the FBI will visit your house, yet you can buy AR-15's and thousands of rounds of ammunition and that's somehow interpreted as "protected" by the Constitution.   It makes no sense.   

I think the biggest opportunity for change is time.  The realization that our laws make no sense continues to grow.  Slowly.  The hard-line Right is getting older.  The conspiracy theory-prone generations will fade (a bit), and it's likely that facts, reason, and logic will come out of hiding.  When they do, the SCOTUS will turn over.  Maybe then.

So what to do now?

I think the only way to get some small sense of control is to start holding enablers financially responsible for the costs associated with gun crime.   Here's an example of one tax suggestion.  Maybe you ignore the guns and create very large taxes on ammunition.   Put a $5/round deposit on shell casings.  I appreciate that "good gun owners" have to pay extra, but that's the price for not encouraging legislation and programs to limit the social harm done by the "not-so-good" owners.  It's like when your car insurance goes up because the drivers in your area get in too many accidents.

As for the Uvalde situation... it was proof that "arming everyone" doesn't work.  There were 400 cops on-site by the time they entered that classroom, and they sat on their hands and waited as small children bled out because of 1 person with superior firepower.  I can't figure out why law enforcement doesn't lead the charge to remove these weapons from the street.   Pure insanity, and not what the drafters of the Constitution were thinking when they wrote "..insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare..."  They would be amazed at how the second amendment has been interpreted. 
Antigone

Antigone Avatar

Location: A house, in a Virginian Valley
Gender: Female


Posted: Jan 27, 2023 - 6:34am

 Isabeau wrote:
Do we realy need semi automatic, multi-round AK 47 and AR 15s?  Other than the "I gots ta shoot them Hogs," what do people use them for? They obliterate the animal they are shot at, so not effective for hunting. Many of the kids shot in Uvalde were unidentifiable and DNA along with clothing were the only way to identify them.
Here in Texas, the parents are considering laws that can sue the state for the death of a child while in the care of the state - at school.
77 minutes those 200+ DPS officers milled about in confusion before breaching the doors to get to the kids. It wasn't the 18 year old they were afraid of, it was the Gun.
 
High powered, high capacity weapons are People Killing Machines. No one needs them, except law enforcement and the military. 
Isabeau

Isabeau Avatar

Location: sou' tex
Gender: Female


Posted: Jan 27, 2023 - 5:45am

Do we realy need semi automatic, multi-round AK 47 and AR 15s?  Other than the "I gots ta shoot them Hogs," what do people use them for? They obliterate the animal they are shot at, so not effective for hunting. Many of the kids shot in Uvalde were unidentifiable and DNA along with clothing were the only way to identify them.
Here in Texas, the parents are considering laws that can sue the state for the death of a child while in the care of the state - at school.
77 minutes those 200+ DPS officers milled about in confusion before breaching the doors to get to the kids. It wasn't the 18 year old they were afraid of, it was the Gun.
NoEnzLefttoSplit

NoEnzLefttoSplit Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Jan 27, 2023 - 1:40am

 westslope wrote:

True.   

The most recent gun control legislation passed by the Canadian federal government will inconvenience serious gun owners and hunters, and accomplish nothing else other than gratuitously polarizing Canadians.  Prime minister Justin Trudeau leans far too heavily on vacuous virtue signalling for my liking.

There might be a few measures that could be contemplated in the USA and other countries.

1.  Start a debate on political violence and politically punish political leaders that support political violence. Socially trash celebrity narcissists like Elon Musk who support political violence.

2.  Educate people about security and the limitations of firearms.   Propose alternatives to firearms such as excellent physical conditioning, knives, mace, pens, pencils, knuckles, heels of the hand, knees, etc.  

...

3.   Teach people how to read a street.    Teach people how to avoid gratuitously antagonizing someone carrying a firearm or other deadly weapon.  

4.   Invade and occupy the problem areas in Chicago and Washington DC.  Completely sweep all homes and buildings for weapons.  Establish the equivalent of Martial Law for a period.   Ignore non-violent narcotics offenses while providing increased levels of public health services.    Ramp up capital available for local entrepreneurs.

Turn the neighbourhoods into weapons-free zones.  Use a massive police and military presence in order to accomplish that.    Make sure key Black American leaders and communities are on side before proceeding.  Evacuate the area of unarmed civilians before sending armed units in.    Clean house.   Setup community-based security organizations that share the function with municipal police forces going forward.  

Set up a perimeter and keep the weapons out, at least until the court issues an injunction.  


My suggestions are silly and they have no hope of being realized.        Next?  


Sound pretty sensible to me. 
kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male


Posted: Jan 26, 2023 - 9:45pm

 Steely_D wrote:
 kurtster wrote:

FWIW ... there is an attempt underway to redefine violence to exclude willful property damage as an act of violence.  This coming from the Stacey Abrams camp.

From the Oxford 

vi·o·lence
/ˈvī(ə)ləns/ noun
behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.


Haven't read about this, but this my first take. 
Violence is an attack on people - but destruction of property is vandalism. Nitpicking, that makes perfect sense. 
There are people who can't handle nuance, like - the entire Internet - but I see what they're doing, I think.
 
actually your second take

 Steely_D wrote:

Haven't read about this, but this my first take. 
Violence is people (like Soylent Green) - but destruction of property is vandalism. 
There are people who can't handle nuance, like - the entire Internet - but I see what they're doing, I think.

this is the important part though

 but destruction of property is vandalism. 



Vandalism to me is defacing property.  Destruction is destruction, or rendering something either / or useless and recognizable.
To destroy something with force is most certainly an act of physical violence.  Violence can be brought about with anger or calm by the perpetrator.

Once upon a time many years ago we had a discussion about striking first and taking something to a physical level.  IIRC you said that words were violent and the equivalent of a first strike physical blow, justifying retaliation by making the real first strike physical blow since it was justified by words that constituted an act of violence.

My how times have changed, or have they ?

.
Oh and how prescient of you to bring up Soylent Green.  I saw today the the EU has approved adding crickets and meal worms to human food as a protein substitute for meat.  I sure hope they are not fed GMO's to fatten them up ... cuz if they do ... it makes us only one step removed from SG.
westslope

westslope Avatar

Location: BC sage brush steppe


Posted: Jan 26, 2023 - 9:32pm

 Lazy8 wrote:

No, you only hear about them within our borders. Only something really spectacular (like the Bataclan shooting that killed 130 in Paris, or the Charlie Hebdo shooting that killed 12, or Anders Breivik's rampage in Norway that killed 77) or with strong political overtones makes the news here if it happens overseas.

I bet you didn't hear about the shootings of Kurdish activists in Paris last year. Or the Copenhagen mall shooting. Or Oslo. Or several in Canada. Or the many in Russia.

You don't hear about them because our media is pretty parochial, but also because it doesn't fit the narrative.

No one has found an answer to stopping a determined spree killer. If you're willing (or eager) to die for your grievance a thick book of laws isn't going to stop you. Hell, the former Prime Minister of Japan was murdered with a homemade hand-cannon last year. Every aspect of that act was illegal.

The last two mass casualty shootings were in California, a place where most of the gun control wish-list is law, but similar things happen in Chicago or D.C. every weekend. Gang bangers shoot up those streets with impunity. They're already murdering people, and murdering people has always been against the law.

True.   

The most recent gun control legislation passed by the Canadian federal government will inconvenience serious gun owners and hunters, and accomplish nothing else other than gratuitously polarizing Canadians.  Prime minister Justin Trudeau leans far too heavily on vacuous virtue signalling for my liking.

There might be a few measures that could be contemplated in the USA and other countries.

1.  Start a debate on political violence and politically punish political leaders that support political violence. Socially trash celebrity narcissists like Elon Musk who support political violence.

2.  Educate people about security and the limitations of firearms.   Propose alternatives to firearms such as excellent physical conditioning, knives, mace, pens, pencils, knuckles, heels of the hand, knees, etc.  

During half a decade of hitchhiking and backpacking through South American and Africa, the only people who asked and then expressed shock that I was unarmed were Americans.  These well intentioned individuals had no understanding of how dangerous it would be to pack a firearm while travelling, let alone the challenges of illegally crossing borders with the weapon.   The whole notion of strategic interactions never occured.   

The problems:

- the usefulness of firearms can be severely limited in close quarter conflict. 
- uneducated and poorly trained security forces in low-resource countries can be nervous and trigger happy 
- popular American cultural imports exhort people to shoot first and ask questions later.    
- a hidden firearm takes time and effort to access.

3.   Teach people how to read a street.    Teach people how to avoid gratuitously antagonizing someone carrying a firearm or other deadly weapon.  

4.   Invade and occupy the problem areas in Chicago and Washington DC.  Completely sweep all homes and buildings for weapons.  Establish the equivalent of Martial Law for a period.   Ignore non-violent narcotics offenses while providing increased levels of public health services.    Ramp up capital available for local entrepreneurs.

Turn the neighbourhoods into weapons-free zones.  Use a massive police and military presence in order to accomplish that.    Make sure key Black American leaders and communities are on side before proceeding.  Evacuate the area of unarmed civilians before sending armed units in.    Clean house.   Setup community-based security organizations that share the function with municipal police forces going forward.  

Set up a perimeter and keep the weapons out, at least until the court issues an injunction.  


My suggestions are silly and they have no hope of being realized.        Next?  
Page: 1, 2, 3 ... 482, 483, 484  Next