mass shooting in orlando

[Guard Dog]

This will piss you off: https://pjmedia.com/homeland-security/2016/06/12/orlando-night-club-attack-by-known-wolf-terrorist-previously-investigated-by-fbi/

[Malcador]

This will piss you off: https://pjmedia.com/homeland-security/2016/06/12/orlando-night-club-attack-by-known-wolf-terrorist-previously-investigated-by-fbi/

Guess some systems need to talk to one another. Well, each tragedy is a lesson.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

I don'r know how much more monitoring Big Brother COULD do. But I'm figuring the Gun Control nuts will come back with new promises of gun bans and gun confiscations. Because clearly the way to punish this is to take the private property away from everyone who did no wrong today. 

 

Why would anybody want to punish this?

 

Preventing similar cases, on the other hand, sounds like a reasonable goal.

 

So you either punish everyone for something someone else did or you punish everyone for something no one did yet. Either way it amounts to the same thing. You are taking away the property of people who have done nothing wrong. That should even bother YOU.

 

 

Not... particularly?

 

I mean, you can't conceivably need an assault rifle for any civilian purpose. And if I weigh the collective freedom to keep what amounts to a glorified **** substitute at home against the lives of people who can - and will - be gunned down in an event like this, no offense, but the glorified **** substitute just ain't gonna come out of that comparison on top. Yay utilitarianism!

Edited June 12, 2016 by aluminiumtrioxid

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

To me it is senseless act of violence that ended lots of lives that should not have ended. I just hope that it leads changes that make society better for everybody. 

That would be nice.  Much more likely it will lead to the polar opposite.  Those with radical views will use this to further erode our already dwindling freedoms, meanwhile the terrorists will continue to hate and kill us just the same.

 

Come on, lets not think this will lead to another " now the government will erode our freedoms " rant

 

The USA has very effective information gathering and the endeavors of the likes of the NSA  and FBI have helped prevent numerous attacks but IMO this will be considered  a " lone wolf " which are very difficult to prevent. So I dont see any new " monitoring of citizens " laws being passed?

 

I don'r know how much more monitoring Big Brother COULD do. But I'm figuring the Gun Control nuts will come back with new promises of gun bans and gun confiscations. Because clearly the way to punish this is to take the private property away from everyone who did no wrong today. 

 

GD I have a different view now on Gun Control, so let it not be said I dont reflect on my opinion on matters and change my opinion as it serves a greater common good 

 

I no longer think that Gun Control laws should be enforced, despite all the evidence that supports  a reduction in violent crimes. I have come to the conclusion that the topic has become too divisive in the modern age of USA politics and is more political now than a valid societal change?

 

So its now used to criticize  all people who own guns and this is seen as a form of attack by many Americans on there culture and history. And even if I say " no this is not an attack on your personal liberty " this is not how you see it and your view does matter

 

I just feel there are enough progressive social changes in the USA that you have accepted its best to leave the Gun Control laws alone 

 

And it was your criticism towards my view last time that helped shape my new opinion. You basically said " You dont like the way people are being condescending and telling you what guns they can keep or be allowed to own ''  ...you are right in some ways. When Hilary says things like " we must reign these wayward gun owners " it can be seen in a patronizing manner, I understand that view

 

But efforts to enforce Gun Control are not suppose to be about  surreptitious control  of the population or suggestions that the average American cant take care of  guns...no its suppose to be about reducing deaths through gun control. But the point is the intention is misunderstood and that causes unnecessary consternation 

 

And finally I want someone like you to be happy overall with most of the social changes happening in the USA...its because you represent a very important demographic in the USA and your support is needed..do you know why you are so important?

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

So its now used to criticize  all people who own guns and this is seen as a form of attack by many Americans on there culture and history.

 

 

To be fair, the way American culture fetishizes guns is absolutely worth criticizing, and if I had a magic wand that could somehow either make that stupid, childish fantasy of "guns = freedom and rugged individualism" or the guns themselves disappear, I'd definitely choose the former.

[Namutree]

I don't know about Trump of Clinton but I would be sickened if I thought 50 innocent people being murdered was a good thing for me in any way.

It's objectively beneficial to his interests. It's reasonable for him to think it's good news for him; it's not the same as being glad it happened.

[Gromnir]

which Constitutional freedom is more deserving o' protection:

 

the right to bear arms

 

or

 

the prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures?

 

clue: the answer is in the question.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

So its now used to criticize  all people who own guns and this is seen as a form of attack by many Americans on there culture and history.

 

 

To be fair, the way American culture fetishizes guns is absolutely worth criticizing, and if I had a magic wand that could somehow either make that stupid, childish fantasy of "guns = freedom and rugged individualism" or the guns themselves disappear, I'd definitely choose the former.

 

Yes, I agree with you that from an outsiders perspective it does seem irrational...but we mustn't underestimate how divisive trying to enforce Gun Control is being seen  or how it will be received. Trust me on this one...rather let the folks keep there guns 

[Zoraptor]

 

 

I mean, you can't conceivably need an assault rifle for any civilian purpose. And if I weigh the collective freedom to keep what amounts to a glorified **** substitute at home against the lives of people who can - and will - be gunned down in an event like this, no offense, but the glorified **** substitute just ain't gonna come out of that comparison on top. Yay utilitarianism!

 

 

'Assault rifle' is an emotive term though, for a medium to high calibre weapon that has an automatic, military, equivalent. A semi auto 'assault rifle' is functionally identical to a semi auto hunting rifle in everything except look and (in the US at least, and iirc) magazine size. We have far stronger gun control laws here but I could, theoretically, walk into a gun store and buy an AR-15/ AK-74/ SKS/ FN FAL. I'd only do it if I needed to control pigs or deer as the idea of trying to shoot them with a .22 is both moronic and barbaric and I'd get a proper hunting rifle, but functionally that FN FAL 'assault rifle' would be exactly the same as a .308 'hunting rifle'.

[BruceVC]

which Constitutional freedom is more deserving o' protection:

 

the right to bear arms

 

or

 

the prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures?

 

clue: the answer is in the question.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Mmmm....I would say right to bear arms is more important ?

[Guard Dog]

 

 

 

I don'r know how much more monitoring Big Brother COULD do. But I'm figuring the Gun Control nuts will come back with new promises of gun bans and gun confiscations. Because clearly the way to punish this is to take the private property away from everyone who did no wrong today. 

 

Why would anybody want to punish this?

 

Preventing similar cases, on the other hand, sounds like a reasonable goal.

 

So you either punish everyone for something someone else did or you punish everyone for something no one did yet. Either way it amounts to the same thing. You are taking away the property of people who have done nothing wrong. That should even bother YOU.

 

 

Not... particularly?

 

I mean, you can't conceivably need an assault rifle for any civilian purpose. And if I weigh the collective freedom to keep what amounts to a glorified **** substitute at home against the lives of people who can - and will - be gunned down in an event like this, no offense, but the glorified **** substitute just ain't gonna come out of that comparison on top. Yay utilitarianism!

 

Ah there is the old left wing arrogance. Setting themselves up as the arbiters of what people NEED. "I" don't think you need this therefore "I" don't think you should have it. The entire notion of freedom is completely lost on you isn't it? Well, I don't own an "assault rifle" but I would never presume to tell a law abiding citizen of the United States who had done no wrong to anyone what they can or can't have based on what I think they "need".

 

Just my $.02.

[Guard Dog]

 

 

 

 

To me it is senseless act of violence that ended lots of lives that should not have ended. I just hope that it leads changes that make society better for everybody. 

That would be nice.  Much more likely it will lead to the polar opposite.  Those with radical views will use this to further erode our already dwindling freedoms, meanwhile the terrorists will continue to hate and kill us just the same.

 

Come on, lets not think this will lead to another " now the government will erode our freedoms " rant

 

The USA has very effective information gathering and the endeavors of the likes of the NSA  and FBI have helped prevent numerous attacks but IMO this will be considered  a " lone wolf " which are very difficult to prevent. So I dont see any new " monitoring of citizens " laws being passed?

 

I don'r know how much more monitoring Big Brother COULD do. But I'm figuring the Gun Control nuts will come back with new promises of gun bans and gun confiscations. Because clearly the way to punish this is to take the private property away from everyone who did no wrong today. 

 

GD I have a different view now on Gun Control, so let it not be said I dont reflect on my opinion on matters and change my opinion as it serves a greater common good 

 

I no longer think that Gun Control laws should be enforced, despite all the evidence that supports  a reduction in violent crimes. I have come to the conclusion that the topic has become too divisive in the modern age of USA politics and is more political now than a valid societal change?

 

So its now used to criticize  all people who own guns and this is seen as a form of attack by many Americans on there culture and history. And even if I say " no this is not an attack on your personal liberty " this is not how you see it and your view does matter

 

I just feel there are enough progressive social changes in the USA that you have accepted its best to leave the Gun Control laws alone 

 

And it was your criticism towards my view last time that helped shape my new opinion. You basically said " You dont like the way people are being condescending and telling you what guns they can keep or be allowed to own ''  ...you are right in some ways. When Hilary says things like " we must reign these wayward gun owners " it can be seen in a patronizing manner, I understand that view

 

But efforts to enforce Gun Control are not suppose to be about  surreptitious control  of the population or suggestions that the average American cant take care of  guns...no its suppose to be about reducing deaths through gun control. But the point is the intention is misunderstood and that causes unnecessary consternation 

 

And finally I want someone like you to be happy overall with most of the social changes happening in the USA...its because you represent a very important demographic in the USA and your support is needed..do you know why you are so important?

 

I am surprised to hear you have shifted your views on something. Even if only by degree. I told you participating in a forum where you will hear a diverse array of onions opinions was a healthy thing. (That typo was so funny I had to leave it in!)

 

There is one huge difference between your philosophy of life, society, economics, and politics and mine, And this is not a criticism, merely an observation. You place great value on motivations. You first thought on any policy or subject is something to the tune of "is this good?" "Does this mean well"? I do not even consider motivation. It is not even a blip on my radar. I focus 100% on outcomes. What will something actually do?

 

But this thread is about a specific thing and I don't want to be the one to derail it so reply if you wish, I won't retort. 

Edited June 12, 2016 by Guard Dog

[Guard Dog]

 

 

 

So its now used to criticize  all people who own guns and this is seen as a form of attack by many Americans on there culture and history.

 

 

To be fair, the way American culture fetishizes guns is absolutely worth criticizing, and if I had a magic wand that could somehow either make that stupid, childish fantasy of "guns = freedom and rugged individualism" or the guns themselves disappear, I'd definitely choose the former.

 

Spoke like a man who has never been confronted with hostile wildlife, or that lives a 45 minute drive from the nearest police station.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

I focus 100% on outcomes. What will something actually do?

 

 

 

We seem to be in agreement, then. There is something about American culture that births mass shootings. This is obviously a problem because human lives are valuable (duh). Treating the problem at the root cause (figuring out why mass shootings happen and how to prevent them) is obviously preferable to restrictions on the right to bear firearms, but unless someone can do that, gun control seems to be the next best thing. So let's focus on the outcomes: we have no gun control, people continue to die. What alternative outcomes are worse, and why?

 

 

 

 

 

 

So its now used to criticize  all people who own guns and this is seen as a form of attack by many Americans on there culture and history.

 

 

To be fair, the way American culture fetishizes guns is absolutely worth criticizing, and if I had a magic wand that could somehow either make that stupid, childish fantasy of "guns = freedom and rugged individualism" or the guns themselves disappear, I'd definitely choose the former.

 

Spoke like a man who has never been confronted with hostile wildlife, or that lives a 45 minute drive from the nearest police station.

 

 

 

...Don't live in the arse-end of nowhere if you want to partake in the benefits civilization has to offer?

[Guard Dog]

 

 

I focus 100% on outcomes. What will something actually do?

 

 

 

We seem to be in agreement, then. There is something about American culture that births mass shootings. This is obviously a problem because human lives are valuable (duh). Treating the problem at the root cause (figuring out why mass shootings happen and how to prevent them) is obviously preferable to restrictions on the right to bear firearms, but unless someone can do that, gun control seems to be the next best thing. So let's focus on the outcomes: we have no gun control, people continue to die. What alternative outcomes are worse, and why?

 

 

 

 

 

 

So its now used to criticize  all people who own guns and this is seen as a form of attack by many Americans on there culture and history.

 

 

To be fair, the way American culture fetishizes guns is absolutely worth criticizing, and if I had a magic wand that could somehow either make that stupid, childish fantasy of "guns = freedom and rugged individualism" or the guns themselves disappear, I'd definitely choose the former.

 

Spoke like a man who has never been confronted with hostile wildlife, or that lives a 45 minute drive from the nearest police station.

 

 

 

...Don't live in the arse-end of nowhere if you want to partake in the benefits civilization has to offer?

 

Ah, yet another freedom of choice you think someone shouldn't make. I guess the government could sieze my land and home and force me to move to a city. The SCOTUS said that was OK in Kelo v. New London.

 

Boy you really are not big on the whole freedom thing. 

[Gromnir]

 

 

 

I mean, you can't conceivably need an assault rifle for any civilian purpose. And if I weigh the collective freedom to keep what amounts to a glorified **** substitute at home against the lives of people who can - and will - be gunned down in an event like this, no offense, but the glorified **** substitute just ain't gonna come out of that comparison on top. Yay utilitarianism!

 

 

'Assault rifle' is an emotive term though, for a medium to high calibre weapon that has an automatic, military, equivalent. A semi auto 'assault rifle' is functionally identical to a semi auto hunting rifle in everything except look and (in the US at least, and iirc) magazine size. We have far stronger gun control laws here but I could, theoretically, walk into a gun store and buy an AR-15/ AK-74/ SKS/ FN FAL. I'd only do it if I needed to control pigs or deer as the idea of trying to shoot them with a .22 is both moronic and barbaric and I'd get a proper hunting rifle, but functionally that FN FAL 'assault rifle' would be exactly the same as a .308 'hunting rifle'.

 

zor is correct.  in fact, an ar-15 that hasn't been rechambered for big game weighs in at a paltry .223. that being said, in most states, the typical magazine size for an ar-15 is 30 and quick-release.  various states has put limits on magazine capacity.  'course the impact o' limits on magazine size is not easy to gauge.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/data-point-to-drop-in-high-capacity-magazines-during-federal-gun-ban/2013/01/10/d56d3bb6-4b91-11e2-a6a6-aabac85e8036_story.html

 

as to our earlier question, while the Court has been a bit conflicted 'bout the level o' scrutiny the second amendment deserves, the law o' the land is that the right to bear arms is defended with greater vigor than is the right to be free o' searches and seizures by the State. District of Columbia v. Heller uses the language o' strict scrutiny, but the Court appears to actual apply intermediate scrutiny under certain conditions.  regardless, fourth amendment search and seizure is only gonna protect against unreasonable State action, which is a less onerous burden for the state to overcome than is intermediate or strict scrutiny.  the point is that simple acts o' Congress or state legislatures is likely gonna be ineffective in reducing an American citizen's access to firearms.  like it or not, the right to bear arms gets the full extent o' Constitutional protections. when folks demand more rigorous gun control provisions, they is wholly ignorant o' the herculean task they is demanding.  the hurdle that prevents meaningful gun control is not American's fascination with guns.  the real obstacle is the the Constitution of the United States.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited June 13, 2016 by Gromnir

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

 

I focus 100% on outcomes. What will something actually do?

 

 

 

We seem to be in agreement, then. There is something about American culture that births mass shootings. This is obviously a problem because human lives are valuable (duh). Treating the problem at the root cause (figuring out why mass shootings happen and how to prevent them) is obviously preferable to restrictions on the right to bear firearms, but unless someone can do that, gun control seems to be the next best thing. So let's focus on the outcomes: we have no gun control, people continue to die. What alternative outcomes are worse, and why?

 

 

Spoke like a man who has never been confronted with hostile wildlife, or that lives a 45 minute drive from the nearest police station.

 

 

 

...Don't live in the arse-end of nowhere if you want to partake in the benefits civilization has to offer?

 

Ah, yet another freedom of choice you think someone shouldn't make. I guess the government could sieze my land and home and force me to move to a city. The SCOTUS said that was OK in Kelo v. New London.

 

Boy you really are not big on the whole freedom thing. 

 

 

 

I think you're conflating "well that's a choice you made and you have to live with the downsides of that choice" with "that's a choice you shouldn't be allowed to make".

 

I can't help but notice that this conflation also let you rather elegantly side-step the other part of my post as well.

[Guard Dog]

 

 

 

 

I focus 100% on outcomes. What will something actually do?

 

 

 

We seem to be in agreement, then. There is something about American culture that births mass shootings. This is obviously a problem because human lives are valuable (duh). Treating the problem at the root cause (figuring out why mass shootings happen and how to prevent them) is obviously preferable to restrictions on the right to bear firearms, but unless someone can do that, gun control seems to be the next best thing. So let's focus on the outcomes: we have no gun control, people continue to die. What alternative outcomes are worse, and why?

 

 

Spoke like a man who has never been confronted with hostile wildlife, or that lives a 45 minute drive from the nearest police station.

 

 

 

...Don't live in the arse-end of nowhere if you want to partake in the benefits civilization has to offer?

 

Ah, yet another freedom of choice you think someone shouldn't make. I guess the government could sieze my land and home and force me to move to a city. The SCOTUS said that was OK in Kelo v. New London.

 

Boy you really are not big on the whole freedom thing. 

 

 

 

I think you're conflating "well that's a choice you made and you have to live with the downsides of that choice" with "that's a choice you shouldn't be allowed to make".

 

I can't help but notice that this conflation also let you rather elegantly side-step the other part of my post as well.

 

Well, it was really more meant to be a joke. But on a serious note a man who lives alone a good distance from any help has to be a little self reliant. Something you flippantly dismissed as a rugged individualist fantasy. But firearms are an important aspect of that. One I will not and should be deprived of. 

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Well, it was really more meant to be a joke. But on a serious note a man who lives alone a good distance from any help has to be a little self reliant. Something you flippantly dismissed as a rugged individualist fantasy.

 

Well... no. I said that American culture has a weird obsession with guns, seeing them as symbols of freedom and rugged individualism, and given that mass shootings are a uniquely American phenomena, the culture surrounding guns and the societal perception thereof is likely a contributing factor in that.

 

 

But on a serious note a man who lives alone a good distance from any help has to be a little self reliant. (...) But firearms are an important aspect of that. One I will not and should be deprived of.

 

 

 Sure, I don't think you should be, but restrictions on the magazine size sound reasonably enough to me, and I believe they have been in effect for quite some time. I assume you don't need 30 bullets to defend yourself from hostile fauna.

 

[Valsuelm]

Oh boy...

 

Here we go again with the gun stuff....

 

Guess what?

 

I was inspired by last nights events to go buy another weapon that some would label an assault rifle, as well as take further steps I should have taken long ago to arm those around me that I care for. Eat that up would be gun banners. Or, call me some redneck gun affectionado if that completely inaccurate and wholly meaningless observation makes you feel better. If you think banning guns will solve anything good, you are entirely irrelevant, and totally marginalized as a thinking human being. You are a sheep, end of story. Anon.

 

More to the point: This stuff (suicidal whackos killing innocents en mass) is not preventable at this point (in some aspects it was never preventable). The FBI couldn't stop it, nor could have any theoretical gun ban. We are way past the point of effective debate. On both guns and the bigger issues at hand that inevitably inspire the 'gun debate' every time they rear their ugly head. There is far too much corruption in the culture. Far too many infected.

 

Pandora's box was opened long ago, and a lot of people don't even realize it's open, at least as many don't even perceive the danger of it being opened, and at least as many waste time debating how we can close it. We can't. The gates have been wide open for too long, and the decay on society has taken rotten hold for too long. Western society as a whole has lost it's soul. It has been convinced to tolerate what any healthy culture would not for too long and in too many places. The damage from the rot is too great at this point for there to not be very ugly times ahead for humanity.

 

If this makes sense to you, then, well.... good I guess. For what that's worth, you might be better off, or not.  You certainly at least have a better chance.

If it doesn't, well... enjoy your bubble while you still can. Chances are very high it's going to pop in the coming years. I just hope for your sake that you finally realize who/what popped it when it explodes.

Edited June 13, 2016 by Valsuelm

[Gromnir]

 

Well, it was really more meant to be a joke. But on a serious note a man who lives alone a good distance from any help has to be a little self reliant. Something you flippantly dismissed as a rugged individualist fantasy.

 

Well... no. I said that American culture has a weird obsession with guns, seeing them as symbols of freedom and rugged individualism, and given that mass shootings are a uniquely American phenomena, the culture surrounding guns and the societal perception thereof is likely a contributing factor in that.

 

 

But on a serious note a man who lives alone a good distance from any help has to be a little self reliant. (...) But firearms are an important aspect of that. One I will not and should be deprived of.

 

 

 Sure, I don't think you should be, but restrictions on the magazine size sound reasonably enough to me, and I believe they have been in effect for quite some time. I assume you don't need 30 bullets to defend yourself from hostile fauna.

 

 

mass shootings is not unique american

 

http://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/comparing-death-rates-from-mass-public-shootings-in-the-us-and-europe/

 

and the efficacy o' magazine size limits, as our earlier linked article reveals, is rather difficult to gauge.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/data-point-to-drop-in-high-capacity-magazines-during-federal-gun-ban/2013/01/10/d56d3bb6-4b91-11e2-a6a6-aabac85e8036_story.html

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps far more people in the US is killed with handguns than with semi-auto assault rifles. in spite of the media fascination with assault rifles, our personal gun control focus has always been handguns. 

 

pps everybody likes easy to read pie charts, yes?  bloomberg study is curious

 

http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/everytown-mass-shooting-analysis1.pdf

Edited June 13, 2016 by Gromnir

[Guard Dog]

 Sure, I don't think you should be, but restrictions on the magazine size sound reasonably enough to me, and I believe they have been in effect for quite some time. I assume you don't need 30 bullets to defend yourself from hostile fauna.

 

 

You know Alum I'd even go along with that if I thought for a second that is where it would end. But it won't. The goal of the gun control crowd is no less than prohibition followed by confiscation. They are willing to do it incrementally but that is the end all things are leading towards. Each new "reasonable" restriction begets another "reasonable restriction" and another and another and another. The best way to ensure you never reach the bad end is don't start down the bad road. 

 

That is the heart of it right there. That is why you see people like me opposing even "reasonable" restrictions. Because we do not trust the government to be satisfied with that. We are not dealing with an honest partner. 

[Enoch]

 

 Sure, I don't think you should be, but restrictions on the magazine size sound reasonably enough to me, and I believe they have been in effect for quite some time. I assume you don't need 30 bullets to defend yourself from hostile fauna.

 

 

You know Alum I'd even go along with that if I thought for a second that is where it would end. But it won't. The goal of the gun control crowd is no less than prohibition followed by confiscation. They are willing to do it incrementally but that is the end all things are leading towards. Each new "reasonable" restriction begets another "reasonable restriction" and another and another and another. The best way to ensure you never reach the bad end is don't start down the bad road. 

 

That is the heart of it right there. That is why you see people like me opposing even "reasonable" restrictions. Because we do not trust the government to be satisfied with that. We are not dealing with an honest partner. 

 

 

You have a better shot of convincing people if you don't automatically assume that those who disagree with you are Bond villains.  People who want gun control in America don't gather to laugh maniacally about the success in the next stage of their Master Plan.  (Or, well, they wouldn't if they ever achieved any political victories worth celebrating.)  They're just ordinary citizens who are sick of seeing bullets hit things they care about. 

 

 

For my part, the horse is pretty much out of the barn on gun control.  Sure, if I had the choice between a society with few guns in private hands, versus one with many, I'd pick the former 10 times out of 10.  (The latter was a useful check on 17th-18th Century tyrants, which is why the 2nd Amendment was written, but modern technology has functionally destroyed the capacity of personal arms to overthrow a better-than-3rd-World oppressive sovereign power.)  In America, though, that choice was made for me a long time ago-- both in the whole Constitution thing, and in the fact that there are just a ****load of guns out there.  That sucks, and creates a whole lot more tragedies than there need to be, but that also doesn't make it smart to expend a whole lot of political capital tilting at that particular windmill. 

[Namutree]

 

Well, it was really more meant to be a joke. But on a serious note a man who lives alone a good distance from any help has to be a little self reliant. Something you flippantly dismissed as a rugged individualist fantasy.

 

Well... no. I said that American culture has a weird obsession with guns, seeing them as symbols of freedom and rugged individualism, and given that mass shootings are a uniquely American phenomena,

 

 

Wut?

 

Didn't a mass shooting happen in Paris not too long ago?

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

 

To me it is senseless act of violence that ended lots of lives that should not have ended. I just hope that it leads changes that make society better for everybody. 

That would be nice.  Much more likely it will lead to the polar opposite.  Those with radical views will use this to further erode our already dwindling freedoms, meanwhile the terrorists will continue to hate and kill us just the same.

 

Come on, lets not think this will lead to another " now the government will erode our freedoms " rant

 

The USA has very effective information gathering and the endeavors of the likes of the NSA  and FBI have helped prevent numerous attacks but IMO this will be considered  a " lone wolf " which are very difficult to prevent. So I dont see any new " monitoring of citizens " laws being passed?

 

I don'r know how much more monitoring Big Brother COULD do. But I'm figuring the Gun Control nuts will come back with new promises of gun bans and gun confiscations. Because clearly the way to punish this is to take the private property away from everyone who did no wrong today. 

 

GD I have a different view now on Gun Control, so let it not be said I dont reflect on my opinion on matters and change my opinion as it serves a greater common good 

 

I no longer think that Gun Control laws should be enforced, despite all the evidence that supports  a reduction in violent crimes. I have come to the conclusion that the topic has become too divisive in the modern age of USA politics and is more political now than a valid societal change?

 

So its now used to criticize  all people who own guns and this is seen as a form of attack by many Americans on there culture and history. And even if I say " no this is not an attack on your personal liberty " this is not how you see it and your view does matter

 

I just feel there are enough progressive social changes in the USA that you have accepted its best to leave the Gun Control laws alone 

 

And it was your criticism towards my view last time that helped shape my new opinion. You basically said " You dont like the way people are being condescending and telling you what guns they can keep or be allowed to own ''  ...you are right in some ways. When Hilary says things like " we must reign these wayward gun owners " it can be seen in a patronizing manner, I understand that view

 

But efforts to enforce Gun Control are not suppose to be about  surreptitious control  of the population or suggestions that the average American cant take care of  guns...no its suppose to be about reducing deaths through gun control. But the point is the intention is misunderstood and that causes unnecessary consternation 

 

And finally I want someone like you to be happy overall with most of the social changes happening in the USA...its because you represent a very important demographic in the USA and your support is needed..do you know why you are so important?

 

I am surprised to hear you have shifted your views on something. Even if only by degree. I told you participating in a forum where you will hear a diverse array of onions opinions was a healthy thing. (That typo was so funny I had to leave it in!)

 

There is one huge difference between your philosophy of life, society, economics, and politics and mine, And this is not a criticism, merely an observation. You place great value on motivations. You first thought on any policy or subject is something to the tune of "is this good?" "Does this mean well"? I do not even consider motivation. It is not even a blip on my radar. I focus 100% on outcomes. What will something actually do?

 

But this thread is about a specific thing and I don't want to be the one to derail it so reply if you wish, I won't retort. 

 

GD sometimes it may appear I only focus on certain SJ issues or support certain politicians like Hilary and I am biased towards minorities and I may seem to ignore certain facts but I am aware of some of the issues you guys raise, I just dont think they have the ramifications you raise...so for me its about priorities 

 

But sometimes I think some of these social changes that espouse the Obama legacy  get misunderstood..and the outcome is a fractured US as there seems to be a  campaign, that you believe.  to undermine  certain core American values and a selective targeting of white people...or rather white males

 

Now this is where you come in to the point, you symbolically represent a very important demographic in the USA. And sometimes I think you forget how important you are...you are a white, male who has worked hard, served your country and paid your taxes. You have contributed in your own way to the USA being the economic success it is. Of course you matter, you always have and its important you recognize it....even though it probably doesnt feel like  anyone cares about your contribution if you vanished it would create a negative outcome

 

So finally and this is the most important point, everything Obama has done  and Clinton want to do is about addressing real and perceived social and  economic imbalances that certain sectors of US society grapple with. Nothing is an intentional  attack on white males....its just certain social developments are based on this like BLM and then some supporters of these movements will bring race into it and generalize about topics and issues which in turn marginalizes some white folk who feel they are being blamed for events they have no influence in 

 

I have been dealing with this in the new SA for 20 years, I am very positive and believe in the economic transformation of SA but I only started believing this in the last 5 years. It took a paradigm shift in my way of thinking about the past and Apartheid before I started being seeing things in a more honest and accurate light..and trust me its easy to only see negative in a country like SA, if you going through what White people have gone through do these points apply to you

• You achieved your success at work through hard work and diligence and didnt do it at the expense of minorities
• You find certain  groups in society claim they are at an economic and societal  disadvantage to achieve success..even though you had similar challengers  
• You find certain reasons for a social challenge being blamed on things like  " white capital " or " white privileged "
• There is a narrative that highlights the fact that white people need to distribute there wealth to address the past injustice where  white people only became wealthy at the expense of minorities

I dont agree with any of these completely but if these apply to you then I can  help you rationalize them?