CDZ Gun culture? or Disrespectful culture? Where does gun violence come from?

[JoeB131]

Man you really can't read can you

You're the one who made a claim that it was just five counties where all the murders happen.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Man you really can't read can you

You're the one who made a claim that it was just five counties where all the murders happen.

And I already said that was a typo you fucking MORON

But you don't want to address the facts anyway so fuck off

 

[JoeB131]

And I already said that was a typo you fucking MORON

But you don't want to address the facts anyway so fuck off

If you can't get your facts right, then there's really not much point addressing you.

You guys come up with all sorts of excuses for the gun culture, usually revealing your own awfulness...

"Well, those suicide people want to die!"
"well, it's mostly darkies in a few neighborhoods"

And so on.

 

[Skull Pilot]

And I already said that was a typo you fucking MORON

But you don't want to address the facts anyway so fuck off

If you can't get your facts right, then there's really not much point addressing you.

You guys come up with all sorts of excuses for the gun culture, usually revealing your own awfulness...

"Well, those suicide people want to die!"
"well, it's mostly darkies in a few neighborhoods"

And so on.

OK Mr if we ban guns no one will ever be murdered again

And you'e the racist fuck who calls Blacks darkies not me.

I never mention race in any of my posts

And the facts are not an excuse they are the facts

We know where the most murders occur and we (and you) don't give a shit if you did you'd be addressing the points I make instead of dodging them

 

[Brian Blackwell]

In my experience, anyone calling you “Guy” and “Buddy” every two seconds is being condescending in a lamentably pedestrian way, which is strong evidence that he will be incapable of an earnest and intelligent discussion.

again, Guy, it's hard to not condescend to the Libertarian Children.

Do you know what a Libertarian is? He's like a child who thinks that food just appears on the table at 6 PM.

Libertarian is a very broad category, and in the larger sense it only means that these people value freedom highly - above many other considerations - just as did those who fought against the King and birthed a nation. It’s not accurate to label them all as naive.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

In my experience, anyone calling you “Guy” and “Buddy” every two seconds is being condescending in a lamentably pedestrian way, which is strong evidence that he will be incapable of an earnest and intelligent discussion.

again, Guy, it's hard to not condescend to the Libertarian Children.

Do you know what a Libertarian is? He's like a child who thinks that food just appears on the table at 6 PM.

Libertarian is a very broad category, and in the larger sense it only means that these people value freedom highly - above many other considerations - just as did those who fought against the King and birthed a nation. It’s not accurate to label them all as naive.

Actually it is perfectly appropriate to refer to libertarians as naïve, if they truly believe their political dogma could ever be implemented.

Libertarian dogma is reactionary and anachronistic, seeking to return America to an idealized past that never actually existed to begin with, ignoring the realities of what it is to govern a modern 21st Century industrialized Nation such as the United States.

And libertarians don’t have a ‘monopoly’ on valuing freedom highly, above many other considerations.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

In my experience, anyone calling you “Guy” and “Buddy” every two seconds is being condescending in a lamentably pedestrian way, which is strong evidence that he will be incapable of an earnest and intelligent discussion.

again, Guy, it's hard to not condescend to the Libertarian Children.

Do you know what a Libertarian is? He's like a child who thinks that food just appears on the table at 6 PM.

Libertarian is a very broad category, and in the larger sense it only means that these people value freedom highly - above many other considerations - just as did those who fought against the King and birthed a nation. It’s not accurate to label them all as naive.

Actually it is perfectly appropriate to refer to libertarians as naïve, if they truly believe their political dogma could ever be implemented.

Libertarian dogma is reactionary and anachronistic, seeking to return America to an idealized past that never actually existed to begin with, ignoring the realities of what it is to govern a modern 21st Century industrialized Nation such as the United States.

And libertarians don’t have a ‘monopoly’ on valuing freedom highly, above many other considerations.

Each Libertarian idea has to be judged on its own merit. I’m largely in agreement with you, but probably for very different reasons. I recognize it as naive to believe you can ever minimize government to the point that it is invulnerable to growth and corruption. The notion of coercive violence as a means toward a peaceful, prosperous society is misguided, even self-contradictory; and so even the minarchist is off-base, as far as I’m concerned.

 

[JoeB131]

And the facts are not an excuse they are the facts

We know where the most murders occur and we (and you) don't give a shit if you did you'd be addressing the points I make instead of dodging them

guy, you don't have a point.

The fact we have 33,000 gun deaths a year is bad, it does not become LESS bad because a lot of them are poor people.

We should be outraged on days other than when 17 kids are killed in a school.

 

[Skull Pilot]

And the facts are not an excuse they are the facts

We know where the most murders occur and we (and you) don't give a shit if you did you'd be addressing the points I make instead of dodging them

guy, you don't have a point.

The fact we have 33,000 gun deaths a year is bad, it does not become LESS bad because a lot of them are poor people.

We should be outraged on days other than when 17 kids are killed in a school.

but suicides do not count. And you don't give a shit about 70% of the murders that occur don't pretend you do

 

[JoeB131]

but suicides do not count. And you don't give a shit about 70% of the murders that occur don't pretend you do

They do count, and when you ban guns, you'll have a lot less of both.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

And the facts are not an excuse they are the facts

We know where the most murders occur and we (and you) don't give a shit if you did you'd be addressing the points I make instead of dodging them

guy, you don't have a point.

The fact we have 33,000 gun deaths a year is bad, it does not become LESS bad because a lot of them are poor people.

We should be outraged on days other than when 17 kids are killed in a school.

Yes, we should be outraged. And the most gun deaths - by an unfathomable margin - are caused by people acting under governmental authority.

And yet, somehow, this never enters the conversation... isn’t that strange? It’s clever how by simply draping the notion of “authority” over something, it changes our perception. It’s almost as if we’ve developed a blind spot in our morality. Like we’ve been made to believe that some among us have the “right” to use violence... where on Earth could we have gotten that idea?

 

[Skull Pilot]

but suicides do not count. And you don't give a shit about 70% of the murders that occur don't pretend you do

They do count, and when you ban guns, you'll have a lot less of both.

Never gonna happen

 

[JoeB131]

Yes, we should be outraged. And the most gun deaths - by an unfathomable margin - are caused by people acting under governmental authority.

Okay, you just went off the deep end there. While we do have anywhere from 900-1200 citizens who are shot by police, they are only a fraction of the 33,000 gun deaths.

And as much as I generally think police use of force is a bad thing, when you never know which guy you pulled over for a speeding ticket might pull out a mac-10, you can see why the cops are a bit itchy-fingered.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Yes, we should be outraged. And the most gun deaths - by an unfathomable margin - are caused by people acting under governmental authority.

Okay, you just went off the deep end there. While we do have anywhere from 900-1200 citizens who are shot by police, they are only a fraction of the 33,000 gun deaths.

And as much as I generally think police use of force is a bad thing, when you never know which guy you pulled over for a speeding ticket might pull out a mac-10, you can see why the cops are a bit itchy-fingered.

First of all, they willingly took a job with such risks. Their burden is to wait until they know beyond doubt that the person has a gun and is likely to use it. It is acceptable for an officer to get shot in the line of a dangerous duty; it is not OK innocent person to get shot by a cop, never having willingly accepted such risks.

Second, I wasn't limiting my comments to just cops, but anyone with license to kill under government authority, including soldiers. Or do gun deaths of innocents not matter when they’re happening on foreign shores?

Historically, government-sanctioned murders and theft surpass all other instances of murder and theft by hundreds of millions. But that’s just the price of “civilized” society, right? After all, we need government to protect us, otherwise we will be vulnerable to murders and theives... Oh wait...

 

[Pogo]

Couple of random examples of the Gun Culture, from posts in the last little while....

Thoughts and opinions...

Is it time for a National Firearm Owner's Identification (FOID) Card: National Firearm Owner's Identification (FOID) Card

"To achieve this uniformity in American gun laws we would like to propose the idea of a National Firearm Owner's Identification (FOID) card system that would apply to EVERY American citizen from birth."

I'm more in favor of branding the foreheads of those who don't want to exercise their god given right to protect themselves.

If it really needs to be pointed out to the obtuse, "exercise their god given [sic] right to protect themselves" here is not some reference to "rights" or "Constitutions" or even "gods" but a euphemism for "Firearms". Unless that is understood this point will be lost. IOW the poster wants to brand the foreheads of anybody who declines to join in the worship of Almighty Gun.


Then there was this, ostensibly in a thread about "opossums":

Mabel get my gun...............we gonna have some possum pie tonight....thems the biggest damn possums I've ever seen....

See what I mean? The immediate thought is "shoot 'em". Conquer. Kill. Destroy. Slaughter.



Here's another thread that just went up.

’Merica bitches!

Doesn't get a whole lot more obvious than that. "must..... shoot... must..... blow.... up..... must....destroy....."
Gun porn for the addicts. Again --- the fetish: worship of an inanimate object.



Finally, an example from the outside world, Department of Tone Deaf....

Local youth baseball raffle features AR-15 rifle, other guns

>> EAST CANTON [Ohio] Leaders of a local youth baseball league are once again hosting a fundraising raffle where the top prizes are an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle and other guns.

Similar youth fundraisers have sparked controversy in communities across the country.

The East Canton Youth Baseball Association, which oversees baseball for kids 5 through their early teens, has held a gun raffle for five years.

.... “This is a volunteer-only sale ...,” Spencer said. “We do not own the guns. We would never own a gun. This is not a private sale.”

This year’s featured prizes are an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle, a 7mm bolt-action hunting rifle, a 12-gauge Remington shotgun and a Taurus handgun. <<​

"We would never own guns". But we'd be happy to raffle them off --- for, of all things, a program for kids to play baseball. And if the winner comes back and mows down the infield, hey at least it keeps our registration fees low.

Values.


I'm not even looking for this shit. These all crossed my path in pursuit of other interests and I just harvested some examples for those who can't acknowledge them.

Sorry for being on-topic.

Based on past experience I expect this post will be removed and/or I'll be banned from this thread and/or this site. That's how blasphemy usually goes down when the "church" finds out about it.

Dear Pogo did it ever occur to you that if YOU DID respect the
authority of the Bill of Rights as these 2nd Amendment defenders do,
then you COULD use these laws to check against such reactions!

When I speak with Christians who have extreme beliefs,
I use the BIBLE as a fellow BELIEVER to hold them to their own laws.
The only time this doesn't work is when they fear I'm not a believer
in the laws, but somehow being used to trick them to go astray with what I'm saying
and it's not a real correction by the law. So that's why the Bible says if they
do not hear you, then take another Witness to help establish truth to settle the matter.

We can do the same using the Constitution that checks itself.

The Bill of Rights checks against any abuses of the 2nd (or 1st)
Amendments that would violate equal freedom, liberty, due process,
security or protections for others by "disparaging other rights or laws."
So this would Contradict the very laws that the 2nd Amendment is part of
and was included in order to DEFEND. it would defeat the purpose!

The only thing missing Pogo is if you try to correct someone
as a "nonbeliever" then of course they will defend resist and fight you back.
That's natural law, Pogo.

A believer will accept rebuke by a fellow believer in the same laws
and principles they both respect and are trying to uphold by conscience.

If you come at someone as an adversary, of COURSE you will meet
with rejection. You will get the same response you put in!

Did it ever occur to you that, while I started in the same place as your OP and tried to develop it, every time you have responded you've tried to deflect off to "Constitutions" and "rights" and "religions" and documents of whatever kind of structure?

I seem to be the only one who's attempted to pursue the excellent point you yourself started with. Why is that? Are you being pressured to abandon it?

Whatever. This is why I lost interest in the thread. If you're just gonna go every time your own starting point is pursued, then there's no point in continuing, is there.

/thread

 

[JoeB131]

First of all, they willingly took a job with such risks. Their burden is to wait until they know beyond doubt that the person has a gun and is likely to use it. It is acceptable for an officer to get shot in the line of a dangerous duty; it is not OK innocent person to get shot by a cop, never having willingly accepted such risks.

Um, I don't think anyone on this board has been as critical of police brutality here as I have, and even i think this statement is idiotic.

Here's the thing. Of those 900 or so Police Shootings, most of them really are justified. The guy had a gun or some other kind of weapon. Yeah, the cases like Sandra Bland, LaQuan McDonald or Walter Scott are outrageous, but they are also fairly uncommon.

Second, I wasn't limiting my comments to just cops, but anyone with license to kill under government authority, including soldiers. Or do gun deaths of innocents not matter when they’re happening on foreign shores?

If they are happening on foreign shores, it's because we the people authorized them to happen, and those foriegn shores had every opportunity to avoid it.

Historically, government-sanctioned murders and theft surpass all other instances of murder and theft by hundreds of millions. But that’s just the price of “civilized” society, right? After all, we need government to protect us, otherwise we will be vulnerable to murders and theives... Oh wait...

This is why I don't waste time on Libertarians in general. They are just not living in the real world.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

First of all, they willingly took a job with such risks. Their burden is to wait until they know beyond doubt that the person has a gun and is likely to use it. It is acceptable for an officer to get shot in the line of a dangerous duty; it is not OK innocent person to get shot by a cop, never having willingly accepted such risks.

Um, I don't think anyone on this board has been as critical of police brutality here as I have, and even i think this statement is idiotic.

Here's the thing. Of those 900 or so Police Shootings, most of them really are justified. The guy had a gun or some other kind of weapon. Yeah, the cases like Sandra Bland, LaQuan McDonald or Walter Scott are outrageous, but they are also fairly uncommon.

Second, I wasn't limiting my comments to just cops, but anyone with license to kill under government authority, including soldiers. Or do gun deaths of innocents not matter when they’re happening on foreign shores?

If they are happening on foreign shores, it's because we the people authorized them to happen, and those foriegn shores had every opportunity to avoid it.

Historically, government-sanctioned murders and theft surpass all other instances of murder and theft by hundreds of millions. But that’s just the price of “civilized” society, right? After all, we need government to protect us, otherwise we will be vulnerable to murders and theives... Oh wait...

This is why I don't waste time on Libertarians in general. They are just not living in the real world.

I agree that inappropriate police shootings are relatively rare, but they are entirely unacceptable. I stand by my advocacy of erring on the side of the person who willingly took the risk being shot. This means waiting until it is certain that the suspect poses a danger, even if sometimes the effort to acquire that certainty means the cop takes a bullet in the name of prudence. Not to mention the fact that police are inherently immoral for violently kidnapping people who commit victimless “crimes”, and for robbing people for infractions that cause no harm, and most importantly, for subverting their conscience and denying self-responsibility by agreeing to take orders in order to get a pay check funded by stolen property. Despite any well intentions, they are aggressors against innocents, and thus it is more just for them to be shot than a non-aggressive, innocent person.

As for war, “we the people” authorized no such thing. Don’t include me in this insanity. I’m a victim of this gang called government; I authorize them to do nothing. And all you do is pull a lever every 2-4 years - does that mean you authorize everything that happens afterwards, even if your guy lost? In one sense it does, because you condone and participate in the process, but outside the mind-warping political faux-philosophy, how does casting a vote equate to justification for assholes in costumes killing people overseas? They did that as free-thinking individuals. Even the politicians aren’t as much to blame as the soldiers are.

And even if we accept that dubious connection, you had no right to authorize that in the first place! Do I have the right to authorize you to steal your neighbor’s car? No, because I have no right to do that myself, and neither do you. So where is this power to authorize coming from? What claim do you have over the lives of people in Iraq, such that you can authorize their murder? You are just parroting the justifications pedaled by the culture - it’s total bullshit. A con to get some people to think being a hired henchman for gangsters is “defending our freedom” and getting other people like you to support it. Iraq wasn’t breaching our shores; there’s no self-defense here. It’s aggressive violence - mass murder of innocents for profit and control - and no, those people in Iraq had no power to stop it any more than you had the power to stop 9/11.

Please, join humanity for God’s sake; this stuff is immoral insanity. These people are beasts. Just because we were raised to believe this nonsense doesn’t mean it’s appropriate as we grow in our ability to think critically. Forget civics class rhetoric - think for yourself and see these things for what they actually are.

 

[JoeB131]

I agree that inappropriate police shootings are relatively rare, but they are entirely unacceptable. I stand by my advocacy of erring on the side of the person who willingly took the risk being shot. This means waiting until it is certain that the suspect poses a danger,

That's a good way to end up in a box with a flag over it. Pass.

And all you do is pull a lever every 2-4 years - does that mean you authorize everything that happens afterwards, even if your guy lost? In one sense it does, because you condone and participate in the process, but outside the mind-warping political faux-philosophy, how does casting a vote equate to justification for assholes in costumes killing people overseas? They did that as free-thinking individuals. Even the politicians aren’t as much to blame as the soldiers are.

Hey, we have a guy in now who lost the popular vote, but he still has the authority to make war on anyone he sees fit to do.

But if you want to keep slandering those of us who served, I really am not going to have a lot of patience with you.

Please, join humanity for God’s sake; this stuff is immoral insanity. These people are beasts. Just because we were raised to believe this nonsense doesn’t mean it’s appropriate as we grow in our ability to think critically. Forget civics class rhetoric - think for yourself and see these things for what they actually are.

Guy, you and the rest of the Right Wing LIbertarian Hippies need to start your own commune in the middle of the desert. But the first thing you need to do is stop using the internet, as that was created by the evil, evil, evil government you hate so much.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

I agree that inappropriate police shootings are relatively rare, but they are entirely unacceptable. I stand by my advocacy of erring on the side of the person who willingly took the risk being shot. This means waiting until it is certain that the suspect poses a danger,

That's a good way to end up in a box with a flag over it. Pass.

And all you do is pull a lever every 2-4 years - does that mean you authorize everything that happens afterwards, even if your guy lost? In one sense it does, because you condone and participate in the process, but outside the mind-warping political faux-philosophy, how does casting a vote equate to justification for assholes in costumes killing people overseas? They did that as free-thinking individuals. Even the politicians aren’t as much to blame as the soldiers are.

Hey, we have a guy in now who lost the popular vote, but he still has the authority to make war on anyone he sees fit to do.

But if you want to keep slandering those of us who served, I really am not going to have a lot of patience with you.

Please, join humanity for God’s sake; this stuff is immoral insanity. These people are beasts. Just because we were raised to believe this nonsense doesn’t mean it’s appropriate as we grow in our ability to think critically. Forget civics class rhetoric - think for yourself and see these things for what they actually are.

Guy, you and the rest of the Right Wing LIbertarian Hippies need to start your own commune in the middle of the desert. But the first thing you need to do is stop using the internet, as that was created by the evil, evil, evil government you hate so much.

I see.