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

[JoeB131]

I never mentioned gangs, Moron.

Murders in US very concentrated: 54% of US counties in 2014 had zero murders, 2% of counties have 51% of the murders - Crime Prevention Research Center

dude, your claim is that it was 5 counties that had most of the murders.

Now you are admitting it is 2% of counties. That's a lot more than 5 counties.

Here's the thing. MOST of the population lives in big cities. So yeah, most of the murders are goign to be in cities, that's where the people are.

Geesh.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I never mentioned gangs, Moron.

Murders in US very concentrated: 54% of US counties in 2014 had zero murders, 2% of counties have 51% of the murders - Crime Prevention Research Center

dude, your claim is that it was 5 counties that had most of the murders.

Now you are admitting it is 2% of counties. That's a lot more than 5 counties.

Here's the thing. MOST of the population lives in big cities. So yeah, most of the murders are goign to be in cities, that's where the people are.

Geesh.

Read past the title Dipshit

and you'll find that the murders are not spread evenly throughout those counties but are rather concentrated in very definable and distinct areas

 

[JoeB131]

Read past the title Dipshit

and you'll find that the murders are not spread evenly throughout those counties but are rather concentrated in very definable and distinct areas

I didn't have to. You said five counties.

2% of the counties are more than 5 counties.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Read past the title Dipshit

and you'll find that the murders are not spread evenly throughout those counties but are rather concentrated in very definable and distinct areas

I didn't have to. You said five counties.

2% of the counties are more than 5 counties.

So you didn't even understand the title so you won't understand this graph

See where it says the 5% of counties that are the most dangerous have 68% of murders? ( I rounded up to 70%)

then there was this that explains that murders within counties are further concentrated

Even within the Counties with the murders, the murders are heavily Concentrated within those counties
When you look at individual counties with a high number of murders, you find large areas with few murders. Take Los Angeles County, with 526 murders in 2014, the most of any county in the US. The county has virtually no murders in the northwestern part of the county. There was only one murder each in Beverly Hills, Hawthorne, and Van Nuys. Clearly, different parts of the county face very different risks of murder.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Brian Blackwell and Pogo
I hope you both continue to post here and anywhere else as well.
You are both very articulate and informative explaining your views, thank you!

Brian the problem I have found with liberal minded people
is they can't tell the difference between the govt/law
forbidding someone or a business from abusing someone illegally
and "discriminating" as in choosing not to "engage in a behavior of choice."

Withthe LGBT cake service lawsuits,
I tried to make a distinction between
* not serving customers because of their affiliation
vs
* not PROVIDING certain services they choose not to because of their beliefs

The choice of services are different from the people being served.

The LGBT arguments were blending this together.

Thank you kindly, Emily! You, too, are an asset to this site and to the world culture in general.

Excellent point! I posted in forums concerning that case, but did not make that distinction myself. This is a fundamental understanding for those who wish to argue that it's wrong to deny service based on bias. It would not have been relevant to my particular argument, however, since I support the right of the individual to "not provide a service" and to not "serve a customer" as they see fit.

I do not see how one can presume to dictate to a business owner how they must operate their business, as long as they are not violating the natural law rights of any individual. People to not have a natural law right to cakes that they did make themselves or otherwise acquire by valid means. If I make the cake, I get to decide what's done with it. Same with the services I provide.

Obviously, it's silly to deny cakes to people based on personal choices they make which are unrelated to the transaction, but if the baker chooses to adopt a twisted view of mythology and deny cakes on that basis, so be it. We also have a right to make his actions publicly known, and encourage "enlightened people" (a relative and dubious term) to boycott his shop. Honestly, I wouldn't want someone making me a cake if their heart wasn't in it, and it's a matter of self-respect to patronize establishments that appreciate you as a customer, so I think the baker did them a service by revealing the bias, if not by making the cake

Well stated, again, Brian Blackwell
I'll just have to petition NASA to clone you when they
perfect that process. We need more like you, and even
a slightly flawed copy of you is better than naught!

I agree that people should be able to have this freedom of choice.
If we break it down into small enough communities, people
are more willing to let businesses they know to do things their way
and not make an issue.

The problem is when communities get too big, not everyone knows each other, and then these collective rules get applied top down not from the grassroots up.

Where I think we can reach a midway agreement,
is to not ban "people" from getting served on site,
but leave choice of services to people's discretion
that involve intellectual engagement and personal activity
or action. It's one thing to serve a customer one of the cakes
already in stock that isn't reserved for someone else. It's another
thing to decorate or serve one for a particular event or ritual
that is against someone's beliefs. If we can distinguish that legally,
it's just what we agree to respect, similar to "arbitrary" laws that recognize and bar abortion at the third trimester as the threshold.

IF we can agree.

If we can't, then I argue we should separate jurisdiction and policy.

On a govt level, we should separate benefits and social programs and terms of payment and collection by party, so each party organizes its own collective terms for its members democratically.

With the business issue, why not have all businesses offer "mediation waivers" similar to arbitration agreements that users sign online before using a service. Then both parties agree that if any dispute arises, the parties agree to settle it amicably by mediation conflict resolution and consensus, to avoid legal action and expenses. And if a dispute cannot be resolved, then the parties agree to refrain from doing business together and refund any unused money paid and return any items so it's fair and agreeable to both parties. If they don't even trust each other to follow that, they don't do business in the first place!

Then it doesn't matter which side had which belief, for or against, this slogan or that activity. A dispute is a dispute and either both sides can agree to settle it, or if one is litigious the other should have protection against someone who refuses to mediate instead.

This would have to be written up properly where people don't lose legal rights, the same with poorly written arbitration agreements. I believe that with mediation the complainant should pick the mediator or they both should, and with arbitration it's usually the business that selects this. So I prefer mediation that protects both sides interests and depends on a solution they both consent to.

Brian Blackwell
if people COULD agree to mediation and consent as the standard, then it would be okay to do as you suggest and let anyone have their reasons and freedom to choose. But this gets abused if people don't agree to respect each other's consent, and people start abusing lawsuits to haggle over the letter of the law. I hate that.

We should get tax breaks for preventing lawsuits, crime and abuse by mediating and resolving conflicts directly to save resources.

Then people who want to live under policies of coercing people can go bully each other, and leave the rest of us alone who don't need or want that!

Sick of paying for all that garbage that has mucked up the system, backlogged the courts and govt, and made it near impossible to focus on and solve real problems in sustainable ways. All our resources are taxed by problems perpetuated in a vicious cycle!

 

[emilynghiem]

Upon what do you base that claim? From what I have read at least 36 mass attacks (most were shootings, some were stabbings) have involved at least one shooter who was on or withdrawing from some psychotropic substance, and having homicidal and suicidal impulses are known side effects of most—if not all—of these substances. In the remaining mass attacks the medication status of the attacker was not known.

Do you know what I read. In every case of a mass shooting, the person was able to get a gun!

Every last one.

Don't let them have easy access to guns, no mass shootings. Amazing how that works.

Dear JoeB131
Just make sure the process really works on screening out the criminally and mentally ill. And doesn't prevent law abiding citizens from getting guns to defend themselves. And you're okay.

The best way I know to make sure laws are written this well
is to work WITH the gun rights activists who will ENSURE it isn't overly broad or creates other problems.

In general, if you are going to make laws for people, SURPRISE
there's the concept of "consent of the governed" and "no taxation without representation" where people AFFECTED by a policy democratically get a SAY in how that law is written and enforced.
What a concept, right? JoeB131

Consent of the governed which assures us a civilized society with laws we actually AGREE to follow because they REPRESENT us.

Don't fall over in shock, I know this is a foreign concept to many!

Otherwise JoeB131 what's to stop us from passing laws that lock up all women behind supervised guardianships to prevent rape?

If you only care to stop sex crimes 100% we can just separate all women from all men like Islamists do.

Keep women under surveillance so no men can get access without written permission, or no sex without marriage approved by the state. And prevent rape by depriving the victims of liberty instead of policing the violators.

Do you really want to go there Joe?
#ShariahDemocrats?

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Dear Brian Blackwell and Pogo
I hope you both continue to post here and anywhere else as well.
You are both very articulate and informative explaining your views, thank you!

Brian the problem I have found with liberal minded people
is they can't tell the difference between the govt/law
forbidding someone or a business from abusing someone illegally
and "discriminating" as in choosing not to "engage in a behavior of choice."

Withthe LGBT cake service lawsuits,
I tried to make a distinction between
* not serving customers because of their affiliation
vs
* not PROVIDING certain services they choose not to because of their beliefs

The choice of services are different from the people being served.

The LGBT arguments were blending this together.

Thank you kindly, Emily! You, too, are an asset to this site and to the world culture in general.

Excellent point! I posted in forums concerning that case, but did not make that distinction myself. This is a fundamental understanding for those who wish to argue that it's wrong to deny service based on bias. It would not have been relevant to my particular argument, however, since I support the right of the individual to "not provide a service" and to not "serve a customer" as they see fit.

I do not see how one can presume to dictate to a business owner how they must operate their business, as long as they are not violating the natural law rights of any individual. People to not have a natural law right to cakes that they did make themselves or otherwise acquire by valid means. If I make the cake, I get to decide what's done with it. Same with the services I provide.

Obviously, it's silly to deny cakes to people based on personal choices they make which are unrelated to the transaction, but if the baker chooses to adopt a twisted view of mythology and deny cakes on that basis, so be it. We also have a right to make his actions publicly known, and encourage "enlightened people" (a relative and dubious term) to boycott his shop. Honestly, I wouldn't want someone making me a cake if their heart wasn't in it, and it's a matter of self-respect to patronize establishments that appreciate you as a customer, so I think the baker did them a service by revealing the bias, if not by making the cake

Well stated, again, Brian Blackwell
I'll just have to petition NASA to clone you when they
perfect that process. We need more like you, and even
a slightly flawed copy of you is better than naught!

I agree that people should be able to have this freedom of choice.
If we break it down into small enough communities, people
are more willing to let businesses they know to do things their way
and not make an issue.

The problem is when communities get too big, not everyone knows each other, and then these collective rules get applied top down not from the grassroots up.

Where I think we can reach a midway agreement,
is to not ban "people" from getting served on site,
but leave choice of services to people's discretion
that involve intellectual engagement and personal activity
or action. It's one thing to serve a customer one of the cakes
already in stock that isn't reserved for someone else. It's another
thing to decorate or serve one for a particular event or ritual
that is against someone's beliefs. If we can distinguish that legally,
it's just what we agree to respect, similar to "arbitrary" laws that recognize and bar abortion at the third trimester as the threshold.

IF we can agree.

If we can't, then I argue we should separate jurisdiction and policy.

On a govt level, we should separate benefits and social programs and terms of payment and collection by party, so each party organizes its own collective terms for its members democratically.

With the business issue, why not have all businesses offer "mediation waivers" similar to arbitration agreements that users sign online before using a service. Then both parties agree that if any dispute arises, the parties agree to settle it amicably by mediation conflict resolution and consensus, to avoid legal action and expenses. And if a dispute cannot be resolved, then the parties agree to refrain from doing business together and refund any unused money paid and return any items so it's fair and agreeable to both parties. If they don't even trust each other to follow that, they don't do business in the first place!

Then it doesn't matter which side had which belief, for or against, this slogan or that activity. A dispute is a dispute and either both sides can agree to settle it, or if one is litigious the other should have protection against someone who refuses to mediate instead.

This would have to be written up properly where people don't lose legal rights, the same with poorly written arbitration agreements. I believe that with mediation the complainant should pick the mediator or they both should, and with arbitration it's usually the business that selects this. So I prefer mediation that protects both sides interests and depends on a solution they both consent to.

Brian Blackwell
if people COULD agree to mediation and consent as the standard, then it would be okay to do as you suggest and let anyone have their reasons and freedom to choose. But this gets abused if people don't agree to respect each other's consent, and people start abusing lawsuits to haggle over the letter of the law. I hate that.

We should get tax breaks for preventing lawsuits, crime and abuse by mediating and resolving conflicts directly to save resources.

Then people who want to live under policies of coercing people can go bully each other, and leave the rest of us alone who don't need or want that!

Sick of paying for all that garbage that has mucked up the system, backlogged the courts and govt, and made it near impossible to focus on and solve real problems in sustainable ways. All our resources are taxed by problems perpetuated in a vicious cycle!

Hahaha Thank you again! Too funny, and too kind!

I find your ideas about dividing the parties very interesting, if I’m understanding them correctly. I have not heard this before, though as you may imagine, I generally avoid topics concerning the implementation of political solitions, being fundamentally anti-political myself. But this is an interesting division... it’s almost like a secession where the seceding population remains integrated. I know you don’t intend for it to be entire, but I like how the idea limits the people subject to a representative’s solutions to include only those who voted for them. It’s a tough sell, though, because as I mentioned, people generally vote because they want to dominate their opposition, not just have themselves governed in a particular way.

The mediation idea is great too, as it moves people closer to self-responsibility regarding business interactions. I appreciate the political Libertarian ideal of backing away from centralized solutions, and I enjoy walking this path together. It saddens me that in the end we must part company, as we are destined to remain the final two left standing - together in defense against the misanthropes of the world, but apart in that one will sacrifice a small portion of their freedom for security, and the other is not willing to make that exchange.

Oh Emily! Let me share this debate with you... I was listening to it this morning and am not quite finished. I think it relates to you and me particularly, as far as I can tell, and exemplifies the fundamental distinction between our views. If you choose to listen, I would be very interested to hear your thoughts. But, of course, I would have you do as you desire; feel free to ignore it if it does not appeal. Enjoy your day.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Brian Blackwell and Pogo
I hope you both continue to post here and anywhere else as well.
You are both very articulate and informative explaining your views, thank you!

Brian the problem I have found with liberal minded people
is they can't tell the difference between the govt/law
forbidding someone or a business from abusing someone illegally
and "discriminating" as in choosing not to "engage in a behavior of choice."

Withthe LGBT cake service lawsuits,
I tried to make a distinction between
* not serving customers because of their affiliation
vs
* not PROVIDING certain services they choose not to because of their beliefs

The choice of services are different from the people being served.

The LGBT arguments were blending this together.

Thank you kindly, Emily! You, too, are an asset to this site and to the world culture in general.

Excellent point! I posted in forums concerning that case, but did not make that distinction myself. This is a fundamental understanding for those who wish to argue that it's wrong to deny service based on bias. It would not have been relevant to my particular argument, however, since I support the right of the individual to "not provide a service" and to not "serve a customer" as they see fit.

I do not see how one can presume to dictate to a business owner how they must operate their business, as long as they are not violating the natural law rights of any individual. People to not have a natural law right to cakes that they did make themselves or otherwise acquire by valid means. If I make the cake, I get to decide what's done with it. Same with the services I provide.

Obviously, it's silly to deny cakes to people based on personal choices they make which are unrelated to the transaction, but if the baker chooses to adopt a twisted view of mythology and deny cakes on that basis, so be it. We also have a right to make his actions publicly known, and encourage "enlightened people" (a relative and dubious term) to boycott his shop. Honestly, I wouldn't want someone making me a cake if their heart wasn't in it, and it's a matter of self-respect to patronize establishments that appreciate you as a customer, so I think the baker did them a service by revealing the bias, if not by making the cake

Well stated, again, Brian Blackwell
I'll just have to petition NASA to clone you when they
perfect that process. We need more like you, and even
a slightly flawed copy of you is better than naught!

I agree that people should be able to have this freedom of choice.
If we break it down into small enough communities, people
are more willing to let businesses they know to do things their way
and not make an issue.

The problem is when communities get too big, not everyone knows each other, and then these collective rules get applied top down not from the grassroots up.

Where I think we can reach a midway agreement,
is to not ban "people" from getting served on site,
but leave choice of services to people's discretion
that involve intellectual engagement and personal activity
or action. It's one thing to serve a customer one of the cakes
already in stock that isn't reserved for someone else. It's another
thing to decorate or serve one for a particular event or ritual
that is against someone's beliefs. If we can distinguish that legally,
it's just what we agree to respect, similar to "arbitrary" laws that recognize and bar abortion at the third trimester as the threshold.

IF we can agree.

If we can't, then I argue we should separate jurisdiction and policy.

On a govt level, we should separate benefits and social programs and terms of payment and collection by party, so each party organizes its own collective terms for its members democratically.

With the business issue, why not have all businesses offer "mediation waivers" similar to arbitration agreements that users sign online before using a service. Then both parties agree that if any dispute arises, the parties agree to settle it amicably by mediation conflict resolution and consensus, to avoid legal action and expenses. And if a dispute cannot be resolved, then the parties agree to refrain from doing business together and refund any unused money paid and return any items so it's fair and agreeable to both parties. If they don't even trust each other to follow that, they don't do business in the first place!

Then it doesn't matter which side had which belief, for or against, this slogan or that activity. A dispute is a dispute and either both sides can agree to settle it, or if one is litigious the other should have protection against someone who refuses to mediate instead.

This would have to be written up properly where people don't lose legal rights, the same with poorly written arbitration agreements. I believe that with mediation the complainant should pick the mediator or they both should, and with arbitration it's usually the business that selects this. So I prefer mediation that protects both sides interests and depends on a solution they both consent to.

Brian Blackwell
if people COULD agree to mediation and consent as the standard, then it would be okay to do as you suggest and let anyone have their reasons and freedom to choose. But this gets abused if people don't agree to respect each other's consent, and people start abusing lawsuits to haggle over the letter of the law. I hate that.

We should get tax breaks for preventing lawsuits, crime and abuse by mediating and resolving conflicts directly to save resources.

Then people who want to live under policies of coercing people can go bully each other, and leave the rest of us alone who don't need or want that!

Sick of paying for all that garbage that has mucked up the system, backlogged the courts and govt, and made it near impossible to focus on and solve real problems in sustainable ways. All our resources are taxed by problems perpetuated in a vicious cycle!

Hahaha Thank you again! Too funny, and too kind!

I find your ideas about dividing the parties very interesting, if I’m understanding them correctly. I have not heard this before, though as you may imagine, I generally avoid topics concerning the implementation of political solitions, being fundamentally anti-political myself. But this is an interesting division... it’s almost like a secession where the seceding population remains integrated. I know you don’t intend for it to be entire, but I like how the idea limits the people subject to a representative’s solutions to include only those who voted for them. It’s a tough sell, though, because as I mentioned, people generally vote because they want to dominate their opposition, not just have themselves governed in a particular way.

The mediation idea is great too, as it moves people closer to self-responsibility regarding business interactions. I appreciate the political Libertarian ideal of backing away from centralized solutions, and I enjoy walking this path together. It saddens me that in the end we must part company, as we are destined to remain the final two left standing - together in defense against the misanthropes of the world, but apart in that one will sacrifice a small portion of their freedom for security, and the other is not willing to make that exchange.

Oh Emily! Let me share this debate with you... I was listening to it this morning and am not quite finished. I think it relates to you and me particularly, as far as I can tell, and exemplifies the fundamental distinction between our views. If you choose to listen, I would be very interested to hear your thoughts. But, of course, I would have you do as you desire; feel free to ignore it if it does not appeal. Enjoy your day.

Dear Brian Blackwell
Where to begin, we agree more than disagree.
And noone agrees totally anyway. We can organize into about 10 or 12 parties
and break it down from there, where everyone picks their own way to represent themselves.

I believe in isonomy or equal inclusion and representation by people of all parties or beliefs.
So whatever you are is welcome
and your way of communicating is enough to change and set things up!

It isn't hopeless, I have lots of friends on all sides who can't stand my way or others.
But they all want THEIR way.

So let's make that part of the deal.
Democrats WANT to defund the death penalty,
so give them that option. And they will get their LGBT benefits
that GOP doesn't want to endorse through govt. And so on.

People are so selfish and greedy they WILL agree to separate
and control what they want to fund or defund.
The Christian Conservatives I know want to DEFUND PP and abortions.

One friend agreed if beliefs were allowed back in schools and govt,
YES, she'd agree to including LGBT if she could get God and Jesus back in!
So they'd AGREE either to let everyone in, or remove
everything and let people pay and be under their own thing.
This would get "socialism" out of govt.

Everything would be by consent, either AGREE on a common policy
that can be public or govt, or AGREE to separate because we can't stand each other's ways.

People all want this freedom by natural laws.

Brian can I ask you to start a new thread for this
longer video on anarchist vs. minarchs or monarchs or whatever.

By treating political parties and religions the same as religious organizations,
we can separate these and even help neighboring groups to learn
models for running their programs sustainably and independently where they fund it themselves.

We can help each other by cooperative economics.
If you haven't connected with
* the GREEN party
* Pacifica and public radio or indymedia
I encourage you to keep posting and sharing
so you organize through media and separate people from the messes they are offered.

Please start a new thread for this video because it's over an hour
and we'd need space to break it down by each issue and point to cover it all!
Thanks!

 

[Pogo]

Again, my point up there is that the volume of rhetoric -- turned up to the proverbial 11 -- on the 2A is far far beyond that of any other issue that claims to originate from a Constitutional basis. That indicates to me that the motivation behind it is not Constitutional at all --- if it were, we would have seen an equally active reaction to the threats cited on other Amendments --- it would be the same basis. That should indicate to anybody that there's much more going on there. And as to what that much more is, I think I've described it through the entire thread.

I agree that all infringements should be met with equal outrage, but I do believe this focus on the second embodies the outrage about the others. Imagine a scenario whereby there is only one grocery store in town and all citizens have 10 rights regarding use of the store - the first being the right to an ID card that grants them access to the store, and the other nine giving them the right to buy certain types of food once inside. If the right to buy poultry, let's say, were infringed upon, people would be upset; but if the right to have the ID card were infringed upon, people would lose their friggin' minds.

The 2A is THE right that secures all other rights. It's the bottom-line claim to (quasi) self-ownership via self-defense. Though I largely agree with you overall, I feel this acknowledgement is missing from your argument (though I admit to entering the conversation late, so correct me if I'm wrong).

I absolutely reject the premise that 'government permeates every aspect of culture'. The latter is a far stronger impetus to human behaviour than the former can hope to be. Government can only, at best, attempt to control it (e.g. Indian laws against honor killing). Culture leads government, not the other way round. It is the far stronger influence.

Absolutely, the discussion should be focused on mind and spirit, as law should be considered irrelevant, because it actually is. However, many people are still hypnotized by the illusion that law is the relevant factor, and so it is not misguided to remove this roadblock so we can get to the true issues at hand. This is the focus of my work on public forums.

This is difficult to do because government is ever-present. Despite its activity being fundamentally limited to control by threat of violence, its psychological influence is far broader. Since government builds roads, picks up garbage, provides education, investigates crimes, funds scientific projects, grants "permission" for driving, marriage, travel, construction, etc. people foolishly believe that government is the reason why we have these things, and that without it, these things would go up in smoke. Government is offered as the solution to every problem (particularly by government officials... go figure), and so people do not generally seek solutions outside of the governmental paradigm. The first thing people say when a conflict gets heated is "I'll call the cops!" or "I'll sue you!"

There is fundamental lack of self-responsibility due to the cultural indoctrination that says "government is the premier and proper channel for solutions and resolutions". It tempts us by dangling a sword of power over our heads, and encourages us to enter the arena and vie for its control. All the talk is about how government should work, and how tax money should be spent, which diverts us from questioning the fundamental validity of the institution (a question so taboo as to border on blasphemy). It's also important to recognize that there is a concerted effort to further this phenomenon (by those who have the wealth and power to influence the culture via mass media, public education, etc). So the culture that "leads government" is not pure; but is itself largely a by-product of the governmental influence to that point (of course, there are always other factors too).

To ignore government and its law when considering behavior and psychology is a huge mistake, in my opinion. And though I recognize the symbiotic nature of the relationship, government is so intrinsic to the culture, and influences it so strongly, that to say "culture leads government" is almost the same as saying "government leads government"... which is precisely what those who benefit most from government have intended all along.

See what I mean?

SMH

As noted before, I'm used to not being heard. I can only lead 'em to the water.

I’m raising points relevant to your topic. I’m pointing out aspects of the topic that I feel you are overlooking, and explicitly stated how they relate. If you want to remain myopic and utterly dismiss anything that doesn’t fit into your pre-conceived notion of that topic’s scope, so be it, but don’t try to spin it like you’re not being heard.

It's not my topic actually, although I do agree with its starting point. And what I've been trying to do is follow that starting point, where you and even the OP want to venture off elsewhere and ignore it. Seems to me that's not my error.

As already noted it's nothing new to not only not be heard but watch those apparently uncomfortable with the point, shift it off to tangents. I figure y'all will start listening when you're ready, whenever that is.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Please start a new thread for this video because it's over an hour
and we'd need space to break it down by each issue and point to cover it all!
Thanks!

Ok, here it is!

CDZ - Anarchy vs. Minarchy (DEBATE - Larken Rose & Jan Helfeld)

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Again, my point up there is that the volume of rhetoric -- turned up to the proverbial 11 -- on the 2A is far far beyond that of any other issue that claims to originate from a Constitutional basis. That indicates to me that the motivation behind it is not Constitutional at all --- if it were, we would have seen an equally active reaction to the threats cited on other Amendments --- it would be the same basis. That should indicate to anybody that there's much more going on there. And as to what that much more is, I think I've described it through the entire thread.

I agree that all infringements should be met with equal outrage, but I do believe this focus on the second embodies the outrage about the others. Imagine a scenario whereby there is only one grocery store in town and all citizens have 10 rights regarding use of the store - the first being the right to an ID card that grants them access to the store, and the other nine giving them the right to buy certain types of food once inside. If the right to buy poultry, let's say, were infringed upon, people would be upset; but if the right to have the ID card were infringed upon, people would lose their friggin' minds.

The 2A is THE right that secures all other rights. It's the bottom-line claim to (quasi) self-ownership via self-defense. Though I largely agree with you overall, I feel this acknowledgement is missing from your argument (though I admit to entering the conversation late, so correct me if I'm wrong).

I absolutely reject the premise that 'government permeates every aspect of culture'. The latter is a far stronger impetus to human behaviour than the former can hope to be. Government can only, at best, attempt to control it (e.g. Indian laws against honor killing). Culture leads government, not the other way round. It is the far stronger influence.

Absolutely, the discussion should be focused on mind and spirit, as law should be considered irrelevant, because it actually is. However, many people are still hypnotized by the illusion that law is the relevant factor, and so it is not misguided to remove this roadblock so we can get to the true issues at hand. This is the focus of my work on public forums.

This is difficult to do because government is ever-present. Despite its activity being fundamentally limited to control by threat of violence, its psychological influence is far broader. Since government builds roads, picks up garbage, provides education, investigates crimes, funds scientific projects, grants "permission" for driving, marriage, travel, construction, etc. people foolishly believe that government is the reason why we have these things, and that without it, these things would go up in smoke. Government is offered as the solution to every problem (particularly by government officials... go figure), and so people do not generally seek solutions outside of the governmental paradigm. The first thing people say when a conflict gets heated is "I'll call the cops!" or "I'll sue you!"

There is fundamental lack of self-responsibility due to the cultural indoctrination that says "government is the premier and proper channel for solutions and resolutions". It tempts us by dangling a sword of power over our heads, and encourages us to enter the arena and vie for its control. All the talk is about how government should work, and how tax money should be spent, which diverts us from questioning the fundamental validity of the institution (a question so taboo as to border on blasphemy). It's also important to recognize that there is a concerted effort to further this phenomenon (by those who have the wealth and power to influence the culture via mass media, public education, etc). So the culture that "leads government" is not pure; but is itself largely a by-product of the governmental influence to that point (of course, there are always other factors too).

To ignore government and its law when considering behavior and psychology is a huge mistake, in my opinion. And though I recognize the symbiotic nature of the relationship, government is so intrinsic to the culture, and influences it so strongly, that to say "culture leads government" is almost the same as saying "government leads government"... which is precisely what those who benefit most from government have intended all along.

See what I mean?

SMH

As noted before, I'm used to not being heard. I can only lead 'em to the water.

I’m raising points relevant to your topic. I’m pointing out aspects of the topic that I feel you are overlooking, and explicitly stated how they relate. If you want to remain myopic and utterly dismiss anything that doesn’t fit into your pre-conceived notion of that topic’s scope, so be it, but don’t try to spin it like you’re not being heard.

It's not my topic actually, although I do agree with its starting point. And what I've been trying to do is follow that starting point, where you and even the OP want to venture off elsewhere and ignore it. Seems to me that's not my error.

As already noted it's nothing new to not only not be heard but watch those apparently uncomfortable with the point, shift it off to tangents. I figure y'all will start listening when you're ready, whenever that is.

Alright, what is it you want me to hear? That it's a cultural/psychological issue? That gun culture makes people crazy about the 2A while ignoring other infringements? I did not mean to derail the convo, I just think no discussion about cultural psychology is complete without including the immense impact of government, and especially when discussing cultural reactions to law. To my mind, this is like talking about the psychology on a slave plantation without discussing the impact of slavery as an institution.

Tell me where you would like me to direct my focus, and I will try to meet you where you are.

 

[JoeB131]

So you didn't even understand the title so you won't understand this graph

See where it says the 5% of counties that are the most dangerous have 68% of murders? ( I rounded up to 70%)

Guy, you didn't say "5%". You said "5 counties".

Here's your original quote, buddy.

And 70% of those occur in very small areas of just 5 counties.
And since those 70% of murders are mostly young minorities with criminal histories killing other young minorities with criminal histories you people don't give a shit about them

Not 5% or 2% of counties, but FIVE COUNTIES. That's what you said.

 

[JoeB131]

Do you really want to go there Joe?

No, honestly, i really don't want to go down the 10 rabbit holes you just dug in that thread.

 

[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.

 

[Skull Pilot]

So you didn't even understand the title so you won't understand this graph

See where it says the 5% of counties that are the most dangerous have 68% of murders? ( I rounded up to 70%)

Guy, you didn't say "5%". You said "5 counties".

Here's your original quote, buddy.

And 70% of those occur in very small areas of just 5 counties.
And since those 70% of murders are mostly young minorities with criminal histories killing other young minorities with criminal histories you people don't give a shit about them

Not 5% or 2% of counties, but FIVE COUNTIES. That's what you said.

Forgive the fuck out of me for not noticing a fucking typo

Now with that out of the way do you care to address the facts I gave you?

 

[Brian Blackwell]

So you didn't even understand the title so you won't understand this graph

See where it says the 5% of counties that are the most dangerous have 68% of murders? ( I rounded up to 70%)

Guy, you didn't say "5%". You said "5 counties".

Here's your original quote, buddy.

And 70% of those occur in very small areas of just 5 counties.
And since those 70% of murders are mostly young minorities with criminal histories killing other young minorities with criminal histories you people don't give a shit about them

Not 5% or 2% of counties, but FIVE COUNTIES. That's what you said.

Forgive the fuck out of me for not noticing a fucking typo

Now with that out of the way do you care to address the facts I gave you?

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.

 

[emilynghiem]

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!

 

[JoeB131]

Forgive the fuck out of me for not noticing a fucking typo

Now with that out of the way do you care to address the facts I gave you?

Yeah, actually.

Most of the population lives in that 5 PERCENT of counties, so of course, they will have the most homicides.

Homicide is the killing of a person, and that happens where people are.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Forgive the fuck out of me for not noticing a fucking typo

Now with that out of the way do you care to address the facts I gave you?

Yeah, actually.

Most of the population lives in that 5 PERCENT of counties, so of course, they will have the most homicides.

Homicide is the killing of a person, and that happens where people are.

Man you really can't read can you

murders are further concentrated within those counties to the point where a neighborhood just a couple blocks away from one with a murder rate that is much higher than the national average can have a murder rate of near zero

Murders are not spread evenly across any county.

But once again you can seem to grasp anything but the simplest of concepts