women, women everywhere....and they now carry guns....

[Pogo]

"Smarter"? .... or "paranoider"?

You've just reaffirmed what I've been saying since I got to this site: we have buried ourselves in a gun fetish culture where violence rules.

Be proud.

Of course, the most violent areas of our country are those areas with the most restrictive gun laws.

Gun ownership does not equal violence. Often it is the opposite.

So you're saying those who commit violence with guns.... don't own them?

Does it really matter who owns the bullet that's about to pierce your brain anyway?

Someone has comprehension problems. Either way, there are realists who know the way the world is and those who live in fantasy land. Something tells me you live in a predominantly white upper-class liberal neighborhood where everyone is holding hands and jamming to the Fifth Dimension. You can keep letting the sunshine in. I'll keep my guns with the knowledge that life isn't that sunny.

Not at all, and frankly that sounds reeeeally boring. I live in the sticks, in a red state, probably welll below median income, for whatever that's worth. But yes thanks, I'll keep my realism about how human nature works and you keep your

Hey, my way seems like a lot less work but whatever.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

Learn to read. I'm saying we live in a culture of violence where Almighty Gun is worshipped like some kind of god. And you're an evangelist for It.

As I said -- be proud for courageously taking the path of least resistance and not burning a whole lot of time on trifling stuff like thought.

90% of America does NOT live in such a "culture of violence where almighty gun is worshipped". The 10% that due live in such a culture are those imprisoned in Democrat ruled big cities.

To the rest of us a gun is a tool for hunting, recreation, collecting.....and defense from the 10%.

 

[Pogo]

"Smarter"? .... or "paranoider"?

You've just reaffirmed what I've been saying since I got to this site: we have buried ourselves in a gun fetish culture where violence rules.

Be proud.

Of course, the most violent areas of our country are those areas with the most restrictive gun laws.

Gun ownership does not equal violence. Often it is the opposite.

was followed by:

So you're saying those who commit violence with guns.... don't own them?

Does it really matter who owns the bullet that's about to pierce your brain anyway?

Usually, no. At least not legally own them. Most of those who commit violence with guns are gang members who are already convicted felons, and therefore a prohibited person so cannot legally own firearms. As you can tell by looking at where the vast majority of our gun violence happens, these gang members who thrive in the Democratically controlled major cities don't really care about the restrictive gun laws.

But you have twisted the meaning of my post. In areas with the highest LEGAL gun ownership there is much less violent crime, AND less violent gun crime. Your OP suggested that guns = violence, which is incorrect.

Dude, I didn't even write the OP. I came here to give it the mocking it deserves. Nor did I suggest "guns = violence". You did. Don't put words in my mouth and don't excise context like you did above where I had to go back and replace it. What I said, repeatedly, is that we live in a culture of violence that worships guns. That doesn't need morphing. It's a finished thought when it's posted.

Now as for your false correlation between gun restrictions and crime levels, it's nothing more than a post hoc fallacy -- you have no bridge to that conclusion, for it's equally likely (actually more) that those high crime statistics preceded the gun restrictions, and the latter were put in place in response, rather than the other way around, which makes little or no sense.

The point is moot as far as I'm concerned anyway; I don't believe throwing legislation at gun ownership does diddly about violence. That's why I continue to point out the root of the disease -- the culture -- instead of farting around with the symptoms. Because as long as that culture exists, so will the violence, laws or no laws.

Right - then why do more women in the US die of gunshot wounds than their 'counterparts' in other countries?
What is so damn smart about risking your own life?

Because we have imprisoned so many women into violent inner city Democrat policy controlled violent areas where legal gun ownership is prohibitively difficult to achieve. These women ARE at high risk of death due to gun violence.

However if you look at the areas of the country where legal gun ownership is easy, and therefore more prevalent, you will see that the firearm death rate is much lower.

Political party philosophy does not function at a city level. The job of a mayor and city council is to decide when the trash gets picked up and the snowplows run. Doesn't take a John Locke to figure that out. At that level all a political party does is provide a funding machine for the local election.

And for part 2, see post hoc fallacy above. It's a non sequitur - does not follow.

Oh, Texas, Moron Central!

Replica means a copy, it doesn't mean that the copy doesn't work. Tard.

And enter stage left: The liberal with nothing to add to the discussion except insults.

Again, there's nothing "liberal", "conservative" or "political" at all in simple bickering about semantics. See if you can engage in some kind of honest debate without using that crutch.

 

[Pogo]

Learn to read. I'm saying we live in a culture of violence where Almighty Gun is worshipped like some kind of god. And you're an evangelist for It.

As I said -- be proud for courageously taking the path of least resistance and not burning a whole lot of time on trifling stuff like thought.

90% of America does NOT live in such a "culture of violence where almighty gun is worshipped". The 10% that due live in such a culture are those imprisoned in Democrat ruled big cities.

To the rest of us a gun is a tool for hunting, recreation, collecting.....and defense from the 10%.

100% of us do, whether we want to or not, and it's reinforced from every corner, in movies, television, billboards, magazines, music, video games, comic books and everyday language --- not a single one of which is restricted to cities. All you have to do is read this forum. Or any other one. The emotional relationship is a dead giveaway. You might try travelling to another country some time for perspective.

 

[TooTall]

I find that picture highly contrived. Look at the speedometer -- it's pegged.

Sorry, what car?

 

[Boatswain2PA]

Dude, I didn't even write the OP. I came here to give it the mocking it deserves......

Now as for your false correlation between gun restrictions and crime levels, it's nothing more than a post hoc fallacy -- you have no bridge to that conclusion, for it's equally likely (actually more) that those high crime statistics preceded the gun restrictions, and the latter were put in place in response, rather than the other way around, which makes little or no sense....

Political party philosophy does not function at a city level. The job of a mayor and city council is to decide when the trash gets picked up and the snowplows run. Doesn't take a John Locke to figure that out. At that level all a political party does is provide a funding machine for the local election.

Sorry, 7 pages later I confused your mockery (mockery and sarcasm doesn't always come across in the written forum) with support of the OP.

As for the gun laws and violence, looking at the history of when the gun laws were created (post reconstruction, by democrats, to keep guns out of the hands of blacks) and when the violence really began (with the destruction of the black family via government taking over the role of the supporting parent), you can easily see that the gun laws preceded the crime. They are certainly related, and arguably causative, although there are, of course, many other factors as well.

Political party philosophy ABSOLUTELY functions at city level. Go to a major U.S. city and find a republican in office...they are few and far between. It's a lot more than when the trash gets picked up and the snowplows run at major city level, it's more about who gets the contract to pick up the trash and plow the snow.

100% of us do, whether we want to or not, and it's reinforced from every corner, in movies, television, billboards, magazines, music, video games, comic books and everyday language --- not a single one of which is restricted to cities. All you have to do is read this forum. Or any other one. The emotional relationship is a dead giveaway. You might try travelling to another country some time for perspective.

I see your point here, and don't totally disagree with you, but I think a lot of rural America still understands the difference between hollywood guns and real life guns. Much of rural America still has a gun culture where guns are tools.

<Sarcasm font on> Yeah, 20 years in the military, I've never seen any other countries. <Sarcasm font off>

Let's try no to get personal, okay?!?

 

[Pogo]

Dude, I didn't even write the OP. I came here to give it the mocking it deserves......

Now as for your false correlation between gun restrictions and crime levels, it's nothing more than a post hoc fallacy -- you have no bridge to that conclusion, for it's equally likely (actually more) that those high crime statistics preceded the gun restrictions, and the latter were put in place in response, rather than the other way around, which makes little or no sense....

Political party philosophy does not function at a city level. The job of a mayor and city council is to decide when the trash gets picked up and the snowplows run. Doesn't take a John Locke to figure that out. At that level all a political party does is provide a funding machine for the local election.

Sorry, 7 pages later I confused your mockery (mockery and sarcasm doesn't always come across in the written forum) with support of the OP.

As for the gun laws and violence, looking at the history of when the gun laws were created (post reconstruction, by democrats, to keep guns out of the hands of blacks) and when the violence really began (with the destruction of the black family via government taking over the role of the supporting parent), you can easily see that the gun laws preceded the crime. They are certainly related, and arguably causative, although there are, of course, many other factors as well.

"Arguably" causative is a back-step, and a legitimate one. I still see a lot of empty theorizing with no legs (links). Again, it really doesn't matter, since I don't believe restrictive gun laws accomplish anything; just pointing out that you have no bridge to your conclusion.

Political party philosophy ABSOLUTELY functions at city level. Go to a major U.S. city and find a republican in office...they are few and far between. It's a lot more than when the trash gets picked up and the snowplows run at major city level, it's more about who gets the contract to pick up the trash and plow the snow.

You've made no argument here. You note that Democrats dominate city government, with which I agree, but that in itself establishes no causal relationship. About anything. And you've noted cronyism, which is certainly widespread, but again, no relationship. And you've failed to establish any way in which a mayor or city council can take either a liberal or conservative approach to how their city coins money or engages in wars with competing cities. Again, there is no deep political philosophy required to tell your citizens it's OK to drink the water after the storm. That's just basic stuff. How Ray Nagin handled or didn't handle Katrina in New Orleans had nothing to do with him being a Republican or Democrat.

100% of us do, whether we want to or not, and it's reinforced from every corner, in movies, television, billboards, magazines, music, video games, comic books and everyday language --- not a single one of which is restricted to cities. All you have to do is read this forum. Or any other one. The emotional relationship is a dead giveaway. You might try travelling to another country some time for perspective.

I see your point here, and don't totally disagree with you, but I think a lot of rural America still understands the difference between hollywood guns and real life guns. Much of rural America still has a gun culture where guns are tools.

Not talking about that. Obviously in a place like where I live there are hunters. Not them. I speak of values, the disappearing value of human life in a world where we blow things away without a thought, from the video game villain to the stereotyped perp on the TV cop show to almost any movie to the overblown sensationalistic news media to ...etc etc etc, you get the idea -- it even pervades everyday language: we have a "war" on drugs (poverty, whatever -- but it's always a war)

​

The value system that permits all of that to pervade everything we live and breathe to the point where we accept is as some kind of normalcy rather than the callous crisis of the soul that it is. The value system that incites people, 24/7, to take the attitude that if the kid in the car next door is playing his music too loud, or if you think you hear a noise in your garage, the thing to do is grab a firearm and start strafing in the dark. THAT value. It should be unthinkable. And we eat it for breakfast, whether we want it or not.

It's the same value this thread piles on to foment, in its simplistic thought that the answer to violence is more violence. Same callous disregard for life. And there are an endless stream of wags here -- or any message board -- to promote it and keep it alive no matter what.


I don't know what your experience is extranationally in the military, but travelling as a civilian (with all the freedom of movement to immerse in the local culture), a traveller is immediately struck, in most places of comparable economic level, by the feeling that a certain preoccupation with both sex and violence has suddenly been lifted off one's shoulders, has disappeared and is not missed. It is at that moment one realizes what a burden it had been.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

You've made no argument here. You note that Democrats dominate city government, with which I agree, but that in itself establishes no causal relationship. About anything. And you've noted cronyism, which is certainly widespread, but again, no relationship. And you've failed to establish any way in which a mayor or city council can take either a liberal or conservative approach to how their city coins money or engages in wars with competing cities. Again, there is no deep political philosophy required to tell your citizens it's OK to drink the water after the storm. That's just basic stuff. How Ray Nagin handled or didn't handle Katrina in New Orleans had nothing to do with him being a Republican or Democrat.

Using extrapolation, you can look at what happens when the Dems run the federal and state government (bigger and bigger government) and apply it to when Dems run the city government.

That being said, I actually kind of prefer a bigger local government than a bigger state/national government, and have voted that way in the past.

... I speak of values, the disappearing value of human life in a world where we blow things away without a thought, from the video game villain to the stereotyped perp on the TV cop show to almost any movie to the overblown sensationalistic news media to ...etc etc etc, you get the idea -- it even pervades everyday language: we have a "war" on drugs (poverty, whatever -- but it's always a war)

The value system that permits all of that to pervade everything we live and breathe to the point where we accept is as some kind of normalcy rather than the callous crisis of the soul that it is. The value system that incites people, 24/7, to take the attitude that if the kid in the car next door is playing his music too loud, or if you think you hear a noise in your garage, the thing to do is grab a firearm and start strafing in the dark. THAT value. It should be unthinkable. And we eat it for breakfast, whether we want it or not.

It's the same value this thread piles on to foment, in its simplistic thought that the answer to violence is more violence. Same callous disregard for life. And there are an endless stream of wags here -- or any message board -- to promote it and keep it alive no matter what.

I don't know what your experience is extranationally in the military, but travelling as a civilian (with all the freedom of movement to immerse in the local culture), a traveller is immediately struck, in most places of comparable economic level, by the feeling that a certain preoccupation with both sex and violence has suddenly been lifted off one's shoulders, has disappeared and is not missed. It is at that moment one realizes what a burden it had been.

I see your point, and worry about much the same things. But I would say that rural America still retains a lot of the traditional values, especially for LIFE.

BTW - all honesty, my military experience didn't make me travel much. Some, and I've seen some horrible things internationally, but not much. Mostly stayed stateside, but I WAS an operator.

 

[westwall]

well, ever since Dillinger answered the question about why he robbed banks....because that was where the money is.....sandwich shops do a lot of cash business and can be robbed like any cash business...

I was hoping she would say "because I can".

 

[Pogo]

well, ever since Dillinger answered the question about why he robbed banks....because that was where the money is.....sandwich shops do a lot of cash business and can be robbed like any cash business...

I was hoping she would say "because I can".

He's got the quote wrong - it's attributed to Willie Sutton. And he didn't actually say it anyway.

 

[Pogo]

You've made no argument here. You note that Democrats dominate city government, with which I agree, but that in itself establishes no causal relationship. About anything. And you've noted cronyism, which is certainly widespread, but again, no relationship. And you've failed to establish any way in which a mayor or city council can take either a liberal or conservative approach to how their city coins money or engages in wars with competing cities. Again, there is no deep political philosophy required to tell your citizens it's OK to drink the water after the storm. That's just basic stuff. How Ray Nagin handled or didn't handle Katrina in New Orleans had nothing to do with him being a Republican or Democrat.

Using extrapolation, you can look at what happens when the Dems run the federal and state government (bigger and bigger government) and apply it to when Dems run the city government.

That being said, I actually kind of prefer a bigger local government than a bigger state/national government, and have voted that way in the past.

Well - no you can't; that's a specious back-association. You still haven't shown a causal dynamic. And it's fed with what is IMHO a myth -- that Dems mean bigger government. A look over history quickly shows that both of our national party --- I express it in the singular because it is a single party that pretends to dress up alternately in red and blue --- have brought about massive government. I can discern no difference.

... I speak of values, the disappearing value of human life in a world where we blow things away without a thought, from the video game villain to the stereotyped perp on the TV cop show to almost any movie to the overblown sensationalistic news media to ...etc etc etc, you get the idea -- it even pervades everyday language: we have a "war" on drugs (poverty, whatever -- but it's always a war)

The value system that permits all of that to pervade everything we live and breathe to the point where we accept is as some kind of normalcy rather than the callous crisis of the soul that it is. The value system that incites people, 24/7, to take the attitude that if the kid in the car next door is playing his music too loud, or if you think you hear a noise in your garage, the thing to do is grab a firearm and start strafing in the dark. THAT value. It should be unthinkable. And we eat it for breakfast, whether we want it or not.

It's the same value this thread piles on to foment, in its simplistic thought that the answer to violence is more violence. Same callous disregard for life. And there are an endless stream of wags here -- or any message board -- to promote it and keep it alive no matter what.

I don't know what your experience is extranationally in the military, but travelling as a civilian (with all the freedom of movement to immerse in the local culture), a traveller is immediately struck, in most places of comparable economic level, by the feeling that a certain preoccupation with both sex and violence has suddenly been lifted off one's shoulders, has disappeared and is not missed. It is at that moment one realizes what a burden it had been.

I see your point, and worry about much the same things. But I would say that rural America still retains a lot of the traditional values, especially for LIFE.

I'm not sure why you keep going back to "rural" America. What I'm trying to refer to here is the common cultural glue that reaches us all -- rural, urban, suburban, wherever. The values in our media and our mores. The common ones that powerful homogenizing influences such as television ensure ARE common, ubiquitous and omnipresent -- and the values those influences propagate. Down to and including threads like this.

 

[BlackSand]

I'm not sure why you keep going back to "rural" America. What I'm trying to refer to here is the common cultural glue that reaches us all -- rural, urban, suburban, wherever. The values in our media and our mores. The common ones that powerful homogenizing influences such as television ensure ARE common, ubiquitous and omnipresent -- and the values those influences propagate. Down to and including threads like this.

There is slight difference in geographic location and gun responses. When you are in a sandwich shop, a big city, a Target store and whatnot ... People walk around proud and smiling with their guns while other people walk around frowning, maybe scared or asking them questions.

I can say that in the rural area I live in ... You can carry a gun and nobody gives a shit. The person carrying doesn't look excited like they just got the American flag tattooed on their back. People who don't carry don't say anything about it because they figure the person is carrying a firearm because they may need it for something.

I mean I understand your point about "gun fetish" ... But your point doesn't apply to everyone ... And some who carry laugh at the people on both sides of the argument. Geeze ... I wouldn't mind people showing more reason and responsibility with their firearms ... But I use mine and don't plan on giving them up.

.

 

[2aguy]

T

he value system that permits all of that to The value system that incites people, 24/7, to take the attitude that if the kid in the car next door is playing his music too loud, or if you think you hear a noise in your garage, the thing to do is grab a firearm and start strafing in the dark. THAT value. It should be unthinkable. And we eat it for breakfast, whether we want it or not.

It's the same value this thread piles on to foment, in its simplistic thought that the answer to violence is more violence. Same callous disregard for life. And there are an endless stream of wags here -- or any message board -- to promote it and keep it alive no matter what.

Pogo...you are a victim of the media wing of the democrat party....if you read actual stories of actual people using guns for self defense you would see that your view of gun owners....law abiding gun owners is just wrong....in case after case the law abiding gun owner, who bought and carries their gun because they want to keep,violent criminals from raping, robbing, beating or murdering them show time after time a reluctance to use deadly force, and resort to it only when they have no choice....and they don't spray and pray, and they more often than not, hold criminals at gun point, unharmed until he police arrive....and they don't finish off wounded, violent criminals...

You see the news stories that you point to because the media wing of the democrat party does not like guns...and they have limited air time so they show the most sensational stories that involve guns...if it bleeds it leads....

and yes, democrat policies affect cities....1) democrats do not trust street level,police,officers so they do not support them and don't see their needs as a priority, 2) the democrats know that blacks and Hispanics will vote for them at a rate of 97%... No matter what is happening, or not happening in their neighborhoods...so what if gangs are turning these neighborhoods into killing fields....they will still turn out and vote for us, so we can spend that money on " beautifying the better parts of the city....the rich, white democrat parts of the city.....

for example....Chicago is down 2,000 police officers, 1000 that they just haven't hired and another 1000 due to vacations and sick leave...why spend the money on new police when the blacks and Hispanics will vote democrat even when the gangs are killing black and Hispanic children in drive byes? better to spend that money giving contracts to their rich democrat friends...

Democrats get lots of money from teachers unions, republicans get no money from teachers unions....it is better for democrats to protect the teachers unions by stopping educational reform because they get that money...and again...even though these schools have black and Hispanic graduation rates at only 50% at the high school level...they still vote 97% for the democrats every single election....so it is better to support the unions and bad teachers and bad educational policies...as long as rich white democrats can send their kids to private schools...and as long as those unions keep giving lots of money to the democrats...and an uneducated voter...a poor voter...is a democrat voter....


so in two huge areas at the local,level,of government, democrat policies are a deciding factor in the level of violence, gun violence in these inner cities....try to deny it all you want but it is true....

 

[Pogo]

I'm not sure why you keep going back to "rural" America. What I'm trying to refer to here is the common cultural glue that reaches us all -- rural, urban, suburban, wherever. The values in our media and our mores. The common ones that powerful homogenizing influences such as television ensure ARE common, ubiquitous and omnipresent -- and the values those influences propagate. Down to and including threads like this.

There is slight difference in geographic location and gun responses. When you are in a sandwich shop, a big city, a Target store and whatnot ... People walk around proud and smiling with their guns while other people walk around frowning, maybe scared or asking them questions.

I can say that in the rural area I live in ... You can carry a gun and nobody gives a shit. The person carrying doesn't look excited like they just got the American flag tattooed on their back. People who don't carry don't say anything about it because they figure the person is carrying a firearm because they may need it for something.

I mean I understand your point about "gun fetish" ... But your point doesn't apply to everyone ... And some who carry laugh at the people on both sides of the argument. Geeze ... I wouldn't mind people showing more reason and responsibility with their firearms ... But I use mine and don't plan on giving them up.

Nothing I posted was meant to describe anything geographical at all. I don't understand why that poster kept bringing it up. I was referring to culture, national culture, pop culture if you will, not "rural" or "urban" culture but the values we share universally as Americans. Nothing to do with this region or that region or this venue or that one.

Nor (to the next post) did it have anything to do with "gun owners".

Sometimes I think I might as well be posting in Latvian....

 

[Pogo]

T

he value system that permits all of that to The value system that incites people, 24/7, to take the attitude that if the kid in the car next door is playing his music too loud, or if you think you hear a noise in your garage, the thing to do is grab a firearm and start strafing in the dark. THAT value. It should be unthinkable. And we eat it for breakfast, whether we want it or not.

It's the same value this thread piles on to foment, in its simplistic thought that the answer to violence is more violence. Same callous disregard for life. And there are an endless stream of wags here -- or any message board -- to promote it and keep it alive no matter what.

Pogo...you are a victim of the media wing of the democrat party....if you read actual stories of actual people using guns for self defense you would see that your view of gun owners....law abiding gun owners is just wrong....in case after case the law abiding gun owner, who bought and carries their gun because they want to keep,violent criminals from raping, robbing, beating or murdering them show time after time a reluctance to use deadly force, and resort to it only when they have no choice....and they don't spray and pray, and they more often than not, hold criminals at gun point, unharmed until he police arrive....and they don't finish off wounded, violent criminals...

You see the news stories that you point to because the media wing of the democrat party does not like guns...and they have limited air time so they show the most sensational stories that involve guns...if it bleeds it leads....

and yes, democrat policies affect cities....1) democrats do not trust street level,police,officers so they do not support them and don't see their needs as a priority, 2) the democrats know that blacks and Hispanics will vote for them at a rate of 97%... No matter what is happening, or not happening in their neighborhoods...so what if gangs are turning these neighborhoods into killing fields....they will still turn out and vote for us, so we can spend that money on " beautifying the better parts of the city....the rich, white democrat parts of the city.....

for example....Chicago is down 2,000 police officers, 1000 that they just haven't hired and another 1000 due to vacations and sick leave...why spend the money on new police when the blacks and Hispanics will vote democrat even when the gangs are killing black and Hispanic children in drive byes? better to spend that money giving contracts to their rich democrat friends...

Democrats get lots of money from teachers unions, republicans get no money from teachers unions....it is better for democrats to protect the teachers unions by stopping educational reform because they get that money...and again...even though these schools have black and Hispanic graduation rates at only 50% at the high school level...they still vote 97% for the democrats every single election....so it is better to support the unions and bad teachers and bad educational policies...as long as rich white democrats can send their kids to private schools...and as long as those unions keep giving lots of money to the democrats...and an uneducated voter...a poor voter...is a democrat voter....


so in two huge areas at the local,level,of government, democrat policies are a deciding factor in the level of violence, gun violence in these inner cities....try to deny it all you want but it is true....

There is no such thing as the "democrat party". And even if there was it could not find a way to inject left-right political philosophies into the decision on which neighborhood gets its trash picked up on Tuesday.

 

[BlackSand]

Nothing I posted was meant to describe anything geographical at all. I don't understand why that poster kept bringing it up. I was referring to culture, national culture, pop culture if you will, not "rural" or "urban" culture but the values we share universally as Americans. Nothing to do with this region or that region or this venue or that one.

Nor (to the next post) did it have anything to do with "gun owners".

Sometimes I think I might as well be posting in Latvian....

Sorry ... I read the part about how the gun culture you were describing reaches us all ... Begged to differ that the culture is not the same to us all. Mi engwish not so gud.

.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

There is no such thing as the "democrat party". And even if there was it could not find a way to inject left-right political philosophies into the decision on which neighborhood gets its trash picked up on Tuesday.

You seem too bright, and too honest, to actually mean what this sentence says. Can you please clarify??

 

[ChrisL]

Well, I think it's great. Some day I would like to get a gun. For now, I only I have a knife, but God help the person who tries to attack me! I will slice him up like a pineapple! That's right, I'm a KILLER!