Guns, Guns Guns

Part of the problem is the desensitizing games where players murder people, another is the fact modern technology lowers actual human-human interactions, and simi-anonomus bullying. Add easily available high capacity guns to the mix and you get problems.

Then again there is the fear of unchecked government by an unarmed citizenry. Added to hunting tradition, and self defence issues. It's amuddele with no ideal solution, nor one that will work in all societies, hence the argument.

Poker

Stop stating lies as facts. This has been disproven by numerous studies and no study has ever found a link.

pokermind wrote:Part of the problem is the desensitizing games where players murder people,

I'd argue that occasionally tragically guns do kill people. When a toddler finds a new toy that makes a loud noise and mummy falls down you can't say that a person deliberately shot someone.
I agree that there is no link to violent video games, been researched to hell and back.
Complex question with no crisp simple answer, but I maintain that if the US managed to reduce the number of guns, control the types of guns available, did background checks, and insisted on safe storage; then the numbers of gun related deaths (homocide, suicide, accidental, whatever) would drop significantly, and thus the overall number of such deaths from all casuses would drop.

As I have said before, educated people from developed countries just cannot grasp the US theory of how having an armed citizenship guarantees freedom. The very idea that you have guns so you can overthrow your elected government by lethal force if you don't like their policies is called treason or terrorism everywhere else. Our top TV public affairs show devoted a whole episode to this on Monday night. The news this morning had an 18 year old girl charged with terrorism because she had a knife in her purse.

Daryl wrote:I'd argue that occasionally tragically guns do kill people. When a toddler finds a new toy that makes a loud noise and mummy falls down you can't say that a person deliberately shot someone.
I agree that there is no link to violent video games, been researched to hell and back.
Complex question with no crisp simple answer, but I maintain that if the US managed to reduce the number of guns, control the types of guns available, did background checks, and insisted on safe storage; then the numbers of gun related deaths (homocide, suicide, accidental, whatever) would drop significantly, and thus the overall number of such deaths from all casuses would drop.

As I have said before, educated people from developed countries just cannot grasp the US theory of how having an armed citizenship guarantees freedom. The very idea that you have guns so you can overthrow your elected government by lethal force if you don't like their policies is called treason or terrorism everywhere else. Our top TV public affairs show devoted a whole episode to this on Monday night. The news this morning had an 18 year old girl charged with terrorism because she had a knife in her purse.

That last paragraph translates to, people like me don't understand how you guys over there think. We have different core beliefs on civic responsibility over here in the US. Not everyone, but enough that the differences are real. Those that don't believe as you do don't want to become like you and believe as you do.

Over and over again you bring that statement forth as though it is supposed to be persuasive. It is not. Let the rest of the world think as it does. America shall seek its own place in the sun.

And fair enough.
I'm not trying to single handedly convert the US right, just pointing out how that specific concept is unique to you, and how we just don't get it.

I'm sure that 18 yr old muslim girl who had posted on blogs how she disagreed with our government's policies and wanted to change them by force had a similar motivation, but she is called a terrorist not a patriot.

Daryl wrote:And fair enough.
I'm not trying to single handedly convert the US right, just pointing out how that specific concept is unique to you, and how we just don't get it.

I'm sure that 18 yr old muslim girl who had posted on blogs how she disagreed with our government's policies and wanted to change them by force had a similar motivation, but she is called a terrorist not a patriot.

How does she want to change our policies? If she wants to go all Sharia, then no she is not a patriot. Doing that would require destroying the entire Constitution. Hardly the desire of a patriot. If she is trying to get Obama to get a clue, then yes she would be a patriot.

PeterZ wrote:How does she want to change our policies? If she wants to go all Sharia, then no she is not a patriot. Doing that would require destroying the entire Constitution. Hardly the desire of a patriot. If she is trying to get Obama to get a clue, then yes she would be a patriot.

And there is a nut shell is the shining example of why the rest of the world looks at US conservatives with disbelief.

"It's ok if someone wants to forcibly impose change on the government of the nation if the change is one I like! That a Patriot!"


You are cheering the idea of a coup by force of arms, the overthrowing of the institutions which the Constitution you claim to revere sets down as the means of governing the nation, and you wonder why people don't accept your claims that you're all responsible gun owners they shouldn't worry about running around armed.

Because. You. Say. Shit. Like. This. That's why.

I would imagine my words are damning enough. You needn't suggest anything more with your quotes implying even more exaggerated comments. In his admitted misunderstanding of my beliefs, Daryl asserts that I support violence to advocate change in US policy. Not violence to defend my sovereignty but as a valid means to effect political change.

I post words that suggest his outrageous statement is true. Is there a request for clarification? No. Not only does the US progressive respondent assume my response to the Aussie's insulting comments carry not even a hint of sarcasm, he/she writes quotes that suggest my comments go even further. The quoted passage is not attributed to me but is implied that the quote is mine.

I apologize for an unclear post. I do not advocate violence to promote national policy. I do assert violence is an acceptable defense against government over reach. Police breaking into my home without notifying me they have a warrant or requesting permission are examples. We see such examples on TV dramas every night.

So embrace your anti conservative bigotry gcomeau. I hope it keeps you warm at night. Your closed mindedness is why Trump is making the inroads he is. That oh so progressive assumption that all who disagree MUST have malicious motives might just get us that bozo for President.

gcomeau wrote:

PeterZ wrote:How does she want to change our policies? If she wants to go all Sharia, then no she is not a patriot. Doing that would require destroying the entire Constitution. Hardly the desire of a patriot. If she is trying to get Obama to get a clue, then yes she would be a patriot.

And there is a nut shell is the shining example of why the rest of the world looks at US conservatives with disbelief.

"It's ok if someone wants to forcibly impose change on the government of the nation if the change is one I like! That a Patriot!"


You are cheering the idea of a coup by force of arms, the overthrowing of the institutions which the Constitution you claim to revere sets down as the means of governing the nation, and you wonder why people don't accept your claims that you're all responsible gun owners they shouldn't worry about running around armed.

Because. You. Say. Shit. Like. This. That's why.

My deepest apologies for reading what you wrote and assuming that you meant it. Terribly uncivil of me.

Considering what I was responding to and my poorly worded response, I grant you forgiveness.

gcomeau wrote:My deepest apologies for reading what you wrote and assuming that you meant it. Terribly uncivil of me.